Article 2430 of alt.usenet.kooks:
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
From: bell@minerva.cis.yale.edu (vineland expatriate)
Subject: Bonus Kookery:  Fabrikant’s Defense (long)
Sender: news@news.yale.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Yale University
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 21:35:56 GMT

In the archive somewhere there is mention of one Valery Fabrikant,
currently serving a long sentence for drilling a number of his colleagues
and apparently at least one secretary with a sidearm.

This piece was written by his former student, in defense or at least
explanation of Fabrikant’s actions.

The nub appears to be that it is unfair that a Canadian citizen, who
Fabrikant claimed were all taught to submit to guns, would look at the
professor, laugh at the threat, and leave the room…..

also great is the plea to put yourself in F’s position and by doing so
fully commprehend his state of mind and thus his true, if not innocence,
at least the notion that he was acting in self defense…..

[ Article crossposted from sci.research ]
[ Author was Alin Babah (babah@CAM.ORG) ]
[ Posted on 13 Jul 1994 00:32:27 -0400 ]

[ Article crossposted from sci.research.careers ]
[ Author was mkachano@pearl.tufts.edu ]
[ Posted on Thu, 7 Jul 1994 22:06:39 GMT ]

Dear Colleagues

I am Dr.Karapetian, former graduate student of Dr.Fabrikant. I have got
my Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engineering recently. It was conferred by the
same Department which claims that Dr.Fabrikant knew nothing about Mechanical
Engineering. My dissertation is based completely on his ideas and results.
The external examiner was so impressed by the dissertation that he ordered a
special copy for himself.

The title page of my dissertation lists three (!) professors as official
cosupervisors. Dr.Fabrikant’s name is not there (if you want to know why
ask the university officials), though it was he who supervised my work
from 1989 till tragic events at Concordia, and it was he who managed to
continue effective supervision of the dissertation from his prison cell
until its completion and successful defence.

When I have decided to dedicate my thesis to Dr.Fabrikant, the university
officials just removed my dedication page and collectively used all the
means to prevent my intentions. They knew that I can not privately hire a
lawyer, while the legal aid lawyer rejected me by motivating that it is
a lost case and legal aid is not going to pay for it (Look what an absurd).

I have read numerous postings which appeared in this group about
Dr.Fabrikant’s case. Regretfully, majority of these postings were based
either on lack of information or on shameful disinformation orchestrated
by mass media. There is nothing further from truth than the myth that
Dr.Fabrikant went on shooting rampage because he was angry about stolen
articles and lack of tenure. The real reason was Dr.Fabrikant’s feeling
that his life was in danger due to threats made by Dr.Hogben, combined
with the fact that all his cries for help have fallen on deaf ear of
scientific community. I shall elaborate on this further on

I have read Dr.Fabrikant’s E-mail where he discribed the tremendous abuse
to which he was subjected. I saw the originals of the documents presented,
and I can testify that it is the truth, and nothing but the truth.

I have been in contact with Dr.Fabrikant on both personal and professional
levels from 1989 till now on a regular basis, and I can testify that at
no time I have noticed anything abnormal in his behaviour, and I can
assure you that he is no more insane than I or anyone of you.

He is a person of utmost honesty and integrity, and he is the best teacher
I ever had.

Here is a brief account of what really happened, according to the
information received from Dr.Fabrikant.

On August 19, 1992, Dr.Fabrikant was served a special court order to appear
on August 25, 1992, before a judge and to answer to the accusation of
contempt of court. The accusation was based on the text of E-mail,
distributed previously by Dr.Fabrikant, in which he called several judges
“corrupt”, and he also called Chief Justice of Quebec “Chief Injustice”.
The accusation was made by Drs.Sankar and Swamy, in the context of the
lawsuit filed against them by Dr.Fabrikant, in which Dr.Fabrikant claimed
to be declared the sole author of all their joint publications.

The accusation carried the maximum penalty of one year in jail. The same
evening he received a phone call from Dr.Hogben, who informed Dr.Fabrikant
that he Dr.Hogben, knew about contempt of court accusation, that most
probably Dr.Fabrikant would receive maximum sentence of one year in jail
and “anything can happen in jail”. Dr.Fabrikant understood it as a death
threat, he got angry and hanged up on Dr.Hogben.

