Chaim Walder dies

[YitzyS]

While we're at it, I'll take a pony too.

I think a horse may be better for your size

[gozalim]

Some Rabbonim are willing to treat the DA's office as the interim investigator

[LNS]

The fact that he said a name shows there likely isn't a laundry list of victims IMO.

this doesn't change anything
why is it that just because he can so openly say a name and state that he did what he did its a sign of teshuva
i would think regret and remorse for something like that last for life and isn't just no big deal to mention when asked no matter how many years later

[Yehuda57]

While we're at it, I'll take a pony too.

הונט וואס דו ביסט, you can have your very own Kosher Horizons dog & pony show.

[VacationLover]

Either way, this isn’t the topic for the objective/general discussion about naming names in such situation

Until this I agree and understand.

[avromie7]

this doesn't change anything
why is it that just because he can so openly say a name and state that he did what he did its a sign of teshuva
i would think regret and remorse for something like that last for life and isn't just no big deal to mention when asked no matter how many years later

Did you listen to the recording? It doesn't sound like no big deal.

[LNS]

Did you listen to the recording? It doesn't sound like no big deal.

yes i did
what shows signs of regret?
asking the person back if he remembers what he did so many years ago or just not having any hesitation when answering questions?

[nucheiner]

Source?
Is that for unverified claims?
For a verified claim It is obvious.

Does this mean to trust just about any claim?

What it certainly means is not to dismiss claims or try to make them go away without due process.

Now, how about a situation where the claims or investigation will cause devastating financial impact to a public institution. Due to liability or litigation. On the one hand most times this just a way to cash out on a tragic incident which the institution had no play in. But on the other hand the only way out is to deny, discredit and perhaps destroy the claimant. Tough call, but sometimes thats the what times call for.

[avromie7]

This thread has become the de facto CSA master thread. We aren’t the ones releasing information, just discussing information people posted in the interest of unearthing abuse where it exists, protecting our community, and giving a voice to survivors. Those causes are agreeable objectives that most here (perhaps even you and VL can agree upon.

If you want to discuss the objective merits of publishing information in general in such cases, there’s a thread for that. If you want to discuss the merits of allegations against CW or TA, or any other such allegations that might be posted in this thread, go right ahead, but people will tell you that just because you didn’t hear about it, the “single tweet” isn’t the entire story. Either way, this isn’t the topic for the objective/general discussion about naming names in such situation, and derails from the common 3 objectives I outlined before.

These are all noble objectives. How they are done is where we disagree.

[avromie7]

yes i did
what shows signs of regret?
asking the person back if he remembers what he did so many years ago or just not having any hesitation when answering questions?

I guess we heard different recordings.

[VacationLover]

What it certainly means is not to dismiss claims or try to make them go away without due process.

Now, how about a situation where the claims or investigation will cause devastating financial impact to a public institution. Due to liability or litigation. On the one hand most times this just a way to cash out on a tragic incident which the institution had no play in. But on the other hand the only way out is to deny, discredit and perhaps destroy the claimant. Tough call, but sometimes thats the what times call for.

Dismiss claims is one thing, publicize unverified claims is another.
Meaning that for the victim that comes forward, you should have sympathy and help them. This does not mean that you should publicize the accusers name publicly before it has been verified.

[aygart]

This sounds great.

Also, what about while these investigations take place? Do we just stand by and allow more children’s lives to potentially get ruined? What about Lo Saamod? Do we have a chiyuv to intervene in some way? Do we warn families to stay away pending further information?

Part of forming any system would be to create clear guidelines for their procedures when it is not about any case or individual to bring emotions into it. I heard from an internationally regarded posek that once Rav Wosner ztl was asked a shailo about an issue very emotional to the shoal imams refused to give his psak without him first going to a different posek who didn't have the shoalim crying in front of him to make sure that emotion wasn't closing his judgement.

[AsherO]

These are all noble objectives. How they are done is where we disagree.

Silencing reporters/survivors is certainly not going to achieve those objectives.

[S209]

The same should be asked about you taking the opposite extreme.

What extreme are you talking about? I didn’t take a stance, I only questioned those who claim to know what to do.

The fact that he said a name shows there likely isn't a laundry list of victims IMO.

That’s ridiculous. He ventured a guess as to *which* victim the questioner was referring to. Why on earth was this a multiple choice question!?

I'm not sure I agree with your statement, but either way you seem fully ok with throwing him to the dogs before he even has such a chance.

Again, source? Where did you see me indicate I’m “fully ok with throwing him to the dogs”?

I'm not a rabbi, so CMIIW, but shouldn't the minimum requirement for dan lekaf zechus be that if there is another logical explanation we should not assume the worst?

This is not the Halacha. And even if this were a situation where it were (such as if he were a tzadik) I’m far from convinced the chiyuv of btzedek tishpot would override the potential chiyuv of lo saamod.

Maybe you know more than the rest of us, but for the rest if us there is no indication that it happened as an adult.

Sure there is. The recording is alleged to have been taken recently regarding an incident 18 years ago and he’s over 50. Also, I apparently do know more than many here if they have never heard the rumors but there are at a minimum hundreds of people who have heard this about him going back literally decades.

[Euclid]

he’s ~60

FTFY

[S209]

Dismiss claims is one thing, publicize unverified claims is another.
Meaning that for the victim that comes forward, you should have sympathy and help them. This does not mean that you should publicize the accusers name publicly before it has been verified.

But does it mean you shouldn’t? Should we completely disregard potential future victims? This is the fifth time I’ve asked you this question directly and you’ve failed to even attempt an answer.

[AsherO]

Until this I agree and understand.

Good, so we have a lot of common ground to cover, let's focus on that.

We also agree that you're other topic is important, and it has a dedicated thread, so I'm happy to discuss it there.

[aygart]

  The fact that he said a name shows there likely isn't a laundry list of victims IMO.

Not sure why that would be. There was a time frame mentioned and it seems that just in that period there was more than one. He seems to have thought the call was about one individual.

[S209]

Part of forming any system would be to create clear guidelines for their procedures when it is not about any case or individual to bring emotions into it.

+100

Exactly. It’s not just about the accused person but also the potential victims. Some who have proposed setting up a system have failed to take into account how to deal with the alleged abuser in the interim.

FTFY

See my edit

[Yehuda57]

Dismiss claims is one thing, publicize unverified claims is another.
Meaning that for the victim that comes forward, you should have sympathy and help them. This does not mean that you should publicize the accusers name publicly before it has been verified.

You keep harping on this arbitrary standard for verification. If someone saying in their own words, "I molested him", and giving graphic details of what that entailed is not enough of a verification, someone at Amudim telling you "yesh raglayim l'davar" is?