Monday, December 10, 2012

Weberman trial: How do we know victim is telling truth?

Guest Post: This is a letter I just received and serves as a response to  Rabbi Kent's question  as to how do we know Weberman abused the victim. The poster does not want to be publicly identified but I have known him for many years.

Update Decemeber 11, 2012 by the author of this letter
 As I explained to RDE I have school age children who have B"H not had any exposure to this case and I would like it to remain that way. I am wary of any celebrity status I might get by publicly posting my name and from announcing that I have so much knowledge about such a well known case and issue. Anyone might without discretion start a conversation with me in company of my kids or mention to their kids that so and so knows about the case. It can easily get back to my kids.

If anyone wants to contact me through RDE for something important they can and I will gladly speak with them and be open as to my identity.

May we only hear besuros tovos

Question: How do we know the victim is telling the truth?

Answer: You want to know how you can rely that this girl's story is true. First of all the statistics of those who report being molested to the authorities is that well over 90% are true. In addition almost all of those that were false were when the child was prompted by the worried parents with leading questions and the kid just gave the answers that the parents were looking for or some similar kind of scenario. They wanted to believe that what the parents wanted them to say was what actually happened. In this case the victim was never questioned. She went to a licensed therapist as a requirement in her current school and eventually took a standardized test that showed she had suffered from extreme trauma. She then eventually shared that she was molested. It took about three more months until she disclosed the name of the abuser to her therapist. Her parents at that point still had no idea of what had occurred. The therapist who is a mandated reporter went with the head of their clinics' guidance and reported the crime to the police. She then helped Mrs A to get the strength to go to the police station and formally file a complaint.

The prosecution also brought a top professional in the field who testified that it is inconceivable that someone could or would make up such a story let alone go through the ordeal of seeing it to fruition in court. Not only that but her parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews all were harassed and suffered greatly including financially due to her going through with it. She only forged onward in order to protect the girls who would come after her and for hers and the many other victims' closure. Eventually her family came to support her through it at least behind closed doors.


Then on the side (not that it is needed) the underhanded tactics that that some in that community will take are not to the degree that they will give a $500,000 bribe to the victim to drop the case and disappear if they didn't know it was true. The only tried to give that to her because they knew it's true.

Then there is nothing so blindingly clear as the absolute truth. Mrs. A so valiantly shared the horrific truth of her mindbogglingly ordeal without ever wavering. It was clear through four days of the defense grilling her with all kinds of tricks and word games that she never said anything but the truth. Her story was without a single contradiction because she was saying only the truth. (They tried to claim that she contradicted herself because she said things in court that she didn't say to the police. However the idiot was only trying to make her look bad. As the prosecutor showed that it was impossible for her to share as much in 35 minutes with the detective who took her complaint as she did in the unending hours on the stand over four days under torturous questioning.)

Then in a very telling moment the defense was bothered by not being allowed to ask a certain question about her writings. She, the way the defense lawyer called it wrote tremendously during that time including about a thousand or more songs or as she in her words called them poems and was trying to gain some point from it. If I understood correctly he wanted to show that she was such an expressive person but for some reason she never expressed anything to anyone for three years. The jury was let out and the lawyers and the judge argued about it. During this argument the prosecuting attorney said "You know I'd be happy to let you question her about her writing if you let what she wrote during those years into evidence". The defense would have none of that. It was clear that he knew that she wrote about her trauma much earlier than when he claimed she "made up the story for revenge"

I don't understand the rules in the courtroom but for some reason when she responded to a question "Oh, you mean when he burned me?" the defense was all up in arms and the judge instructed her never to mention it again on the stand. Yes he even mutilated her young delicate body! A monster is not the word! This is only what he did to her. It just shows that all the others never got real professional help who would have been mandated reporters and then he might have been stopped earlier.

Another thing is that Mrs. A also stated clearly that EVERY TIME she went to him he locked all three locks on the door to his office which was inside his apartment which is adjoining to his family's apartment. Who needs three locks on such a door?! One of the locks though was only able to be seen on the inside of the door! If she was lying she would've said "He locked it basically every time" or "I remember him usually locking the locks." No, she was very clear even after being asked several times in different ways by the defense trying to catch her that he locked all three every single time! The defense brought a witness the next week who is unfortunately still emotionally involved with him, (As sadly often happens with such victims. They even blame themselves for the abuse). It was clear she was lying while on the stand about other things but she testified that the hidden lock was broken. She lived in his office for two years overlapping Mrs. A's time there. Yes, this rasha was doing things to several girls (and I have heard from credible sources to married women) at the same time! I know a married woman personally who went to him for guidance at the same time. ( I think only once) She wasn't the type he felt he can grope at least not on the first visit. She said though that when she went she was shocked that he locked three locks! She asked him "What about yichud?" He answered that it's not a problem because "My wife can get in at any time"!! The animal was so in the habit of locking all three locks that he even did so with a lady who he couldn't even do anything with!!

Not only was she a victim for 3 years but there are many other victims. Where are they? If so why didn't they complain for so many years also? So to begin I will share that I personally know two of them. I wasn't in court the day a third came and hugged and cried a river of tears with the victim but many others were who saw it. She said "Mrs. A you are up there for me too". Rabbi Yaakov Horowitz of Project Yes knows at least four other victims who are also scared to testify. It his heart wrenching the anguish that the victims suffered both in the actual sick actions inflicted on them and the terrible psychological abuse as well. A significant part of why many if not most molestation victims don't tell anyone for a long time is the fear of not being believed and that nothing can or will be done by them telling anyone. In the Weberman case the victims didn't fear not being believed, the KNEW they wouldn't be believed. Only now are some starting to come forward even though they are still scared to go public about it. As a matter of fact, one of the two victims (besides Mrs. A) that I know hired a lawyer to help protect her from having to testify about her abuse once the DA in this case learned for certain that she was also a victim of Weberman for an extended period of time!

