Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Valery I. Fabrikant (born 28 January 1940 in
Minsk, USSR), is a Jewish Belarussian émigré and former associate
professor of mechanical engineering at Concordia University in Montreal,
Canada. On August 24, 1992, he shot and killed four colleagues and
wounded one staff member, after years of increasingly disruptive
behavior at the university.
Background
Born in the Soviet Union to a Jewish family, he
immigrated to Canada in 1979 and began teaching at Concordia in 1980.
Fabrikant blamed his colleagues for his being denied tenure on four
successive occasions and for attempting to have his employment
terminated. He also accused the university of tolerating the practice of
academics being listed as co-authors on papers to which they have not
contributed; in 1992 he went to court to try to have the names of
several colleagues removed from research papers he had written in the
1980s. That case was not concluded until November 2007, when it was
dismissed by Quebec Superior Court Judge Nicole Morneau, who used a
provision of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedures to dismiss cases that
are found to be frivolous or unfounded.
Shooting
By August 1992 Dr. Fabrikant faced a contempt of
court charge due to his behavior during his suit. In addition, he had
been conducting an email campaign against numerous members of the
university. He claimed fears of being killed in jail.
On August 24, 1992 Fabrikant took concealed weapons
and ammunition with him to the Engineering Department of the university,
where he went on a shooting spree on the ninth floor of the Henry F.
Hall Building. He killed Department Chair Phoivos Ziogas and professors
Matthew Douglass, Michael Hogben, and Jaan Saber; and wounded Elizabeth
Horwood, a departmental staff secretary.
Phoivos Ziogas lived for a month in a coma before he
died of massive internal injuries from the bullet ricocheting within his
body.
Trial and psychiatric
assessment
Fabrikant represented himself at his trial. After
several weeks of eccentric behaviour, the judge suspended the
proceedings in order to conduct a hearing into Fabrikant's mental
fitness to stand trial. He was eventually found fit and after three
months of proceedings by two psychiatrists, the judge stopped his
defense and he was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to
life imprisonment.
Despite two psychiatrists ruling in his favor,
Fabrikant thought he was insulted by these two psychologists, and,
according to Dr. Louis Morisette, asked to meet with Morisette, working
at Philippe-Pinel Institute specializing in legal psychiatry (prison for
the mentally disturbed) where Fabrikant spent several days during the
time of his trial.
Morisette spent several hours over a few days with
Fabrikant. "Fabrikant wanted my help to counter argue the two
psychiatrists opinion on him in court, and to help him argue that
psychology has no scientific basis and proves nothing." Morisette does
in fact disagree with the two psychologists, noting that co-workers' and
students' satisfaction reports had always been fine until Fabrikant's
leave of absence for a heart attack. Problems reported by students
coincide with his return in 1992. "Mr. Fabrikant suffers, in my opinion,
from more than a simple personality disorder, […] he could be treated by
pharmaceutical products, a treatment he always refused." "We often push
the trial dates of people who suffer from complications because of heart
attacks. In my opinion Fabrikant is not fit to stand trial."
Aftermath
Concordia's Board of Governors had earlier adopted
a policy banning firearms on the university campus. After Fabrikant's
murders, the university joined the Coalition for Gun Control and
gathered signatures for a petition calling for tougher national gun
laws. In March 1994 Concordia representatives presented members of
Parliament with a 200,000-signature petition to ban the private
ownership of handguns in Canada.
Concordia University commissioned two independent
inquiries into events surrounding the murders. This followed
university review of scholarship guidelines. The university improved
its administrative procedures and research ethics guidelines, as did
Canada's research funding agencies. An investigation of faculty
research in Fabrikant's department revealed that some of Fabrikant's
claims about mismanagement of grants funds were factually correct. But,
he did not challenge colleagues' work until he was well into his
attacks against the university.
The Cowan report, which studied the interactions
between university officials and Fabrikant from a personnel management
perspective, found that "The warnings and strictures placed upon him [Fabrikant]
which directly related to his behavior, (when they existed at all),
were too mild, too vague, or (finally) too slow and ponderous."
The NSERC froze the research accounts of the three
academics whom Fabrikant had accused of mismanaging funds. Two were
temporarily suspended and one took an early retirement. One was re-hired
as a research professor.
In addition, the university adopted new rules
governing financial accountability and scientific integrity,
improvements already in process at the time of the August 1992 events.
The Internal Audit function was also restructured.
