Tuesday, August 21, 2012

WPIX fluff piece on alleged abuse at Camp Shalva

 What follows is an embarrassingly poor job of reporting which serves primarily to conveying rumors and hearsay. For example they quote an alleged parent as saying the kids were told not to talk with each other about the incident. Why is that presented as something wrong? If he claimed they were not to speak with anyone - especially the police then that would be significant. In fact in investigation it is helpful if kids were not interviewed by non-professionals even by parents. Such activity makes fact finding very difficult as we saw in the botched Nachliot investigation. In fact the only helpful information presented was the map showing that the delivery area and the bunks are at opposite ends of the camp. There prime informant is Ben Hirsh who has been leading the charge from the beginning But he also did not present any clear evidence that abuse took place or that the police were incompetent or that the Camp officials were covering up the facts.


  1. A True Advocate for Children and YiddishkeitAugust 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM

    Tragically, this entire story is not really about Camp Shalva, its administration, its campers, or even about the alleged perpetrator. It is about Ben Hirsch. This entire geshichte exposes his mission, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with children. He found a slight opportunity to bachmutz some frum Yidden somewhere, and that is a main course for him. That explains the media, the failure to find evidence for a crime of molestation. Oh, I know he will proclaim this as the coverup. But that is the lame excuse he gives for anything. So he gets to continue to pout his lies and fantasies through the media and court of public opinion without the support of truth. When all investigations turn up empty, just claim there is coverup.

    May we be zoche to find our life directed by the tefilo - וטהר לבנו לעבדך באמת.

  2. advocate??-To be mitaher ourselves we first need to get rid of the evil amongst us .

    RDE Why should the kids not talk to each other ?

    1. I already explained that in my introduction. Please reread the post. Lynch mobs also claim they are simply getting rid of the evil.

  3. Fluff piece? By showing how the delivery area is no where near the bunk, it strengthens the suspicion that this man didn't accidentally find himself there.

    It also reminds us of the very long delay before the police were even delayed.

    Even if no child was molested, it is serious enough that this man was in that area for so long during the overnight hours.

  4. (I'm not sure if what i wrote posted, so i'm writing it again.)

    It's not a fluff piece. It clearly shows how the delivery area is far from the bunks and that he did not accidentally find himself there.

    Even if nothing occurred, there is a legitimate concern that this man was in the bunk for such a long time during the overnight hours.

    So it is also significant that the police were not even notified for almost 48 hours.

    1. It is a legitimate concern - but he still was not charged with child abuse after the police investigated.

      The delay is also significant - but not unusual and doesn't in itself warrant the accusations of coverup that have been thrown around.

    2. I just don't get this Dass Torah. As stated in the original posting countless times by countless commenters, the fact that the police didn't charge him with molestation does not mean molestation didn't happen.
      the discussion is whether the camp acted appropriatley, or are we concerned that they were involved in covering things up.
      Do you really feel it is appropriate to claim this newspiece is fluff reporting simply because the police didn't have enough evidence to charge the perp?
      Especailly when the chlaim of the piece is that the camp is covering up, thus no allegations could just as well eaqual good cover-up, as it could mean nothing happened.

    3. I called this reporting fluff because of the poor quality of the report. I acknowledged that abuse might have happened. However the report did not make any determination in that regard and did a poor job of determining the facts and a poorer job of placing the known facts in context.

      I did not call it fluff because the allegations being investigated are not serious or the police did not find evidence to make a charge of abuse. I called it fluff because the reporting was lousy.

    4. I think "fluff" is the wrong term. "Shoddy journalism" is what you mean to say.

      A "fluff piece" is an article about nothing significant, -- like a politician cutting a ribbon on a new building, or about a new fad ("Stamp Collecting -- the new hobby for you.")

