Monday, December 8, 2014

Rolling Stone's disastrous story of gang rape and R Gottesman, Chicago Beis Din & the bloggers Lopin, Maryles and Morris

Now that the Seminary scandal is winding down or rather unraveling from a story of a massive sex scandal where a respected rabbi was accused in federal court of  running four seminaries for the sole purpose of  having girls available for his sexual satisfaction to a growing realization that it was only an inexcusable hug given by a respected rabbi to a student  after which he was promptly kicked out by the staff and he readily acknowledged his misdeed in front of beis din. Headlines of seminaries being run as houses of prostitution has become nothing more than  an inappropriate hug.

The question is why has such a relatively minor - though inexcusable transgression - triggered such strong emotions. Why have sincere and intelligent people believed the worst - even in the face of clear unambiguous facts? A similar thing happened in American in the 1970's and 1980's where thousands were falsely accused of child abuse in a hysteric atmosphere based on no evidence. Many reputations were destroyed and some spent many years in jail. See   Modern Day Witch Trial
 Father Goron Macrae..  Nachlaot     Tablet Magazine regarding Nachlaot

Part of the answer is that serious abuse does occur.  Abuse is so horrible and disgusting that it and the abuser have to be destroyed.  Lives have in fact been ruined by abuse and the betrayal of family and community when the abuse was reported. The reality is that Orthodox community - like the rest of the world - has until recently not dealt properly with abuse. But that is not enough to explain what has happened in terms of peoples emotion and propagation of baseless accusations

I would like to suggest another dynamic. There seems to be the need for people to not only have abuse prevented and abusers jailed - but that they have to be the ones who save the world from abuse. These people lose all objectively when dealing with abuse. They lose all ability to consider alternative explanations of events. They take an extreme position - if there is smoke if there are rumors if there was an over friendly personality - he must have done it.  It is a lynch mob attitude combined with being a savior of mankind from abuse.

Over and over in the comments on the blogs and in the comments of certain people who have led the attack on the seminaries we hear:
"He must have been guilty - did you see the way he conducted himself?"  Of course he is guilty of rape - my wife heard that 40 girls were raped." He must have been guilty if the beis din has suspicions - they would not publicize suspicions unless it really happened." " I am going to close down those seminaries - there is no such thing as a seminary where staff failed to stop abuse that can serve as an educational institution and even if the accusations aren't true but we can't allow a seminary where such rumors exist." "Don't confuse the issue by demanding evidence - everyone knows that in rape cases the girls don't say anything - but he is guilty and the seminaries were guilty because that's what everyone says." "Not only is he guilty of the worst that everyone says - but given the enormity of what is claimed about him the staff obviously knew about it and not only did nothing but they facilitated his abuse - don't defend him by saying there is no evidence. Commonsense tells you that he is guilty and if you don't believe it you are also a facilitator of abuse." "It is better that a 1000 innocent people lives be destroyed if it prevents an abuser from getting away with his crime."
Following is another example where a distinguished University accepted the gang rape charges made by a student because of the investigation of a reporter who wanted to believe it happened and ignored anything which would have ruined her "righteous" expose. Fortunately the Washington Post took the time to check the facts and the "facts" unraveled. The accused must be given the chance to self-defense and the lynch mob must be replaced by a calm and rational evaluation of the evidence
=================================

Washington Post   On Slate’s DoubleX Gabfest podcast last month, reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely explained why she had settled on the University of Virginia as the focus for her investigative story on a horrific 2012 gang rape of a freshman named Jackie at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house. “First I looked around at a number of different campuses,” said Erdely. “It took me a while to figure out where I wanted to focus on. But when I finally decided on the University of Virginia — one of the compelling reasons that made me focus on the University of Virginia was when I found Jackie. I made contact with a student activist at the school who told me a lot about the culture of the school — that was one of the important things, sort of criteria that I wanted when I was looking for the right school to focus on.”

Rolling Stone thought it had found the “right” campus and the right alleged crime: Following her Nov. 19 story on Jackie’s alleged assault in a dark room at the Phi Kappa Psi house, the university suspended all fraternity activities and a national spotlight fell on the issue of campus rape.

Now it’s all falling apart. Thanks to several days of reporting by the Washington Post’s T. Rees Shapiro, Rolling Stone’s account is not even a semester away from becoming part of journalism classes around the country. Jackie’s friends now doubt her account of the traumatic event, reports Shapiro, and the fraternity insists it never held a “a date function or social event” on the weekend of Sept. 28, 2012, which is the date cited by Jackie in the Rolling Stone story.

