This case had started with Dr. Aubrey Levin. Now it is beginning to show something even stranger.
This is a follow-up to the previous post: A strange development
Who should one trust? The past hour and two has, shall we say, been rather interesting. I am happy to report that the psychiatrist who contacted me seemed to truly have good intentions for his colleague. He may or may not know his colleagues’ true nature. However, that colleague has started taking measures which seem rather extreme which makes it look even more suspicious. Obviously, several people knew Dr. Levin – either professionally or personally. The man did not live in isolation. Why the fact or suggestion that someone might even have known Levin closely, or just known his name at all, is bringing such extreme measures to hide certain facts is rather bewildering.
In the meantime, three people (whose genders shall remain concealed) have contacted me. I have been sent a substantial amount of ‘proof’ – if I may so say, that does not exactly – to use an euphemism – place the doctor’s colleague in the glowing light he would like to see himself in. For the privacy of all parties, I cannot speak or show that proof.
It is a very sad case, and I have advised those concerned to take the necessary steps for their healing and psychological health.
But it would be best if the colleague of the doctor does not act the way he is now, as some of the proof will place him in an incredibly delicate situation to say the least. I am trying to be objective here to not reveal the nature of what I know now, but all I can say is yes – there is documented evidence of certain facts, at least, and the substantiated facts regarding some of his activities are indeed substantiated. If the colleague is contacting the police, it is the colleague who will be exposed and will not exactly come out with flying colours. I do not think he would want that.
I am now finding myself as an arbitrator and am trying to diffuse the situation the best I can. First off, the people who have been wronged need immediate counselling, and much more. I am thinking of making this into a closed forum where people will not be afraid to speak up.
The situation is also more complicated than that in this case. Lines were crossed by the shrink but how does one define those lines? What if he told those affected that what he was doing to them psychologically/physically/emotionally was “for their own good”? Even though objectively and ethically it was not, and it was for his own sake. Yes – there is also more truth, and I am very shocked with some of the things which have been brought to my attention. I am no prude, but the colleague has certain sides that are to put it mildly, extremely dark and sinister.
A fourth person, this time from Toronto has now contacted me. This person is also undergoing therapy, not as the patient of the colleague, but due to her experience with him. She said she could very well relate with what the first reviewer (Echo) of this book has written.
I do not know what to say.
This person however has ascertained what one of the other commentators wrote – that yes indeed he did graduate from the University of Calgary in forensic psychiatry, he definitely knew Levin, and he does give an outer appearance to have graduated medicine from McGill and does not want people to know his real medical college. She too thinks his outer image is carefully crafted. She has added that among other things (which for privacy will not be mentioned) he has a frightening temper and is extremely verbally and psychologically abusive, which only those who have been intimate with him know of.
I do not write stuff based on emotional reasoning or subjective supposition. I base my judgements on facts, logic and fact-checking. My emotions are preserved for empathy and genuine understanding and compassion for those who have been truly wronged, not for false-accusers. Logic and inquiry therefore indicates that the comments were sent by different users (not the same user as the shrink in question has insinuated), and that certain statements written there are absolutely true, substantiated by hard evidence.
Those on-line monikers have indeed matched up with the shrink’s identity. There are screenshots, explanations for the monikers given by the shrink himself originating from his own e-mail id, and those sites themselves if contacted will vouch for that perhaps as well. There is nothing wrong about having online monikers on “hooking-up” sites. This is normal. But if there is truth in what occurred or how certain persons were treated, and this colleague’s extreme reactions to contact the police to threaten the poster of the comment which mentioned his online personas, there is something fishy.
Most secure people, if they have nothing to fear or hide, ignore comments like that as there is so much out there. His over-reaction, his getting a senior doctor to send a character reference etc. to me, and contacting the police over two comments on a victims’ forum, itself is bizarre, as the commentator only linked certain names online that this shrink goes by, which now it seems, are indeed correct. Perhaps this shrink’s position as a forensic psychiatrist and a “defender of women who are abused” in his public life makes him more vulnerable to his image due to any discrepancies or complete contradictions that occur in the reality of his private life. A thought.
In other words to the colleague – if you are a public asshole and a private asshole – at least you are being honest. But if you are showing yourself as a white knight in public and are creepy/abusive/completely dishonest in private behind locked doors there is certainly a great amount of hypocrisy involved there. Other forms of hypocrisy are when you show yourself as a supporter of feminism and women’s rights in public, fully aware those women will help you by giving you media mileage, but in private, you religiously follow every sleazy “game” or “pick-up-artist” tactic and pick up young and naive women on the web, have a derision for feminism and wish women were still stuck with the limitations they had back in Victorian times. The same applies in knowing how to play trusting older good-hearted men among your colleagues to have your back while knowing how alpha-male “game” works to get support from both women and beta-men. Machiavelli’s paradise, eh, Dr. x? quod erat demonstrandum.