    5. Fluff piece is used to refer to uncritical journalism - but it is definitely more correct to say shoddy journalism.

  5. Sorry but I don't get it why you would call this fluff reporting. This peice does intorduce two important peices of info that in my opinon does change the story quite significantly.
    Firstly they claim a father called them and said his child was saying that boys claimed they woke up to being tickled, yet they were told they may not speak to each other about it.
    And secondly, according to this story it was Ben Hirsch that called the police and not the camp directors.
    These two pieces of info, in my opinon do point to something not being quite right over here.
    In addition, I believe it is clear that telling boys they may not discuss something that happened to them between themselves is really damaging to the soul of these children. Anyone who knows anything about molestation is clearly aware of the damage caused by the fact that children are somehow forced into keeping it all a secret. And if one is concerned about the talking causing the investigation to go sour, then one should simply tell the boys, "until you speak with the police I don't want any of you speaking between yourselves about it. You can do that after you spoke with the police, so that we don't botch up the investigation."
    Children will usually feel quite good about complying with such instructions because they see they are being taken seriously to the point that the police need to investigate, and the adults are helping them do whatever they can to help the police get to the truth. This makes children feel as if they really do matter.
    Wheter these boys were molested or not, unfortunately they once again got the subtle message that somehow their safty plays second fiddle to maintaing the camp's good name,or keeping the registred sex offender from getting into trouble.

    And I'm sorry "True Advocate for Children and Yiddishkeit," labeling Ben Hirsch an anti semite is simply avoiding the issue, and that does no good not for our children and not for Yiddishkeit.

    1. for something which you think is more than a fluff piece - all they have was one person who called them claiming that he was a father of one of the boys and they were told not to discuss amongst themselves.

      There is no verification that the informant was a father. There is not context of what he claims the children were told. There is no evidence that the reporter knows anything about child abuse. Is there any independent verification that the children were in fact told not to talk? Who were they told not to talk to - to each other? to the police? To their parents? You are adding the words they they forced to keeping it a secret - when the report made no such claim. You have no way of knowing based on the report whether they were told not to talk until they were questioned by the police. The reporter makes no attempt to determine the accuracy of her informant and makes no attempt to differentiate the different alternative ways of telling the children not to talk etc etc. There is no confirmation from the police about anything that was reported including whether the camp or Hirsch called them first.

      Again you are asserting without any solid information that "they once again got the subtle message". This is totally unjustified by the information available from the this WPIX report. It might be true - but without some genuine investigative reporting you are simply making up slanderous accusations.

      Righteous indignation doesn't give you permission to make any accusations you feel like. Something happened at Camp Shalva. The only ones to investigate it were the police (not WPIX) and they found no basis to allegations of molestation.

    2. I hear what your saying Daas Torah. But there is one more thing I feel needs to be pointed out. I grew up in the system and I work in the system at the Hanahala level. Thus I know, and I believe that anyone from my above mentioned background would agree with me, that just a couple of years ago without a doubt a hanhala member being faced with such a story would see it as his duty to cover up. somehow we were trained that the resulting chilul Hashem of exposing the truth, plus the consequences the perp would need to face, demanded of us to cover-up and mislead the police.
      Thus I think we need to acknowledge that this suspicion of cover-up many of us feel, isnt' coming from no-where, or from some anti-semetic sentiments.

    3. you are obviously correct regarding the not too distant past. It might be true in this case also - however there just is no evidence at the present.

    4. To Daas Torah:

      You are such a hypocrite. With your standards of investigative reporting while at the same time you post three fluff articles about Friedman's alleged assault that was simply his claim and the words of others who heard it from him and parroted his claim. There was not one shred of objective evidence presented and yet you posted it three times in various forms to keep it front and center on your blog for weeks. Your hypocricy and your lack of self-awareness around it, is so incongruent with your name for yourself--daat Torah. G-d forbid daat Torah should look like that.

    5. It is a shame that you are using the same ad hominem arguments and lynch mob mentality that I am arguing against.

      We have two cases 1) Friedman has reported that he was assaulted and filed a police report. If the report is false he is in serious trouble legally and his credibility in the custody battle is harmed. In addition no one has claimed he is a dishonest person - not even ORA or his wife! 2) The Camp Shalva case involves the question of publicly labeling the camp directors as liars and involved in a coverup - without any basis other than conjecture of some bloggers and rumors. To accept these charges as credible at the present time would seriously harm the directors reputation as well as that of the camp and the children. The police have investigated and said they found no basis to the allegations of molesting.

      In sum - in the Friedman case - there is a chazaka that he is telling the truth while in the Camp Shalva case there is no evidence that the camp is lying and accepting the so far baseless accusation would cause serious harm to the directors and camp as well as the children.