In addition to answer the question of how she and the many others seemingly voluntarily went back again and again. There are many studies written on the subject. One well known one is published by the US Department of Justice Kenneth V. Lanning Former Supervisory Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.  Click here for study

 He states that the idea that child victims could simply behave like human beings and respond to the attention and affection of offenders by voluntarily and repeatedly returning to an offender’s home is a troubling one. It confuses us to see the victims in child pornography giggling or laughing. Most of these victims never disclose their victimization. He explains later in his study that "younger children may believe they did something “wrong” or “bad” and are afraid of getting into trouble. Older children may be more ashamed and embarrassed. Many victims not only do not disclose, but they strongly deny it happened when confronted.

He also states that acquaintance offenders are frequently described as “nice guys” and “pillars of the community” and quite often they actually are. Many individuals do not prevent, recognize, or accept the sexual victimization of a child by a respected member of society because they cannot believe a man who is good and spiritual and who seems to truly care for children could be a child molester. Parents who desperately want their children to get good grades, may actually push their children toward such offenders. As will be explained later, these offenders usually groom and seduce their child victims. Being “nice” has little to do with being a child molester except that it increases the likelihood of repeatedly committing the crime and getting away with it. A desire to work with or help children and an ability to relate to them does not necessarily mean someone is a child molester, but it does not mean someone is not. Such nice-guy offenders usually have strong needs to rationalize and validate their sexual behavior. This seems to be especially true of more intelligent, better educated individuals who molest children. Most of them seem to have an overwhelming need to convince, primarily themselves, the behavior they engaged in is not really sex, the child doesn’t understand or remember the activity and is therefore not harmed, this is an expression of love and caring, and/or they are entitled to this because of all the good they do. Their need to rationalize their sexual interests and behavior often leads them to be involved in “good works” that help troubled, needy children. They may become teachers, coaches, missionaries, child-protection advocates, or cyber vigilantes. Obviously such pursuits also give them convenient access to vulnerable children and socially acceptable reasons for interaction with them.

Then in what unfortunately applies to this case specifically he writes that the most difficult case of all involves a subject who has an ideal occupation for any child molester: a therapist who specializes in treating troubled children. This offender need only sit in his office while society preselects the most vulnerable victims and brings them to him. The victims are by definition “troubled” and unlikely to be believed if they do make an allegation. Again such a case could probably be proven only through the identification of patterns of behavior, multiple victims, and the recovery of child pornography or erotica.

May we see the real yeshua speedily in our days!

Update December 11, 2012
Another important note is the answer I gave to question asked of me by an ehrliche person living in Williamsburg who actually told me that he knows that the accusations are true. He asked Its a big rachmunes for klal yisroel..no proof and you get locked up for life. Don't you agree?

This was my answer:

Not so simple. Besides for all the clinical evidence the DA brought, the defense tried to prove she was making it up for revenge mainly because of Weberman reporting her boyfriend for statutory rape shortly before she reported Weberman. The DA showed though that she first reported being molested to her therapist months before the boyfriend story. She only wound up telling the name of her abuser to her therapist days after the boyfriend story.

It was also so clear to everyone in the court that she was saying the truth. It was incredible to see how clear that the emes was what she was saying. It is impossible to describe. It had to be seen.

Then he and all of his witnesses got on and each one looked like they were lying or at best trying to cover for him. He himself denied things that were then proven and all he did was smile and say "Oh, so I guess I did". They also showed how he bought lingerie a bunch of times with his personally owned congregation's credit cards. He at first denied it and then smiled and claimed he knew nothing about it. He never said and admitted in an honest way that "Look I did some things wrong in fraud and I deserve what I get for that" or "I feel bad about it and deserve to have been caught, however I didn't do anything at all that this girl is claiming". There were so many of these things and the clinical proof was very strong so they convicted him. It is not something that we can say happened because he is a Yid.

Also a big thing was why did he have 3 locks on his office door which was inside his apartment with one lock that can only be seen on the inside of the door. We all saw the pictures of the locks in court. It was mind blowing.

Another thing is he didn't have rachmanos on anyone even to the extent of not pleading guilty and just taking a few years. He has no problem making others suffer including his own family.

Hopefully he will do teshuva while he is in jail.

This is just a very big thing for all the girls he abused and their families. It is a big factor that will help them heal and have closure.

What we really need the emesah yeshua.

Besuros tovos


51 comments:

  1. this letter is amazing!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Beautiful letter. Is the author of this letter's name attached? I don't see it. It is reminiscent of the things I've read by Rabbi Yanki Horowitz.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (Slightly tangential.)

    Related to wondering why we'd believe the victim in a case such as this is the difficulty many (most?) people have in conceiving the inner experience of abused children. I recently found a book that, in my opinion, helps to bridge this chasm of incommensurable experiences.

    The book is: In Shadow and Strength. The author has a web site for the book: http://www.inshadowandstrength.com/ . Presently it's available only as an e-book via barnesandnoble.com and amazon.com .

    On Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/In-Shadow-And-Strength-ebook/dp/B009949PPE/ .

    Reviewed by Dr. David Allen (UTenn, I think) here: http://davidmallenmd.blogspot.com/2012/11/looking-back-on-abusive-childhood-from.html .

    DT, if you have an Amazon account and would like to review the book, I can loan you my copy. It can be read in any recent web browser.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks you for the offer - however I don't have the time for a book review. Maybe you would like to write one?

      Delete
    2. DT, I chose my words poorly -- I meant "review" as in "look over".

      I'll think about writing a review, though I'm not sure I could improve on Dr. Allen's. A more impressionistic review might be beyond my neo-Yekkish temperament.