Rolling Stone has issued a statement apologizing for the story, which includes this misogynistic, victim-blaming line: “In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced.” But Jackie was a freshman in college when her episode allegedly took place; the story itself references her misgivings about putting her life into the public realm; she requested that Rolling Stone not contact “Drew,” the ringleader of the alleged assault; the alleged sequence of events — nine college men conspiring to attack a freshman and sexually assaulting her for three hours — should have triggered every skeptical twitch in the Rolling Stone staff. This disaster is the sole property of editors and a reporter. [...]

107 comments :

  1. " after which he was promptly kicked out by the staff "

    That is NOT what happened. You have got to be kidding me. The staff did not kick Meisles out. The CBD did. The staff still refers to him as "rabbi".

    Oy Eidensohn, I feel so bad for the fool you've made yourself into...

    ReplyDelete
  2. So he did not systematically violate hilchos yichud? He did not give girls rides(alone) in his car? He did not have girls individually in his office, with the door closed? This whole thing, is simply one hug???!! i personally find that very hard to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Three reasons why this story is not going to go away:

    (1) The anecdotal evidence that some people currently or formerly associated with Rabbi Meisels have taken a surround the wagons approach and made statements attacking girls who had raised questions about Rabbi Meisel's speech and behavior. This raises a flag: if it was just an unwanted hug, why such a storm to hush the girls?

    (2) The alleged threat that Rabbi Meisels made that he would ruin girls' chances of marrying. There's a nagging feeling I'm left with that the allegations against Rabbi Meisel's are being played down so as (a) not to affect marriage opportunities for former and current students and their siblings; (b) not to affect marriage opportunities for current and former staff's children; (c) not to affect marriage opportunities for Rabbi Meisel's children.

    (3) Loshon Hara is sometimes can emanate from less than reliable witnesses. Whether or not one believes Lopin, Truthseeker, and The New York Jewish Week in every detail of their statements, there's enough there in their collective statements for one to be concerned -- yet not to believe -- that Rabbi Meisels may have raped several girls over a period of years, and that there were reports of his behavior that some staff may have downplayed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. if random stories from elsewhere in the United States are proof at the rabbi is innocent why not stories and acknowledgements of misconduct in the Orthodox Jewish community as proof that it did happen?
    as I have said the entire time I do not know what happened , I just know I would think twice about sending my daughter there.
    a relative of mine was by a function for kids at risk at risk the moderator of the function asked by a show of hands how many of them molested or otherwise abused sexually as childrento the dismay of my relative close to the half of the kids raised their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Quite a self-serving explanation by Rolling Stone. Their behavior was abysmal, and they offer ridiculous excuses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Truthseeker you are truly ignorant - please check with the dayanim before you open your mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Who care what you find hard to believe? There's no proof to any of this, and the accusations were investigated and dismissed by the expanded BD, but you still believe them. Because believing it makes you feel better. You are a perfect example of the pathology described by RDE.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You repeat the original allegations as if there had been no hearing of the expanded BD in the interim, which investigated and dismissed these accusations. You, like Ari Davis and the rest of the chorus, simply believe what you choose to, regardless of whether evidence exists. Myself -- I require some evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have been checking with the dayanim since day one. Perhaps YOU should check withe he CBD. You STILL have not answered me wheat her u feel r malinowitz thinks it was just a hug or not. You ignoring this question over and over looks rlly bad on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rabbi Eidensohn,


    Isn't is called sexual "violence" for a reason?? Do you seriously think that the CBD would refer to it as sexual violence if it was no big deal???

    ReplyDelete
  11. She was actually there at the seminary! She probably knows more about Meisel's antics than any of us!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I never said anything about rape, so please parse your words better. All I said is that to say that there was only an inappropriate hug is not very believable. And the bais din never said that that I have seen. They said the schools are safe, because Meisels is no longer there. That is NOT the same thing and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. More guilt by association: the JTA ran a story that (former Jewish republican congressman Eric cantor's son was a member of that fraternity while a student there. And his other son attends that college.