      It is a shame you have trouble understanding the elementary distinction between the two cases. Anger and feelings of self-righteousness do not justify violating halacha - or commonsense. Please ask you rabbi if your approach to this matter is justified or whether you need to do teshuva for baseless hatred and slandering others.

  6. Why isn't it mesirah for the camp to press charges for simply wandering into the wrong area (and they admit they pressed charges)?

    1. It is clear from Shulchan Aruch C.M. 388, Rambam, Chasam Sofer etc etc that when someone has a chazaka that they will harm children if they get an opportunity that you should act to prevent that access and measures needed for self-defense are not considered mesira. Charging him with trespassing clearly is permitted under the parameter of self-defense found in the above sources. In fact it is the same basis that calling the police was not prohibited by the issur of mesira. In fact even if it is found that he molested kids and will go to jail - there is no issur of mesira - since this is merely self-defense against a significant threat to the welfare of the children.

      Research about molesters indicates that jail or the threat of jail is truly a useful measure to protect children. Molesters who are jailed and their crimes publicized are less likely to molest again in the immediate future after getting out of jail than those who are merely threaten in private by community figures. Of course it is not the only measure needed to protect children and the effect wears off.

    2. Rabbi Eidensohn. But why suppose he needs the warning. According to Bobov he was not a molester that night. Instead all we have is a criminal conviction from 10 years earlier. Where is the chazakah if he hasn't done anything since then and he only did it once when he just became an adult. And he is already listed on the sex offender registry. On the scale of all these things a tresspassing conviction is not a big enough deal to control him.

      If on the other hand you feel the chazakah applies so strongly, why do you find it so hard to believe that he did nothing but a tiyul that night.

      There is something strange about your argument. To explain the pressing charges you assume the worst about Oberlander's pattern and and his probability of recidivism. But to attack Mary Murphy and Ben Hirsch you assume Oberlander's innocence at Camp Shalvah, ignoring the possiblity we encounter so often that the police could not get any "allegations," because someone intimidated a witness.

    3. Don't understand your problem. A child molester is a rodef and is presumed to be a danger to children. However walking into a room - even with intent to harm children - doesn't mean he succeeded. A period of 10 years of not doing anything doesn't remove his chazaka. Again you are saying that I need to "believe" that he did something. I would definitely "suspect" he might have done something - but if after a proper investigation was done and the police could find no evidence then I don't have to "believe" though I might still "suspect". This is apparently where we part company. What type of evidence would you accept -if any - that he did not molest kids that night?

      You keep misreading what I have written. I don't assume his innocence. I just don't have evidence that he did something. Furthermore if I assumed he did something in the way you are I am declaring that the camp directors are lying, the children were silenced and the police are incompetent. I don't have the basis for making these strongly negative judgments about these people while you think you have because of previous coverups in the Chassidic world.

      Doing a simple cost-benefits analyis the harm done by your assumption far outways any possible benefit. Both in terms of halacha and law - you can suspect something happened but you can not insist that it did without more evidence then the vague rumors and assumptions you claim exist. If you have more evidence - so present it to the police!

      However there was evidence for trespassing and by pressing charges it serves as some protection against future intrusions since he still is a rodef.

    4. Yeracmiel,

      And add that 36 hours elapsed before police were called. Ample time to engage in such intimidation.

      Everyone is in agreement there was a hue and a cry immediately. Someone -- a stranger, and let's assume no one knew WHO it was at first -- entered the boys sleeping quarters. And as soon as the camp finds out, they decide to start playing Sherlock Holmes? Who does this? What Halacha or requirement would exempt those responsible for these boys from reporting this immediately?

      That, RDE, is why this stinks to high heaven. And when you keep parroting that the police investigated, you become part of the problem. It's not about whether molestation happened....it's much more about how these events MUST be handled to restore faith that Chareidi adults have one and only one priority: the safety of our children. Nothing else.


    5. I'm trying to understand something here. When police were called, they investigated the matter. I will not entertain the arguments about law enforcement failing at their job. They did NOT find evidence to support molestation charges. But they DID find trespassing, and Bobov was no longer moseir having called police for an accusation that was warranted. Knowing as much as appears to be uncontestable fact, I believe that the intent to commit molestation existed, but perhaps did not actually occur. It seems the first boy awoke and screamed. The alleged perp ran away. I have no problem with finding another basis to lock him up, but if molestation did not yet occur, he cannot be charged with the offense. I would not defend him since, as I believe, he wanted to do it. So it does not sound like a mesirah question, and there is no evidence of the ultimate crime. He's a bad boy that needs the book thrown at him. The camp is not wrong, nor are the police. And the creep cannot be charged for having illicit thoughts. What am I missing?

