Bodynamic Institute of Body-Oriented Psychotherapy: How to Character Assasinate Former Student and Colleague
Below is a letter sent by Bodynamic Institute and Ditte Marcher to the ethics committee of European Association of Body-Oriented Psychotherapists.
This letter was sent in response to Roman Torgovitsky, Ph.D. ethics complaint.
This letter is a perfect example of the manipulative kind of communication Bodynamic Institute, Ditte Marcher and Lene Wisbom use.
The letter is full of blatant lies.
You can see Roman Torgovitsky, Ph.D. response to this letter here.
October 10, 2018
Mr. David Trotzig
E.A.B.P. Ethics Committee
European Association of Body Psychotherapy
1077 RP Amsterdam
Dear Mr. Trotzig,
We are writing in response to your emails on behalf of the EABP Ethics Committee of September 9, 2018 to Ditte Marcher Lene Wisbom requesting that they each formally respond to the written complaint of Roman Torgovitsky against Ditte Marcher, Lene Wisbom, Hadi Marcher, Yorgos Piaditis and the Board of Bodynamic International, which you attached to the email. You indicated that Mr. Torgovitsky’s complaint raises the possibility that Ms. Marcher, Ms. Wisbom and the others named in Mr. Torgovitsky’s complaint “transgressed” ethical principles 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10.
Mr. Torgovitsky’s accusations are the latest effort of an angry and disgruntled former student of Bodynamic to personally attack, slander, and otherwise damage the reputation of Bodynamic. In April 2017, Mr. Torgovitsky was asked to leave the practitioner training in Greece that he attended as a student because he refused to pay for the training and to sign a student contract, despite Bodynamic’s repeated requests that he do so. At that time, he asked to say goodbye to the others in the training. We were informed by a reliable source that Mr. Torgovitsky had intentions to trash the training venue and potentially harm others. For the sake of the safety of the students and the property of the coordinator, we did not allow Mr. Torgovitsky to enter the premises.
A year later, Mr. Torgovitsky initiated a public crusade against Bodynamic on the internet by falsely defaming Bodynamic to the broader body psychotherapeutic community. We discussed internally whether to write to EABP to let EABP know that Bodynamic has a disgruntled former student who was, in effect, stalking Bodynamic on the internet. The feedback from those exposed to Mr. Torgovitsky’s scurrilous attacks and lies about Bodynamic was overwhelmingly positive and favorable to Bodynamic. No one believed him. They saw him as disturbed, unbalanced, and with a clear axe to grind against Bodynamic. Just about the time we got ready to send our letter to you, the attacks stopped, so we made the decision to “let sleeping dogs lie” in the hope that the situation would calm down. Now that Mr. Torgovitsky has dressed up his vendetta against Bodynamic in the fancy garment of an ethics complaint, we respond accordingly:
- The motivation and purpose behind Mr. Torgovitsky’s complaint is not to inform EABP about ethics violations but to get revenge against Ditte Marcher for discontinuing her professional association with him.
Mr. Torgovitsky states that “a conflict started” between himself and Ditte Marcher in February 2017. He provides no facts, details, context or evidence about the existence of a conflict between himself as a student of Bodynamic and Ms. Marcher in her capacity as the CEO of Bodynamic. Next, Mr. Torgovitsky claims that the “conflict intensified when I learned about several ethical transgressions that Marcher had committed.” Again, Mr. Torgovitsky offers no evidence about how he “learned about” these transgressions, much less that they happened. Further, his charge that Bodynamic refused to engage in conflict resolution with him is false. Bodynamic has a long history of engaging in mediation or conflict resolution with students. In 35 years of body psychotherapeutic training and practice, no complaint has been made against Bodynamic to EABP about conflict-resolution because Bodynamic has a consistent policy and practice of resolving conflicts as they arise from time to time as happens during the course of business for any institution dedicated to psychotherapeutic education. The reason there was no conflict resolution with Mr. Torgovitsky is because there was no conflict between Mr. Torgovitsky and Bodynamic. The “conflict” to the extent one existed involved a personal and professional issue Mr. Torgovitsky had with Ms. Marcher outside of her capacity and role as CEO and teacher of Bodynamic.