    Should we await a correction from the JTA? Will anyone be fired, like the congressional aide who commented on maliya obama?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Where does RDE claim that the Rolling Stone debacle is "proof" that "the rabbi is innocent?" Nowhere. It's your own invention.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Considering that you weren't there - and the evidence produced by the combined judges doesn't match with her hysterical outbursts - I'll stick with the view of the dayanim

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Jblog do you think that if it were sexual violence and they thought that the staff was complicit that they would change their minds and say the seminaries are safe without any change of staff? You can't have it two ways. Either they were right the first time and then you have a claim or they were wrong the first time and now they have accepted the IBD's understanding. Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Explain to me when I have ever had a "hysterical outburst".

    ReplyDelete
  18. Calling your drivel an "outburst" is being kind.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Which dayanim have you spoken to? How often, and when was the last time?

    ReplyDelete
  20. So were a few thousand others and none of them make her claims. Moreover hundreds have refuted her claims. Her word is just that of one young lady whose comments on this board have displayed an immature and unreliable perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  21. how stupid are you he just wrote a whole post how all the dayanim now think it was only a hug. that would also include r malinowitz

    ReplyDelete
  22. The claim that he admitted to "sexual violence" was untrue. He admitted to no such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "I never said anything about rape, so please parse your words better."

    And I never said that you did say anything about rape. I have no idea which words you'd like parsed better.

    "All I said is that to say that there was only an inappropriate hug is
    not very believable. And the bais din never said that that I have seen."

    Your only source for what occurred is internet rumour. On what do you base your disbelief of an inappropriate hug? So far as I can see you have nothing concrete. And now that the BDs have heard the complainants, and heard the teachers/principals' responses, and ruled the schools safe, you have less reason than ever for your disbelief. As I said, you seem simply to choose what you want to believe, without regard for evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. He was not supposed to have to give up the financial end of things. In the CBDs original psak (which was posted on this site and elsewhere), they agreed that he could retain financial control. They later did an about-face, joining with Gottesman to punish him and extort the schools.

    But from the chinuch side of things, of course a hug would demand his departure. I find it beyond bizarre that any frum person would say otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The CBD are not dayanim. They are extortionists masquerading as dayanim.

    ReplyDelete
  26. just before, you went to great lengths to explain that an unwanted hug & unsuccessful attempt to do more could be considered sexual violence under US law, now you declare that you are certain there was abolutely no sexual violence. Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. There's nothing bizarre about that at all.

    When a man is in charge of an institution for women, he must be 100% above board with very clear boundaries. If he steps over the line even once, he must be willing to step aside. That's a given and that's why he agreed to step aside the minute this issue was raised.

    I would never send my daughter to a school where this is not perfectly clear. His willingness to step aside and remove himself from all matters pertaining to the school is what convinced me to send my own daughter there this year and I am glad I did. She's having a wonderful year.



    If you don't realize how elementary this point is, I have abundant sympathy for you indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. His office has had a window in the door for years. Having someone there alone would not have been a problem.
    If there was a violation of hilchos yichud, that's nothing to sneeze at but it's a far cry from the allegations of the CBD and certainly not a reason to destroy his life, the life of his staff members and destroy his schools.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You say it was an inappropriate hug. Why the adjective. Can you tell us what an appropriate hug would look like?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Can you envision any scenario under which you could see any justification for Meisels to return to chinuch with girls in any form? I am asking that because you are clear he should be out right now, but I don't recall if you ever said, "never again" which was one of the conditions of the Chicago Beis Din document of June that you posted.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Why do you think Touro/HTC has still not announced the restoration of accreditation? I have my info. Just curious what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @accountability -- using your reasoning - I think you are Martian. While I can not prove it and don't even have any evidence I think it is reasonable that you are one.

    You don't know the facts so you are going to fantasize what they might have been and then condemn the dayanim solely on the basis of your fertile imagination. On top of that you feel that your conjecture/slander is important enough to post and be taken seriously.!

    ReplyDelete
  33. They'll restore it in due course. This stuff is just days old. Not everyone operates in internet time.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No one thinks he should be allowed to provide chinuch to girls in any form. The suggestion otherwise is silly.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Consensual between married people. Since they were not married it was clearly inappropriate. Don't be such an Language Nazi dissecting whether an adjective was redundant.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Yerachmiel Lopin
    Regarding Touro - I haven't spent much time on the matter - but it seems that Touro is making additional demands that other colleges are not. For example Touro claims that somebody needs to be fired in order for Title IX requirements to be satisfied. That is simply not true and there are other colleges that are willing to provide assistance under Title IX.

