Psychiatrist Insists Abuse Wasn’t Sexual Sadism
By Barb Sweet
“No? countered Will Hiscock, a lawyer for four John Does in the Mount Cashel civil trial. “What was it? Was he loving?” “It wasn’t loving and it wasn’t sadistic,” replied Toborowsky, a expert witness for the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of St. John’s, which disputes claims it should be held liable for the sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by certain Christian Brothers at the orphanage during the era late 1940s to early 1960s. “How was it not sadistic?” demanded Hiscock. “What happened was not sexual sadism,” Toborowsky replied. Earlier in the week, New York forensic psychologist Alan M. Goldstein, called as an expert who’d evaluated four test case John Does on behalf of their lawyers, told the court that one of the men felt the beatings he received from Ronald J. Lasik were sexual in nature. Goldstein pointed out that Lasik was convicted (of multiple charges in the late 1990s) and is on the New York State sex offender registry. (In the case of the particular John Doe, church lawyer Chris Blom had pointed out to Goldstein that Lasik was convicted of assault, not sexual assault). Hiscock and Paul Kennedy questioned Toborowsky about sexual sadism in relation to abuse of two of the John Does Friday, with the psychiatrist maintaining what happened did not fit the definition. Friday was a heated day in Courtroom No. 2 as Hiscock led a hard-driving challenge of Toborowsky — with Kennedy and colleague Allison Conway — for not giving enough weight to the effects that sexual assault may have had on the four Does’ lives. Toborowsky, in previous testimony in the case, had said only one man has post traumatic stress disorder and that he attributed to events before, during and after Mount Cashel, including the early death of his mother, death of grandchild and various health problems. At one point Friday, Hiscock asked Toborowsky if the fact another of the John Doe’s low sex drive and single status of 60 years was a red flag. Not necessarily, said Toborowsky. “Would you agree that his lack of trust, his failure to be a caring nurturing person, that that could have been caused by being sexually molested by a holy man, a father figure to whom he was very close?” Hiscock asked about the John Doe, who failed to realize a leadership role in the military. Toborowsky replied it was a factor. “A substantial factor,” said Hiscock. Of a retired teacher, Hiscock noted his success and wondered how life would have turned out if the John Doe had not been sexually abused by five men at the orphanage — four of them Christian Brothers and another an employee. “It’s fair to ask isn’t it, doctor, how successful could he have been if he hadn’t had to go through that hell?” Hiscock asked. “I don’t have a crystal ball,” replied Toborowsky, before finally conceding the man — who had a flashback to an oprhanage beating during his meeting with Toborowsky— would have been substantially impacted by childhood sexual abuse. But he had noted other factors in his life, including early loss of a parent. The church contends it did not run the orphanage. The Christian Brothers are bankrupt and no longer defendants in the case. The trial resumes Tuesday and testimony is expected to clew up Thursday. Closing arguments by lawyers in the case will be presented in the fall. Contact: bsweet@thetelegram.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.