The next day Dr.Fabrikant has met Dr.Hogben near the door of CUFA (Concordia
University Faculty Association) of which Dr.Hogben was president. Dr.Hogben
continued his intimidation tactics. He told Dr.Fabrikant that Chief Justice
of Quebec Gold (who was also Concordia Chancellor at that time) has made
arrangements that Dr.Fabrikant’s case would be heard by judge Chaloux. The
reason for such an arrangements was the fact that at certain point in
time judge Chaloux’s wife and daughter were assaulted and raped in his
presence by a gang of criminals, as an act of revenge. The judge’s mind
was allegedly so affected by this tragic event that he started giving
maximum sentences to almost anyone appearing before him. (Dr.Fabrikant
later verified this information and it appear to be true). Dr.Hogben
once again repeated that “anything can happen in jail”, and suggested to
accept the university administration offer: to take three-year salary
in exchange for Dr.Fabrikant’s resignation from the university,
withdrawal of lawsuit against Drs.Sankar and Swamy, and renouncement of
all future claims against anyone at Concordia University.

Effectively, it was an offer of “shut-up” money, which Dr.Fabrikant has
rejected on several occasions before as dishonest, and he rejected it
again on August 20, 1992. (During the trial, the university representative
Dr.Proppe has confirmed in his testimony that such an offer was made to
Dr.Fabrikant and that Dr.Fabrikant has rejected it).

Dr.Fabrikant has felt he had an iron-clad defence because E-mail message
is not an admissible evidence, since it does not bear the signature of
a sender and theoretically could be sent by anybody else who might get
acces to Dr.Fabrikant’s computer account or who could very simply falsify
the sender’s name in the printout. I have seen the counter-examples of
E-mail which Dr.Fabrikant has prepared for the hearing, one of them
being a message which Dr.Fabrikant has managed to send to himself via
University de Montreal, and the other one – a message from Dr.Swamy
which looked in every way like a real thing. Had these arguments been
accepted – the case would be thrown out of court.

Besides this purely formal defence, Dr.Fabrikant has prepared a substantive
defence as well. He sent subpoenas to three judges involved, one of them –
to former Chief Justice Gold.

Dr.Fabrikant had no intention to deny that he had sent the E-mail in
question, so he planed to establish in court by questioning three judges
that every word in his E-mail was true. He was convinced that nobody
should be punished for stating the truth.

On August 20, 1992 Dr.Fabrikant has applied for delay of contempt of court
hearing, stating that he had a presentation at the International Congress
of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics in Haifa scheduled on August 24,
so that he could not possibly appear in the morning of August 25 for the
contempt of court hearing. He approached two judges with this application.
Both judges refused to grant a delay, stating no reason for such a refusal.

Dr.Fabrikant knew from previous experience that there was nothing easier
in the legal system than a delay, so the categorical and unjustified
refusal of two judges to grant a delay strengthened Dr.Fabrikant’s concern
that the threats made by Dr.Hogben should be taken very seriously.

This concern has prompted Dr.Fabrikant to send several E-mail appeals to
scientific community for help. Regretfully, majority of scientists are
under the delusion that lawlessness is a feature of totalitarian countries,
that it can not take place in a democracy, especially, so “advanced” as
Canadian. So Dr.Fabrikant’s appeals were not taken seriously and were
effectively ignored.

On August 21, in the afternoon, Dr.Fabrikant got a phone call from the
secretary of judge Bishop (one of judges called to testify). She informed
Dr.Fabrikant that judge Bishop had been on vacation and that it would be
better to delay the hearing till mid-September. Dr.Fabrikant told her
that he already pleaded for a delay unsuccessfuly, but if she called any
of the judges on behalf of judge Bishop and ask for a delay, no judge
would refuse. She promised to do so and to call Dr.Fabrikant back to
inform him about the delay but she never did.

Dr.Fabrikant has received yet another phone call after 10 p.m. that day
when he was already asleep. Someone who presented himself as Dr.McKinnon
from Physics Department told his wife that it was an emergence, so she had
awaken Dr.Fabrikant. The caller did not convey to Dr.Fabrikant anything
urgent, he just asked what was new in Dr.Fabrikant’s case and said that
there was someone from the television interested in the story, and the
caller wanted Dr.Fabrikant to write down the telephone number of that person.
Dr.Fabrikant’s previous experiance with media was very disappointing, so
he responded to the caller that if that person from television is interested,
nothing prevents him to call Dr.Fabrikant directly. As far as what was new,
Dr.Fabrikant asked the caller to give his E-mail address, so that he could
mail him all the information. The caller responded that he did not have
an E-mail address, and that was the end of conversation. The call was very
strange: to the best of Dr.Fabrikant’s knowledge, there was nobody under
such name in the Physics Department; by that time, due to Dr.Fabrikant’s
E-mail, significant number of faculty knew about the contempt of court
charge, and the caller claimed not to know any news; the caller claimed an
emergency, though the conversation did not reveal any. When later during
the trial Dr.Fabrikant tried to subpoena Dr.McKinnon, nobody under such
name was found.

