The Tsimmes by Gribetz about Bodenheimer

L to R, Shaul Spitzer & Kenneth Gribbetz

Skver arsonist Shaul Spitzer & Kenneth Gribetz

Former Rockland County DA, Kenneth Gribetz is the go-to attorney for local Haredi sex offenders and his PR shtick is predictable.

In March of 2012, Dovid Kohn was charged with 40 counts of having oral sex with a girl when she was between the ages of 12 and 15. Gribetz told the press his client would plead not guilty. During pre-trial hearings there were challenges to telephone conversations between Kohn and the girl taped by police, which Gribetz claimed were inaudible. But Kohn and Gribetz wised up and he pled guilty to 35 felony counts. Who knows? Maybe he was innocent of 5 of the 40 charges or maybe he got a 12% discount for sparing the DA the trouble of a trial.

megaphone clip artYisroel Moshe  (Israel) Weingarten was arrested by FBI agents and accused of molesting his daughter for years. Gribetz claimed that Weingarten’s wife made up stories to frame him. Weingarten’s case went to trial and he is now serving a thirty-year sentence.

All Gribetz needs to proclaim innocence is a retainer and a microphone.

LOHUD reports, Monsey rabbi rejects plea deal in sex abuse case. According to the article:

Rabbi Gavriel Bodenheimer

Rabbi Gavriel Bodenheimer

The lawyer [Kenneth Gribetz] for a Monsey rabbi [Gavriel (Gabriel) Bodenheimer] accused of sexually abusing a 7-year-old boy says two police-controlled telephone calls involving the child will help prove the school administrator never touched the child…… “We will be using the recordings at trial,” Gribetz said. “There will be no plea to any charges……”

The rabbi was charged in an grand jury indictment on Aug. 8 with three of first-degree criminal sexual act and one count of first-degree sex abuse. The charges cover oral and anal sex with a child and carry a maximum of 25 years in prison.

The boy, now, 12, was 7 years old when Bodenheimer allegedly abused him at his school office between August 2009 and July 2010……

Gribetz said… said the defense strategy… will include asking the judge to allow the jurors to visit the school. He said the offices are open and the spaces inside are visible through windows.

This barely qualifies as news. Rabbi Gavriel (Gabriel) Bodenheimer probably has a year before he will get a trial date. Even those defendants resigned to a plea bargain usually hold off until shortly before trial. Every day of freedom is precious. Defendants always hope the accuser will surrender to community intimidation.

Odds are, Bodenheimer will plead guilty at the last moment before trial and allow his circle to claim he was railroaded into a plea bargain. Perhaps he will go to trial and lose. I would not bet on his being innocent just because Kenny Gribetz says so.

—-

See previous Frum Follies posts about Bodenheimer:

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “The Tsimmes by Gribetz about Bodenheimer

  1. Its shocking that a former DA doesn’t know the basic rules of evidence. His declaration that he intends on playing the tapes at trial is clearly erroneous to any second year law student that studied Evidence Law. He cant admit those tapes as proof of anything – its hearsay. The DA can play those tapes (if they so choose…e.g., they have incriminating statements) as a “party admission” or not play the tapes altogether and Gribewtz will never be able to back his promise. Someone needs to buy this guy an evidence book.

    • There are many, many ways to get around the hearsay restrictions. An experienced defense attorney will most likely be able to get them in if he wants to. The easiest way in this case will be using them to impeach a witness (e.g. the child or the cop).

      • Sorry, but that is completely wrong on this issue. There is no way to get that recording in from a defense perspective, unless the DA introduces a portion of it first.

        • I don’t practice criminal law, but I did study evidence in law school, and I don’t see how a defense attorney of any skill could not get this in. At some point in time, the DA will either argue that the defendant is now lying about what happened between him and the child, in which case the recording will be allowed in under 801(d)(1)(B). Or the DA will put the child on the stand and the recording will be admissible under 801(d)(2)(A).

        • That’s completely wrong. Its a hearsay statement and is inadmissible.

          1) No DA who opposes the admission of the tape would argue (or can argue, for that matter) that the defendant is lying without the defendants statement first being introduced (which it wasn’t). Its a violation of the defendant’s right to remain silent to reference his statement or lack thereof, if no statement was introduced.

          801(d)(1)(B) only applies when the declarant (defendant) testifies (which he wont) and is cross-examined about prior statements that he made (the tape recording). If the DA doesn’t reference those recordings (e.g., his current testimony is consistent with those recordings), the recordings are inadmissible. Point being, it isn’t the defenses right to play those tapes. He cannot play the tapes unless a number of circumstances happen, none of which any DA with experience would fall for.

