Father Gordon MacRae - imprisoned for abuse payoff?

Wall Street Journal    By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ April 28, 2005

[Update on the story 2012]

Nine years after he had been convicted and sent to prison on charges of sexual assault against a teenaged boy, Father Gordon MacRae received a letter in July 2003 from Nixon Peabody LLP. law film representing the Diocese of Manchester, N.H. Under the circumstances -- he was a priest serving a life term -- and after all he had seen, the cordial-sounding inquiry should not perhaps have chilled him as much as it did.

". . . an individual named Brett McKenzie has brought a claim against the Diocese of Manchester seeking a financial settlement as a result of alleged conduct by you," the letter informed him. There was a limited window of opportunity for an agreement that would release him and the Diocese from liability. He should understand, the lawyer added, that this request didn't require Fr. MacRae to acknowledge in any way what Mr. McKenzie had alleged. "Rather, I simply need to know whether you would object to a settlement agreement."

Fr. MacRae promptly fired a letter off, through his lawyer, declaring he had no idea who Mr. McKenzie was, had never met him, and he was confounded by the request that he assent to any such payment. Neither he nor his lawyers ever received any response. Fr. MacRae had little doubt that the stranger -- like others who had emerged, long after trial, with allegations and attorneys, and, frequently, just-recovered memories of abuse -- got his settlement.

By the time he was taken off to prison in 1994, payouts for such claims against priests promised to surpass the rosiest dreams of civil attorneys. The promise was duly realized: In 2003, the Boston Archdiocese paid $85 million for some 54 claimants. The Portland, Ore., Archdiocese, which had already handed over some $53 million, declared bankruptcy in 2004, when confronted with $155 million in new claims. Those of Tucson and Spokane soon did the same. [...]

If the events leading to Fr. MacRae's prosecution had all the makings of dark fiction, the trial itself perfectly reflected the realities confronting defendants in cases of this kind. For the complainant in this case, as for many others seeking financial settlements, a criminal trial -- with its discovery requirements, cross examinations, and the possibility, even, of defeat -- was a highly undesirable complication. The therapist preparing Thomas Grover for his civil suit against the diocese sent news, enthusiastically informing him that she'd had word from the police that Gordon MacRae had been offered a plea deal he could not refuse, and that the client could probably rest assured there would be no trial. On the contrary, Fr. MacRae would over the next months refuse two attractive pretrial plea deals, the second offering a mere one to three years for an admission of guilt.[...]

Having given his reasons, the judge then sentenced the priest, now 42, to consecutive terms on the charges, a sentence of 33-and-a-half to 67 years, Since no parole is given to offenders who do not confess, it would be in effect a life term. [....]

In the years since his conviction, nearly all accusers who had a part in conviction -- along with some who did not -- received settlements. Jay, the second of the Grover sons -- who had, Detective McLaughlin's notes show, repeatedly insisted that the priest had done nothing amiss -¬came forward with his claim for settlement in the late '90s. And in 2004, the subject in the Spofford Hospital incident, Michael Rossi -- "This is confession, right?" -- came forward with his claim.

"There will be others," predicts Fr. MacRae, whose second appeal of the conviction lies somewhere in the future. His tone is, as usual, vibrant, though shading to darkness when he thinks of the possibility of his expulsion from the priesthood -- a reminder that there could be prospects ahead harder to bear than a life in prison.

Forward investigated alleged abuse by Y.U. staff

Forward    A Forward investigation into allegations that two staff members at Yeshiva University High School for Boys’ Manhattan campus sexually abused students during the late 1970s and early ’80s has led to a startling admission by the university’s chancellor: The school dealt with allegations of “improper sexual activity” against staff members by quietly allowing them to leave and find jobs elsewhere.

For years, former students have asked Y.U., the premier educational institution of Modern Orthodox Judaism, to investigate their claims that a former principal had repeatedly abused students in the all-male high school that is part of the university. Another former high school student said Y.U. covered up for a staff member who sodomized him.

Y.U. President Richard Joel said in a statement issued on December 3 that the school was “looking with concern into the questions” the Forward had raised.

But Norman Lamm, who was president of Y.U. from 1976 to 2003 and is now chancellor, indicated in an interview December 7 that he knew about some of the allegations and chose to deal with them privately. In one case, a suspected abuser of high school students was allowed to leave for a position as dean of a Florida school.

No law enforcement officials were ever notified, despite “charges of improper sexual activity” made against staff “not only at [Y.U.’s] high school and college, but also in [the] graduate school,” Lamm said. “If it was an open-and-shut case, I just let [the staff member] go quietly. It was not our intention or position to destroy a person without further inquiry.”

Asked whether in the case of staff assaulting minors the abuse should have been reported to police, Lamm said. “My question was not whether to report to police but to ask the person to leave the job.” [...]