Dr.Fabrikant had two agonizing days, Saturday and Sunday, August 22 and 23,
1992. He considered his life in danger, and it was necessary to decide
how to defend himself.

Earlier that year Dr.Fabrikant had approached various media, MP, government
officials, including those at the Deputy Minister level, etc. All the
results were extremely disappointing. For example, in March of 1992
Dr.Fabrikant has approached a reporter from The Gazette C.Adolph. He showed
her all documents proving fraud and extortion at Concordia University. At
the beggining, she looked very impressed, made copies of the documents and
promised to investigate. All of a sudden, about two weeks later, she left
a message on Dr.Fabrikant’s answering machine to the effect that she found
Dr.Fabrikant’s allegations totally unfounded, that she did not want to
talk to Dr.Fabrikant, and should he dare to call her, she would ask the
telephone company for protection.

Dr.Fabrikant was flabbergasted: if a reporter had some legitimate doubts
as to validity of his accusations, she should have discussed them with
Dr.Fabrikant, rather than hiding from a discussion in such a ridiculous
manner. When later on, on April 1, 1992, C.Adolph has published in The
Gazette an article on Dr.Fabrikant, stating that she found no proof of
Dr.Fabrikant’s allegations, and that it was Dr.Fabrikant harassing everybody
else, rather then vice-versa, Dr.Fabrikant had no doubt that she (or her
superiors) was bribed. I can testify that all Dr.Fabrikant’s allegations
are true indeed.

On the one hand, Dr.Fabrikant felt that he had prepared an iron-clad defence
against the accusation of contempt of court, and he was confident that any
unbiased judge would find him not guilty. (Indeed, when on February 13,
1993, he demanded the case to be heard, the other party withdrew the
accusations, and this is the best proof that the case against him was week).
On the other hand, the threat made by Dr.Hogben that the whole hearing
was fixed in advance and that “anything can happen in jail”, made
Dr.Fabrikant very concerned for his life. His own experiance with judges
strengthened this concern that his life was in danger indeed. It was
totally unthinkable for him to accept the “shut-up” money offered by
Dr.Hogben on behalf of Concordia administration.

The situation was aggravated by the fact that Dr.Fabrikant was 52 at that
time. Despite his first-rate research and teaching record, he was
unable to find a job elsewhere though he applied to about 1000 institutions
over a number of years not only in Canada or USA, but also in countries
as far away as Australia and New Zealand, and he applied not just to
universities but also to technical schools and private companies.

Dr.Fabrikant had two reasons to believe that his life, rather then only
his freedom, was in danger. First, he had a very serious heart attack
in the winter of 1991. A major coronary artery was blocked 100%. He never
smoked, did not use any alcohol and was otherwise in excellent physical
condition, and this was the reason why he survived. He had no doubt that
this heart attack was a result of extreme psychological torture he
underwent during the second half of 1990. He felt that he was being
murdered, very methodically, very professionally and very legally, since
there is no such crime in the Criminal Code as deliberate infliction
of a heart attack.

Dr.Fabrikant underwent an operation of angioplasty and recovered, but he
knew that the balloned arteries have tendency to clog up again. His very
serious concern was that should his second heart attack occur in jail,
it would be the last one. He suspected that the jail administration paid no
attention to the health of prisoners. His present jail experience proved
his right.

The second grave concern of Dr.Fabrikant was the vague threat made by
Dr.Hogben who said that “anything can happen in jail”. From time to time,
he has read in the press about highly suspicious deaths at the police
stations and in jails. If the former Chief Justice Gold (he was also
Concordia Chancellor at that time) could “fix” Dr.Fabrikant to be sentenced
to jail, he could also arrange with his police friends Dr.Fabrikant’s
“accidental” death.

In order to show you that there was nothing paranoidal in Dr.Fabrikant’s
concerns, here are some recently published cases.

Just last summer, someone named Ernest Prophet was arrested for not
paying fine for traffic violation. He was brought to Bordeaux jail in
Montreal, where he was dead several hours later. Guards declared that he
resisted to be searched, so they had to use force. He was in his
mid-thirties, about 200 lbs., and his relatives claimed him to be in
extremely good health. The coroner’s conclusion was: accidental death
due to the heart overexertion. Has anyone ever heard this kind of absurd?
Taking into consideration that Dr.Fabrikant already had a heart attack,
can you imagine, how easy it would be to claim that he resisted to something,
and then that he died of heart overexertion? No guard at Bordeaux jail
was charged with any crime, none was even fired. The case got great

Just this winter a taxi driver R.Barnabe was beaten by police into a
vegetative coma for allegedly resisting arrest. He broke a glass on a
church door. He was chased by over 20 police cars all across Montreal
to Laval. The gas burned by police cars was propably more expensive than
the price of the glass replacements. I wish that they chased dangerous
criminals with such fervor but they don’t.

