Chaim Walder dies

[VacationLover]

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.

there is a Halacha process via a Dayen, a BD etc. And there is a legal process through court.
Social media is not the way.

[VacationLover]

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?

That is something else. Is this the context clear that this happened?
Did anyone contact his Rav?
Did Amudim respond to this?

[S209]

there is a Halacha process via a Dayen, a BD etc. And there is a legal process through court.
Social media is not the way to verify claims. Social media is the way to throw out unverified claims.

You are again not answering my question. There is an inherent tension between preserving the alleged abuser’s reputation and preventing future molestations from occurring. You propose that before anyone is informed of an accusation it must be thoroughly vetted and verified through a rigorous multi-step process. This process is obviously not going to be instant.

In the interim, what steps do you suggest should be implemented to protect the public? Should the alleged abuser have to move to a safe house where he is monitored at all times and prevented from having any contact with children?

Even if you believe half of all allegations are false (an obviously exaggerated number), half are not. Are you ok with leaving the half who are actual perpetrators on the street without informing the public that they need to protect themselves? If so, why? If not, what would you do?

[VacationLover]

You are again not answering my question. There is an inherent tension between preserving the alleged abuser’s reputation and preventing future molestations from occurring. You propose that before anyone is informed of an accusation it must be thoroughly vetted and verified through a rigorous multi-step process. This process is obviously not going to be instant.

In the interim, what steps do you suggest should be implemented to protect the public? Should the alleged abuser have to move to a safe house where he is monitored at all times and prevented from having any contact with children?

Even if you believe half of all allegations are false (an obviously exaggerated number), half are not. Are you ok with leaving the half who are actual perpetrators on the street without informing the public that they need to protect themselves? If so, why? If not, what would you do?

As soon as a BD etc. Hears the first claim, they may decide to announce publicly the investigation.

This should protect the public.

[S209]

As soon as a BD etc. Hears the first claim, they may decide to announce publicly the investigation.

This should protect the public.

How does that jibe with your unbridled critique of RSE announcing facts about CW? That was after many many other details had been released and verified and others had spoken, not quite “as soon as the first testimony was heard”.

You’re also quite obviously reversing course on many things you’ve already said

I strongly support investigating every claim thoroughly, and only then should it be announced to the public.

And also, it should be investigated by at least 2 BD etc. And if possible get a response from the accused before going public.

[VacationLover]

Going public that "there is an investigation"
Vs. Going to public with verified claims.

[Yehuda57]

That is something else. Is this the context clear that this happened?
Did anyone contact his Rav?
Did Amudim respond to this?

I'm not telling you to listen to the recording, it's disturbing as heck, but if you don't, please don't opine and try to be medayek....
There's no room for ambiguity here.

I only mentioned Amudim because you mentioned them as potentially being some sort of universally recognized arbiters of truth.

And why would anyone even know who his Rav is, let alone contact him? With our collective communal track record of covering up, the last person to trust is the guy the accused props up as being *his* Rav.

Why isn't your question "did anyone contact the survivor's rav?"

[S209]

Going public that "there is an investigation"
Vs. Going to public with verified claims.

I don’t quite understand what you’re proposing.

You are saying it is ok to announce publicly that so and so is being investigated for child abuse before any of the facts are in as a preemptive move to protect the public?

[VacationLover]

I don’t quite understand what you’re proposing.

You are saying it is ok to announce publicly that so and so is being investigated for child abuse before any of the facts are in as a preemptive move to protect the public?

Exactly.

[VacationLover]

Why isn't your question "did anyone contact the survivor's rav?"

Good question,
Because then that Rav would announce publicly the investigation or findings. And I'm okay with that.

I was saying that if no other Rav is involved for whatever reason, at least go to his Rav.

[aygart]

Good question,
Because then that Rav would announce publicly the investigation or findings. And I'm okay with that.

I was saying that if no other Rav is involved for whatever reason, at least go to his Rav.

I am not sure of you realize how convoluted your process seems to be. Someone's you are saying any rov sometimes only ones you arbitrarily trust. Sometimes it should be kept quiet until there is some pal BD sometimes it should be known. Or seems to me like you are not really sure yourself and making things up as you go along because this is an emotional situation for you. I understand your concerns but that is exactly what should be avoided and a very clear rational process is what is needed.

[Yehuda57]

Good question,
Because then that Rav would announce publicly the investigation or findings. And I'm okay with that.

I was saying that if no other Rav is involved for whatever reason, at least go to his Rav.

And you're ignoring the rest of my post because...?