    If you have some claim that Krupka has fed you and you want to hear the other side of the story - fire away.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Yerachmiel Lopin - no I don't envision any scenario to justify Meisels returning to chinuch with girls in any form

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Yerachmiel Lopin - is this a serious question? If it is you are in worse shape than I thought

    ReplyDelete
  39. Touro in the form of Krupka has been in bed with Gottesman from the get-go. They have what can only be described as an incestuous relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "I think you are Martian"

    Why, yes, how did you find that out? Now it is enough to locate me and you will be credited as the first human being discovering life outside planet earth! Congratulations!

    But let's be serious. I was not speculating about what happened and what did not happen. I just wanted to point out that it is bad, intransparent communication tactic to say: "There is something to say, but I won't tell you what it is". This does not, in fact, protect the reputation of the person involved, since it opens the door to all kinds of speculations, even worse than what they really did. Unfortunatly, not only the Chicago Beith din, but many batey din and rabbanim around the world



    Now, if I wanted to speculate, I would agree that the thing Meisel did not want the Chicago beith din to make public had to be at least serious enough to prompt him to withdraw from his seminaries... And like other commentators, I do not think that one unwarranted hug would be enough for that.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Very justified question by Y. Lopin... No answer?

    ReplyDelete
  42. So if you claim that no sexual violence was involved and you say that an unwarranted hug IS in fact sexual violence, your personal conviction would be that it was a consensual hug, right?

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Accountability I already answer your question please read it more carefully

    ReplyDelete
  44. Who knows what axe this unhinged person has to grind? Was a teacher unkind to her at seminary? Did she feel unappreciated? She's clearly a person who hungers for attention. Perhaps she did not receive enough of it there, or perhaps was rejected by her peers, and is now taking her revenge on the institution that caused her perceived humiliation.

    ReplyDelete
  45. There's no point in explaining anything to you. You are incapable of hearing. You have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with truth.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Actually by the CBD not reporting exactly what the admission was they tremendously damaged M as that opened the door for all the rumors and accusations that followed. Its a lot more damaging to say "if only you would know" as it makes peoples imaginations work over time.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Meisels admitted to negiah at the CBD hearing. Such an admission is more than enough to drive any man out of any yeshivishe-frum women's institution, as indeed it should be. It is also something he absolutely would not want aired publicly, both out of embarassment, and b/c of the damage it would do to his schools. Anyone who does not understand this is utterly out of touch with the ethos of the frum/yeshivish world.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Even "just" a shomer negiah violation in a girls school, even if voluntary, immediately disqualifies a man from working in a girls school in any form.

    ReplyDelete
  49. An answer was provided.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Show me the post where Eisensohn said the dayanim think that. Where is it? There is NONE. The Dayanim know have never claimed such a thing ever. Call them yourselves. Only Eidenoshn thinks that and how dare u pick names at me.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wow u have an enormous amount of CHUZTPAH to be saying "if there is evidence, let it be brought forward." The CBD kept this private for a reason (even r malinowitz chose to be as subtle as possible by not even mentioning Meisles name in one of his documents). To save the victims the embarrassment. And now u r saying they are bing untruthful. YOU- the person who calls their site "Daas Torah". YOU are putting down these big Rabbanim. Hypocrite. How dare you. Chutzpah. No words for it. Eidensohn, you absolutely SICKEN ME.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, he opens up a new seminary. Using a more right wing / ultra charedi approach, using his "yichus", his track record in (supposefly) getting "top quality" shidduchim for his students, perhaps his alumni network, sisters of past students, etc. And he wint need touro or HTC, since he'll be targeting the more right wing / non college market.

    Does he / his family still control / "own" the American 501c3?

    ReplyDelete
  53. What evidence do you have that Rabbi Meisel's hugged a student? A picture?

    Do you have the name of the girl? The date, time, and/or place? One handed? Two handed? Around the shoulders? How long did it last? Were there any witnesses? Can you tell me what evidence was presented to the joint Beth Din? Can you answer a single one of those questions definitively?