If an ordinary citizen beats somebody into a vegetative coma for breaking
a glass, he would be called a brutal animal, and he would be charged
with an attempted murder. When police does the same, they are charged
only with excessive use of force.

And the latest publicized event: a driver, named Bikhary, was arrested
for drunken driving and brought to a police station. Several hours later
he was dead. One policeman told relatives that Bikhary hanged himself on
his shirt, another policeman said – towel, and yet another one informed
relatives that he hanged himself using bed sheet. Again, nobody was

The Office of Prisoners’ Rights in Montreal claims that about 30 suspicious
deaths occur in Quebec jails and police stations every year.

During his detention, Dr.Fabrikant himself was a witness to several violent
crimes committed by prison guards. On October 2, 1992, he heard cries of
a prisoner, named Joe Condo, who was beaten by guards in a solitary
confinement cell. Within about an hour after the cries stopped, they
declared that he hanged himself. All other prisoners heard those cries too,
they phoned various newspapers, radio and TV, – nobody was interested.
No guard was punished.

On January 23, 1994, Dr.Fabrikant saw from his cell three guards savagely
beating a prisoner who was handcuffed and shackled, he could not and did
not resist in any way, yet they banged his head against the edge of an iron
beam. When guards lifted him, his face looked smashed, blood was running
all over him, dripping to the floor. The beating continued on their way
out of the wing, as far as Dr.Fabrikant could see from his cell. In the
morning of January 24, 1994, Dr.Fabrikant saw blood spills all along the
corridor (about 100m long) leading to the infirmary. The prisoner suffered
severe concussion, and it took two more days for the jail administration
to finally bring him to the hospital. None of the guards involved was even

After his hospitalization, the prisoner was transferred to another jail,
where he was beaten again by guards and transferred back to Donnacona jail.
Now he is too scared to press charges. Dr.Fabrikant is demanding to see
the police to report the crime. He also wrote to the Chief Justice
demanding to be brought before a justice of peace to report the crime. All
his requests are being ignored. He is subjected to constant intimidation
by guards. During his stay at the Regional Reception Center, from April 12
to April 14, 1994, Dr.Fabrikant was tortured for total of 33 hours by cold
and deprivation of sleep. He was subjected to a degrading treatment: he
was placed totally naked in a filthy cold cell, with no amenities or
bedding, no furniture, and the front wall all glass, so that anyone entering
could see him naked, and a security camera pointed at him, and a female
laughter coming from the speakers. Clearly, administration wanted to show
Dr.Fabrikant that it was a female watching him through the camera.

Dr.Fabrikant has reported this incident to several judges, to the police,
to the Civil Liberties Union, to the Office of Prisoners’ Rights. No
reaction. The very first sentence of the Mission Statement of the
Correctional Service Canada says: “We respect the dignity of individuals…”
Section 69 of the Corrections Act reads: “No person shall administer,
instigate, consent to or acquiesce in any cruel, inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment of an offender”. It looks like a very nice
arrangement: the members of Parliament adopt a legislation which makes them
feel good, which they can proudly demonstrate to the whole world, which
allows them to criticize other countries for torture, and at the same time
allows Correctional Service continue their practices of torture and
degrading treatment of prisoners, and all this is being done with silent
blessing of the so called Office of Prisoners’ Rights.

I hope, all these examples have convinced you that the concerns, which
Dr.Fabrikant had, were very serious, very real and in no way a product
of a paranoid mind. He tried all the legal avenues imaginable. He made
several last minute appeals to for help to scientific community which
also failed. Feeling that his life was in danger, he had no choise but
to try to defend himself by whatever means possible. His understanding
was that he was dealing with a gang of bandits in very high positions,
who offered Dr.Fabrikant an impossible dilemma: to risk his life or to
accept a dishonest and dishonorable offer – “shut-up” money. He knew that
bandits understood only one language – firearms.

The idea was to take guns to the University and to threaten one member of
the gang to leave Dr.Fabrikant alone, and to warn him that should they
disregard this threat then Dr.Fabrikant would be prepared to defend himself
with deadly force.

The main problem with any threat is to make believe that the threat is not
an empty one. There was little doubt in Dr.Fabrikant’s mind that if the
threatened person would not be convinced that the threat was very real, the
only result would be an arrest by the police.

The university administration has been playing for years some kind of game:
they pretended to be scared of Dr.Fabrikant, they hired bodyguards, and all
this for one purpose only: to discredit Dr.Fabrikant in the eyes of the
university community as a dangerous person, and this angered him enormously.
Dr.Fabrikant knew very well that if they really feared for their lives,
they would never behave in such a lawless, reckless and provocative manner.
They knew Dr.Fabrikant’s extreme devotion to his family, and they were sure
that he would not dare to do anything which might jeopardize the well-being
of his family.