  7. As usual, there is RDE, who is a strong supporter of victims and the entire abuse parsha, noting that there is a court of public opinion that is victim to the stories circulating the web. All he is askiing for is the patience to allow true info to emerge. And commenters know better?

  8. How is this a fluff piece of journalism with no evidence and your reporting of the Aahron Friedman "beating" upstanding factual reporting. Hey Kettle... You're Black!

  9. OK, you've convinced me. The fact that you're going out of your way to discredit these reports, the way you keep reporting that the police found "no basis" to the allegations, and your overall dismissiveness of the communal history here, tells me you have a horse in this race which you're not being upfront about.

    I find your entire position to be extremely disquieting, ESPECIALLY given that you've published on this topic. This isn't being Dan l'kaf z'chus....it's much more than that, and I don't expect you to be upfront with the readers of your blog.

    What a pity. If you saw the Yiddish comments on several blogs, it's abundantly clear that there is much more here than meets the eye. But, as seems now obvious, you won't have any of it.


    1. See my comments above regarding your hateful and baseless claims

    2. Dan wrote:

      That, RDE, is why this stinks to high heaven. And when you keep parroting that the police investigated, you become part of the problem. It's not about whether molestation happened....it's much more about how these events MUST be handled to restore faith that Chareidi adults have one and only one priority: the safety of our children. Nothing else.


      this is really the crux of the matter - you insist that the camp must be beaten into submission because of real problems in the past and that they must be punished and embarrassed in a way you would not apply to a non-chareidi or non-Jewish group. You are not looking at the case in front of you but you are seeking revenge as well as trying to convey the message that they won't get away with the slightest deviation from your program. This is not about these kids or this camp - and that is why your approach is so angry even though there is so far no evidence that any abuse took place.

    3. Rabbi Eidensohn, given that we agree that in the past Chaaisdic camps covered-up such stories 100% of the time, is it wrong for us to wish that now we would see a total turn around, and total transparency, so that we can be assured that they have done Tehsuvah?
      Like instead of attacking the masses that are so unsatisfied and suspicios about how this was handled, perhaps someone could explain to Bobov, or any other Mosdos that might be faced with similiar issues in the future, that given we are coming out of an era, (hopefully) where our top priority has been to protect the perp rather then the victims, thus it is really important to speak to the masses in a very transparent way when such suspicions happen, in order for the Mosdos to regain the public's trust.

    4. I think what you are proposing is becoming the accepted way. There is a shift from "what do we have to do get the police not to press charges or parents not to complain or the victim not to sue"( in other words avoiding the consequences from the legal point of view) to one in which the children are becoming the point of concern. this change has occurred started about 2006 and has produced noticeable differences.

      I think it is important to note that the Orthodox community has never been noted for its transparency. And therefore in this case some positive reinforcement for what was done correctly is more helpful then the constant whining and public slander which really does not encourage transparency at this point.

      To repeatedly publicly claim that the camp directors are liars and the police incompentent - without any evidence is really not helpful to anyone. It doesn't protect children and it doesn't encourage transparency.

      Battles need to be chosen carefully with an eye on what you want to accomplish. I have had no problem with publicly criticizing rabbinic leadership for their failures in this area. So I find it amusing that some anonymous souls who have never risked anything are strongly criticizing me for not making public accusations simply because of what has happened in the past.

      I think it is much more important to focus on improving the future safety of children rather than getting revenge for the past.

      so yes I agree with you that the goal should be a total turn around from the past - but it has to be done with seichel, sensitivity and yashrus.

    5. Rabbi Eidensohn,

      You keep saying that the police are being improperly accused of incompetence. I am not aware of any advocates who are alleging that. What I and others allege is that the police were stymied by a cover up. On what basis do you keep on saying that any of the reporters or advocates claim the police were incompetent. Just to get back to basics, the point of departure of this posting was the Mary Murphy news report and your dismissing it as fluff. The camp parent she interviewed asserted that the boys were instructed not to talk about the incident. Now you may doubt the veracity of her informant. But you cannot correctly say that Mary Murphy is claiming the police are incompetent. It would be helpful if you corrected your posting and comments wherever that assertion appears.