      Would you consider a guest post from the author (not Jewish, AFAIK)? I've corresponded with her briefly, and could pass along an invitation.

      Delete
    3. Daas torah? Not even one reference to Torah!
      Pathetically secular heretical ideas, fit for the misyavnim. Our torah states two witnesses. Period.

      Delete
    4. Observer II you simply don't know what you are talking about. Goyim have an obligation to have a justice system. Jews are dependent on that justice system for things which they can't do without a Sanhedrin. That is the nature of galus. The Torah says two witnesses for a Jewish court - but it doesn't say so for non-Jews.

      Delete
    5. DT, I chose my words poorly -- I meant "review" as in "look over".

      I'll think about writing a review, though I'm not sure I could improve on Dr. Allen's. A more impressionistic review might be beyond my neo-Yekkish temperament.

      Would you consider a guest post from the author (not Jewish, AFAIK)? I've corresponded with her briefly, and could pass along an invitation.
      ====================
      Yes I would consider a guest post for the author

      Delete
    6. This piece is amazing. if only more people would get a hold of this and read something so objective and unbiased. unfortunately, with the name that the victim has (since she has been a kid) makes room for prejudiceness... awful concept yet painfully true! but kudos to the author in any case

      Delete
  4. Rav Eidensohn, thank you for posting this and convey our thanks to the person who gave of his time to write this moving and very well written piece by a witness to the trial. It should, but probably won't, silence all doubters. It is unfortunate that the writer feels he cannot give his name, since that is the only thin pretext for attacking it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I explained to RDE I have school age children who have B"H not had any exposure to this case and I would like it to remain that way. I am wary of any celebrity status I might get by publicly posting my name and from announcing that I have so much knowledge about such a well known case and issue. Anyone might without discretion start a conversation with me in company of my kids or mention to their kids that so and so knows about the case. It can easily get back to my kids.

      If anyone wants to contact me through RDE for something important they can and I will gladly speak with them and be open as to my identity.

      May we only hear besuros tovos

      Delete
    2. Another important note is the answer I gave to question asked of me by an ehrliche person living in Williamsburg who actually told me that he knows that the accusations are true. He asked Its a big rachmunes for klal yisroel..no proof and you get locked up for life. Don't you agree?

      This was my answer:

      Not so simple. Besides for all the clinical evidence the DA brought, the defense tried to prove she was making it up for revenge mainly because of Weberman reporting her boyfriend for statutory rape shortly before she reported Weberman. The DA showed though that she first reported being molested to her therapist months before the boyfriend story. She only wound up telling the name of her abuser to her therapist days after the boyfriend story.

      It was also so clear to everyone in the court that she was saying the truth. It was incredible to see how clear that the emes was what she was saying. It is impossible to describe. It had to be seen.

      Then he and all of his witnesses got on and each one looked like they were lying or at best trying to cover for him. He himself denied things that were then proven and all he did was smile and say "Oh, so I guess I did". They also showed how he bought lingerie a bunch of times with his personally owned congregation's credit cards. He at first denied it and then smiled and claimed he knew nothing about it. He never said and admitted in an honest way that "Look I did some things wrong in fraud and I deserve what I get for that" or "I feel bad about it and deserve to have been caught, however I didn't do anything at all that this girl is claiming". There were so many of these things and the clinical proof was very strong so they convicted him. It is not something that we can say happened because he is a Yid.

      Also a big thing was why did he have 3 locks on his office door which was inside his apartment with one lock that can only be seen on the inside of the door. We all saw the pictures of the locks in court. It was mind blowing.

      Another thing is he didn't have rachmanos on anyone even to the extent of not pleading guilty and just taking a few years. He has no problem making others suffer including his own family.

      Hopefully he will do teshuva while he is in jail.

      This is just a very big thing for all the girls he abused and their families. It is a big factor that will help them heal and have closure.

      What we really need the emesah yeshua.

      Besuros tovos

      Delete
  5. nice shmuse but i say deman them and it will stop.ok we can't.but the purpose is to STOP this abuse.the goim are not in that issure.oh yes some one will give exersize to his thumb to prove they are as well.that drastic move would not stop all abuse, but it would certainly reduce it to manageble levels,if such a term applies.one abuse is one abuse to much.if dovid ha'melech goes out with his army and not one man is hurt after the battle we don't blink.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I just rejected a number of comments because they were anonymous

    Put a name on your comments!

