http://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/?s=cray
I have received some nasty criticism for noting the absence of an acknowledgment of Cray's acquittal on the JCW site - 5 months after it happened. Claims included that I have an agenda against JCW or that I have been bought. Neither accusation is true. I did make an error in my original post when I stated that Cray was listed on JCW's Wall of Shame. He was not but a news item regarding the accusations against him - as well as acquittal on one of the 3 charges - had been posted. My concern was the fact that the news item of the accusations was still up - after full acquittal - but no mention of the full acquittal itself. The full acquittal was in Februrary while my posted criticism was June 30..
However the issue is rather simple. When an organization such as JCW posts a news item about an individual that he is accused of being a molester - most people take it as as a serious concern and heavy possibility that it is true. It is therefore reasonable and appropriate that information regarding acquittal should also be posted as soon as possible. I acknowledge that JCW has done a lot of good for the community - but they are not above criticism. I stand by my original concern and I am glad to hear that they have made the appropriate acknowledgment- even though it was made 5 months later. Hopefully news of acquittal will be made in a more timely fashion in the future.
=====================================
Tottenham Journal February 2015 [posted June 30, 2015]
Efraim Cray, 32, was accused of abusing the girl between January 2012 and January 2013.
Cray,
of Wellington Drive, South Tottenham, faced three charges of sexual
assault by touching at his trial last year, but was acquitted of one
charge on the directions of the judge.
He was cleared of the
remaining charges at Snaresbrook Crown Court today after the complainant
withdrew her allegations, writing a seven-page retraction statement in
the presence of an independently-appointed solicitor.
During
Cray’s first trial in November, prosecutor Roger Smith-Daniels said they
both lived “in a closed community” and the victim, although aged almost
15 at the time, “knew very little about sexual matters... she didn’t
know, for example, what the word vagina meant”.
Cray’s first trial collapsed when the girl admitted she had become confused and told lies during her police interview.
Mr
Smith-Daniels said: “The complainant in this case has grown up in the
ultra-orthodox Jewish community of Stamford Hill and went on to make
allegations against other men, including her own brother. [...]
==================
unfortunately the false accusations have not yet been retracted from Jewish Community web site and a number of blogs
Jewish Community Watch is notorious for putting up specious allegations, even if they're never charged let alone acquitted.
ReplyDelete"Let alone convicted" you mean.
ReplyDeleteCray is not and never has been on the wall of shame. JCW simply reported news that is newsworthy.
ReplyDeleteTo Moe Ginsburg, JCW has never posted a specious allegation and has a board with a vetting process. Please produce once case. Please.
@Judah - you are either naive or
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/138918/jewish-community-watch
When you post an article on something you call a "Wall of Shame" - it is more than reporting the news. It clearly is indicating that the person is guilty. In addition he has not reported the news that Cray was acquitted of all charges.
Regarding specious allegations - read the Tablet story which discusses the false allegations made against Daniel Granovetter
what a shame , to sully the name of Robert Cray, False Accusations
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/False-Accusations-Robert-Cray-Band/dp/B000025BCC
Daas Torah, sadly you are mistaken. The Wall of Shame requires a board review and vote, whereas the blog will post relevant articles. I am unaware if there were any articles about Cray's"innocence".
ReplyDeleteRe Granovetter, JCW never made false allegations against him. JCW reported that the DA filed charges against him and charges were pending. The DA dismissed the charges, NOT because of innocence (which requires a finding of "factual innocence," not present in the Granovetter case), rather because of insufficient evidence due to witness issues. The alleged victims were autistic, and changed their story, hence the dismissal. After the dismissal, JCW removed Granovetter from the site.
When Granovetter wrote an article blaming JCW for his issues (and not the victim, police, da, whatever), JCW responded that they will always post stories within the public arena - and they have continued to do so.
I have it on very good authority, that Granovetter actually tried to set up an innocent man, a school principal, that fired him for bizarre behavior. Granovetter created a blog and made public allegations that the principal abused children. JCW tracked the story back to Granovetter, who confessed. JCW has never published the story.
Rabbi, it seems you're buying the BS without vetting any of the truth. Its a shame. Wondering who "bought" you.
Please cite a single case.
ReplyDelete"a board review"? LOL. An anonymous so-called board. Who is on the "board"? Top-secret, eh? Or me, myself and I are the first three members.
ReplyDeleteYou must be kidding. Just go through the list. There are many of folks who were never charged or convicted.
ReplyDelete@Judah - for an anonymous or at least unknown commentator your assumption that you have crediblity by citing "very good authority" and accusing me of being bought off is very sad. You asked for a single case - I cited a single case from Tablet magazine. Slandering Granovetter - without presenting any evidence and claiming I was bought is what we have to fear from self appointed vigilante's who think they are above the law (both secular and halacha).
ReplyDelete1) Get back to the basics and focus.
ReplyDelete2) You are blaming Cray on JCW. Please explain. He's not on their Wall. An article about him was posted.