    6. are you claiming that the NYPost article inaccurately reported that the police found no basis for the allegations of abuse? You are claiming that there are a number of sources claiming that in fact that either the children were abused or that they were told not to speak about what happened. Are the police aware of these allegations? If they suspect something happened but that there is a coverup - why would they announce that there is no evidence of abuse. Why didn't they say they got no cooperation and that they suspect a coverup?

      Given the claims that are circulating - for the police to ignore them or not be aware of them - is a claim that they are incompetent.

      She claimed that the children were told not to talk to each other. You are claiming that they were told not to talk. Which is the correct version. the former is a reasonable request to avoid interfering with a proper investigation. The latter is a coverup.

      Did the informant that spoke with Mary Murphy speak with the police? If he did then why would the police say there is no evidence? If he didn't then why is he revealing to a reporter but not to the police?

      In sum, I don't see that there is anything I need to change. If you can provide some additional real evidence and are willing to give it to the police and they acknowledge as a result of this information that something happened or bears futher investigation - I will be glad to report it.

  10. RDE:

    "...the camp must be beaten into submission...and must be punished in a way you would not apply to a non-Jewish or non-chareidi group."

    Really? Did I say this anywhere, or are you conflating my argument with someone else's agenda?
    If 'beaten into submission' means notifying law enforcement upon suspicion of a crime, well then, I don't know what to say. Is my 'program' viewed as a violent attack because of:
    a) a deep mistrust of civil authorities, or
    b) a misapplication of the laws of Mesira?

    In either case, one can readily see why a parent would not go to the police (which perforce is on the record); instead, some have tried to cry out for help from within the community anonymously, via the media. To go to the police, whether a or b, would bring one in bitter opposition to the misguided views of the community.

    The only 'beatings into submission' that have occurred heretofore have been against victims and their families. It's interesting that you equated my position (of allowing law enforcement to address criminal matters) in those terms. And to assume I wouldn't apply the same standards to any institution -- Jewish or non-Jewish -- charged with the safety of children is, with all due respect, indicative of the bias you assume exists in this discussion. That didn't come from me, it came from you.

    And, of course, there is option "c" ... which assumes that the actions of the institution are selfish and self-serving, even to the detriment of the children. If true, one could assume that the community might equate attempts to bring in law enforcement with being 'beaten into submission'. Those words, however, are yours, not mine. Maybe you could explain how you meant them.


  11. Sorry, Rabbi Eidensohn, but you lose completely on this one. Fordaas, Lopin and Dan speak with complete logic. Your responses makes no sense at all. And your "fluff" accusation is really a red light.

  12. I don't publish anonymous comments!

  13. Kabel et haemet mipi haomro. Kindly post it, lemaan haemet ulmaan hashalom. Harotzeh beilum shem.

    Posted by: Vehaemet Ne'ederet

    According to Klalei haTalmud
    Sheker ein lo raglayim. Harotze leshaker YARCHIK EDUSO. The children were told to mum which is begeder HARCHAKA, as well as threatened to keep quiet 34++ HARCHAKA hours before the Police were called. If for until the Police came to investigate they were to be mum, WHY and WHY? That, in and of itself is not yet an issue of being interviewed by non-professionals that can hinder any fact finding mission. It is incumbent first to hear WHAT transpired if any, BEFORE any investigation is called for, and whether authorities need be called , and barring that IS the COVER UP. The fact is that the children HAVE been awakened in midst of their sleep. Question! What/WHO CAUSED them to wake up? Nothing tainted here! Did the children complain to the CAMP authorities responsible that their sleep has been interrupted by an INTRUDER? Of course, how else would have they known whether an incident transpired. Wasn't the first question and what happened after he pulled off the cover and sequence of events? Nothing tainted here, it is the tanur rishon from keli rishon mesiach lefi tumoy bli kchal ushrak, as from the horses mouth, in the original, NOTHING TAINTED here vei'n hamikra yotze midei pshuto.That is the routine of halichot olam. First hearing of the complaint, only then comes drishot vechakirot ubdikot whether the allegations have merit, vehinei emet venachon hadavar. QUESTION! Was the original complaint of the children given to the Police in it's entirety? Were the children given the opportunity telling the Police of what transpired, without the CAMP SHOMER OMED AL GABAV? These questions are begging for answers, short of it, speaks VOLUMES.