Dr.Fabrikant did not plan and did not want to kill anyone. On the other
hand, he needed to act very convincingly with someone like Dr.Hogben, so
that he would believe that Dr.Fabrikant was ready indeed to execute his
threats if he is not left alone.

Both days, August 22 and 23, 1992, Dr.Fabrikant was agonizing whether to
execute his plan. Since the option of taking the “shut-up” money was totally
unacceptable for him, the two other alternatives were: 1)to go to court on
August 25 and present his defence against the accusation of contempt of
court and to face almost certain jail (Dr.Hogben said that the hearing was
fixed), and “anything can happen in jail”; 2)execute the plan which, if
successful, would solve all the problems, and if not, then again probable
jail. It was necessary then to evaluate where was the probability of
success greater. He decided to delay the final decision till Monday,
August 24, 1992, to call in the morning the secretary of judge Bishop and
to ask her whether she arranged the delay of the hearing. If yes, then
everything was fine, nothing was to be done. If no, then to ask whether
judge Bishop was coming to testify, and again, if yes, that would be an
indication of some respect for the due process, and since Dr.Fabrikant
considered his defence perfect, he would be prepared to face the court.
If judge Bishop was not coming to court to testify, that would be a clear
indication that Dr.Hogben’s threats are real. Even in this case Dr.Fabrikant
was not yet prepared to execute his plan. He appealed earlier to the
university community, asking them to come to the courthouse on August 25.
He was sure that if many scientists come to support him, no judge would
dare to put him in jail.

I have called Dr.Fabrikant over the telephone after 9 p.m. on Sunday evening,
August 23, 1992. We discussed some scientific questions related to my
dissertation, and we agreed to meet somewhere in the middle of next week
to discuss the progress of my work. He sounded absolutely normal, as usual.

In the morning of August 24, 1992, Dr.Fabrikant came to his office and made
a phone call to the secretary of judge Bishop. The result was worse than
he expected: not only judge Bishop was not coming, his secretary did not
even bother to inform him about the subpoena. It was clear to Dr.Fabrikant
that lawlessness ruled in court. He noticed on his desk a copy of the
document granting him $1000 in travel expenses for his presentation in
Haifa which was scheduled that day, and which he obviously could not make.
He took the document and went to the Dean’s office and returned it to the
budget officer. He noticed that Dean Swamy’s door was closed, so he asked
the officer if the Dean was in, and she said yes. Usually all the doors at
the university were open. Dr.Fabrikant knew from the past experience that
whenever some dirty tricks were in the making, Dean Swamy was pretending
being scared, hired bodyguards, kept the door of his cabinet locked, etc.
(At Dr.Fabrikant’s trial, Dr.Swamy has admitted that Dr.Fabrikant never
threatened him). For Dr.Fabrikant, closed door of Dean Swamy’s cabinet
was a clear indication that some dirty tricks were in making again, and he
has decided that he had no choise but to implement his plan.

He was still very reluctant to implement his plan. He tried once again to
check his computer account if there were any support messages coming from
colleagues. There were none. Computer still keeps the login time at 1.34 p.m.

Since for Dr.Fabrikant Dean Swamy’s hiding was an ominous sign, he decided
to check again if his door was still closed. He passed through the Dean’s
office. The door was closed, Swamy was in. At the exit Dr.Fabrikant was
stopped by a secretary who asked him to identify himself. He never was
stopped before and he did not see anyone else being stopped, so this
confirmed to him that the Dean was playing his usual game, telling his
secretaries that Dr.Fabrikant wanted to kill him (some secretaries
confirmed this at the trial). Dr.Fabrikant has identified himself to the
secretary but his feeling of anger has increased. He went to his office to
think again whether to proceed with his plan. He was desperatly trying
to find the reason why not to proceed with his plan but could not find any.

Dr.Fabrikant knew that all canadians are taught that if someone points a
gun at you, you should cooperate. Taken this for granted, Dr.Fabrikant
could not possibly imagine that this plan might turn into a violent
shooting, but regretfully, it did. Here is how Dr.Fabrikant described what
happened next.