Separate from Mr. Torgovitsky’s status as a Bodynamic student, Ms. Marcher had a professional association with Mr. Torgovitsky around providing training and support programs for traumatized soldiers in Ukraine. Mr. Torgovitsky attempted to take control of and modify key aspects of the training protocol developed by Marcher without the assent of Marcher and others involved, including Oleg Hukovsky. In November 2016, Mr. Marcher, Mr. Hukovsky and others had a meeting with Mr. Torgovitsky in Ms. Marcher’s home near Athens, Greece. At that meeting, Ms. Marcher and other associates explained to Mr. Torgovitsky that he was not authorized to unilaterally change the training protocol. Mr. Torgovitsky reacted with a violent outburst. He kicked a marble table, threw a chair, and broke a chair in Ms. Marcher’s home. He screamed wildly “look what you are doing to me!” At that time, in light of his breach of protocol and his violent reaction to being confronted, Mr. Marcher ended her association with Mr. Torgovitsky with the full support of her Ukrainian colleagues. Thus, the “conflict” Mr. Torgovitsky references in his letter was actually an attempt to abuse his status as a student of Bodynamic in order to continue his professional association with Ms. Marcher and to take over her trauma training.
In reality, Mr. Torgovitsky was asked to leave Bodynamic for completely separate reasons. First, Mr. Torgovitsky refused to pay for Ukrainian students to attend the Practitioner Training in Greece in breach of his prior agreement to fund their education. Ms. Marcher made separate arrangements with those students both of whom signed student contracts and continued the training. Next, Mr. Torgovitsky refused to sign his own student contract or pay his tuition “unless Marcher engage in conflict resolution with him.” Mr. Torgovitsky was informed that there was no conflict to resolve involving Bodynamic. Ms. Marcher elected to discontinue her professional association with him as was her right because he insisted on modifying her work that was not supported by Ms. Marcher and others and because she no longer felt comfortable working with him.
Additionally, Ms. Marcher and others explained to Mr. Torgovitsky that Bodynamic educational programs are separate to Marcher’s work as a shock trauma trainer and therapist. It is governed by a board of directors. Mr. Torgovitsky was informed on multiple occasions by representatives of the board of Bodynamic that he needed to sign his student contract and pay for the training or could no longer continue in the practitioner training.
In response, Mr. Torgovitsky demanded that Ms. Marcher engage in conflict resolution with him or else he would have “no choice but to make a complaint to the EABP ethics committee,” a threat he affirms in his complaint. Ms. Marcher responded by re-emphasizing both that (1) Bodynamic trainings and his status as a student have nothing to do with her decision to discontinue her association with him in Ukraine which is not the subject of a conflict that can be mediated and (2) she does not engage in conflict resolution on threat of punitive reprisals.
Mr. Torgovitsky’s allegation of ethical violations against Ms. Wisbom, Ms. Marcher and Bodynamic are categorically irrelevant to any alleged existing conflict between Mr. Torgovitsky and Ms. Marcher. Ethics violations are ethics violations. They are not part of a conflict. As such, ethical violations a fortiori cannot “intensify” the conflict as Mr. Torgovitsky claims. The fact that Mr. Torgovitsky chose to conflate unsubstantiated claims of ethical transgressions with a professional conflict with Ms. Marcher demonstrates that he is abusing the EABP Code of Ethics to settle a personal score. To allege falsely that someone has breached a code of ethics because he did not “get his way” is defamatory and illegal.
Moreover, Mr. Torgovitky’s behavior may constitute illegal extortion. To reiterate, Mr. Torgovitsky did not have a right to any mediation because there was never any conflict between himself and Bodynamic. What is there to mediate with a person who refuses to sign a contract? Mr. Torgovitsky’s conduct shows that his claims of ethical transgressions are not serious in nature but are merely an effort to punish Ms. Marcher by attempting to harming the reputation of Bodynamic with EABP. Ethical transgressions against a psychoanalytic modality are serious in nature in that they are not merely personal grievances but go to the way an organization’s practices affects all of its students or clients. It is illegal to threaten making a report of ethical violations as a means of gaining an advantage in a dispute or putting pressure on a person or persons to succumb to one’s demands.