In 1995 the university adopted "The Code of Rights
& Responsibilities" and named an Advisor on the Code. It set out
standards of conduct for all members of the University. Further work
was done on a new code of ethics, resulting in adoption in 1995 of a
partial version of "The Code of Ethics: Guidelines for Ethical Actions".
In 1997 the full version was adopted.
The university created initiatives related to civil
behaviour and conflict resolution, including the Peace and Conflict
Resolution Series that began in 2003.
Fabrikant is serving his sentence at Archambault
Institution in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec. He continues academic
research at prison.
Fabrikant is a usenet user known for posting in
newsgroups, particularly can.general and can.politics, as well as on his
website, which contain trial transcripts, as well as his version of
events. He has claimed to be the innocent victim of a conspiracy. From
prison, he has managed to circumvent restrictions on his communications
to argue his case through a website and other media. He filed numerous
legal proceedings with the court system until 2000, when the Quebec
Superior Court declared him a vexatious litigant. The Court dismissed
his bid to clear that status in 2007.
In part because Fabrikant carried out his assault on
a university campus, and societies have witnessed rising workplace
violence, the case has been extensively studied. Later analysis
concluded that "Fabrikant often displayed classic behavioral warning
signs indicating potential violence." Within three years of the
university's hiring him, Fabrikant had established a reputation of being
"a difficult, argumentative and unpredictable individual- and one who
seemed to set no limits on his own behavior." The university failed to
address his behavior early on, and his harassment of students and
colleagues increased over the years. The university attempted to change
its guidelines for dealing with personnel. The case showed the problems
of academic institutions, whose administrators were more used to
assessing research, than in managing the behavior of difficult staff.
Wikipedia.org
By Melanie Meloche-Holubowski - The Link
Fourteen years ago, the hallways of the ninth floor
of the Hall building were chaos as engineering professor Valery
Fabrikant, angered by thoughts of conspiracy and intellectual theft,
took one of four shotguns from his briefcase and chased his colleagues.
On Aug. 24, 1992 Fabrikant killed three people, injured another and took
two people hostage. A fourth professor died a month later in hospital.
Today, students are milling around the Hall
Building’s first floor granite table, few aware that what they represent
are the lives of four Concordia professors—Matthew Douglass, Michael
Gorden Hogben, Aaron Jaan Saber and Phoivois Ziogas.
At 2:30 p.m. on Aug. 24, Fabrikant was out to settle
some unfinished business. He walked into his office where he was to meet
with Michael Hogben and shot him three times with his .38-calibre pistol.
Hogben’s colleague, Jaan Saber, called from across the hall, worried.
Fabrikant crossed the hallway and shot him twice.
As Fabrikant continued his path through the hallways,
he shot Elizabeth Horwood in the thigh, but she survived. Searching for
his ultimate targets—the professors who he held a grudge against—he
ended up in the office of Phoivos Ziogas, who was with Otto Schwelb.
Ziogas was shot twice but did not die immediately. Professor Matthew
Douglass then tried to reason with Fabrikant. He was shot four times.
Another professor and a security guard, Daniel Martin,
were taken hostage. Fabrikant called 911 at 2:35 p.m. to inform them
that he had committed several murders and wanted to explain his motives.
An hour later, as he tried to adjust the phone, he let go of his gun,
giving the professor and security guard the chance to overtake him.
None of the professors murdered had been initial
targets for Fabrikant—rather, they had been victims of his terrible rage
against the university. Fabrikant was convicted of murder and sentenced
to life in prison, with no possibility of parole until 2014.
Conspiracy theories
A bureaucratic battle between Fabrikant and the
school was brewing for years, but no one was able to stop the 1992
disaster. Since his arrest and trial, the reasoning behind the shooting
has emerged.
Fabrikant firmly believed he was pushed to commit his
actions and that his life was in danger—he claims his colleagues were
out to kill him with a heart attack.
“Clearly, these people did so much harm to me, that
killing them was more important, than the threat of dying in jail,”
writes Fabrikant on his website.
According Sam Osman, who was the chair of the
mechanical engineering department at the time, Fabrikant was at one time
considered “one of the top ten international researchers in his area.”
How did a brilliant mind turn to violence to resolve a conflict?
A history of violence
Valery Fabrikant was born in the USSR in 1940 and
immigrated to Canada in 1979 under the pretense that he was a dissident.
He had actually been fired. He met with the chair of Concordia’s
mechanical engineering department, Tom Sankar, for a job. He had a PhD
and had published several research papers, so Sankar hired him as a
research assistant.