He called Dr.Hogben and asked him to come over to discuss possible solution
to the problem. Dr.Hogben, probably, felt that he went too far with his
intimidation, and that the meeting might be dangerous for him. So he said
that he would prefer to talk it over the telephone, to which Dr.Fabrikant
replied that it was not a telephone conversation and offered to come to
Dr.Hogben’s office. Dr.Hogben hesitated for a moment, and then said that he
preffered to come to Dr.Fabrikant’s office. While Dr.Fabrikant was waiting,
Dr.McKay from the Computer Science Department dropped by. He knew from the
E-mail about the contempt of court accusation. He also informed Dr.Fabrikant
about sudden resignation of A.Gervais from his position of Chair of the
Board of Governors of Concordia University.

This was yet one more ominous sign for Dr.Fabrikant: in summer everyone is
on vacations, there is no activity of the Board of Governors: had it been
a regular resignation, Mr.Gervais would have waited for the first meeting
of the Board in September. Clearly, Mr.Gervais knew about and was afraid
of the dangerous game of intimidation played by Concordia administration
through Dr.Hogben, so he urgently decided to get out. Mentioning the next
day hearing of the contempt of court charges, Dr.Fabrikant asked Dr.McKay
if he, as a specialist in Computer Science, would be prepared to come and
to testify about the specifics of E-mail. Dr.McKay refused. This had angered
Dr.Fabrikant and he told Dr.McKay to get out of his office.

The refusal of Dr.McKay to testify made Dr.Fabrikant even more aware that
he was alone in this battle, and that he was the only one there to defend
himself. On arrival of Dr.Hogben, Dr.Fabrikant was still very reluctant to
proceed with his plan, so he decided to make yet one more attempt to
appeal to Dr.Hogben’s conscience. He reminded that Dr.Hogben’s duty, as the
president of the union, was to defend members of the union, that Dr.Hogben
was paid a special addition to his salary for that. Dr.Hogben responded
that he was doing his best to protect Dr.Fabrikant, that he negotiated a
very good deal of about $200,000 in a lump sum payment. He added though
that, since Dr.Fabrikant has rejected the deal, the administration was no
longer prepared to pay the three year salary, they were prepared to pay
only two year salary, but he, Dr.Hogben, was ready to use all his influence
as president of the union to force the administration to return to the
original deal, should Dr.Fabrikant agree to accept the deal. Dr.Fabrikant
responded that he could not possibly accept the deal for several reasons:
first, because it was dishonest and dishonorable; second, because to resign
from the university meant to resign from science which was equivalent to
a moral suicide, since science was his life. He also reminded to Dr.Hogben
that he was relatively old, that he had two small children and a wife to
support, and that all his attempts to find a job elsewhere failed, so he
had no choice but to stay and to fight for his survival. Dr.Fabrikant said
that he was not asking for any money, all he was asking for was justice
and fairness, respect for the laws, rules and regulations. He was not
asking for any favors, only what was within his rights and what was denied
to him with reckless disregard for all the regulations. Dr.Hogben replied
that he, as CUFA president, did his best to protect Dr.Fabrikant’s rights.
Dr.Fabrikant objected stating that in all cases CUFA did its best to delay
the resolution of his grievances, and in the most important of them, about
tenure, CUFA refused to go to arbitration, with no valid reason given.

Being unable to defend CUFA’s position against obvious facts, Dr.Hogben
changed the subject stating again that he negotiated a very good deal
for Dr.Fabrikant, and that the only alternative (going to court and facing
the contempt of court charges) might be much worse. Here Dr.Fabrikant
mentioned that he called Palais de Justice, and that he was told that it
was another judge Rouleau, not Chaloux, who was assigned to hear the case.
This was not a surprise for Dr.Hogben. He explained that judge Chaloux
could not be assigned directly to hear the case since he was from the
Criminal Division, while the case belonged to the Practice Division. The
arrangement, according to Dr.Hogben, was that on the day of hearing judge
Rouleau would call in sick, and in the whole courthouse there would be no
other judge available but judge Chaloux. Even if Dr.Fabrikant had slightest
doubt about the hearing being fixed, they disappeared with this explanation
of Dr.Hogben. How could he possibly know all these procedural details
unless someone very qualified has informed him? And who this someone could
be but Concordia Chancellor Gold?

At this point Dr.Fabrikant decided that he had no choice but to execute his
plan. Dr.Hogben in the meantime probably noticed some change in the
expression of Dr.Fabrikant’s face and might have misinterpreted it as fear,
because he decided to “go for a kill”. He said: “Now you have two options:
to go to court or to accept a good deal. Tell me quickly what it would be
because I have to go”. To this Dr.Fabrikant responded: “Now you have a
choice: to be dead or to find a third option, and you tell me quickly what
it would be”. And with these words he pulled out a revolver and pointed
it at Dr.Hogben. Dr.Fabrikant was absolutely sure that Dr.Hogben would
choose to cooperate and that Dr.Fabrikant would be able to finally resolve
all the problems in a peaceful and satisfactory manner. Regretfully, this
did not happen. Although facing a fully loaded revolver (in a revolver
bullets are visible), Dr.Hogben did not take it seriously. For some
unknown reasons, he was absolutely sure that Dr.Fabrikant under no
circumstances would pull the trigger. He said: “This is exactly what we
wanted you to do, and now we can put you in jail not for one year but
for good”.

