FMSF board member defends admitted pedophile
anon...@anon.twwells.com
Subj: FMSF Board Member Defends Admitted Pedophile
*******************************************************************
The following article appears in the current issue of TREATING
ABUSE TODAY magazine, November-December 1995/January-February
1996 (a special double issue). To order this issue or to
subscribe, contact TREATING ABUSE TODAY:
(800) 847-3964 (USA) (voice)
(206) 329-9101 (outside the USA)
(206) 329-8462 (fax)
76430...@compuserve.com (e-mail)
2722 Eastlake Avenue East #300
Seattle, Washington 98102 (USA)
The publisher of TREATING ABUSE TODAY has granted permission for
other Internet users to post the following article onto other
mailing lists and home pages. However, the publisher asks that
this file be posted without revision and in its entirety.
*******************************************************************
NOTES FROM THE CONTROVERSY
FMSF BOARD MEMBER DEFENDS ADMITTED PEDOPHILE
Harold Merskey, DM, a prominent member of the Scientific and
Professional Advisory Board of the False Memory Syndrome
Foundation, Inc (FMSF), recently appeared as an expert witness in
the civil trial of a Toronto doctor who had earlier admitted to
pedophilia. The doctor, Leo Pilo, lost his certificate to
practice medicine after pleading guilty to "sexual impropriety
with a patient or patients" and "misconduct in a professional
respect or of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner or of
incompetence" ("Summary," 1994, p. 34).
Pilo's case originally unfolded before the Discipline Committee
of the College [1] of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario,
headquartered in Toronto, Ontario (Canada), in November 1993 and
January 1994. The Discipline Committee gave the following
summary of the case:
Five female complainants, ranging in age from 29 to 37,
alleged that when they ranged in age from 9 to 13, Dr. Pilo
gave them inappropriate physical examinations. These
examinations occurred between 1967 and 1988. In order to
ensure the integrity of the evidence, they were excluded
from the hearing until after they had given their evidence
and they were directed not to communicate amongst themselves
before their evidence was given.
Among the specific allegations made by the complainants were
that he engaged in manipulation of the clitoris and nipples,
watched while they undressed, made comments of a sexual
nature, used a vibrator inside the vagina, stroked, hugged
and kissed the patients, and masturbated himself to orgasm.
("Summary," 1994)
Pilo didn't attend the first hearing in November 1993, at which
time only one woman had brought a complaint against him, but
through his attorney he entered a plea of innocent. When the
disciplinary hearings resumed in January 1994, however, four more
women had come forward to lodge similar complaints against him.
At this January hearing, Pilo pleaded guilty to amended charges
filed against him. After hearing the evidence considering Pilo's
changed plea, the College Discipline Board found him guilty of
the charges. As a result of the guilty findings, the College
revoked his certificate of registration to practice medicine,
noting that "his abhorrent behavior has been repugnant in the
extreme and the only conceivable penalty is revocation"
("Summary," 1994, p. 34).
One of Pilo's victims, identified in court documents as "D.M.M.,"
stated during Pilo's disciplinary hearing "that as a result of
the sexual abuse, she suffered from sexual dysfunction,
difficulty with relationships, claustrophobia, an eating
disorder, alcoholism, unnecessary surgery and depression"
("Summary," 1994, p. 34). When D.M.M. asked for compensation
from the College, she found that "there was no money left in its
fund for victims of abuse" (Landsberg, 1995, p. K1). Faced with
this situation, D.M.M. decided to sue Pilo in civil court, her
only other choice to gain compensation for his pedophilic abuse
of her.
In civil court, Pilo's case unfolded in a way that Michelle
Landsberg, a Toronto Star columnist, characterized as
"astounding."
What is most astounding about this case is that although
everyone in the courtroom presumably knew about Dr. Pilo's
published confession, and though many other victims of his
abuse had come forward with strikingly similar details of
his sickening sexual molestations, none of this was allowed.
(1995, p. K1)
The court reluctantly disallowed this evidence because, under the
Ontario Regulated Health Professions Act, passed in 1993, no
material heard before the College Discipline Committee can be
used in subsequent civil suits. Thus, although Pilo lost his
certificate of registration to practice medicine, based on
evidence and his own confession of sexually abusing young girls,
the civil court could not allow any of this material.