3) Granovetter isn't either on the Wall. He was removed when his case was dropped. Stop looking to blame JCW, It is really as simple as that. He was charged by the DA, and JCW posted that. I think that it is inherently a responsibility of JCW and its news-arm to post such stories. I.e., stories of arrests and people being charged. If you have a problem with that, you'll need to reevaluate your own website.
4) I presume you've been bought, simply because your change in dialogue and your recent rhetoric. Seems logical that you have a relationship with many of the LA powers that are upset about the Yarmush case.
5) Citing the Tablet, as if thats the word of Gd. So, the rag-mag made a claim, that doesn't overcome objective evidence on the matter. Grow up.
Re David:
1) http://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/about-us/board-of-advisors/
2) http://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/wall-of-shame/
3) http://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/about-us/investigative-process/
4) http://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/about-us/faq/
Please read before you try to pretend you know whats going on.
PLEASE READ THROUGH: http://www.jewishcommunitywatch.org/about-us/faq/
ReplyDeleteFrom the FAQ section:
ReplyDeleteQ: Is it true that someone was listed on the Wall of Shame and later removed? Wouldn’t that be a case where someone was wrongfully exposed?
A: Yes, it is true that an individual was posted on the Wall of Shame as an offender and was later removed, however, it was not a case of someone being wrongfully or mistakenly exposed.
JCW received complaints regarding the individual from community members in Crown Heights that raised red flags. Subsequently, and with no relation to any information gathered by JCW, the same individual was arrested by the NYPD, and charged with sexually abusing a child. In line with JCW’s policy of warning the community of potential danger to its children, and with Rabbinical consent, JCW exposed the person. Later, when the charges brought by the State were dismissed, JCW removed the person’s information from the site, because JCW did not have enough independent information to maintain the exposure, and it appeared from the dismissal by the State that the allegations were unsubstantiated.
Any complaints regarding the exposure of this individual should not be brought to JCW but rather to the local police department or the family who brought the charges. In fact, JCW would make the same decision if presented with the same facts in the future.
Good job keeping comments out, so it seems like you're accurate. Shame on you.
ReplyDeleteHis arrest is newsworthy information and should be shared by advocacy groups. If you have a problem with that, i suggest you revamp your website and refrain from making any statements unless proven in a court of law.
@Yehuda - what comment did I keep out?. Your arrogance suggests that you are involved in an advocacy group (JCW?) and hold anybody who disagrees with you in contempt
ReplyDeleteIf his arrest is newsworthy - so is his acquittal. You seem intent on having a separate justice system which is closed to the public and only anonymous true believers can belong.
my relationship or not with JCW is wholly irrelevant to your disingenuous conversation and hack hit on JCW and seewald. You post an article, using seewald's photo even though its unrelated, demand a retraction without knowing if seewald even knows about this, and imply that it was JCW making unsubstantiated allegations and that the accusations arose from jcw. None of which is true. JCW simply posted an article about his arrest. JCW has no interaction with the case at all.
ReplyDeleteAll specious and ridiculous points, in addition to wholly absurd. You then try to change the subject and make the issue something else by pointing out unrelated topics. Typical of a losing argument.
TO which ill now ask, what is your relationship to Debbie Fox and her coconspirators. Why don't you lay out the truth about that?
Wait, they magically knew about the articles announcing his indictment - but they were blissfully unaware of any articles announcing it was dropped? That's quite convenient to be on top of all the news denouncing people but unaware of the news clearing people.
ReplyDeleteall it took was simply asking JCW to post the article. Next time, instead of writing a hit piece, first do the journalistically ethical thing and reach out to JCW, requesting a clarification. Really simple and much easier than posting blatant loshon horah and matzie shem ra.
ReplyDelete@B as I have told you repeatedly -it was not a hit piece. JCW is extremely overly sensitive to criticism. The news item was up for 5 months on the JCW website after he had been acquitted without any acknowledgment that he had been acquitted.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't JCW just say that the need greater diligence in monitoring change in status of thus they post accusations about. JCW has an obligation to convey accurate information. If you are going to publish the negative you also need to publish corrections for the positive also. Why is it so hard for you to understand that.
Noting that JCW had publicly postedt an item of negative information about an individual without saying anything about the acquittal is not lashon harah nor is it slander.
Please follow your own advice. Do greater diligence before posting a implicitly false piece and sticking to your falsehood.
ReplyDelete@benny - my post was not false it is basic truth and common decency.
ReplyDeleteIt is rather bizarre that you couldn't simply acknowledge my point and say that you would try harder to monitor items so protect people's reputation.
Instead you attack me for pointing out that you are presenting negative information about an individual which is dated and inappropriate.
Why are you so concerned about JCW being criticized but you don't have a similar concern that Cray's reputation also needs to be protected?
Initially I assumed it was not updated because of the inherent disorganization when a group is starting.
I expected a reply from JCW "thanks for pointing this out we will be more diligent in the future" or simply that the item would be updated without comment.
But your vociferous attacks on me for merely noting that it wasn't updated after 5 months raises serious questions about your motivation.