After that he stood up and moved towards the door. His actions were total
shock to Dr.Fabrikant, since he felt like being entrapped. The last words
of Dr.Hogben sounded like extreme provocation. He shot Dr.Hogben three times
in a rapid succession. All this happened in a split second time, and after
Dr.Fabrikant realized what he has done, he stood in a shock for some time
(witnesses’ testimony allows an estimation of about two minutes).

It is more difficult to give a precise account of the next four minutes
during which three more people were shot to death and one was lightly
wounded. Dr.Fabrikant claims that he lost control over his actions. He
denies though that he was insane at that time. He knew who he was shooting
at, and he knew that each individual shot was actively participating in
a collective effort to kill Dr.Fabrikant. This is why he classified their
actions as an attempted murder. They knew very well that Dr.Fabrikant was
excellent both as a teacher and as a researcher, they knew that science
was his life, they knew that he had a serious heart attack, they knew
that he had a wife and two small children to support, and that he had
nowhere else to go. Despite all this, they readily signed a document
demanding the university administration to fire Dr.Fabrikant for being
“non-harmonious” with them. Letting aside the argument that one does not
have to be “harmonious” in order to work at a university, and that this
is the main meaning of academic freedom – freedom to be “non-harmonious”,
the most ridiculous part of this accusation was the fact that with majority
of them Dr.Fabrikant has never said more than “Hi”, so how could they
possibly know whether he was “harmonious” with them or not?

Should the administration have followed their recommendation and fired
Dr.Fabrikant, it would be equivalent to murdering him as a scientist. Just
mere reading of that document could trigger a second heart attack, and
this could amount to a physical murder, while Dr.Fabrikant did not harm
to any of them. Did they know the implications of signing the document?
Of course, they did. Were they under duress? No. Why did they do it?
Probably, the same reason why a group of people attacked one jogger in
New York Central Park: some people find sadistic thrill and pleasure in
attacking someone defenseless, they can do it with impunity. A physical
attack of a group of people on one individual is always condemned as a
hideous crime; a psychological attack of a group of people on one is never
considered a crime, though it should. Physical bruises are obvious,
psychological “bruises” are hardly visible but they might be much more
dangerous to the attacked individual’s health, and even to his life.
Words can heal and words can kill, especially written ones.

Taking all this into consideration, try to get into Dr.Fabrikant’s state
of mind. How would you feel if you were never involved in any kind of
violence, and all of a sudden you commit the worse kind of violence –
homicide? And the last words of Dr.Hogben indicate quite clearly that there
was a joint effort to push Dr.Fabrikant over the edge. Would you feel like
having been manipulated into this homicide and at the same time into a
moral suicide? What would you do next?

They say that pain, as it increases, after certain limit is no longer
felt like pain, it becomes insensible. Dr.Fabrikant can not adequately
describe in words what happened to him but he felt like becoming a witness
to what his body was doing, rather than being in control. He had no idea
where his legs would go next and what happen there. During certain period
he felt also unable to speak.

The evidence and witnesses corroborate fully this state of mind of
Dr.Fabrikant. Even the newspaper wrote that he moved deliberately slow,
like a robot. The student present in Dr.Saber’s office testified that
Dr.Fabrikant did not say a word and shot from the heap – this is not an
action of a person who is in control of his body and who intends to kill.

In the shooting of a secretary, both secretaries present at the scene gave
two different and contradicting accounts. Dr.Fabrikant’s recollection is
totally different from these accounts as to the place of shooting.

Yet another police fabrication is a shot through the wall of Dr.Fabrikant’s
office. Dr.Fabrikant is sure that he never made this shot, and all the
witnesses testified heard only three shots, all were positive that there
had been no fourth shot.

The most monumental fabrication though is the planting of a letter on the
body of Dr.Hogben. The letter is addressed to Dr.Fabrikant and is saying
that Dr.Fabrikant should not come to CUFA office without an appointment,
and that he could get that appointment only by writing to Dr.Hogben and
explaining to him why this appointment was necessary.

Prosecution (and media) tried to implant in the people’s minds the idea
that Dr.Fabrikant was so quarrelsome and crazy that he could shoot
somebody just because he did not like the contents of a letter. I know
Dr.Fabrikant sufficiently well to assure you that none of this could
possibly happen. But you do not even need my testimony: the facts and
material evidence prove beyond reasonable doubt that all this nothing but
a fabrication.