It was not long after that Fabrikant’s extreme
personality would come through. In 1981, he applied for a position at
the University of Calgary. He was not selected, so Fabrikant harassed
the U of Calgary professor. In 1982, a student complained that she had
been sexually harassed by Fabrikant, but no formal complaint was ever
lodged, to maintain the student’s privacy.
At the same time, Fabrikant continued his research at
a phenomenal pace; he produced over 25 original research papers in three
years, on which Tom Sankar was listed as co-author. The university was
impressed by his work and kept him on board.
In 1983, Fabrikant harassed the professor of a French
class he was taking. The bullying became so intense that the professor
threatened to quit and Fabrikant was told to stop attending class.
Defiantly, Fabrikant returned to class, read his notice of expulsion out
loud and sat down. He was then ordered to stay away.
After this incident, Sankar’s request to have
Fabrikant upgraded from a research assistant to a professor was denied.
In 1985, Fabrikant was appointed to Concordia’s
Computer-Aided Vehicle Engineering Centre (CONCAVE). From this point on,
Fabrikant no longer put anyone as co-author on his research papers. In
1987, Tom Sankar stepped down as chair and Sam Osman took over.
Sheshadri Sankar, Tom’s brother, was head of the CONCAVE project.
A year later, Sheshadri Sankar advised Fabrikant that
his contract with CONCAVE would end in one year. A furious Fabrikant
accused the department of shortening his contract because he was no
longer attributing co-authorship to the chair of the department. He
began taping conversations with other faculty members to prove his
conspiracy theories regarding the university’s procedures. He threatened
legal action.
In a conversation with Fabrikant, Tom Sankar claims
to have told him, “Did I ask you to put my name on any of your papers?
You did it voluntarily.” Strangely enough, Sankar gave Fabrikant a two-year
contract despite the accusations.
According to Catherine Mackenzie, the executive
assistant to the rector in 1989, Fabrikant threatened that the “only way
to get what you want in North America is to buy a gun and shoot a lot of
people.” The university was now concerned about his behaviour, but no
one was willing to confront him with a formal warning.
The beginning of the end
In 1990, Fabrikant was to receive a tenure-track
position for his academic successes but was later rejected. In 1991,
Fabrikant was given the largest bonus of the department for his
accomplishments. The engineering department fought to have him fired, as
no one wanted to work with him, but the rector refused because there was
no paper trail of his violent behaviour. They renewed his contract until
June 1992.
In June 1992, Fabrikant swayed the dean to give him
one more year of work, considering his academic achievements, although
the engineering department tried nonetheless to have him fired or to
retire him for his continuous threats.
That year, he accused Sheshadri and Tom Sankar of
misappropriation of authorship and misuse of research money and brought
them to court. In an e-mail campaign attempting to warn others of the
university’s alleged wrongdoing, Fabrikant wrote, “I am no longer afraid
of anything or anybody. We all have to die one day. Whenever I die, I
shall die an honest person... I cannot fight all the crooks in the world,
but I shall not rest until the bogus scientists in this university are
exposed.”
In another e-mail, Fabrikant referred to the judge in
his lawsuit as “Chief Injustice.” He was to appear in court on Aug. 25,
1992 for contempt of court.
But just before his contempt of court hearing,
Fabrikant acted on years of threats and walked into the Hall Building on
Aug. 24 in search of the people he had been fighting, to shoot them. He
was arrested that same day.
The Muppet Show trial
Fabrikant’s trial was almost a farce; he fired 10
lawyers until he decided to defend himself. He ridiculed the judge and
bullied witnesses in an attempt to prove that the court should be
deliberating not whether or not he was a murderer, but why he was pushed
to the brink of killing four people. “I was the victim, not a
perpetrator, I acted in self-defense” was his motto.
Fabrikant spent hours questioning witnesses to show
the police had planted evidence and that the court was in bed with the
university. He even argued about having a sandwich instead of a warm
lunch one day, accusing the Judge of trying to starve him. His strategy
was defiance and disruption.
Fabrikant was cited six times for contempt of court,
calling the procedures a “monkey trial,” calling the judge a “biased
crook” and welcoming the jury “to the Muppet Show.”
Psychiatrists determined he was not insane, something
Fabrikant agreed with. “I was never insane, I knew perfectly well what I
was doing and I knew why I was shooting each individual. There was not a
single innocent person harmed. I did not hear voices and did not imagine
devils.”
After five months, the judge had had enough. He
stopped all procedures, and seven hours later, the jury convicted him of
first-degree murder.
From his jail cell, Fabrikant had his son, Isaac,
post messages on chat groups and on his website. He still claims
innocence and continuously tries to convince people he is the victim of
a massive conspiracy between the university, the police and the court.
