Lohud A Rockland judge on Thursday found New Square Rabbi Moshe Taubenfeld not guilty of allegations he sexually abused a boy over a five-year period from 2001 to 2006. [...]
Despite Judge Rolf Thorsen's verdict, the young man who accused Taubenfeld of sexual abuse said he hoped the fact that he testified publicly will help other victims of abuse in New Square and the religious community. [...]
Thorsen said he ruled on the facts, including deciding the credibility of the testimony and whether there was reasonable doubt based on the evidence. He announced the verdict just past 3 p.m. following a multi-week trial. [...]
Rabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeletedo you believe that he is indeed innocent or do you believe he is guilty?
If he is innocent, why would the boy have made these false accusations?
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/alleged-new-suare-sex-abuse-victim.html#comment-1477336100
Please explain. Thank you.
the
ReplyDeleteyoung man who accused Taubenfeld of sexual abuse said he hoped the fact
that he testified publicly will help other victims of abuse
What in the world does that mean? His testimony was ruled not credible. His testimony can only hurt victims, not help them.
We have constant negative stories every time some frum guy is accused
ReplyDeleteor convicted, it's time when a frum guy is proven innocent and acquitted that such a positive story, too, be given major coverage.
We can now say that justice has been served. And to the naysayers who
insist on accepting the verdict of a court when it results in a conviction of an accused molester, they must accept that justice has been served upon acquitted. They can't always be looking for convictions and ignoring, downplaying or dismissing acquittals.
I would suggest a modification of your headline. I, and you, have no idea if he is guilty or not guilty. It would be accurate to say that he was found not guilty, which is a legal, not factual, determination.
ReplyDeleteTrue. I think you are a child abuser and molester. There has not been any court that has found you innocent.
ReplyDeleteOh, you believe in innocent until proven guilty for yourself, but not for those types like Rabbi Taubenfeld?! Ahhh.
@Honesty - don't see any benefit in guessing. The judge obviously found the testimony problematic.
ReplyDeletefalse accusation and false confessions happen. If the testimony was true - why were there inconsistencies?
Maybe you have reading comprehension problems. A court rarely determines whether or not someone is innocent or guilty. They determine whether it has been proven beyond a certain threshold of doubt as to whether one is innocent or guilty. I would have the same problem if someone wrote concerning one convicted of a crime that he is guilty instead of writing that he has been found guilty.
ReplyDeleteDo you make the same point when someone is convicted? That we should say he was found guilty but not say factually that he actually is guilty.
ReplyDeleteI certainly would if I saw a headline saying that a person is guilty. Offhand, I can't think of an instance of that.
ReplyDeleteI would say someone is guilty or innocent only if I were convinced through my knowledge of a case. I don't know anything at all about this case.
http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2015/07/30/new-square-rabbi-acquitted-sex-abuse/30887119/
ReplyDeleteDamiani said Taubenfeld had taught more than 200 students over his career and not one of them had ever suggested he did anything inappropriate. Damiani said he asked for a non-jury trial because he doubted Taubenfeld could get a fair trial from many of the non-Hasidic residents in the county.
Damiani said Thorsen considered the testimony and facts presented him by the defense and prosecutor Stephen Moore, an executive assistant district attorney.
"The pressure that was on from the media, the DA, Brooklyn activists, and public opinion was tremendous," Damiani said. "We asked for a non-jury trial to get past all the prejudice."
I find it uncomfortable that the case was decided by one person alone and not a jury (at the request of Taubenfeld's team). I have seen similar cases where it goes to a retrial if a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, which shows the immense value of a broad range of people expressing their thoughts on the nuances of a case.
A single person, despite being a judge, is only human and could have been prejudiced in favor of Taubenfeld, in the opposite way to the accusations of a jury being prejudiced.
I can't help but feel in this case, whilst justice was done, justice was not seen to be done.
Maybe you have reading comprehension problems.
ReplyDeleteActually, you seem to have intellectual honesty problems. The number one rule in a United States Court of Law is that all parties are innocent until proven guilty. Being that Rabbi Taubenfeld has not been proven guilty, his innocence has thus been declared and found by the court.
don't see any benefit in guessing.
ReplyDeleteMay I respectfully disagree? When we see an adolescent publicly accusing someone, we presume guilt since .... This case has proven that our presumptions are not necessarily correct.
I would guess that an adolescent who has is not socially integrated, and seems to have an unremarkable life to himself, can be motivated by commingle this big "hero" for having spoken out. If a kid seems to be speaking out not due to pain and shame, we must wonder if the new social status and significance the case is bringing him is what is really motivating him. We must hold our judgment until after the court's verdict.
Otherwise we will be victimizing more people in the sense of what Raymond J. Donovan famously asked: "Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"
For example, had Rabbi Eidensohn headline the Rabbi Bodenheimer article with "Rabbi Bodenheimer guilty of endangering etc.," instead of "Rabbi Bodenheimer pleads guilty," I would have made the same comment.
ReplyDeleteSo you would say as a factual assertion that O.J. Simpson did not kill his ex-wife based on the fact that the court system acquitted him? Again, you are failing to understand the very straightforward distinction between a determination by the legal system versus the objective truth.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, it is not that all parties are "innocent," it is that they are "presumed innocent," and therein lies the essential point.
So you would say as a factual assertion that O.J. Simpson did not kill his ex-wife based on the fact that the court system acquitted him?
ReplyDeleteThe court system clearly ruled that OJ violated her civil rights.
Again, you are failing to understand the very straightforward distinction between a determination by the legal system versus the objective truth.
Really weird. I have yet to see you come to the defense of someone who has been convicted of a crime, and attempt to insinuate that he is quite possibly innocent and that the courts findings have nothing to do with what actually happened. However, here and in the seminary case, you keep on trying to insinuate that despite the fact that they have been found innocent, they really are guilty.
And you claim to seek the objective truth?!
Aha. So for you, after O.J. was acquitted in the criminal case, that means that he was factually innocent of killing his ex-wife, and after he lost the civil suit, he became retroactively factually guilty of killing her. I don't know if you are aware, but the reason for the difference in the two verdicts is because the standard of evidence that must be met in a criminal case is much higher than that of a civil lawsuit. Therefore, in the eyes of a jury, the evidence against him did not meet the higher standard, but in the eyes of a jury, it did meet the lower standard.
ReplyDeleteThis is precisely my point, which you evidently are unable or unwilling to comprehend, that courts and/or juries are asked to make a determination whether or not the evidence presented reaches a certain standard or not. They are not asked to say whether or not the accused is innocent or guilty. If I am on a jury and am fully convinced that the accused committed the crime, but I am also convinced that the state has not proven that beyond a reasonable doubt, I must acquit. That does not make the accused any more or less guilty.
I am not insinuating that this person is guilty. I don't know a thing about this case other than what I have read here. As to your reference to the seminary case, you lost me. If you are referring to Meisels, I am pretty sure that the Beis Din ruled that he was certainly not found innocent.