    It would have been well understood and appropriate, had the children been told not to talk ==> ONLY AFTER they spilled the BEANS, and gave clean testimony for investigators, before it was tainted and before they have been coached, what to say and what not to say. Haven't the children said, the perp uncovered their covers? Haven't the children said, the perp tickled their feet, belashon nekiya. Were the Police told about the tickling, and I don't mean tickling? If not, why not? Isn't that a cover up? KULAY HAY, VEULAY? HALOY DAVAR HU!!! AND THAT is something very wrong.

    Indeed, if NO ONE is allowed to talk, no story, no proof, nothing happened, no investigation, no nothing, kusher top, kusher lefel. Short of that, it is nothing other than a FULL BLOWN COVER UP! Furthermore, the erasing of the tapes is RAGLAYIM LEDAVAR as well as criminal tampering with the evidence, again Kedei LEHARCHIK EDUSO. And what about "Im lo yagid venassa avono"? These are not inyanim shel ma bekach, it is a matter of Dinei Nefashos matters of life and death. As a result of these serial cover ups, and threatening kids NOT to talk, that is the biggest cause of BOTCHING UP, again Kedei LEHARCHIK. Fighting about who has the Jurisdiction over the cameras that is meant to PROTECT the RABIM, is BESHEAT NEFESH A BLATANT FUTURE COVER UP as well as a GOZEL ET HARABIM Kedei LEHARCHIK EDUSO, bordering with shfichut damim present and future as in the Leiby case Rachmana Litzlon H"Y"D, as in veal begaday yapilu goral. In the meantime, the neighborhoods are put at risk. Bimchilat kvodo and with all due respect, never mind the investigative reporting, there are so many hochachot, hakchasot, MEZUYAF mitocho umigabo umeikro, no matter how you slice it, it always ends in "ulmachar Kreisa bein shineha."

    Posted by: Vehaemet Ne'ederet | August 28, 2012 at 07:55 PM

    1. You have raised important questions & conjecture but it still doesn't show that there was a coverup or the children abused. You seem to be asserting that the police didn't hear the material that was reported by Mary Murphy or the blogs.

      Where did you get your information from? You are simply an anonymous source making claims and conjecture. Your investigation seems to have consisted of reading the blogs and assuming whatever is said is true. However if you have inside information- did you give it to the police? If you didn't why not? If you gave it to the police - didn't they reopen the investigation? If they heard everything you claim to know and they still said there is no basis to the allegations - then we must conclude either that your information is not reliable or that the police are incompetent.

    2. Dear Vehaemet Ne'ederet
      please let us know where you got your info from. Did you hear first hand from the kids or from their parents what they were told by the hanhala? Did you hear first hand from kids that they woke up to being tickled?
      Do you know for a fact that the police were not shown the film where the perp strolled around the bunks?

  14. RE: Vehaemet Nederet

    Ari hanichnass bein hashvorim, Rov arayot (no pun intended) dorsin, we have a chezkas rov. Since we haven't heard from the children any denial that NOTHING happened, something that should have been in place and in the Protocol, short of actually being there, it is umdena democheche, that something DID happen, which bears so much more weight than MIGHT have happened. Why then don't we know that particular "SOMETHING", how can anyone explain asides of a COVERUP, unless you have a better explanation. In this case, MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED is not good enough, it certainly did, everything and all indicates that, and the reason we allegedly don't know is because of MECHAPEH or COVERUP. If all these leaks from children to parents to the Press are only theories and conjectures, what is the real story and full story and the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Shouldn't have we known by now? To every story there are two sides, we have heard the opposing side, but haven't heard the CAMP Authority's side. We have not heard any coherent sequence of events, without any GAPS. That again indicates umdena democheche that they are meshaker. Otherwise, ma li leshaker? The Sheva Chakirot and sheva Bedikot are there to verify and consolidate whether an incident happened or not. If it cannot withstand them, and you cannot answer them, batla eduson. If there has not been forthcoming any viable explanation from the CAMPS entities in charge of what happened, without any gaps, that dynamically beg for more unanswered questions, that is because it points to a COVERUP. Furthermore, WAS the PERPETRATOR investigated of what his presence particulary in the bunks was for, asides and in addition of TRESPASSING the general grounds of the off limits? Nowhere does it state that there have been any declaration or any statements from the perpetrator. All these are not just questions or conjectures, these are the basic and essential part and parcel of the makeup of the PUDDING. You do not have to be personally and physically be present to witness, in order to establish that there is a GRANDIOSE COVERUP. We have the Kllal, Shtike Kehoydoe, if you cannot answer dire questions, that is not to say nothing can be established. Indeed, it indicates GUILTY as charged. MIDESHOSKEI... shma mina denichei lei. As the expression goes, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Nothing more, nothing less. I also would like to thank you for posting Vehaemet Ne'ederet although antonymous article, but even if had I noted Yosef ben Yaakov, it wouldn't matter, since kama Yosef ike beshuke. Thank you.

