lohud A
New Square educator accused of molesting a young boy repeatedly over
five years pleaded not guilty to the charges Tuesday in Rockland County
Court.
Judge William Nelson maintained Moshe Taubenfeld's $25,000
cash bail and issued a order that Taubenfeld must stay away from his
alleged victim.
Taubenfeld said little in court, entering his plea through his lawyer, Gerard Damini. His next court date is July 15.
Taubenfeld had previously turned in his passport to the police.
Taubenfeld is charged with
second-degree course of sexual conduct against a child. The alleged
abuse started Sept. 11, 2001, when the preteen boy said he came to the
man seeking comfort after the terrorist attacks.
The abuse allegedly continued until the child turned 13 in 2006.
The
boy, who has spoken to the media using the name Laiby, said he and his
family reported the abuse about six years ago to community leaders, who
discouraged him from going to police.
His experience was similar
to those of other New Square abuse victims, including a young man,
Yossi, who reported Taubenfeld's brother, Herschel, to police in 2011. [...]
Here we go again - another social media campaign....
ReplyDeleteThis is not a clear cut case, based on the evidence presented in the article and the video. Using a little of the Sherlock Holmes-ian approach and switching away from the perspective of the victim, we note that Laiby only brought formal charges years after the fact, and after getting energized by a movie about Special Forces, and against someone closely related to someone else accused of a similar crime.
ReplyDeleteMy intention is not to belittle Laiby or the serious matter at hand, rather to suggest-- again, based on the evidence presented here -- that the evidence is ALSO consistent with a case where the plaintiff is manufacturing the charges.
In any case, the detective, prosecutor, and grand jury found Laiby believable, and the defendant will have an opportunity to present his side in court.
You believe him?! He came out years after the abuse and the only shred of evidence is HIS word. This is so clearly a crazy person being pushed by PR hacks to create a chillul Hashem.
ReplyDelete"...said he and his family reported the abuse about six years ago to community leaders, who discouraged him from going to police."
ReplyDeleteThat is such a lie. Community leaders would never do that. The rabbis could always be trusted with these things. In fact, I have no idea why Rivky Stein had to go through her whole crazy media blitz- she could have simply reported it to the rabbis if she was really telling the truth. What ever happened to trusting daas Torah?
@Menachem stop trying to be a comedian - this is no laughting matter
ReplyDeleteHe must be crazy to expose himself to the abusive cross examination of the defense attorney. In fact I can't think of any reason why a person would do such a thing unless he was crazy or obsessed with telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteI think we should leave it up to the trial to see which it is.
I was actually very impressed with how articulate he is. His ability to converse at that level Is a rarity in NS. He seems more than normal to me.
ReplyDeleteMenachem is right in drawing attention to the fact that your attitude towards wives who claim to have been abused (Dodelson, Stein), where you say that you will not believe any claims of abuse until you have proof might also affect victims of child abuse - where the classic stance of the rabbis is that they will not believe claims until they have proof.
ReplyDeleteYour claim is that if a wife cannot prove she has been abused, she should be considered a "Moredet" for leaving the spousal home, a kidnapper when she takes her children with her. You think that she should not go to the media and raise a campaign, even if the husband refuses a get for two years or more.
So why do you think it is justified that this victim of child abuse goes to the media? How did you verify his claim?
Menachem, the question you raise is completely justified.
ReplyDeleteIf the blog author thinks he needs proof until he supports a victim of abuse, he should not support this victim of abuse. If he thinks claims are enough, he should support rivky.
Previous comment was probably censored. I hope you had time to read it.
ReplyDelete