I fully understand your horror at false accusations. It's horrendously sad to say, but this case ain't it, chief.

[VacationLover]

I am not sure of you realize how convoluted your process seems to be. Someone's you are saying any rov sometimes only ones you arbitrarily trust. Sometimes it should be kept quiet until there is some pal BD sometimes it should be known. Or seems to me like you are not really sure yourself and making things up as you go along because this is an emotional situation for you. I understand your concerns but that is exactly what should be avoided and a very clear rational process is what is needed.

There are cases where the subject is a danger to the public. In that case the BD etc. Hears any testimony and they decide that he is dangerous, they should announce that there is an investigation. For this any rav is good. This is exactly what Rav Silman did, and I praise him for that. He didn't say that CW is so and so. He said that there is an investigation and meanwhile we should refrain from reading his books.

The next level is to confirm allegations and destroy the persons reputation. For vast majority of cases any BD is good, assuming there are no credible counter BD.

CW case was very different in terms of the high profile persona he was, and the natural enemies he had (like anyone involved in serious marriage counseling)

For a case like AT, I don't see a reason not to trust any ordinary BD. Maybe my bad grammer makes it sound like I keep on changing positions, but my position is very clear to me.

[Yehuda57]

For a case like AT, I don't see a reason not to trust any ordinary BD.

And again, what will a ordinary bd tell you that he already didn't tell you with his very own mouth?

[VacationLover]

And you're ignoring the rest of my post because...?

I fully understand your horror at false accusations. It's horrendously sad to say, but this case ain't it, chief.

Unintentional.
Best would be indeed to go to the victims Rav or BD he feels comfortable, and let them announce it.

[VacationLover]

And again, what will a ordinary bd tell you that he already didn't tell you with his very own mouth?

If the context is clear that he did it when he was an adult withoutconsent, you are right. Case closed.

[aygart]

Unintentional.
Best would be indeed to go to the victims Rav or BD he feels comfortable, and let them announce it.

Yes but this guy went and did it already. Too late.

[randomjay]

I don’t know AT (besides that he owns an orchestra) but listening to this recording it sounds that someone is holding a gun to his head or some other thread forcing him to say what the investigators wants to hear.

Now, don’t get me wrong, a forced admission can very well be a true admission, but the context and the background of this phone conversation is very important.

And to Yehuda57 question how come he’s not on every hilltop screaming whatever. That would be very silly of him, as probably 90% of the community is not on Twitter and DDF so wouldn’t be smart of him to stand up on 13th Ave refuting social media posts.

[Definitions]

IMO there are 2 categories of abusers, sick adults and troubled teens. While both of them can be devastating to the victims, they are not the same and they shouldn't be treated the same.

If something was done by a troubled teen many years ago, I see no reason it should affect anything going forward. OTOH if an adult is abusing children it must be dealt with immediately.

Additionally, regardless of what happened or is happening, there should not be a culture of punitive revenge. If an abuser is in a position where their job or business enables abuse, of course it should be stopped, but if not why are we trying to ruin their livelihood? Besides for the fact that it would only make the problems worse by leaving the abuser depressed and bored with no one to take it out on other than little kids.

Hmm interesting. I'm a bit confused on which part you are stressing when categorizing the perpetrators. Is it the age of the perpetrator or the time since the last act? Maybe a bit of both. To me it seems like you were saying the former. As well as that it's possible the younger person has already changed or isn't liable for their actions as much.

I don't have my opinion fully formed but I do know that there are some points that I often see repeated by the majority of people that doesn't sit right by me.

Number one, it seems like most people consider if an adult is attracted to a minor as a sickness. I don't see it as a sickness. Maybe you were saying it's the acting upon such urges which is the sickness. But I still wouldn't call that a sickness more than anything else such as stealing.

Number two it seems like the type of abuse that happened is nearly irrelevant if the victim was a minor. Once again I don't see it that way either. I imagine the biggest factor should be  how much pain was inflicted. And that includes trauma from fright. (this does not include other types of trauma simply because I don't understand it as I've mentioned upthread)

Number three when you say that there should never be any punitive revenge. I understand it to mean that any reaction should be done only to rehabilitate the perpetrator or if not possible then to remove from society. I take issue with that as well. I dont see any reason why punitive revenge should be withheld. IMO justice is always nonlogical I don't see a reason to withhold a punishment only because there's no reason to do something.

Lastly the above is not taking into account anything from a Jewish religious standpoint. They are my moral views without mixing anything else in.

[yuneeq]

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?

Anything less than full video evidence is useless, and even then only if you don’t have to zoom in