    1. Since we haven't heard from the children any denial that NOTHING happened, something that should have been in place and in the Protocol, short of actually being there, it is umdena democheche, that something DID happen, which bears so much more weight than MIGHT have happened. Why then don't we know that particular "SOMETHING", how can anyone explain asides of a COVERUP, unless you have a better explanation.
      Who is it that is supposed to hear. since when is there official publicity regarding alleged sexual abuse in a private institution? The police were supposed to hear if anything happened and they said there was no support to the allegations. Did you hear from the police or were they quoted in a newspaper that they were frustrated by a coverup or even a suspected coverup.

      If all these leaks from children to parents to the Press are only theories and conjectures, what is the real story and full story and the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Shouldn't have we known by now?

      This is a rather bizarre line of argument - What does your ignorance of what really happened have to do with whether rumors are true? Again - did the police investigate? Do you have a statement from them that they suspected a coverup?

      Your position is as long as we don't have a clear, detailed and coherent explanation that is proof that there was a coverup. Sorry but it just means that we don't have a clear, detailed and coherent explanation. But why should the camp have a press conference on this issues. The police are the only ones for which it is relevant to know all the details and allegations.

      Bottom line - you present a nice pilpul but that is not the basis of determining that the children were molested and that the camp covered up the abuse. There was a police investigation which concluded that they did not have evidence to support the allegations of abuse.

  15. Part I

    Vehaemet Ne'ederet

    Al rishon rishon.

    Klall Yisroel is supposed to hear and to remember Zachor... asher karcha lecha baderech, it is incumbent on the Authorities in charge, whoever they might be, Ubashofar gadol yitaka umassria of a loose mobile Mazik birshut harabim, ubirshut hayachid, ubechadar hamishkav, ubechadrei chadarim, that puts acheinu bnei Yisroel batzarah ubashivyah, traumatizing while awake or while asleep, especially our most precious, our children, our future, the impressionable young and the frail, the vulnerable, the weak, and the defenseless to be aware from those that kill the Guf and burn the Neshama, leading Chas Veshalom to Meabed atzmam ladaat R"L, as such history proves case by case, time and again, hamakom yerachem alenu vealeihem.

    No, this is not a private institution, as far as Safety is concerned for the children of the PUBLIC AT LARGE, and they have a RIGHT to KNOW. It is their duty to inform ALL parties concerned on matters of life and death, that includes the Parents, the Police, the Leaders of the sect, and the leaders of the communities so as to put the welfare and well being of our innocent children at the forefront. That means NO SETOM PIYOT of the victims, Parents of victims, witnesses and any bystanders. The same goes for Bullying, or threatening, retribution, ostracizing, Yored Lechayov, taking away their Parnassas, forcing and uprooting Parents out of their dwellings and neighborhood. For proof in the Pudding that THIS IS and HAS BEEN going on for much too long, see and read: (along with all the details)

    4 יונגעלייט ארעסטירט היינט בפרשת וועבערמאן
    Four Arrested for Offering Teen Girl $500,000 to Drop Molestation Charge

    The story is real, the people are real, nothing has been changed.
    It is a sod for gantz Brod, that the DA is involved up to his eyeballs in the SO CALLED alleged COVERUP of Weberman's case and many other cases as well
    Having said that, if the campers have been threatened out of their wits, there is NO need to ask, ===>

    "Did you hear from the police or were they quoted in a newspaper that they were frustrated by a cover up or even a suspected cover up."