          2) 801(d)(2)(A) doesn’t apply, because the accuser isn’t a party. He’s a witness. Moreover, you cant backdoor a defendants statements using this. Rather, theyd have to redact the defendants statements and only introduce the victims accusatory statements against him and/or impeachment due to the victims now inconsistent statement (if that occurs).

          Like I said, he is not getting those statements in, neither during the People’s case-in-chief, unless P plays it, nor in his own case, unless he testifies and the P impeach him with a prior inconsistent statement.

    • Or maybe an ethics book — maybe he’s hoping to influence prospective jurors by getting it in the paper, even if he knows it will be inadmissible? Admissibility aside, it’s hardly probative. If Bodenheimer was called by a boy whom he last allegedly abused 4-5 years ago, his refusal to fall into an obvious trap doesn’t mean much. I’m surprised the police bothered to arrange the call.

    • During the pre-trial stage both parties get access. If there is a dispute about their admissibility, the judge decides. If admitted, both sides can argue about whether it is damning or exculpatory or irrelevant. Then the jury decides.

      • This is correct (attorney here). The tapes could potentially be admitted under any number of exceptions to the hearsay rules. Depending on what is on the tapes, it is possible that the alleged victims made statements that are not consistent with the guilt of the accused (which would not be terribly surprising based upon how difficult it is for many abused children to talk about their abuse). The tapes, in that case, would not be presented as proof-positive that the abuse did not occur. Rather, they would be presented as “impeachment,” that is, they would be presented to contradict or impeach the testimony of the alleged-victim that the abuse did, in fact, occur. The distinction between impeachment evidence and direct evidence is typically lost on a jury.

        R’ Lopin is also correct, above, in suggesting that none of this is news. For a number of reasons, a single prior-inconsistent statement of a young witness hardly defeats proof, even beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt. The jury will have an opportunity to determine whether those testifying are telling the truth; and if there is significant evidence pointing to the guilt of the defendant, a wise attorney will advise his client to plead out. But, of course, that will only happen once both sides know what the evidence is likely to show. It is still too early for the attorneys to figure that out; and it is way too early for bloggers and news sources to intelligently weigh in about that subject.

    • That is not what I said. Try reading instead of using agit-prop slogans. I said that most of those defended by Gribetz who end up guilty have early statements by Kenny claiming they are innocent. Thus I would not pay too much attention to defendant lawyers, wives, etc just because they say the guy is innocent as an angel.

      • All your scenarios are gulity ones. Perhaps he is innocent? Why don’t you open your mind to that possibility instead of coming to your automatic assumption of guilt for anybody accused of abuse?

        • It is possible he is innocent, just not very likely. Let me ask you Chaim, do you argue as strongly for the innocence of gentiles arrested on the same charges or do you think they are probably guilty? Guess what? Haredim are no more likely to be falsely charged than gentiles. In fact they are less likely because the Rockland DA knows that every last Haredi defendant gets enough money for an excellent defense, by a cracker-jack lawyer, the former Rockland DA, Kenneth Gribetz. Moreover, the DA knows that if he falsely accuses a haredi and he gets exposed doing it, it will cost some of the Haredi votes he needs to get reelected.

        • Find a quote where I said that. I said it is a reasonable guess that someone like him arrested and charged in probably guilty. Can you handle the difference between probably and definitely?

        • MoishePipik, I again challenge you to find one case in the Orthodox community where a person was falsely accused of child sexual abuse in the Orthodox community and was charged with same crime, that was cleared of the charges and whose accuser (or people controlling/manipulating the accused) was (were) charged and convicted of perjury/making a false statement to police and/or the Court.

          You seem to be under the false impression that Jewish children routinely make false allegations of child sexual abuse. There is no evidence of same.

    • mpipik,

      Shame on you. Have you no busha? Will your children reading your comments, now or in the future be disgusted and embarrassed that their father posted such garbage?

      good shabbos.

  2. moishepipik, I believe that Rabbi Bodenheimer is a brother of Rabbi Michoel Bodenheimer, Rosh Kollel in Kiryat Sefer (brother-in-law of Rav Sheftel Neuberger, Menahel/President of Yeshivas Ner Yisrael in Baltimore, grandson-in-law of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky). Here is the Criminal Complaint against Rav Sheftel Neuberger’s brother Isaac Neuberger for sexual assault against an adult male from a few months ago.

    See:

    http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/12/criminal-complaint-against-isaac-neuberger-for-sexual-abuse-678.html

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-36979777.html

    Isaac Neuberger’s trial is set for September 15, 2014

    This blog is not a court of law. We are entitled to use common sense. There is no evidence of any false allegations of sexual abuse being made in the Orthodox community. Jewish men, women and children are entitled to be believed when they come forward with accusations of child sexual abuse. I challenge you to find one case in the Orthodox community where a person falsely accused of child sexual abuse in the Orthodox community that was charged with same, that was cleared of the charges and whose accuser (or people controlling/manipulating the accused) was (were) charged and convicted of perjury/making a false statement to police and/or the Court.