    You know what, I have not been presented with any "evidence" that would indicate Rabbi Meisels hugged a student that is any stronger than the evidence that he raped some students in incidents stretching over years. I think we should all be concerned he's a rapist or all outraged that he was ousted from his seminaries on flimsy evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Let's start with the one about you never coming back on here again!?!?
    When your emotions got the best of you and you came back all we heard was the utter brilliance of all the commenters being either Meisels/relative/staff for your sake I hope it was an outburst!!!

    ReplyDelete
  55. exactly. you understood. that is what I wanted to express.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Negiah", I learned, is a term with a very wide meaning. In seldom means just "touching", when they say someone was "over negiah" they generally mean sexual intercourse.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Accountabilities - nobody but you think that he confessed to sexual intercourse.

    ReplyDelete
  58. You seem to have reading comprehension deficits. I never stated that I thought he confessed to sexual intercourse.
    But when you say e.g. about a young, unmarried bocher that he was "over negiah", you certainly do not mean he once in his life merely touched a female's hand.

    ReplyDelete
  59. That's completely incorrect. Even holding someone's hand or hugging someone or patting someone's back is a shomer negiah violation and is commonly described as such.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Haha Eidensohn, do u hear ur comments largely? You know, you'd get a lot more readers if u were actually respectful to your commenters. And that's a funny one that "accountability of the only one who thinks it was sexual intercourse". What rock do u live under?

    ReplyDelete
  61. David what on with are u saying. U speak from ignorance. I have spoken to quite a few girls who sent to the seminaries and they all couldn't have agreed with me more.

    ReplyDelete
  62. you really are one of the stupidest people i have ever met and you need lots of help in reading comprehension that was this whole post

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dr. Eidensohn, as a clinician I am sure you are aware of the classic paranoid claim: 'there is a conspiracy; they are all out to get me." You could have enlarged your above list of critics of the kashering of the seminaries and the "just-a-hug" theory including other bloggers and anit-abuse activists, who have generally sided with you, and you with them, in the past. How do you account for that. And please don't flatter me by exaggerating my influence. As we both know, activists and bloggers are an opinionated, go-it-alone bunch.

    ReplyDelete
  64. innocent hug


    That's an oxymoron. While in a secular institution an "innocent hug" is indeed supposedly possible, in a seminary it isn't. If there was a hug, it was against halacha. It was a mistake - but a very costly mistake. However a wrong a hug may be it does not constitute raping 40 girls! It does not constitute the seminary being a trafficking device for disgusting desires.
    Your claimed lack of comprehension is very troubling.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Yerachmiel Lopin - I included the bloggers that seem to be interested in this topic, are sincere and yet have dealt with the information apparently against the evidence. Harry for example after repeatedly saying how much he respects and trusts the CBD throws out their explicit psak because it disagrees with what he read in the Jewish Week and your blog. He acknowledges that he hasn't researched the situation himself and is relying totally on these two sources. He refuses to simply say he doesn't know but insists that the Jewish Week must be correct and his rabbis are wrong. Why is he doing this?



    However I am most disappointed with you - because you obviously spend a lot of time looking into issues - but now we see that you too are treating imaginary evidence as evidence. No I don't think there is a conspiracy to get me. There was clearly a widespread ignoring of the normal standards of evidence.by the CBD.



    You present a young lady as an example of an employee that shows that Meisels position is being nurtured and defended by the staff. But she is not staff! You show no evidence that the actual staff is doing what you claim. You use her to prove that Rabbi Kahane is corrupt - but she never worked for him! You use her to show that the IBD is incompetent and criminal for ignoring this representing of Meisels on the staff - but she is not on the staff.of the school! Instead of taking down your post where every the basis of every one of your allegations has been shown to be false - you defend your allegations because you imagine that they still could be true!



    I am simply saying that before your hang a person or an institution there needs to be real evidence. Accusation are not sufficient. Behavior that makes it "reasonable" that he did everything he is accused of is not proof of a crime.. Truthseeker is the epitome of this virtual evidence. But Harry clearly has gone there and so have you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. So he did not systematically violate hilchos yichud?


    No, he didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Truthseeker why didn't you convince the dayinim based on your vast knowledge from speaking to quite a few girls? Why did they challenge you and when you claimed that the dorm supervisor would back up your story - she didn't?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Jblog - another unfortunatel proof based on imaginary evidence and imaginary authority. You don't know but you are granting her authority based on your ignorance?!

    ReplyDelete
  69. http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/12/it-is-offiicial-chicago-beis-din-and.html#comment-1730423535



    I'm pretty sure you can sign up for a reading comprehension class, if you so desire.