Yeshiva University President Richard Joel has issued a statement of apology in response to a Forward story describing how Y.U. failed to report claims of child abuse made against staff members during the 1970s and ‘80s. Joel’s statement, released this morning, offered victims who were allegedly abused by members of YU’s faculty and administration “my deepest, most profound apology.”
====================

 President issues apology

Yeshiva University President Richard Joel has issued a statement of apology in response to a Forward story describing how Y.U. failed to report claims of child abuse made against staff members during the 1970s and ‘80s. Joel’s statement, released this morning, offered victims who were allegedly abused by members of YU’s faculty and administration “my deepest, most profound apology.”

What means are permissible in fight against abuse?

I just received this letter. I think it raises some very important issues and would like an open discussion.

Rabbi can you clarify this on the blog. If catching child molesters is our obligation and we must work with law enforcement to accomplish this end is it alright to sit with news media hostile to the frum community and Israel? What purpose does this serve other than create a huge Chillul Hashem? Is it alright to become partners with people like Vicki Polin to accomplish these ends. Basically do the "ends justify the means".To me they obviously don't but I am no posek .I have learned so much from what you post and the answers to questions I have posed .The blog is excellent .We see that what is reported is sometimes false as the twitter story was. So giving information to unreliable sources doesn't seem like a good idea.Thank You.

First of all if you are asking whether compromises are permitted if needed - the answer is obviously yes
 For example Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked regarding a community in South America where the leader who had done much good was a doctor married to a non-Jew. The question is could this community honor him to encourage him to continue. The answer was yes - but that there were restrictions on how they could honor him.

The issue of abuse is complicated. As Rabbi Zweibel of the Aguda has acknowledged - significant work to get the issue dealt with was the result of blogs - some of which are strongly anti-Torah and involve direct insults to Torah and its Sages. Realistically if it hadn't been for bloggers and people willing to speak to newspapers - such as the New York magazine - nothing would have happened. So on the one hand there was little chance of change without publicizing the matter in the secular or non-Orthodox press. But there is an additional heter for causing this chilul hashem.That is because the coverups themselves are a greater chilul hashem then the existence of abuse. So you have on the one hand the chilul haShem of exposing that abuse does occur in the Orthodox world as it does in other communities. But by covering it up and allow abuse to happen - when it is going to eventual be revealed - is a much greater chilul hashem. It is one thing for a warped individual to abuse but when the community leadership and rabbis in the name of Torah betray the victim in the name of religion - it is much worse.

So again it is a question of whether there was an alternative which would not involve chilul hashem of associating with problematic individuals and media exposure? As the issue becomes more mainstream the need for making compromises is significantly reduced.

The Weberman Trial By 5TJT Staff

Five Towns Jewish Times  The horrifying saga of the Nechemya Weberman trial and the guilty verdict on 59 or 60 of the consolidated counts has caught the attention of the world.

If the allegations are true, as guilty verdicts tend to indicate, and as the existence of 11 other victims too fearful to step forward indicates, then what we have here is truly sickening.

We have a 12-year-old girl that did not quite meet the standards of the community around her. The school officials refused to admit her back into the school unless her parents pre-paid for therapy—to the tune of $12,900.

And then she suffers three years of horrifying abuse at the hands of the very “therapist” that the school had required her to meet with regularly. Imagine the pain of such a girl who must endure the sickest of acts—with the knowledge that no one would believe her if she told of what was being done to her.

The Navi cries out, “Bagda Yehuda v’soaivah ne’esasa b’Yisrael!” Our schools are named after our heilege imahos and avos. And the matriarch, Mama Rachel, is crying now. Of that there is no doubt.

Our schools have handed over these precious souls to monsters for abuse. And then, when they ultimately come forward, we vilify them and their families. We exclude them from our camps and our schools.

Hakezona ya’aseh es achoseini?

And this was aided and abetted by the kehilah leadership, rachmana litzlan! The kehilah leadership! Not even a brush full of the blackest of paint could put such horrors on a canvas!

Has there ever been such a parallel in our entire history? [...]

Our reaction must be to immediately dissolve this Vaad HaTzniyus which forced Yiddishe girls into the hands of a monster. Their names should be recorded and never again must such people be put in charge of such grave matters of responsibility. A vaad of tzniyus must only be direct representatives of choshuvah and leading poskim well respected throughout the Torah world. And no matter who it may be, which meyuchasdika person, we must never forget the holy words of Chazal, “Ein apitropus l’arayos—no one, absolutely no one can be trusted alone in matters of arayos.”

Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald's view of Weberman verdict

The following is an email I received from the well-known community activist  Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald     See the post of his talk about children at risk
=============================



In response to  the numerous phone calls I have received regarding the verdict of Nechemia Weberman, below are my thoughts.