“I was abused for 12 years, and when my life was
threatened, the abusers succeeded in provoking me,” he writes. “I lived
so far 62 years, during which I never displayed any violent behavior, I
never had even a speeding ticket. There were three minutes in my life
when I killed four people. Should I be judged by these three minutes or
[the] remaining 62 years?"
*****
As details emerged from the history behind the
shootings after August 24, 1992, Concordia University began to get flack
from all sides, many wondering why someone known to have an erratic
temper would continue to work for the school and if, indeed, Fabrikant’s
allegations of plagiarism and misuse of money were founded.
Fabrikant clearly admitted guilt in the shootings. He
insisted that the trial should not be about his guilt—rather that it
should be an inquiry as to why he was pushed to the brink. Some wondered
if he was not a whistleblower on Concordia’s disorganized administration.
Concordia commissioned two independent reports about
the Fabrikant affair that were released in 1994. The Cowan report dealt
with Fabrikant’s employment history as well as the University’s actions
in regards to his behaviour, and the Arthurs report looked into academic
and scientific integrity among professors.
What the conclusions of the reports conceded was that
Fabrikant was partly right and that the University had acted poorly and
waffled on an issue that should have been dealt with years before.
Rose Sheinin, Concordia’s vice-rector academic at the
time, and Rector Patrick Kenniff were sharply criticized for not taking
action, although they had the powers to do so. Sheinin said that the
reports were inadequate and the responsibility lay with the mechanical
and engineering department.
In the aftermath, Kenniff resigned, Sheinin’s
contract was not renewed and the three professors at the centre of
Fabrikant’s allegations—Dean Srikanta Swamy, Tom Sankar and Sheshadri
Sankar—were quietly asked to leave their positions.
Lacking centralized power
The Cowan report was largely critical of the
University’s inability to put the pieces of the puzzle together. Several
people had been threatened by Fabrikant over the years, but no one had
ever filed a formal complaint against him. Cowan criticized the
administration, writing that “there is no institutional memory …
universities are vastly more decentralized than other enterprises. There
is no central clearing house for important information.”
Indeed, it was only on October 30, 1992, in an
emergency meeting, that “members of the administration, who in the past
never had much information about Dr. Fabrikant’s bad behaviour outside
the faculty, were learning more and becoming more fearful.” Fabrikant’s
file contained little record of his erratic behaviour and threats.
Heads of departments were also sharply criticized for
their lack of knowledge in dealing with employee/employer relations.
Professors are not administrators and “when faced with the challenge of
a ‘bad’ colleague, whose behaviour is disruptive, threatening or merely
unethical, they do not generally know what their powers are, and are
massively risk-averse when it comes to exercising those powers, even
when they are aware of them.”
This was the case time and time again, as there was a
struggle from either side of the administrative spectrum. From being
described as a genius to irrational, no one knew if he was really
dangerous or just an eccentric professor. No one could decide if he
should be promoted or fired.
On September 1, 1983, Fabrikant was promoted to
research associate professor. Twenty-six days later, he was described as
being “irrational.” In 1989, Fabrikant received a merit award, a raise
and a congratulatory memo on his new book. In 1990, he was refused
promotion to research professor despite good reviews.
“The absence of a collective approach to decision-making
even for the most significant matter is necessary,” writes Cowan. “Each
senior officer decides in isolation about questions which arise.”
In addition, senior administrators never gave proper
warning to Fabrikant until it was too late. A letter to Fabrikant was
sent out one week before the shooting, warning him to cease his
harassment campaign via email. No one is certain whether he ever even
received it.
Cowan also indicates that the university should have
investigated Fabrikant’s allegations of conflicts of interest and misuse
of co-authorship to appease the professor’s anxieties and deal with the
ethics and integrity of scientific research.
Pressure brings unethical ways
The Arthurs report dealt specifically with the
allegations Fabrikant had against his colleagues, namely Dean Srikanta
Swamy and professors Tom Sankar and Sheshadri Sankar. Fabrikant alleged
they had conflicts of interests with their university contracts and
their deals with private enterprises. He was also furious that he was
forced into giving co-authorship to these supervisors when they did not
contribute to the work.
With regret, Arthurs admits that Fabrikant was
accurate on certain allegations.
Fabrikant considered himself a “scientific prostitute,”
saying he was forced to put Prof. Tom Sankar’s name on several articles
from 1980 to 1985. Arthurs says that although Sankar had discussed
several articles and findings with Fabrikant, “Prof. Sankar could not
have made a substantive scientific contribution” in all cases.