    But it would be prudent for you to first seek out a worthy mentor as well as professional and competent therapist. You may just find that you don't need a reading comprehension class - it is simply your other emotional issues causing to forcefully misunderstand or ignore the presented facts.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "when they say someone was "over negiah" they generally mean sexual intercourse"

    Complete nonsense! You clearly know nothing about this.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Please, stick to topics you know something about. This is clearly not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  72. You only wish the CBD would have been subtle about anything. The openly claimed that he raped many people - S. Feurst reportedly told people on the phone that there are five girls who will not receive "full kesubos" [ask one of the dayanim you're in touch with what that means]. He told me on the phone that there were many victims and that young ladies were unclothed in his presence. The very last thing the CBD was try to protect anyone's reputation.

    You are indeed a sick young women but I doubt eidensohn is the reason.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This guy equates negiah with intercourse. He is either aggressively ignorant or playing a game.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Exactly. We are outraged not because he was ousted from his seminaries on flimsy evidence because we know that he admitted to a hug and yes, we also know the name of the student [which obviously I would never share with you or anyone else here], but we are outraged that he was destroyed by the CBD bent on extorting the schools from him. We are outraged that his staff was villified although they're perfectly innocent. We are outraged that people pretend to respect the CBD when they tried to destroy him but now find themselves disbelieving the CBD when they issue a statement that the schools are safe.

    ReplyDelete
  75. By your own admission on FF you've been shunned by most of your former fellow students [I wouldn't call them former friends because based on my information you never had many of those] because of your false allegations. I've also heard from many girls who believe that you are delusional young lady and don't agree with you in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Which dayanim have you spoken to? How often, and when was the last time?
    You're ignoring this question and it looks rlly bad on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I never said that he hugged a girl, or that I have evidence of same. What I did say is that I know what he admitted to, which was consensual negiah, and I explained more than once how I know. And that I therefore know also that the CBD has lied in its characterizations of his actions as "rape," "sexual violence" and the like. You, on the other hand, have no knowledge of anything beyond what you find in Lopin's dumpster.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I think truthseeker is having a work accident. She's disintegrating.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I find it funny that u have never called the CBD. Rabbi Cohen told me in the summer the crazy amount of phone calls he received from students who concurred about his highly inappropriate behavior and the atmosphere. Many girls hate my point of view, but u wouldn't know that bc u REFUSE to call the CBD.

    ReplyDelete
  80. If u are simply going to insult me, it only looks bad on u.

    ReplyDelete
  81. TS wrote earlier: "Explain to me when I have ever had a "hysterical outburst"

    I think the above qualifies. In spades.

    ReplyDelete
  82. But, wait a minute. The same people telling us he admitted are the people telling us he did more. Either we take into account the whole message from these people, or we discount it. Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  83. @Joe Orlow - not so. There was a recording made of his confession which was heard by a wide variety of people - not just the CBD.

    ReplyDelete
  84. It's even more damaging when they invent things he never admitted to, as they did.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "He told me on the phone that there were many victims and that young
    ladies were unclothed in his presence. The very last thing the CBD was
    try to protect anyone's reputation."

    Quite true. Which is shocking, really. It's axiomatic in such cases that what's best for the victims is privacy. The CBD and Gottesman trampled their privacy. In their zeal to punish Meisels, and to extort the seminaries, they publicized everything through Lopin and the newspapers. With their wild claims, they cast doubt upon the former students of these sems. These clumsy tone-deaf clods are the very last people who should be allowed anywhere near matters of such sensitivity as molestation and abuse. And yet here they are, "the Special Beis Din" of Chicago.

    In reality, the term "special" applies to them only in its most pejorative sense.

    ReplyDelete
  86. >when they say someone was "over negiah" they generally mean sexual intercourse.

    Sorry, but that is absolutely NOT the way the term "negiah" is used in the frum world.

    ReplyDelete
  87. >when you say e.g. about a young, unmarried bocher that he was "over negiah", you certainly do not mean he once in his life merely touched a female's hand.

    That is exactly what it means.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Your opinions are as ridiculous as your hat.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "What on our good green earth is an "inexcusable hug" supposed to mean? Hugging someone who halacha doesn't allow one to hug?"

    Precisely.

