Se mere af The Jewish Week på Facebook
Relaterede sider
- Nonprofitorganisation
- Nonprofitorganisation
- Medier/nyheder
- Nonprofitorganisation
- Jewish Book CouncilNonprofitorganisation
- MyJewishLearning.comReferencewebsite
- Ari Fuld's Israel Defense PageOffentlig person
- Aviser i New York, New York
StederNew York, New YorkAvisThe Jewish Week
Opslag
Videoer
Our theater columnist reviews “Fidler Afn Dakh,” National Yiddish Theatre Folksbiene’s new production of “Fiddler” in Yiddish. The show, directed by Joel Grey, is a "mechaye — an unalloyed pleasure," he writes. More -> https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/fiddler-has-never-seemed-so-jewish/
Video: National Yiddish Theatre Folksbiene
18
Billeder
Anbefalet af 3 personer
Based on the recent Jewish Week article, it is fully understandable why someone outside the Baltimor...e community who is just hearing about this case for the first time, would be beyond shocked and disgusted. It would be easy to come to the conclusion that this is just another example of the religious leaders of the community covering for an abuser.
However, it is really not that simple. The following are just some of the reasons why many rational people in Baltimore have some questions about this case:
One of the claims from the “anti-Rabbi K” camp has been that the reason we “know” this occurred is because there are 3 separate cases.
This is not 3 isolated cases. This case talks about three kids who were in the same camp, two of whom are cousins. This was not one kid coming forward, which then led to a second, which then led to a third. The original story stemmed from the Avrunin family and a dream that their son had. One of the boys mentioned was one of the boys in a dream. Were there other kids in the dream too? If so, what did they say? The cousin case opened after the Avrunin case was settled and unappealable in court.
There is also significant reason to believe that there was some degree of coaching that occurred prior to the disclosure to the professionals. Forensic social workers know that when working with a potential abuse case, they are not allowed to suggest that abuse occurred or even ask directly “did he touch you?” but rather, need to ask open-ended questions. The article itself makes it pretty clear that at the very least, “Adam’s” parents were asking him if Rabbi K abused him, to which he initially said no. The article is not clear if Adam is the boy’s cousin, or was the boy in Avrunin’s dream.
The other 5 children mentioned by the Avrunins’ lawyer, but nowhere else in the article makes me wonder if there is any substance there.
There are many parts of the story that don’t really add up. The pool locker room is known to be a very public area. What seems surprising is that nobody would have heard or seen any inappropriate conduct, especially if this occurred multiple times throughout the summer.
When all these allegations came up, wouldn’t the child’s counselor have said “oh, I remember Rabbi K taking that kid away for extended periods of time.” Remember, this is a day camp not a sleepover camp. Kids don’t just have hours to themselves to just run off and be on their own. Especially not 7 year olds.
The article repeats claims of anal penetration. If so, why were there no injuries? We are talking about a large adult and a 7 year old boy. There was no physical evidence from a medical report afterwards indicating that the child had had some sort of trauma to his anus? I’m no expert, but when an adult male is raped, I believe the damage lasts for some time. And we are talking about a 7 year old here.
The lie detector test. While it is not admissible in court, it really is NOT easy to pass a lie detector test. And anyone who tells you it is, has clearly not taken one. At best, it would likely have come back as inconclusive. But to pass one while lying? That must be EXTREMELY difficult. It seems a bit disingenuous for the article to just pass off how easy it is to pass a lie detector test. I would definitely like to see Hannah Dreyfus or Chaim Levin or the Avrunins lie during a lie detector test and easily pass.
Individuals who knew the family and the boy have shared that, prior to the incident, he was unusually knowledgeable in sexual-related topics for a boy of his age. Other parents who had the boy over for play-dates, prior to him ever stepping foot in Shoresh, expressed concern with the sexual topics and details this boy was sharing with their children.
The article states, “the therapist, a mandated reporter, reported the rape to the Frederick County Child Advocacy center on Nov. 9, 2017.” This is Frederick County, Maryland. The “Jews” don’t have any sort of power in Frederick and Rabbi K is not a wealthy or powerful man. It seems a little strange that such a claim would be shared with the Frederick County Child Advocacy center and they just said “naah, we’re just going to let that one go.”