    We have already heard loud and crystal clear from the "Anonymous father of the Be'ilum Shem's camper son from that Bunk of concern a mouthful ( as to why it is be'ilum shem SEE above what happens to those that sing ), from under the RADAR away from the camps bully. The beans have been spilled, therefore, It is WE the People, and WE Klall Yisrael that asks, WHY wasn't it given over to the Police? Of course, in the absence of testimony, it is Klall Yisrael that is frustrated. As the saying goes: Rabi lo shana, rabi Chiye mina lan?

    The same applies to the questions of, from Bizarre to ignorance all the way to "investigate, statements" and all. Kivan shehigid, no need to chaozer umagid. Building on a false premise, 'tilei tilim' of she'elot shel kash veteven, veheich meassrin et hateven, is none other than like blowing bubbles in the wind, or a house built from a deck of cards, it folds like a cheap camera, ucheovok poreach, venassu hatzlallim.

  16. Part II
    Vehaemet Ne'ederet

    My position is: DAAT NOTEH with a touch of little Pudding

    If father and son scream, NIRA DEBEI RAV, you call the {(Fire Dept.)} POLICE IMMEDIATELY, without delay, without Stom Piyot, no stalling and no funfenning, no questions asked, it is a matter of a RODEF and Dinei Nefashot where every second counts, Chamira Skante Meisurei! So has R' Elyashiv Z'L', and the Eida Hacharedis the Beis Din Hagadol shebeYerushalayim paskened.
    You are talking about a RODEF in hot pursuit vecherev chada shlufo beyado, veod yado netuya!

    As Reb Shalom Shvedran Yibadel Lechayim used to say, " Gevald! Ven su brent a FIRE, vart men nit biz m'brengt STOLIRTE VASSER". When the house is on fire, you don't wait for PASTEURIZED WATER in order to put it out.
    The camp is engulfed in Flames, the camp is on FIRE, and our precious children are trapped inside, who can STAND IDLY BY?

    As for the Summary:

    This will be my last round, reached the end of the road, and is futile to go round and again as in an endless loop .I do not need to be redundant, but that pretty much answers any and all outstanding questions in this exchange. As far as press conference, asides of the already abovementioned reply, had the People in charge acted responsibly, then we can say Al tagidu beGat, al tevassru beChutzot Ashkelon, pen ta'alozna benot hoarelot, ve'in hatzar shove benezek hamelech. However, since it is BECHERPOSEINU the modus operandi of ALL Mosdos to be mechapeh, and cover up, of which many you know very well, since you are in the front row of the line of fire, and since it is your profession, they owe it to, WE THE PEOPLE, for more reasons than one, and so far, NOTHING else deterred to keep these predators off the streets. Point in case, the Weberman case, of which includes EACH and EVERY ingredient imaginable in the Pudding, relevant to this exchange, as the saying goes, the PROOF IS in the Pudding.

    As for the Closing:

    I also would like to add, the Mishna in Malkot, bau eidim vehizimam, bau eidim vehizimam..., R' Yehuda omer, Istatis hi zu, this is an orchestrated band, bent on lying. The Mosdot never apprehended anyone ever, and according to them, nothing ever transpired, It is a Talit shekulo Tchelet, vekol haEdah kulam kedoshim, and nebach our precious little children are the victims paying the toll, lose FAITH, go of the derech R'L', resort to drugs, and finally commit suicide, chas milhazkir. Tragic is not the word, the pain is unbearable, and the loss is KAVED MINSSO. And the Parents nebach are crying and wailing, " HAYELED ENENU, VEANA ANI BA"!
    HAVE you ever seen those little little CASKETS?
    And YOU and your profession is the witness!
    Lemaan yeladnu lo ECHSHE, ulmaan yakirenu lo ESHKOT.
    Don't you feel our PAIN?

    Yikov haDin et haHar.
    If it walks like a Cover up, and talks like a Cover up, and wiggles like a Cover up, as well as it smells of a Cover up, indeed, it IS a Cover up.

    Mar Kvodo, Adoni Hashofet, I rest my case.

    Thank you again. Shalom, vechol tuv.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.