    "So, I suppose Meisels provided a list of additional victims to the
    Chicago Beis Din -- a list of young women in his seminaries to whom he
    had given "inexcusable hugs"."


    Why would you suppose that at all? He never did and you have no evidence that he did. Would it be okay if I suppose that you gave "inexcusable kisses" to a bunch of women whom you encountered on a plane ride?


    The reason this discussion had to get technical is because there is a huge difference between alleging that someone raped multiple girls and his admission that he hugged one or two of them. If it was your own daughters involved, you can bet you'd perceive the difference and want everyone to be very clear that it was the latter, not the formed.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Where did you learn this? Do share with us the source of this absurd definition please.

    ReplyDelete
  91. "you certainly do not mean he once in his life merely touched a female's hand."

    Correct. He didn't say he once touched a female's hand. He said that he gave an inexcusable hug or did you miss that part?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Whichever you prefer. The fact is that the same people who said more are now saying the seminaries are safe so why not just accept it and stop confusing the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  93. TS,


    You claim that you've been in touch with the Dayanim since day one.

    Which dayanim have you spoken to? How often, and when was the last time?
    You're ignoring this question and it looks rlly bad on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  94. David, I owe u nothing and so not need to answer your question. Go look thru my comments on FF and here bc in have mentioned in before who and when I have been in touch.

    And I especially do not owe a thing after u called me a 'crackhead'. Speaking of looking bad, ur not doing so well urself.

    ReplyDelete
  95. What, you're not a crackhead? How then do you explain your flakiness?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Oh, I absolutely understand that those with daughters who've attended those seminaries have a strong motivation to pretend that there was nothing inappropriate going on beyond "hugging". And especially if there were rapes: Who would want their daughter falling under a cloud of such suspicion? Your attitude is completely understandable.

    ReplyDelete
  97. What's not understandable or excusable are the so-called dayanim and their enablers who didn't care about those daughters falling under a cloud of unwarranted suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "The Chicago beith din decided not to publish what Meisels had done,
    admitted, allegedly done, apparently to protect Meisels and/or his
    family and/or the seminaries."

    One thing the CBD was not concerned with was Meisels, his family or the seminaries. They made many attempts to destroy the seminaries, and their every action was calculated to destroy Meisels and his family.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I guess they care more about making sure it doesn't happen to additional young women. But you do a great job of representing the typical Orthodox abuser coverup rationale side of the argument. You must be a big supporter of Rabbi Belsky as well.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Good one, kishke, good one.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Quite the opposite. You do a marvelous job of casting suspicion on hundreds of innocent young ladies who are guilty of absolutely nothing. Instead, let's all pretend that they might be rape victims and while we're at it, let's destroy the reputations of a long list of staff members and their parnassos too. Nothing wrong with that. Guys like Lopin and UOJ do it daily.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Of course you owe us an answer to a simple question if you want whatever credibility you have left to survive. You made a very powerful claim about being in touch with the Dayanim from day one.
    Which ones, how often and how recently?
    Why would they maintain contact with you other than when you gave testimony in BD? Are you in touch with them other than that? Do you share information with them or do you plot additional smears with them? what's the nature of your extra-curriculur contact with members of the BD? Inquiring minds wanna know.

    ReplyDelete
  103. They made sure it wouldn't happen to others by removing him from the seminaries. All the rest was unnecessary if that was their goal. But they had other things on their mind, things unbefitting for dayanim and batei din.

    As for me covering up, not at all. I'm the first to agree that Meisels does not belong in chinuch. And Rabbi Belsky is not my favorite person by any stretch of the imagination, so I pass your litmus test there. But none of that gives batei din the right to act like a bunch of gangsters. If you think otherwise, that's your problem.

    ReplyDelete
  104. You're the one who said the following:

    "Oh, I absolutely understand that those with daughters who've attended
    those seminaries have a strong motivation to pretend that there was
    nothing inappropriate going on beyond "hugging". And especially if there
    were rapes: Who would want their daughter falling under a cloud of such
    suspicion? Your attitude is completely understandable. "

    Now you suddenly don't understand?

    ReplyDelete
  105. No - what's so unbelievable is that you missed my point so completely.
    By claiming that there were dozens of victims, when in fact they could not produce more than two confirmed claimants, the CBD effectively cast aspersions on every single student who attended any of his sems. That was my point and I'm sorry you missed. Nowhere did I say a word about the two litigants.

    ReplyDelete

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