The article states “Frederick County CPS declined to release a transcript of the forensic interview, according to the victims’ parents. In an email to The Jewish Week, a CPS spokesperson explained, “absent a court order, the local department would not provide copies of a recording.” Earlier in the article it states, “The Jewish Week reviewed the transcript of one of the forensic interviews.” Was there a legitimate release of the transcripts or not? Did they receive a court order?
It is very unclear what was involved in changing the findings from “Indicated” to “Unsubstantiated.” The article seems to suggest that all those involved thought that Rabbi K was guilty, but that Rabbi K’s lawyer was able to make a plea and “browbeated” to get it down to “unsubstantiated.” Did that information come from the authorities or did that come from the Avrunins? Because there are claims that while the social workers initially gave it an “Indicated” finding, when the lawyer started asking questions and there appeared to be too many holes in the story, the Avrunins made a push to at least get a finding of “Unsubstantiated.” I have heard that the only way this could have been changed to a “Ruled Out” is if Rabbi K had proof that he was was off the premises (for example, in London), and any interaction with a child would have been IMPOSSIBLE to occur.
Stepping away from the specifics of the case and focusing more on the community of Baltimore, it seems a bit dishonest to present this as just another case of a community covering up and protecting a pedophile. Camp Shoresh immediately reported the case and shortly after the incident, Rabbi K no longer worked at Shoresh. The Frederick County police, CPS, a lie detector test, etc. did not find anything that would have led to them to pursue a case against Rabbi K or attempt to prosecute him.
So the community and community institutions chose to trust the authorities who did their due diligence.
The case was immediately reported and the professionals from outside the community did not believe there was enough to prosecute him. All standard protocols were followed. Is the new standard, “Don’t let them off the hook unless Chaim Levin gives the green light?”�
So many people seem to be saying, “I can’t believe that the Baltimore community just trusts Rabbi K because he is a likeable Rabbi. Haven’t they learned from cases in the past?” However, the majority of reasonable people are not questioning the allegations because Rabbi K is a “good guy” and they like him. They are questioning them because so much in this story just doesn’t add up.
An allegation was made based on a child’s dream. The parents and camp reported this to CPS. Rabbi K went through a lie detector test and passed. The cases were found to be unsubstantiated because there was no substance to be found. The Avrunins didn’t have a choice but to accept the unappealable ruling. They didn’t win. So they have turned to the court of public opinion to re-try their case. Let the public use its own logic in assessing if this sounds at all legitimate. Let’s not be quick to believe all that’s written. Let truth prevail. Se mere
However, it is really not that simple. The following are just some of the reasons why many rational people in Baltimore have some questions about this case:
One of the claims from the “anti-Rabbi K” camp has been that the reason we “know” this occurred is because there are 3 separate cases.
This is not 3 isolated cases. This case talks about three kids who were in the same camp, two of whom are cousins. This was not one kid coming forward, which then led to a second, which then led to a third. The original story stemmed from the Avrunin family and a dream that their son had. One of the boys mentioned was one of the boys in a dream. Were there other kids in the dream too? If so, what did they say? The cousin case opened after the Avrunin case was settled and unappealable in court.
There is also significant reason to believe that there was some degree of coaching that occurred prior to the disclosure to the professionals. Forensic social workers know that when working with a potential abuse case, they are not allowed to suggest that abuse occurred or even ask directly “did he touch you?” but rather, need to ask open-ended questions. The article itself makes it pretty clear that at the very least, “Adam’s” parents were asking him if Rabbi K abused him, to which he initially said no. The article is not clear if Adam is the boy’s cousin, or was the boy in Avrunin’s dream.
The other 5 children mentioned by the Avrunins’ lawyer, but nowhere else in the article makes me wonder if there is any substance there.
There are many parts of the story that don’t really add up. The pool locker room is known to be a very public area. What seems surprising is that nobody would have heard or seen any inappropriate conduct, especially if this occurred multiple times throughout the summer.
When all these allegations came up, wouldn’t the child’s counselor have said “oh, I remember Rabbi K taking that kid away for extended periods of time.” Remember, this is a day camp not a sleepover camp. Kids don’t just have hours to themselves to just run off and be on their own. Especially not 7 year olds.