    ReplyDelete
  7. In response to the questions why the girl/s return to a molester/abuser, some answeres have been provided.
    However, I can say that in my personal case, I have asked that question to myself every time I suffered and only found a plausable answer that helped me stop blaming myself, once I learned about Maslow's hierarchy of needs years later. (please wikipedia for details).
    People, instinctively survivors, will initialy engage with basic needs that help them survive. In the case above, yes, food and clothing and shelter were provided for the girl by her parents but the only way to maintain her receiving them was to continue going for 'help' in order for her not to be denied that level of security, had she continued with 'her ways' and suffered parental reprecussions by being thrown out of the family/community. Abusers also garnish their victims loyalty by assuring them that only with their help, will the needs will be seen to. With vulnerable people in a state of need it is also easier to confuse them with priority of needs in order to gain control by manipulating them through promises to fulfil needs, in order for them to gain another e.g abuser giving 'love' in order for the victim to maintain Shelter.
    In my case, (different) abuse was at home. I had to go home every day albeit to a warped sense of shelter. I couldn't tell anybody thanks to a community's misguided sense of shame to serve their sense of self preservation (which as we see now the religious world over) is now imploding and exploding all at once. Finaly.
    Frankly, a community might look like it's surviving by keeping going on old patterns. But they are zombies that keep going. Either those who are dead inside thanks to their neshamas having been invaded through abuse or because one is lucky enough not to know abuse but support abusers by remaining blind, naïve and unfair to their own neshamas in not having the capacity for pikuach nefesh by being aware enough and actively stopping perpetrators, thereby preventing their own ability for kovod hames (respect for the dead) for those who have died inside, and kovod habrius (for those in the way of harm).
    One more point I think needs to be made is that those who say she only wanted revenge on her abuser due to having her boyfriend exposed, clearly have no idea what they stand up for. Abused people are so much more likely to suffer abuse again (I don't know the reported percentage off hand, again, please check for that online). It is entirely common for a person who's suffered abuse/manipulation to have it happen again simply because their own survival system set in place is so flawed through abuse that other perpetrators see them as a free ticket to make use of. So the fact that a young woman experienced violation by her boyfriend begs the question 'what state of mind was it that led her to that situation in the first place?'
    I applaud her bravery, her family's bravery, those who are waking up to reality and all those who will now be more mindful of those around them escially those who promise 'security' 'kovod' and 'yiddishkeit' based on old patterns. Because these people who still preach the strength of old patterns are like suicide bombers devoid of reality but standing up for a cause based on denial. Proudly bearing ignorance and denial on their chest, they blow up communities from the inside, and then the devastation is too messy to ever clean up. The Weberman story is just the first bomb as is the case going on in NW London right now.
    Word of advice to those denying themselves to truth - you might as well learn to cope with the idea that truth will come out instead of spending your energies denying them further. Unless you want all this to mess with you so much that you'd end up needing therapy or sending your young sons and daughters for help with coping with your denial... This story can go on in vicious circles...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tzib Rochen , I like your comment and feel for you. If you ever want to chat, my email is BECOMEaNOAHIDE@yahoo.com

      Delete
  8. You people don't get it! What difference does it make if the victim is telling the truth or not? Forget about this "guilty" - "not guilty" drivel. Look at Weberman! Look at the hat, look at the beard, look at the bekeshkeh! Goyim are trying to put him in jail, for goodness sake. The bottom line is Unzerer vs. Shkotzim - why waste time deciding on guilt-shmilt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is what the father of the girl said, "I can't do noting I know it's revange but she threatened me she will put me behind bars the same like Weberman "
    As u can see no body heard about the father by the trial

    ReplyDelete
  10. There are certain items in what the last post that I find troubling .First let me proclaim my solidarity with innocent victims everywhere .The community is responsible for protecting people and there are many troubling aspects of this case .I wish to answer a few points and bring up other concerns .The post opens up with the claim that 90 % of the claims are true and ten percent are not as a result of parent induced pressure.What is the support for this claim ?If you use an FBI statistic we all understand they are in the business of putting people away so it is not exactly unbiased .
    >
    > Also the poster writes that by turning down the half a million dollars proves it is certainly a true claim.Anybody who knows the history of Satmar knows the infamous history of the Shaulson case.He was a man with a self-published newspaper that wrote derogatory comments about the previous Satmar Rebbe .He was either induced or proposed that it would stop if he received money.He was being taped without his knowledge.The people he was dealing with had him arrested for extortion .(And why this is not mesira I don't know.Maybe there are other factors.) So people being offered money are very savvy because they know they can face extortion charges .It is possible that this happened .There is a precedent right in Williamsburg .I don't discount what the young lady alleges but I have concerns .
    >
    > Any Jewish defendant in a court case would be stupid to believe he has too many friends on the jury .And the inverse is true as well.The murderer of Yankel Rosenbaum ,(HY"D) walked the first time and the jurors celebrated with the defense attorney and went out to dinner .If a defendant were an innocent person as well what naive person thinks he will get a fair shake ?This is a conundrum .We must seek the aggressive prosecution of monsters who commit these vile crimes ,however, it must be investigated carefully on a case by case basis .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daas Torah, it seems to me the only relevant, incontrovertible fact is the three locks on his therapy door. I've been for therapy, and I don't recall seeing even one lock. As we know in our tradition, "3" is a chazakah and I can not see any need for such a thing. His wife or someone else would have to have three keys, and be able to walk in quickly at random, which is most difficult with three locks.

    So my question is, can you provide some authority on what the punishment is for violating Hilchot Yichud? I saw in Sefer Hamafteach that it's discussed in Avodah Zarah and Sanhedrin but I wonder what it says.
    Yours truly,
    Reb Edge hakatan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you seem to be ignoring there is a young lady who has made claims against him. The case against him is a combination of her claims and the "odd" circumstances of therapy.

      halacha allows the police to be called by someone who claims abuse. once the secular authorities are involved they need to investigate to the best of their ability whether a crime has been commited according to secular law.

      thus the alleged crime is not violations of yichud. It is sexually abusing someone. A person is allowed to save themselves and others from abuse. It is not like the absurd psak atrributed to Rav Scheinberg that if there was no penetration there is no crime worthy of the attention of beis din. Abuse is considered pikuach nefesh.

      Beis din is not try the alleged perpetrator nor is it declaring guilt or innocence nor it is punishing a crime.

      this is entirely the question of self protection. Please look up Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u'Mazik chapter 8) and the Chasam Sofer on Gittin 7a.

      Please look at the discussion in contemporary teshuva sforim about informing the police when someone is driving without a licence or without adequate vision.

      In summary we are dealing with the right of self-protection or the obligation of mandated reporting. Both can lead to life sentences for people who have not committed a crime that Sanhedrin would punish according to Torah laws

      Delete
    2. Absurd Psak ? Rav Sheinberg.. How dare you ? It's repulsive to hear someone speak that way about piskai halacha of Gedolei hador.

      Delete
    3. considering that Rav Eliashiv, Rav Silman, Rav Wosner, Rav Moshe Halberstam etc say it is a case of pikuach nefesh and the psak attributed to Rav Sheinberg says it is of no significance - the latter view is absurd.