    • I see. If one’s brother’s brother-in-law is accused of assaulting an adult male, then that proves that he’s a child molester. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

      • Molesting may not be attributable to his family connection. But if he were a molester he knows he can count on his family to do its best to cover up and protect him. You know — it’s a family tradition.

      • No. when he is found guilty, which inevitably he will be, even despite a plea bargain, and no jail time, then we will know that he is a molester. Most have no preference re age or even sex. it is an illness.
        Hope for you that your hypothetical case is, just that, hypthetical if he is a relative, keep him far away from your kids, no matter how old, or which sex the are. . Caveat reader.
        There are no recorded cases of false claims re CSA, when it comes to the plaintiff. again, from time to time, over divorce suit, there may be illegitimate claims made by both sides, but other than that. ALL claims have been true and accurate.
        Furthermore, have you any idea, how many abused kids/adults have never ever reported their abuse to anyone? not to a rabbi, and not to a crimina courst, and possibly/probably (depending on monetary circumstances) not even to a trauma therapist. go put that in your pipe, and smoke on it , for a while, eh? mr. MoishePipik?

        • Of course there are recorded cases of false claims. What there might not be is (i) false claims (2) within the Orthodox Jewish community (3) that resulted in the accuser later successfully being sued for defamation or libel, or being brought up on perjury charges.

          The reality however is that when there are false claims, the accused, once exonerated, is not likely to go after the accuser for two reasons: (1) the accuser rarely has the money to make that a worthwhile suit, and (2) it is extremely, extremely difficult to win a defamation case in the United States.

          The National Registry of Exonerations has over 100 exonerations from 1989 through 2012 in child sex abuse cases. To qualify as an exoneration the person had to have actually been convicted and then later exonerated. Presumably there are many more false accusations for which there is never any conviction. That being said false accusations are estimated to be less than 10% of all accusations.

          • The rate of false child sex abuse accusations falls way lower when you deduct out cases where the allegation comes from a parent in a divorce custodial dispute. In most of those cases, competent investigators (police, protective services, or DA) interview the child carefully. Usually, the parent just claimed the child said something and it is not true or they were given a simple rehearsed scripted story. Very few children are skilled liars. They simply quickly give up the effort with some coaxing or answer in ways that make it apparent the child was coached.

            • “The rate of false child sex abuse accusations falls way lower when you deduct out cases where the allegation comes from a parent in a divorce custodial dispute.”

              That is certainly true, but it is wrong to say that they NEVER happen outside those situations. They are very rare, but not completely unheard of.

              For example I recently saw a case where two little girls were molested by a cousin but the girls grandmother convinced them to place the blame on their mother’s boyfriend. The boyfriend was convicted and was only exonerated 20 years later when the little girls, now adults, recanted their story.

            • I do not doubt it is possible, but it is exceptionally improbable, especially with current investigative standards. You better believe the Rockland DA made sure there was proper interviewing. An innocent defendant is hard to convict if he is presentable and has a well paid lawyer, and no prior criminal record. Most false convictions happen to poor people, especially young easily pressured ones. Going into the jury, it is the DA who has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Bodenheimer does not have to prove his innocence. His very capable ex-DA attorney just has to show the jury that the DA did not prove his case.

              Because the Rockland DA depends on Haredi votes, you can be sure he would have nixed the case unless investigators were convinced that they had a solid case. It would end disastrously for him if his investigators turned out to be sloppy.

        • The reality however is …

          conceptualinertia the reality is that there is no evidence of any false allegations of sexual abuse being made in the Orthodox community. Jewish men, women and children are entitled to be believed when they come forward with accusations of child sexual abuse. I challenge you to find one case in the Orthodox community where a person falsely accused of child sexual abuse in the Orthodox community that was charged with same, that was cleared of the charges and whose accuser (or people controlling/manipulating the accused) was (were) charged and convicted of perjury/making a false statement to police and/or the Court. You can’t. So your “reality” is a fantasy/a lie that is dangerous and that harms the brave survivors of child sexual abuse who do go to the proper authorities and report.

          • “no evidence of any false allegations of sexual abuse being made in the Orthodox community.”

            “I challenge you to find one case in the Orthodox community where a person falsely accused of child sexual abuse in the Orthodox community that was charged with same, that was cleared of the charges and whose accuser (or people controlling/manipulating the accused) was (were) charged and convicted of perjury/making a false statement to police and/or the Court. You can’t.”

            False allegations that do not result in the conviction of the accuser(s) is not “no evidence.” Cases where charges are dropped or the accused is found innocent, or convicted and later exonerated are all evidence of false allegations even if the accuser wasn’t convicted of perjury (not that you would know if the accuser was a child at the time).