Arthurs pointed to the strong pressures of scientists
being prolific in their work and “that those pressures may in turn lead
to the adoption of strategies for being as prolific as possible, and
that some of these strategies may promote undesirable behaviour.”
Naming colleagues, even with little contribution, was
a way for many researchers to up their publication records and gain more
grants and projects. It was a way for colleagues to help each other out
in the cutthroat world of research. Yet, in a taped conversation with
Fabrikant, Sankar asked him, “Did I ask you to put my name on any of
your papers? You did it voluntarily.”
Fabrikant and his colleagues were all somewhat guilty
of wrongful co-authorship, explains Arthurs. Fabrikant might have been
forced to put co-authors even when they did not contribute significantly,
but Fabrikant was also guilty of re-using previous articles he published
in Russia as new data.
The report harshly criticized the school, stating
that “Concordia appears to have no policies or standards of scientific
and academic integrity.”
Sankar was also found guilty of conflict of interest
with certain private contracts he obtained. University researchers
should give priority to their academic obligations before undertaking
any private research. The university was lax on how much was too much—private
contracts were simply a way to obtain a bigger salary and recognition.
For example, Sankar obtained a contract from
Transport Canada to study liquid tanker stability through his company
Sheshadri Sankar Inc, even though the university had bid for the same
contract. Arthurs criticizes Sankar for not being loyal to the
university and that the contract was “well in excess of any limit which
might be reasonable for someone who was the director of a major
university research center.”
Also, the efforts of at least one research student
“were used to generate a private profit for Professor S. Sankar,” writes
Arthurs. Tom Sankar, S. Sankar’s brother was also put on the payroll for
the project, although none of his work was included in the final report.
These were some of several discrepancies with
research projects, and unethical behaviour that angered Fabrikant. Both
reports scolded the administration for not inquiring earlier into
Fabrikant’s allegations.
Dealing with today’s pressures
The reports were a harsh criticism of Concordia’s
administration and the university’s lack of accountability and ethical
behaviour in scientific research. The university listened carefully and
has since changed its stance on dealing with incidences of violence or
threatening conduct.
“In hindsight, there were a lot of warning signs,”
says Peter Cote, director of Concordia’s Rights and Responsibility
Department, of the shootings. “They were not properly and effectively
acted on.”
This new department was created in 1996, mostly as a
response to the events of 1992. It is a central place where people can
report any strange behaviour or case of harassment. “I am the one person
who has the big picture, instead of bits of information in different
offices.” By doing so, Cote can see patterns emerging and decide when to
act.
In the event of an emergency situation, Cote can
quickly gather a team from the university, from security agents to
health services employees, to heads of departments, to act rapidly to
protect the students and staff of the university.
The University now errs on the side of caution when
threats are made—Cote would rather deal with the possibility of the
school being sued, a union taking action or the possibility of bad press
in the event of a mistake than to leave a situation unattended.
Luckily, he says, his department doesn’t have to deal
with such situations very often, but adds, “it’s a big world out there.
It’s a normal part of any kind of institution."
The Record
August 25, 1992
Fabrikant Affair
August
24, 1992
On August 24, 1992, an armed man opened fire on the
ninth floor of the Henry F. Hall Building resulting in the death of four
professors. That day, two professors died: Civil Engineering Professor
Matthew McCartney Douglass and Chemistry Professor and President of the
Concordia University Faculty Association Michael Gorden Hogben.
Mechanical Engineering Professor Aaron Jaan Saber died of his wounds the
next day. Phoivos Ziogas, the Electrical and Computer Engineering Chair,
succumbed to his injuries a month later on September 23. Mechanical
Engineering Secretary Elizabeth Horwood, also wounded on that day,
recovered and was discharged from the hospital.
Mechanical Engineering Professor Valery Fabrikant was
arrested and later convicted for the murder of his colleagues.
This incident led the university to launch two
Independent Committees of Inquiry. The first inquiry was conducted by
John Scott Cowan of the University of Ottawa. The report of this
inquiry is entitled "Lessons
from the Fabrikant Files".
Released in May 1994, it studied Fabrikant's employment history at
Concordia. This report is frequently referred to as the
Cowan Report. The second
inquiry was led by former York University president Harry W. Arthurs. It investigated Fabrikant's charges against colleagues within the
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science. This inquiry report was
called "Integrity
In Scholarship". It was
released in April 1994 and it is frequently referred to as the
Arthurs Report.