      Perhaps you would like to defend the indefensible? Go and ahead and tell me why it is not absurd!

      Delete
    4. Outraged it is important to note that Rav Aryeh Zev Ginzburg denied that Rav Sheinberg said such a thing and said that all sexual abuse is prohibited.

      So are you saying that Rav Ginzburg is a liar or that such a psak is not absurd when attributed to a gadol?

      Delete
    5. with all do respect,it would sound a little nicer if you wouldn't imply that Rav Sheinberg Did say that and was being absurd. maybe it would have been a little more thoughtful to write "it is absurd to think Rav Sheinberg would have said that"

      Delete
    6. It isn't absurd to say it is true - especially given the widespread ignorance of the psychological damage done by abuse.

      Aside from Rav Ginzburg I have heard of no one else who claims that Rav Sheinberg didn't say it. I once wrote him asking for a clarification of the issue but he never replied.

      It is clear that gedolim are capable of not knowing the metzius when they issue a psak. If he believed that abuse has no significant consequence - then for him to issue such a psak is not absurd.

      In sum, given out knowledge of the damage of abuse the psak is absurd. Only a few years ago many rabbis were ignorant of the psychological damage. However it is widely believed Rav Sheinberg said it - even during his lifetime - and aside from Rav Ginsburg there was never a denial or clarification.

      Delete
  12. I can see that you are just an emotional judge here... You looked for him... And eventually oh you find him... he was it... But who claims it to be true without evidence besides the so called victim...

    You wrote "As sadly often happens with such victims. They even blame themselves for the abuse"


    Just because there are children who was abused. And who knows who... doesn't make that girls word to be the truth. unless you have clear evidence. even when top professional testified... and yes a 17 year old can say false... and who says she told the truth to the therapist, why do you believe her. Just because there are victims in the secular world does not make any of a young girl the truth. I see that you know every thing but hilches lushen horeh from "chofetz chyem"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rabbi Kent, it is clear to me that you didn't have the time to read my post carefully. Your solidarity with victims is welcomed though, even until you decide that this is also a case of a victim.

    Firstly, I believe I showed quite reasonably how this case would have had the same outcome if the defendant had been a non-Jewish therapist as well. I specifically addressed this issue in my reply to an earlier response. One point I made which really should be stressed is that "It was also so clear to everyone in the court that she was saying the truth. It was incredible to see how clear that the emes was what she was saying. It is impossible to describe. It had to be seen." The jury did see.

    I also think I made it quite clear that I only mentioned the bribe as an aside to show that they also know he is guilty and not in any way to prove the defendants guilt let alone as a basis on which to convict him. You also are clearly not familiar with even the widely reported details of the case that the DA has against four men for trying to bribe the victim.

    As for the 90% statistic that you were unaware of which concerns you, the truth be told my initial information about that was from therapists and people with decades of experience in the field (individually let alone collectively) and not from reading actual studies. (BTW A number of therapists have read my post and all were very impressed with it and applauded it. None had any corrections to offer. Not in regard to statistics nor the understanding of the psychology in such cases) However if you really want to read up on these statistics and similar information, a good source where you can find some studies is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse#cite_note-Ney-1
    As they mention there "Studies of child abuse allegations suggest that the overall rate of false accusation is under 10%, as approximated based on multiple studies."

    I wonder if you expressed all of your concerns and on what information your concerns whether shared or not were based. If you had any questions due to lack of info rather than "concerns" it would have been appropriate to communicate that e.g. I am interested in what the source of the statistics you quoted is. Also saying you have concerns about "what the young lady alleges" does indicate that you do have basis on which to discount her claim. I hope I have addressed those concerns you did share adequately.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I also found certain things not to my liking in your post . To say 90% almost precludes an investigation .Why bother investigating something? Once an allegation is made skip the trial and off to jail.There was a recent case in the Brooklyn DA's office of an ADA who was forced to resign after her case collapsed .The OTD from Crown Heights witness "alleged" and lied that she had been raped over a period of years by four African American males .So they sat in jail (no fundraisers for them and they were too poor to hire good lawyers)until the defense attorney revealed that exculpatory evidence that the girl was schizophrenic and changed her story numerous times .They were lucky to be released. What do you say to them."Sorry, but since the overwhelming majority kids(90%) don't make things up so we did not listen to you.So what if you wasted your life for an extended period of time in jail because of a false accusation.Too bad?The problem is for many years children were never believed or not believed as much as they should have been.You don't rectify that by swinging the pendulum to the other extreme ?The wave you wave statistics around as if they are facts engraved in stone is very dangerous .Both sides need to be heard.Think kids are so honest.Check out Bryan Glass,Esq.blog and see how high school students brag about lying to take revenge on their teachers.And remember,children rarely lie.90% tell the truth.Until it is establish as truth it remains an allegation in all cases .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NOSHIE63 Please realize that the statistics were only used as part of an important factor. (Also you can see the studies which show the statistics if you genuinely want to understand their weight.) There were many factors involved and the 90% was only the opening item in an entire thought. There is really a lot of important info here and it is a shame to miss it for the one detail that you noticed over everything else. As for your suggestion albeit that you weren't serious, I got the impression that there actually are currents in legal circles that would like to be able to base a case on the accusation alone. They would obviously have to bring strong forensic evidence as well to back it up but that is how much import they attribute to the strength of the accusation. Thank you though for making me realize that I should have written the part of "The prosecution also brought a top professional in the field who testified that it is inconceivable that someone could or would make up such a story let alone go through the ordeal of seeing it to fruition in court. Not only that but her parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews all were harassed and suffered greatly including financially due to her going through with it. She only forged onward in order to protect the girls who would come after her and for hers and the many other victims' closure. Eventually her family came to support her through it at least behind closed doors." after the first paragraph.
      Not to toot my own horn but a therapist I spoke to who read my post said " I was impressed by how clearly and succinctly you explained such complicated ideas" There are many factors involved and they are not simplistic conclusions based on some random study that claimed a statistic.
      As for the Crown Heights case, I am not familiar with it but it sounds like it was a claim of rape rather than molestation. That is an entirely different kind of case.
      I also explained that the DA did establish it as truth and that is why the jury convicted him. Not because of a statistic.