If it is true, as Mr. Torgovitsky says, that Bodynamic is guilty of serious breaches in ethical behavior that threaten the well-being of students, clients, and the public, then why did he wait by “more than a year” by his own admission before making a complaint to EABP. Indeed, if Bodynamic is in serious breach of so many EABP ethical principles, as Mr. Torgovitsky claims, why was he trying to give Marcher and the Board time to “calm down”as he says so that he could continue his work with her and be reinstated as a student of Bodynamic!? The fact that Mr. Torgovitsky has attached 25 separate requests (i.e. demands) to his complaint makes transparent that he is abusing the ethical review process to falsely defame Bodynamic in order to extort concessions to which he is not entitled.
- Mr. Torgovitsky’s allegations of ethical transgressions on the part of Bodynamic are a sham, without any basis in reality.
It is impossible to respond to Mr. Torgovitsky’s specific claims of ethics violations because they are devoid of factual and evidentiary support. One cannot prove a negative except to say that none of what Mr. Torgovitsky claims are ethical violations is true.
To take one example, Mr. Torgovitsky claims that Bodynamic conducted poor research and mislead the public about Bodynamic programs, notably involving shock trauma. Mr. Torgovitsky just pulls these allegations out of thin air. First and foremost, we don’t make the representations he claims we make about the effectiveness of Bodynamic and there is no evidence put forth that we do. Nonetheless, some research conducted about the efficacy of Bodynamic shock trauma trainings has been conducted by outside third parties. We did not commission this research and were not involved in generating the findings. The conclusions reached by the independent researchers about Bodynamic’s efficacies were theirs alone and not Bodynamic’s.
In sum, when one takes Mr. Torgovitsky’s allegations of unethical conduct against Bodynamic both on their face and against the factual background set forth above, it is easy to see that they are a sham. They are nothing more than a continuation of his effort to hurt Ms. Marcher by damaging the reputation of Bodynamic.
We hope and trust that the Ethical Board of EABP can see through Mr. Torgovitsky’s shameless tactic of defaming and attempting to extort Bodynamic. We further hope that the Ethical Board of EABP ignores Mr. Torgovitsky’s “requests” because they have no place in an inquiry into ethical violations. We further hope and trust that the Ethical Board of EABP can see that Mr. Torgovitsky offers no concrete proof that Bodynamic violated any ethical principles, only hearsay and innuendo. We trust that the more you read his long list of empty allegations you will see it as an effort to throw wet spaghetti against the wall in the hope that something, anything sticks. Finally, we sincerely hope that the Ethical Board see what we and so many others have seen in Mr. Torgovitsky’s conduct: angry, revenge-seeking behavior of a personal nature.
Ditte Marcher on behalf of herself and the Board of Bodynamic International
 Strangely, Mr. Torgovitsky states that he “intentionally” chose to skip over details to shorten his letter which in itself is astounding since the letter is 5 1/2 pages long.
 We will not address Mr. Torgovitsky’s demands here because these and any other alleged conflicts between him and Bodynamic to the extent that they might exist would be the subject of separate legal action and not an ethical inquiry. Nor will we address Mr. Torgovitsky’s wholly unsupported suggestion that other students feel this way about Bodynamic. These statements are hearsay and therefore do not merit response.
 Bodynamic is ready, willing and able to provide EABP with documentary support in the form of email correspondence as well as sworn testimony from witnesses that will corroborate that Mr. Torgovitsk’y claims have not basis if asked.
 As part of this “ethical complaint”, Mr. Torgovitsky uses gossip and innuendo about former teachers and former students of Bodynamic that “don’t like Bodynamic.” This looks and feels like the argument from someone in Junior High School: “So-and-so agrees with me that you are not a nice person so I am justified in not liking you.” What is telling is the way that Mr. Torgovitsky tips his hand about how the ethics complaint is nothing more than a personal attack against Ditte Marcher: “I am even more motivated to write this letter to the Ethics Committee with the understanding that Ditte Marcher has a prominent long-term pattern of suddenly cutting connection and expelling a number of former good friends and colleagues.” Rather than take responsibility for his actions that resulted in him being asked to leave Bodynamic, Mr. Torgovitsky is hiding behind this flimsy and false cover story that “I’m not the only one; See, Ditte did it to others too.” Again, apart from being totally irrelevant to an ethical inquiry, his gossip comes without any factual support. It is difficult to prove a negative. We reference it here because we think the inclusion of gossip in a complaint about EABP ethics violations says a lot about the motivation of the person bringing the complaint.