 "Today is not a day of joy or simchah, it's a day of reflection and making a cheshbon."

We in Klal Yisroel must make a serious attempt to prevent and stop  this plague which is rampant in our community.  It begins with educating our children at the earliest possible age, not only about being a potential victim,  but also unfortunately growing up as a perpetrator.

It is critical that if there is a reason to suspect that a young girl or boy has been violated, we must use our legal resources.

Finally, it is interesting that it took 12 non Jews to believe a dear Jewish daughter.  I was hoping there would be 12 Chassidim who would believe her as well.

                                             Sincerely,

                                         Ronnie Greenwald

Mother of Weberman's Victim:" Her childhood was robbed"

NY Daily News   She never told me face to face until this got out. She never told me, she never told us.

We got a call from the police station. They said come over right away. I was so shocked. I called my husband right away.

The therapist [at the new school] had called the police. That school made every girl get therapy once a week. My children told me, 'You have to believe her.' She is my youngest.

Her childhood was robbed. She was such a bubbly child.

I lost a couple of years with her. After what shea went through hopefully she will pick up.

She wasn't a rebel at all. She was a shy, very smart child. She likes to know. Very bright child. She is a very good child.

The principal (at the Satmar school) could have answered my daughter's questions (about God). Not screamed apikoros (heretic). What, because she asked a question?

My husband called the teacher. He said 'You don't know the answer?’

‘Listen to (my daughter) and say, 'I don't know the answer. I will get it tomorrow and find out and then tell you’.'

They (the teachers) started picking on her. Picking on her!

She would say, ‘The principal hates me. I don't know why.'

A teacher came (to the house) and investigated if I had a computer with Internet. I feel tznius (modest), but not to their extent.[...]

Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg attacked with bleach

NY Times   An outspoken advocate for child sexual abuse victims in the Satmar Hasidic community was injured by a chemical he believed to be bleach that was thrown in his face as he walked down the street in his Williamsburg, Brooklyn, neighborhood on Tuesday. 

The advocate, Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg, who runs a Web site and telephone call-in line that publicizes claims of sexual abuse in the ultra-Orthodox community, said in an interview at the hospital where he was treated that he was walking on Roebling Street about noon when a man came up behind him and tapped him on the shoulder.

“He has a cup of bleach,” Rabbi Rosenberg said, adding that he recognized the man. “And then he says ‘whoops’ and throws it in my face and walks off.”

Mother of Weberman's victim reacts to verdict [VIDEO]

WPIX

Weberman Conviction Topples a Hasidic Wall of Secrecy

NYTimes  [...] on Monday, a State Supreme Court jury in Brooklyn delivered a stunning victory to prosecutors and victims’ advocates, convicting a 54-year-old unlicensed therapist who is a prominent member of the Satmar Hasidic community of Williamsburg of repeatedly sexually abusing a young girl who had been sent to him for help.

“The veil of secrecy has been lifted,” said Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney. “The wall that has existed in parts of these communities has now been broken through. And as far as I’m concerned, it is very clear to me that it is only going to get better for people who are victimized in these various communities.” 

The case against the therapist, Nechemya Weberman, was a significant milestone for Mr. Hynes, whose office has been criticized for not acting aggressively enough against sexual abusers in the borough’s large and politically connected ultra-Orthodox community. 

The verdict represented the first time Mr. Hynes’ office has won a conviction of a prominent member of the Satmar Hasidic community of Williamsburg for child sexual abuse. 

The case also offered a glimpse of the Satmar community’s shadowy efforts to enforce rigid codes of behavior — particularly for young girls — by allowing so-called modesty committees to intimidate girls for wearing revealing clothing or using cellphones, and requiring parents to send children judged to be breaking rules to religious counselors, many of whom are not licensed and charge high fees.[...]

The verdict against Mr. Weberman was a deeply emotional moment for the young woman, who is now 18, and her family, according to her mother, who spoke in a telephone interview several hours after the verdict.

“I cried and cried, and couldn’t stop crying,” said the woman, whose name is being withheld by The New York Times to shield the identity of her daughter. “I couldn’t stop crying that justice came out.” 

An abused rebbe's son - who left yiddishkeit

XOJANE   I can’t imagine what the victim at the center of the Weberman trial is feeling right now as the jury has finally returned, finding the Satmar Hasidic leader guilty on 59 counts of sexual abuse of a minor. And I know her situation was completely different from mine, but here's what we have in common:

We were both victims of sexual abuse in the Hasidic community. We were both molested by trusted counselors we were brought to because we were rebellious children. We both experienced shame at the hands of the so-called “modesty committees,” formed to regulate people’s masturbation practices, and we will both never be the same.

But I did not prosecute my predator. That’s because of the complicated, maddening, perhaps "Stockholm Syndrome"-like relationship I have with my abuser.