      Delete
    2. Yes ,it was a rape claim.I only know one person who was molested.It happened to a friend when we were 14 and I believed him immediately .He received a financial settlement.He is now a very successful person.It did not go to trial nor was an arrest made .I understand that many factors go into believing something like if other people come with very similar claims.I believe,if it happened to me as a child we certainly we not have gone to the media and probably not the cops.My dad would have looked into it and took a baseball bat to the guy.I don't have a problem going to the police .There are three groups of people.1) predators,2)victims 3)the falsely accused .The third category must also be discussed.Journalist Dorothy Rabinowitz as well as the Innocence Project at Yeshiva University do a lot of work in this direction.Just as the community needs to be educated on child molestation ,victims need not become so defensive when the issue of false allegations in general sometimes occur .

      Delete
    3. The aforementioned story just broke in the JEWISH DAILY FORWARD .It happened 35 years ago and was just printed minutes after I posted the above.It is the lead story in DAAS TORAH.

      Delete
  15. I don't understand why the victim and her family have been so poorly treated. Such vitriol! It makes the larger community look complicit in the misdeeds of a few. Children are precious, and there is no excuse for supporting, covering up, or turning a blind eye to those that would harm them. Pedophiles and rapists should be turned in and prosecuted. Further, the people that have endured these terrible crimes should be assisted and cared for not shunned.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Noshie, seriously, please do not put spaces before periods and leave the space out after the period. It looks weird. Last word | period |space | next word. It is driving me nuts to read your posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry.I did it because somebody in my family,a FB friend told me it was proper.

      Delete
  17. Some interesting statistics from the literature ...

    Source:
    J. Read, et al.: Childhood trauma, psychosis and schizophrenia: a literature review with theoretical and clinical implications
    Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 2005: 112: 330–350
    http://psychopathology.fiu.edu/Articles/Read%20et%20al_2005.pdf

    At p. 334:

    <<

    Reliability of self-report

    An important issue in the studies reviewed below is the reliability of self-report of abuse. Concern about the accuracy of child abuse disclosures by psychiatric patients is understandable, particularly for those diagnosed psychotic. Such an assumption, however, is not evidence based. Reports of abuse by psychiatric patients, including those diagnosed psychotic, are surprisingly reliable (46, 47). Corroborating evidence for reports of CSA by psychiatric patients has been found in 74% (48) and 82% (49) of cases. One study found that the problem of incorrect allegations of sexual assaults was no different for schizophrenics than the general population (50, p. 82). Psychiatric patients under-report rather than over-report abuse to staff (1, 51–53). A survey of women previously admitted to psychiatric hospital found that 85% reported CSA when interviewed later at home (2), a rate far higher than any found in studies of women still in hospital (Table 1).

    >>

    ReplyDelete
  18. What should be expected differently if the defended would have been innocent?
    • There is a motive argument.
    • Major discrepancy by the accuser if molestation happened the first few months (you usually don’t mix up that kind of details)
    • A lot of “I don’t recall’s” by the accuser during cross examination.
    • Defended never been accused by anyone else before and now.
    • Defended taking the stand (very uncommon), being cross exterminated and no discrepancy found in his version in anything related to abuse. (a lot of talk about some other lousy details , charity fees etc)
    Unless you think there is no such a thing of wrongful accusations (remember duke lacrosse/Strauss kahan), this is “exactly” how I would expect a wrongful accusation to look like. If someone should decide to make a false claim against you, me, someone else, I am not sure you can defend yourself at least if you are part of satmar or Muslim some other group that the media/mainstream America doesn’t like

    ReplyDelete
  19. I see that you just copied and pasted this comment from another web site. Was it you that commented there or did you copy someone else's uninformed comment? If you want to read this article and then make some intelligent points, I will gladly welcome them.

    However, for those who have read the post and are wondering what I would respond, most of what this comment assumes I already debunked in this article which the one who posted this comment has clearly not read. Some of it (the second point)is completely false. The third is a misrepresentation. She was grilled for four days and relatively her “I don’t recall’s” were minimal.

    As for taking the stand he didn't show any reliable proof of innocence and just let himself be laid bare as to how unscrupulous a character he is. That has significant legal ramifications as far as I understand in such a case. The jury is allowed - although not obligated - to consider his word not believable in other areas as well. I explained in an earlier response - which is highlighted in green - how he may have been able to do some damage control by being honest on the stand about these things but of course he kept true to form and it served to hurt him. This of course was missed as well by someone who didn't read anything before pasting a borrowed comment with the sole intent to denigrate anything not to their liking. I wrote that "He and all of his witnesses got on and each one looked like they were lying or at best trying to cover for him.(....) There were so many of these things and the clinical proof was very strong so they convicted him. It is not something that we can say happened because he is a Yid."

    As for the Straus Kahn case it is a rape case which I also explained in an earlier response is entirely different. She was also so unreliable that the DA was forced to drop the case. I remember that she was even recorded when she called her boyfriend in jail saying that she has it all planned for financial gain. I am not familiar with the other case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the whole satmar mentality was quite counterproductive in Weberman's defense strategy.

      apparently, in Satmar, when a girl wears shear stockings or is involved with a boy, she automatically looses all credibility. the fact that the defense absolutely wanted to present this video shows that they could not free themselves of Satmar mentality and believed the video was enough to undermine the credibility of the accuser. In reality, it would not have done anything, it could even have corroborated the accusations, since victims of abuse often fall into "licentious" behaviour...