Merskey, on the staff of the University of Western Ontario
(London, Ontario), took the stand on Pilo's behalf. Merskey
testified that D.M.M. probably suffered from "false memory
syndrome." He offered this diagnosis despite the overwhelming
evidence against Pilo given by five complainants, and despite
Pilo's own earlier admission of pedophilia. Merskey reached his
psychiatric diagnostic conclusions about D.M.M. in absentia,
without the benefit of any direct clinical examination of her.
In a short interview, Merskey stated that he reached his
tentative diagnosis after examining D.M.M.'s "records," though he
declined to identify the source or nature of these records. He
also stated that he based his diagnosis on "observations" of
D.M.M. that he made in the courtroom during the course of the
trial. Regarding these observations, Merskey stated that he
couldn't discuss their exact nature because the judge in the case
hadn't yet issued a decision.
Merskey maintains that Pilo stands innocent of the charges
pending against him in civil court. Asked about the conflict
between Pilo's guilty and innocent pleas, Merskey pointed out
that the plea before the College Discipline Committee had been a
"technical" guilty plea. A spokesperson for the College,
however, stated that the Committee didn't recognize "technical"
pleas. "In fact," she said, "I've never even heard of one. I
don't know what it might be." She also pointed out that the
Discipline Committee members had found Pilo's behavior
"abhorrent" and "repugnant in the extreme," a clear indication
that they accepted Pilo's guilty plea as meaning that he really
committed the acts that he confessed to.
Mark Edwards, a Toronto attorney representing D.M.M., confirmed
this assessment. In a telephone interview with TREATING ABUSE
TODAY, he stated that the Canadian judicial system didn't
recognize a "technical" guilty plea, whatever it might be.
According to Edwards, guilty pleas mean just that: defendants
admit to the acts alleged against them. Edwards also pointed out
that attorneys would commit a clear ethical violation by entering
a guilty plea for a client if that client doesn't really admit to
guilt.
Specifically addressing Pilo's guilty plea before the College
Discipline Committee, Edwards stated that his plea included "no
reservations whatever." Pilo and his attorney agreed to a
statement of fact that included the allegations made both by
D.M.M. and the other four complainants. Under Canada's system of
common law, Pilo's guilty plea would have become prima facie
evidence of guilt in the subsequent civil trial. Only the odd
glitch in the Ontario Regulated Health Professions Act allowed
Pilo to plead "innocent" in civil court, at the same time forcing
the judge to disallow any material earlier heard by the College
Discipline Board.
Merskey stated that the judge in Pilo's case "rightly" excluded
the evidence that had come before the College. In court
statements, however, the judge seemed much less sure that he
"rightly" did so:
Judge Douglas Lissaman all but apologized to D.M.M.'s
lawyer, Mark Edwards, for this incredible state of affairs.
"In some ways it is almost offensive to think that Mr.
Edwards should not . . . be able to cross-examine the doctor
if he gives evidence contrary to his position before the
college," the judge said in a ruling. "But . . . I am sorry
. . . I see no way around section 36(3) [of the Ontario
Regulated Health Professions Act]." (Landsberg, 1995, p.
K1)
According to Edwards, the legislative intent behind the Ontario
Regulated Health Professions Act never included the possibility
that doctors, found guilty of gross misconduct by the College,
would then be able to invoke the Act to protect themselves from
the consequences of their actions. A spokesperson for the
College concurred with this assessment. In effect, both
Merskey's and Pilo's recourse to the Act for this purpose amounts
to legal maneuvering that takes advantage of the letter of the
law, while ignoring its spirit.
The case against Pilo is still pending in the courts.
REFERENCES
College of Physicians and Surgeons. (1994, November). Summary of
cases. MEMBERS' DIALOGUE, p. 34.
Landsberg, M. (1995, November 25). The incredible sex abuse
case of Dr. Leo Pilo. TORONTO STAR, p. K1.
NOTE
[1] The College is a provincial governmental organization that
exercises regulatory oversight of doctors and surgeons, a function
similar to the role of state medical boards in the United States.
###
--
For more information about this service, send e-mail to:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
marianna...@gmail.com
craz...@gmail.com
> Is there someone I can speak to about Dr. Leo Pilo? I was one of his patients from 1965-1975.
Sandy