Here are the facts. The letter on the photo is neatly folded and is being
held between three open fingers and the body lying on the back. Witness
for the prosecution, who saw the body immediately after the shooting,
testified that Dr.Hogben was lying face down, no letter was noticed.

Yet another evidence that the letter was planted came from another
prosecution witness: a CUFA secretary testified that in the morning the
same day, August 24, 1992, Dr.Hogben told her that if she saw Dr.Fabrikant
from a distance, she should immediately leave CUFA office and quickly
drive home. When she tried to get some explanation from Dr.Hogben, he told
her that he was in a hurry and hanged up on her. This testimony proves
two things. First, obviously Dr.Hogben knew more than he was ready to say.
Second, assume that he sincerely felt that Dr.Fabrikant was dangerous to
CUFA secretary, who never had any problem with Dr.Fabrikant, then he must
be so dangerous to Dr.Hogben, that he should not only run out of his
office, but rather out of town.

Instead, Dr.Hogben decides to go to Dr.Fabrikant’s office and to hand him
this letter. Why would he do that? The letter did not contain anything
important or urgent, it could be sent by internal mail, it could be just
put in Dr.Fabrikant’s mailbox, it could even be served by a bailiff. There
are so many ways to deliver a letter safely and quickly. The whole thing
just does not make sense.

Everything fits the picture though if version of Dr.Fabrikant is accepted
to be true. The only reason why Dr.Hogben told The CUFA secretary to run
away at the mere sight of Dr.Fabrikant, was spreading the defaming
information about him. Dr.Hogben knew very well that the secretary would
tell about it to everyone she knew. This way the public opinion would be
convinced of Dr.Fabrikant’s dangerousness and would not object to
Dr.Fabrikant’s jailing or even possible “accidental death”. Nobody cares
about bad people.

If Dr.Hogben really believed that Dr.Fabrikant was dangerous, he would have
advised the Department members and the police and, of course, he would not
go himself to the meeting. Clearly, he played some dishonorable game. Yet
another corroborating evidence comes from his wife who told the police
that she had received a phone call from Dr.Hogben in the afternoon of
August 24, 1992, probably, immediately after Dr.Fabrikant called him.
Dr.Hogben told his wife: “All is breaking-out in the Fabrikant’s case
today”. It looks like he misunderstood Dr.Fabrikant’s call as the sign of

Dr.Fabrikant raises yet another important point: someone had convinced
Dr.Hogben that Dr.Fabrikant under no circumstances would dare to shoot,
otherwise there is no way to explain his behaviour. Dr.Fabrikant believes
that Dr.Hogben and others were purposefully and maliciously sacrificed to
save the skin of the top Concordia administration. They understood that
they had mistreated Dr.Fabrikant so viciously that one day he might
“explode”, and some of them could be hurt very badly. They decided to
“discharge” Dr.Fabrikant on somebody else, and Dr.Hogben was more than
ready to act for them, without really understanding in what capacity he
was being used.

A corrida bull sometimes attacks innocent horses and not so innocent
picadors, without even trying to attack the main culprit – the toreador.
Humans in extreme rage behave in a similar manner, smashing furniture,
setting up fires or attacking innocent bystanders, again, without even
trying to attack their main abuser. This pattern is well known to
psychologists and psychiatrists. This knowledge was used to devise and
execute a plan to push Dr.Fabrikant over the edge. All was done with
utmost professionalism, and their plan succeeded: Dr.Fabrikant is in jail,
and they could not care less that four lives have been lost, as long as
they no longer have to worry about Dr.Fabrikant.

It might be a mere coincidence, but both rector and vice-rector were out
of town during the period when their plan was executed. Rector Kenniff
told the journalists that as soon as he heard about the shooting at
Concordia, he understood immediately that it was Dr.Fabrikant shooting.
Dr.Saber’s wife, who was on the telephone with her husband at that time,
told the police that as soon as she heard shots, she also understood that
it was Dr.Fabrikant, though she also said that Dr.Fabrikant had never
threatened her husband. Unless these people were aware of dangerous games
played with Dr.Fabrikant, how could they possibly know who was shooting?

Yet another indication that authorities are well aware of all the
improprieties of the case: Dr.Fabrikant in October of 1992 was offered by
the prosecution the option of accepting “not guilty by reason of insanity”,
without even going to trial.

I have read an opinion stating that the fact that Dr.Fabrikant did not
present the “insanity” defense at his trial, is the best proof that he is
insane. Well there is another explanation: an honest person who does not
want to tell a lie to the court. Do we still know what the words “honest
person” mean?


2 thoughts on “Karapetian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s