      It was quite good to see, from the first day of the trial, that the accuser had swum free from the Satmar community where Weberman was the big Zadik and she was the lowly pritze, to a different environment that viewed things differently, more objectively.

      Now for those who will not accept that lying in court, under oath, abut welfare fraud undermined the defendant's credibility. How come you so easily accept that having a boyfriend undermines the accuser's credibility?

      Delete
  20. I got Information more than 5 years ago that Weberman sexually abused many of the girls that were sent to him for counseling.

    Why victims will not come forward?
    shiduchim, shiduchim, shiduchim, status, status, status.
    satmar has the money and the power and they will destroy any girl and her family that will dare to come forward, just to protect the name Satmar.
    You should only know what Satmar did to the family of this girl that did come forward, they destroyed that family.

    With some info I have, it becomes clear that Satmar knows that weberman is guilty.
    How reckless is it when they knew that weberman is 'oiver' on isur 'yichud' and they continued to send girls to him, where they just stupid? or simply reckless?
    If Satmar do not support him, would mean that hundreds of girls were abused with their recklessness.

    Dont forge; about 30 years ago when everyone found out that their meet ‘nikur’ was no good and should not be eaten. A ruv in satmar that also knew that the meet should not be eaten, screamed out loud "yoichly anuvim veyisbooee" to protect the name satmar the whole world should eat treifah, and or be sexually abused. shame shame Satmar

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't know what your information is and I wonder if you even tried to do anything with the credible information you had. (If it was as credible as you present it to be.) It hurts to hear that he might have been able to be stopped earlier and that so many victims could have been saved and new ones avoided.

    I do know that the DA addressed part of your point though to some degree in his cross examination of Weberman on the stand. After establishing that Weberman is one of the only if not the only person in all of Satmar who was respected and well received in both warring Satmar camps the DA asked and Weberman admitted that he had been the driver for Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum for two years. The DA then asked rather rhetorically "And isn't it true that you know a lot of things about a lot of people in both camps from when you were so close with the previous rebbe and had so much access to so much confidential information?" Weberman shrugged and smiled sheepishly as his cheeks reddened and answered something along the lines of "I don't think so".

    The DA then went on to show which Weberman admitted to that he was even sent a number of "clients" for "counselling" by the Vaad HaTznius of Monroe. The DA posited that his special status was a major factor in why he was sent this business. Weberman feebly disagreed and said that it was simply because they thought he was a good counselor. (Weberman also denied the existence of a Vaad HaTznius in Williamsburg. He claimed that the Monroe vaad tried a few times to do some things in Williamburg but that was the extent of any such actions in Williamsburg.) However, his main clientele was from the Satmar community and school in Williamsburg which belongs to the other Satmar camp.

    The DA also easily showed beyond a question that there was monetary gain for the girls school in sending Weberman clients and tried to show that the same was true for those in Monroe as well. Quite a few rackets and dishonest dealings the DA discovered in this story. Much more than actually came to the fore in court. This was clear from conversations I had with the DA during the trial.

    So yes, there seems to be a lot more that went on and is going on behind the scenes that we don't know the entire truth about. Who knows how many other sinister aspects to this sordid tale we will likely never know anything about? We won't even know if it was important to know.
    Uva l'tziyon goel

    ReplyDelete
  22. with all due respect this article is titled hw d we KNOW he is guilty. While quite interesting you fail t PROVE he is guilty. There are a lot f questions but all can be explained. Who knows maybe it was her "boy friend" who was abusing her and using your psycological analysis we can explain that she was worried to tell the truth and even felt anger for weberman exposing her abuser. Who knows? Having 3 locks is odd but not proof.

    I did not read the entire case etc. however what bothers me the most is why have none of the other woman or girls come out yet? If you want statistics over 90% of cases end with multiple victims coming forth here all i see is that there are a few that claim there were more but not one woman stepped forward.

    Based off this article alone I don't see how anyone can PROVE he is guilty. It made me wish some other woman stepped forward but until they do Daas Torah and the american justice system says he is innocent.

    There may be more to the case than is written here, however the author did a very poor job keeping his emotions and personal conclusions out of it. There is little hard PROOF in this article unless I missed something???

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have to agree in large measure with you. In fact,Daas Torah mentioned that mesirah would be permitted if it was established that if the activity with her boyfriend put her at risk,it is not mesirah!So her dad and Weberman maybe (I repeat maybe) did not commit mesira when masiring the boy to the cops.(In all likihood Weberman did this to keep her boyfriend out of the picture.I believe him to be a complete animal.)What a Chassidishe girl is doing having relations before marriage is unbelievable!But according to the propoganda she was so insane from Weberman she did not know what she was doing.|Don't buy it.I also don't accept that people go off the derech because of what other people do or do to them.It is an immature excuse,

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sam. Yes, you missed almost everything. The DA,the jury and the judge however didn't. If you want to see what you missed you can read it again and the additional pieces of the picture from my comments in this thread. The first second and fourth paragraphs in this article are in short - yet clear - form the reason for the jury's conviction.

    If you can share sources of your statistics which you mentioned it would be quite enlightening. Interestingly, contrary to the statistics you are familiar with, an expert in this field Christopher O'Donnel the Assistant DA who prosecuted this case actually just said in the press conference following the sentence that usually in the molestation cases they see there only have one victim. You will also see that there were others who stepped forward but who didn't proceed with any legal action on their complaint.
    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyrWUbCdpI8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

    It isn't as if you are alone though. I find it interesting that so many people comment along the lines of doubting the veracity of her testimony or the strength of the evidence. The fact that he was convicted does not compel these people to assume that there is likely a good reason for it and seek to genuinely understand before doubting. Consistently though those who do doubt her or the verdict have not supplied anything substantial to base it on. However those who do understand have given quite logical and well founded reasoning for their believing that "Beyond reasonable doubt" was proven in this case.