The article repeats claims of anal penetration. If so, why were there no injuries? We are talking about a large adult and a 7 year old boy. There was no physical evidence from a medical report afterwards indicating that the child had had some sort of trauma to his anus? I’m no expert, but when an adult male is raped, I believe the damage lasts for some time. And we are talking about a 7 year old here.
The lie detector test. While it is not admissible in court, it really is NOT easy to pass a lie detector test. And anyone who tells you it is, has clearly not taken one. At best, it would likely have come back as inconclusive. But to pass one while lying? That must be EXTREMELY difficult. It seems a bit disingenuous for the article to just pass off how easy it is to pass a lie detector test. I would definitely like to see Hannah Dreyfus or Chaim Levin or the Avrunins lie during a lie detector test and easily pass.
Individuals who knew the family and the boy have shared that, prior to the incident, he was unusually knowledgeable in sexual-related topics for a boy of his age. Other parents who had the boy over for play-dates, prior to him ever stepping foot in Shoresh, expressed concern with the sexual topics and details this boy was sharing with their children.
The article states, “the therapist, a mandated reporter, reported the rape to the Frederick County Child Advocacy center on Nov. 9, 2017.” This is Frederick County, Maryland. The “Jews” don’t have any sort of power in Frederick and Rabbi K is not a wealthy or powerful man. It seems a little strange that such a claim would be shared with the Frederick County Child Advocacy center and they just said “naah, we’re just going to let that one go.”
The article states “Frederick County CPS declined to release a transcript of the forensic interview, according to the victims’ parents. In an email to The Jewish Week, a CPS spokesperson explained, “absent a court order, the local department would not provide copies of a recording.” Earlier in the article it states, “The Jewish Week reviewed the transcript of one of the forensic interviews.” Was there a legitimate release of the transcripts or not? Did they receive a court order?
It is very unclear what was involved in changing the findings from “Indicated” to “Unsubstantiated.” The article seems to suggest that all those involved thought that Rabbi K was guilty, but that Rabbi K’s lawyer was able to make a plea and “browbeated” to get it down to “unsubstantiated.” Did that information come from the authorities or did that come from the Avrunins? Because there are claims that while the social workers initially gave it an “Indicated” finding, when the lawyer started asking questions and there appeared to be too many holes in the story, the Avrunins made a push to at least get a finding of “Unsubstantiated.” I have heard that the only way this could have been changed to a “Ruled Out” is if Rabbi K had proof that he was was off the premises (for example, in London), and any interaction with a child would have been IMPOSSIBLE to occur.
Stepping away from the specifics of the case and focusing more on the community of Baltimore, it seems a bit dishonest to present this as just another case of a community covering up and protecting a pedophile. Camp Shoresh immediately reported the case and shortly after the incident, Rabbi K no longer worked at Shoresh. The Frederick County police, CPS, a lie detector test, etc. did not find anything that would have led to them to pursue a case against Rabbi K or attempt to prosecute him.
So the community and community institutions chose to trust the authorities who did their due diligence.
The case was immediately reported and the professionals from outside the community did not believe there was enough to prosecute him. All standard protocols were followed. Is the new standard, “Don’t let them off the hook unless Chaim Levin gives the green light?”�
So many people seem to be saying, “I can’t believe that the Baltimore community just trusts Rabbi K because he is a likeable Rabbi. Haven’t they learned from cases in the past?” However, the majority of reasonable people are not questioning the allegations because Rabbi K is a “good guy” and they like him. They are questioning them because so much in this story just doesn’t add up.
An allegation was made based on a child’s dream. The parents and camp reported this to CPS. Rabbi K went through a lie detector test and passed. The cases were found to be unsubstantiated because there was no substance to be found. The Avrunins didn’t have a choice but to accept the unappealable ruling. They didn’t win. So they have turned to the court of public opinion to re-try their case. Let the public use its own logic in assessing if this sounds at all legitimate. Let’s not be quick to believe all that’s written. Let truth prevail. Se mere
The Jewish Week tells it like it is. Gary Rosenblatt, the Editor and Publisher, is one brave dude. G...ood coverage, wonderful editorials, wide range of articles related to Jewish concerns. Se mere
Informative Jewish newspaper covering a variety of issues that are relevant
to Jews in New York and ...outside of NY.
Leonie Nowitz Se mere
to Jews in New York and ...outside of NY.
Leonie Nowitz Se mere