“We should not pretend to be what we are not.” – Arthur Schopenhaueur
However, to the good doctor who wrote to me, please advise your colleague to not take whatever rash steps he is taking. The situation can be diffused in a more delicate manner, if he is concerned. If things come down to furnishing proof , his shocking and rather strange skeletons may be revealed which he may not want the world to know, least of all the police, after his careful public image. In some ways, perhaps this is better, for everything to be in the open. Yet, due to the bizarre facts I am discovering, I think this is a more complex problem, as the abuse is of a very strange yet very dark and insidious nature. This woman from Toronto said she has been “excavated.” For reasons of privacy, I cannot write more details.
The individuals who have their grievances against the shrink are educated, sophisticated persons. It is extremely painful for them to speak up, and in that respect alone, this shrink already has his ass covered, because they do not seem the type to have any petty motives against him, but just heal their trauma the best they can.
They opened up here, because due to his position and threats he gives to anyone he wrongs, they feel helpless. They felt that since this was a board about an obviously evil forensic psychiatrist (Levin), they could mention their experience with another forensic psychiatrist. Had they wanted to truly slander, in this day and age, it is quite easy to create separate websites only for that, with proof etc. They could have also posted their grievances and his name and location on boards of more famous websites carrying Levin’s news story such as HuffPo, or CBC or the Globe and Mail. They did not – had they been maligners. They value their privacy and do not want their victimhood known, only healed. Part of the healing process consists of being able to confide without facing further abuse for speaking up the truth. Which further makes this “respected” shrink’s reaction seem even more bizarre. There is no smoke without fire. There are no frightened complaints by scared women until there is some semblance of truth.
Accusing the victims as though there is a plot against the perpetrator sounds vaguely familiar. Now where did I see that before….Oh yes, that’s right. Here: http://www.calgarysun.com/2013/01/21/court-psychiatrist-dr-aubrey-levin-victim-of-plot-by-accusers-to-advance-lawsuit-says-lawyer
To the psychiatrist who wrote to me earlier: Your sincere mail and your genuine efforts in your follow-up action have convinced me that you have good intentions, and, perhaps, too, may not be privy to the whole truth regarding your colleague. (You may also read the ‘update’ in the previous post explaining why I have to write to you directly through the posts, and not answer your mail.) I have a lot of respect for you and your work. I am afraid I cannot say the same for your colleague. While he is still relatively young in the field, he may be able to explain away his actions with superficial charm and cunning and convince or lie to his peers. But when he will be older, he will be openly called a twisted and remorseless pervert. In youth, there are other options outside the office for his problems. In old age, the office itself can become his playing field. What then? I have a feeling he is a man used to getting whatever he wants either through charm or coercion, and cannot accept any challenge or objective assessment to his own version of reality, however warped that version may be. In his own eyes, he is always blameless. Everything is someone else’s fault. Projection 101.
Remember Levin himself could keep his past quiet by, as quoted in the UK Guardian in this article: “After arriving in Canada …. he managed to suppress public discussion of his past by threatening lawsuits against news organisations that attempted to explore it.”
I think your colleague has himself made a mountain out of two instances which could have easily been resolved, and which very few people on this board had even noticed. Instead, his reactionary measures have made him seem even more suspicious, and now more proof that reveals a lot more about his dark side have come up. I will only state one thing to the doctor who wrote to me: your psychiatrist colleague needs serious therapy. Serious. There is something not right with him – at least in his private and basal life. Dr. Steven Cohen CAMH
Please note that a Comment Policy has been put into effect, and I agree that no personal legal proper names should be used by any commentator, regardless of proof or otherwise. This is for both your protection and the privacy of others.
May peace prevail. And may Mr. Levin get the imprisonment he so richly deserves.
Addendum: I have just received a rather eloquently crafted mail from an individual who claims that the doctor’s colleague may have some deep issues himself but does not harm others intentionally. That he needs “kindness.” I am not impressed. I do not care how damaged one is or the circumstances, but that does not give the right to torture another. I think kindness should be reserved for those who suffer, not those who commit acts of cruelty. I will also try to verify this last communique to make sure it is not from some false or frightened defender. The writer’s style of defending an abuser almost reeks of Stockholm Syndrome. Although, even his new kind and articulate defender has confirmed that this fella does name himself after Dionysius (Diony) online, even though the writer has given great reasons for that. Either way, the monikers match the very comment on this site that the shrink had problems with.
This site will focus back on the case of Aubrey Levin as new facts emerge about his case.