Media Center

Why Cancer Faker's Deceit Infuriated Us

 
By Joanne Laucius
 
The Ottawa Citizen, September 5, 2010

Ashley Kirilow's alleged fraud was probably less than $20,000. But her case has gone viral, perhaps due to the perceived 'shamelessness' of faking cancer. Joanne Laucius examines a psychiatrist's attempt to quantify true depravity.

You have likely heard of the misdeeds of Ashley Kirilow, even if you don't remember her name. Headline writers have dubbed her "cancer faker." The 23-year-old Burlington woman's notoriety far eclipses the amount of money she allegedly made by feigning cancer and running a bogus pocket-change-for-cancer campaign.

Kirilow's subterfuge was an elaborate one. She shaved her long brown hair and plucked her eyebrows and lashes to look like a chemotherapy patient. She had the words "WONT QUIT" tattooed on her knuckles. She has admitted to reporters that she duped well-meaning supporters who embraced the cause of what they believed was a spunky young woman in a battle for her life.

Kirilow is facing four fraud charges -- three under $5,000 and one over $5,000 -- and is to appear in court again on Sept. 29.

"It went wrong, it spread like crazy, and then it seemed like the whole world knew," Kirilow told a reporter, blaming her actions on an unhappy childhood and the need for attention.

As far as scams go, Kirilow's alleged fraud was relatively small-time. The haul from the ruse has been pegged at a minimum of $13,000, but likely not significantly more. Individual losses were not huge. No one was physically hurt or killed.

Still, the public reaction has been one of outrage. Donors, cancer patients, their families and even observers far away from Burlington have felt not just deceived, but betrayed. This is despite the fact that Kirilow's case is not unique.

Kirilow's many supporters evaporated.

Instead, hundreds joined a Facebook page calling for her to be held fully accountable for her actions. When she was released from jail -- her parents declined to post bail -- Kirilow slipped out the back door, away from the waiting media scrum because of "safety concerns." The story went viral. "What she did is outrageous! It's unforgiveable!" said one commentator on a U.S.-based breast cancer blog. "Jail time is what she deserves, nothing less!" Heinous, vile, atrocious, shameless. Kirilow's detractors may think these words describe her actions. But in the legal system, these precise words affect the degree of punishment for a crime. And in Kirilow's case, where no one was physically hurt and the individual monetary losses were small, it's unlikely she'll receive a long jail sentence.

Attention and collective victimization can whip up a frenzy toward a crime that overshoots its depravity, says Dr. Michael Welner, a leading forensic psychiatrist who is trying to get the bottom of the definition of "depravity" -- what makes one crime more depraved than another.

To do that, Welner is attempting to create a "Depravity Scale." "If the legal system can't explain what's awful, then judges and juries can be manipulated," he says. "Evidence will have more strength than brute emotions." Part of the project is a questionnaire that enlists ordinary people to rank criminal intentions and actions as more or less depraved when compared with other intentions and actions. Those filling out the online questionnaire face a randomly-generated list of five items and are asked to rank them.

Is it, for example, more depraved to prolong a victim's suffering or express pleasure or satisfaction in the aftermath of the crime? How does that compare with showing disregard for the victim's feelings? With disfiguring the victim? Or carrying out a crime for the sheer excitement of it? So far about 30,000 people, mostly from the U.S., Canada and Britain, have completed the online questionnaire. Welner hopes the scale will eventually be used by the legal system some day as a way of separating the "what" of the crime separate from the "who" of the crime.

Out of the 25 items on his list, all of them pretty vile, 16 have achieved a 90 per cent public consensus that they are either "especially" or "somewhat" depraved. Welner, who is based in New York City, won't say which of the 25 items most people agree on until the research is completed. But the research shows no matter what our differences are, we can all agree on certain elements of crimes that make them depraved.

"There are some things, no matter what, people experience them as the worst of the worst," he says.

Here are two separate assessments of Kirilow's alleged crimes from two people, both insiders in the cancer community: "I think this poor girl has problems," says Jocelyn Lamont, executive directors of Candlelighters, an Ottawa group that offers support, assistance and educational funding for young people with cancer.

"She duped people. She didn't kill anyone or set their house on fire. It doesn't make it any less. It makes it different." Pam Stephan, a breast cancer survivor who writes a blog about breast cancer issues, says her action were a cry for help that turned into wilful deceit. Kirilow could have eliminated the Facebook page with one mouse click, but she didn't, says Stephan.

"She mutilated herself for her own gain and abused the trust of people who supported her." Welner believes that creating a depravity scale can help weigh the severity of allegations by pointing to elements like exploiting the vulnerability of others, or enlisting others to heighten the scope of the crime -- both of which happen to be among the 25 items on his list.

"In my professional opinion, she did something that others would not do, even in consideration of the consequences. It takes having no shame to shave your head, pluck your eyelashes, and draw other folks in to such a maudlin but false tale," he says.

"The question is, however, is does shamelessness make a crime more depraved -- and why, then?" By exploiting the emotional vulnerabilities of others and enlisting others to extend the scope of the scam, Kirilow distinguished herself as a fraud artist, says Welner.

"What I'm picking up on from people's reactions is the shamelessness of it. This person has absolute chutzpah. This is over-the-top." There are important justice implications in creating and using a depravity scale, says Welner, who is consulting to the U.S. government on the Omar Khadr case.

"A focus on evidence needs to transcend the theatre, including the politics, of a case," he says.

- - -

Can depravity be measured? Take the test

The Depravity Scale Research Project is an international effort to standardize the definition of legal terms like "heinous," "atrocious," "evil" and "depraved." It's the first project to invite citizen input to create a scientific instrument for the courts to use.

Here's a sample question for the research project's online questionnaire. Read these five items, compare them to one another and rank them, from the least depraved to the most depraved.

- Prolonging the victim's suffering.

- Carrying out a crime to gain social acceptance or attention; crime to show off.

- Falsely accusing others of actions, deliberately exposing the innocent to penalty.

- Disrespect for the victim after the fact.

- Intent to traumatize the victim through humiliation, maximizing terror or creating an indelible emotional memory of the event.

To take the questionnaire, go to www.depravityscale.org

© The Ottawa Citizen 2010