I was born to a Hasidic family in Brooklyn, the fourth child of 12. My father is a Rebbe. Not a Rabbi, a Rebbe. Yes, there's a difference between the two.

A Rabbi is a nobody. Anybody who studies the Bible and Talmud can be a Rabbi. In fact, even if you haven't studied shit, no one can stop you from calling yourself Rabbi Jane. But a Rebbe is different. He is a spiritual leader, someone with a direct line to God, a holy man. The Rabbi is the guy you ask if the milk is kosher. The Rebbe is the guy you ask to ask God whether you should have heart surgery.

My mother is a Rebbetzin. The woman whose godly job is to deliver food, clean clothes and babies. When all that is done -- and by "that" I mean once the babies have been delivered -- her job is to keep them quiet and at bay so the Rebbe can have his alone time with God and talk about the meaning of life.

Jury finds Weberman guilty on 59 counts

Oren Yaniv reports on twitter

Weberman was declared guilty and remanded to custody

Sentencing January 9th

NY Daily News

Guilty 59 times over.

A Brooklyn jury found Nechemya Weberman - a prominent figure in the Satmar Hasidic community - guilty Monday of sexually abusing a rebellious young girl he was paid to counsel.

The verdict came after an explosive two-week trial, where customs of the strict Williamsburg-based sect were aired in Brooklyn Supreme Court.

He is facing a maximum of 25 years on prison of the top count alone, prolonged sexual conduct against a child.

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

After Weberman Satmar considers alternative treatment

NY Daily News   Embarrassed by the sex abuse trial of a Hasidic counselor, leaders of Williamsburg’s pious Satmar sect are considering a different way to deal with rebellious teens: shipping them out of the country for treatment.

The idea comes as the jury weighs charges against the counselor, Nechemya Weberman, who prosecutors said molested a then-12-year-old girl referred to him because she wore supposedly indecent clothing, read People magazine and questioned God’s authority in a religious school class.

Without addressing the allegations against Weberman, a Satmar official told the Daily News that leaders are considering ways to avoid similar accusations by victims.

“This was a wakeup call; nobody denies that,” said Gary Schlesinger, who heads a nonprofit tied to Satmar leader Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum.

“Maybe we will send them to an Israeli program or a European program, and the kid will come back a different person.”

 

Is Weberman a moser? Why is she a victim?

Guest Post by Rabbi Brian Kent [See just posted response to #2]

1) Mesira: There are notices in Williamsburg going up proclaiming that the young lady in the case is guilty of mesira. But didn't we hear that Weberman himself helped the father with a video tape that was made in order to catch a young man having relations with his daughter. It was intended to be used for the express purpose of prosecuting the young man in the secular courts. This is an eight hundred pound gorilla that people seem to be blind to. Questions of mesira are very common and it is an issue that even some poskim will not give you an answer. The reason they won't is because the stakes are simply to high. 

I asked the question to Daas Torah who I hold in the highest esteem. The reply was that if they thought that the girl was being harmed or in danger it would not be mesirah. Okay, that is the litmus test on whether they can call the cops. But that wasn't the only way this could have been handled. I have been told and I have seen "shartkers" in Williamsburg who are involved with the Shomrim, provide security at Neturei Karta functions, etc. The press is speaking of a group called the Vaad HaTzinus. Do they beat people up? Absolutely! The raya we all know is when husbands don't give their wives a get they are beaten to a pulp and there hospitalizations are sometimes front page news.Another group that the Brooklyn DA turns a blind eye to since nobody has any sympathy for them.My point is there was another way to handle the boyfriend than calling the police. It seems that mesira is okay for some but not others? This case has a lot of grey.

Can somebody please help clarify this issue?

2)  Victim: I wish to respectfully ask why this girl is being referred to as a "victim"? When was this established? I know she made an accusation .I am not sure why somebody that doesn't believe in Hashem and has illicit marital relations as any neemanus? I don't blame victims .I simply want to have an answer .My question is how does somebody establish that she is a victim. Just on her word?

Now in the case of Mondrowitz I could see how he fell through the cracks.He had a radio show on WNYM in which he dispensed psychological advice "al pi Halacha" in the early 80's.He would always tell stories about the Kotzker or the Gerrer Rebbes .But when you would see him close up you knew something was very wrong. For example on Motzei Shabbos he would be decked out in his Bgdei Shabbos complete with a fancy spodik on his head.But he would have expletives coming out of his mouth .He had a sparkling public personality and in private it was obvious there was something wrong with him.Very creepy.The reason that he never went to court was because he would destroy the respectability of the schools and rabbanim he worked with. He would taint them .There is no justification for inaction. You cannot have monster that will endanger children running around In the absence of a psak from a Bais Din or a verdict in a courtroom we can obviously say he is guilty due to all the witnesses who have come forward.