    It just hit me that according to the outcome of the trial anyone who does doubt the truth of her testimony is unreasonably doubting and therefore fit to be labeled "Unreasonable". No surprise then for the consistent lack of logical reasoning with any basis at all.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Important.I disagree with everything.You have a set of statistics from an ADA.His job is to put people in jail.Obviously,he is not unbiased.These are not objective statistics.There is no witness,DNA or physical evidence.The only thing is her testimony.Although I am inclined to believe her there are certain things that I find hard to believe.She said that Weberman had her eye on her since she was a little kid waiting for her to get older so he could have her.She knows this how?A nevua?Ruach Hakodesh?Also I am not inclined to believe girls from very frum families who are having relations of the intimate type before marriage.This is not an A1 witness.Her father claimed she threatened him as well and that he was afraid of his daughter!And the reason he had relations before marriage was because of (don't tell me)..."the trauma pof the abuse".This seems to be a good excuse for everything under the sun.All this "pycho babble".Jews aren't gonna get a fair shake in court.When one of these "victims advocates" is a defendant in a civil or criminal case he will lose by virtue of their yarmulkes!They can laugh now and cry later.

    ReplyDelete
  26. In response to Flavor Lounge. It will not cease to amaze me the absurd comments that people make against the victim in this case. Even those who claim themselves to be understanding and assume that their leanings toward believing Webberman's guilt are licence for them to also knock the victim.
    Flavor Lounge asks/attacks "What a Chassidishe girl is doing having relations before marriage is unbelievable!" The only thing unbelievable, yet you wrote it, is that you are under the impression that this poor girl was in fact having sexual experiences by the forced acts of an abuser on a regular basis but you are shocked at her then voluntarily being able to engage in sexual behavior outside of the clutches of a 50 year old monster. He forced her to watch pornography and then reenact those scenes on him. You think however that the education he gave her wouldn't open her mind to trying those same things herself with someone she wanted to be with?!!

    People go off the derech for many reasons. Some however don't "go" but are rather violently and forcefully thrown off the derech without having a chance to go off on their own. She did have a very hard time with yiddishkeit during and immediately after the abuse but it happens to be, incredibly - with great credit to her and her husband - she is now frum. Her greatest victory over the monster who inflicted the horrible abuse that she suffered will be to manage to have a healthy life and family. If she and they are also frum it will be an added incredible bonus. But many will not even understand why that is so and they will not be helped to understand by a blog post so I won't even bother to try and educate them.
    As for your obscene personal attack on her by calling what you deemed her "Going off the derech" and its being blamed on others an "Immature excuse", you are too pitifully self assumptive for any typed words to give you the help you need to understand why even thinking that way is an extreme display of immaturity. Then to post it on-line and risk her or her family reading your foolish nastiness and being hurt is just as bad as it is not surprising coming from the likes of you.
    Please do us all a favor and don't even respond to my comments or this article anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  27. First of all the term "going off the derech" is yours not mine.I did not use it.In reading the remarks of the person making the accusation against a rebbe at YU and an accusation I believe to be 100% true he blames his rebbe for not keeping Yiddishkeit.He writes this in an article in the Forward.Guess what?He wasn't frum before he was molested.Let me take this a step further.I have seen so many non-abused people using the misbehavior of "frum" people and rabbis as an excuse for (as you put it) going off the derech.The Torah is the perfect doctrine of HaKadosh Baruch Hu.Those who practice it are imperfect and not the Malachei HaShareis.To disobey the Torah because somebody was nasty or in the worse case scenario is a criminal fiend like Weberman doesn't wash with me.So I have to be quiet because I believe this?Why was she having relations as a teenager with a man she was not married to???That Webermans actions are unbelievable and shocking is what the whole case was about and we know about it.We know Weberman is a rasha.Now we go to part two.One implication of her actions is the disruption of her relatives lives by getting kicked out of school and the neiborhood.Do they count for anything in your PC world?Her dad got threatened after he went to the cops about her having illegal (religious and secular) relations with yet another boyfriend other than the one she married.She was wronged.No question!She is a victim.No question.But does that give her the right to threaten her dad,get her nieces kicked out of school or in theory (you mentioned she is B"H frum now)and uproot her family from their homes.It is a wake up call for the Satmar in how they approach these things.But I am not so sure this young lady is the angel you claim she isWhy is it an obsene attack to state those things that are published facts?.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The young lady was disgusted by what Weberman was doing.She said she could not eat or drink and wanted to die.And now after all the talk about how gross it was and how it almost led her (R"L) to suicide you claim that this opened up her mind to "trying the same things herself"???Does that make any sense at all?You say that she went off the derech during and after these horrible incidents.It was never disputed that the first time she saw Weberman she said "You look like a Chasidish (curse word) like my father".She was off the derech before this happened.You can try to soft peddle this all you want.But it does not fit the reality of this case.Kabeid es avicha".You can't blame Weberman for that.In the press the pr campaign says all she did was ask simple questions about her faith.I am not saying in any way,shape or form that she deserved what happened to her.Never in a million years.But to paint her as an angel (which people want to do because she was so badly hurt) is dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Correction:I did write the first time that she was indeed "Off the derech".Sorry for that slight error.

    ReplyDelete
  30. May I ask you to please read this article:
    http://hezbos.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-date-of-webermans-verdict.html
    - especially the latter half, which relates to two other violent incidents this man was implicated in. My question is: Do you happen to know the other individuals that together with this fiend perpetrated those defilements?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.