            I have found plenty of cases, but a very small percentage of the total number of claims, where the most reasonable interpretation is that there was a false or mistaken accusation.

            I have only come across one such case within the Orthodox community, but I don’t see why the accused being in the Orthodox community should make that much of a difference.

            Jewishwhistleblower, you are right in general and your heart is in the right place but I think you hurt your own cause when you claim that there is no such thing as a false accusation. There is a difference between rare and never that most people can see and if you overstate your case people are likely to take your main message less seriously.

            Say “90%+ of accusations turn out to be true and therefore victims that come forward should be presumed by the community to be telling the truth.”

            • Jewishwhistleblower is not saying it is impossible. He is saying that the low rate of false convictions is even lower in the haredi community because of factors specific to it. He is not saying there was never a false conviction. He is saying that he has never seen proof of one, and is challenging you to find it. I could die tomorrow from a refrigerator falling out a house. But it has never happened to anyone I know and I have a lot of reasons to think it EXTREMELY unlikely. The same is true of false convictions of haredim on sex abuse charges. the probablity is so low that I suspect that the many folks shouting false accusation either are uninformed or invested in defending the accused, or even all haredi offenders, at all costs. It is so improbable that it does not merit all the assertions, over and over. Now what is common is real molesters who claim they are the victims of false accusations. In fact it is nearly universal.

      • Moishe- I am with you a hundred percent on this one. There seems to be an unfortunate trend of introducing all sorts of irrelevant and far-fetched connections to try to prove guilt by association. I have no idea if the accused is a tzaddik or a sinner, but Isaac Neuberger has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    • JWB:

      I have no idea if Rabbi Bodenheimer is guilty of molestation – not slapping, hitting, etc., but abuse of a predatory sexual nature. But what is the relevance to the conversation of the fact that Rabbi Bodenheimer’s brother’s brother in law’s brother – did I get that right? – allegedly groping a guy? Personally, I’ve never met many of my brothers’ brother in laws’ brothers – how do their actions say anything about me?

  3. Y. Lopin Said:
    “I would not bet on his being innocent just because Kenny Gribetz says so”
    I may be mistaken, but based on what is being floated around about Lopin and his reputation, what should have been written was: “I would not bet on his being innocent just because I believe frum Jews do not deserve a trial and are automatically guilty until proven innocent and/ or they go off the derech, become Hispanic, gay, or black”

    • Jenny, get a grip on reality. I care about children being raped, sodomized and fondled whether they are frum, secular, or gentile. I especially care about frum children. Molesters are rarely strangers. Black children are usually abused by Blacks, Muslim children by Muslims, and frum children by frum grownups. To help protect frum children I have to talk about frum abusers.

      Jenny, every community has its molesters. Responsible communities believe in ubiartem es harah mikiberchah (eradicate the evil in your midst). Irresponsible communities cover up the crimes and sacrifice their children. This leads children suffer for years and into adulthood with PTSD, substance abuse, suicide, difficulty in marriage and other relationships, and loss of faith and confidence in Judaism.

      Jenny, you are suffering from paranoid fantasies if you think that I and prosecutors give a free pass to offenders who are OTD, Hispanic, gay or Black. You are a racist homophobe. You are also ignorant if you think frum Jews suddenly turn into Hispanics, gays or African Americans.

      Jenny, your defense of molesters is twisted and it in turn has twisted and turned your thinking into knots. You seem to be saying there is a special heter for molesting if you are frum.

      Jenny, I don’t know what you think is being “floated about Lopin,” but it is probably no more anchored in reality than the rest of your reasoning.

      • There has to be a fair hearing, not a presumption of guilt. This applies to Jew and Gentile alike. Do you think it so unlikely that a angry kid could falsely accuse his principal of such a thing?
        I don’t and I heard of cases where such threats were issued.
        I heard over from a mechanech that a kid was coming to school with noticeable physical abuse, the father,upon being confronted told the mechanech that he can go ahead and report him but his son would than claim that this mechanech molested him…..
        The mechanech concluded that he’s ashamed to say that he dropped it right there.
        This is what this paranoid, automatic guilt assumed blog accomplishes.

        • The presumption of innocence is a legal concept under which he is out on bail and not punished until there is either a trial or a plea bargain. But a prosecutor has a legal obligation not to indict someone if they are not convinced that he is guilty and that they have the evidence to convict him at trial. Just because someone has a legal presumption of innocence from the charge of rape, would you entrust them with your kid. If so you are a chosid shoteh.

          Yes, it is extremely unlikely anyone would be motivated to go through the ordeal of interviews and trials (and getting sued or convicted of perjury for the hell of it). Again, everything is possible. You might win the ten million dollar lottery tomorrow. But it is extremely unlikely.

          I keep on hearing bubbe meises about false allegations. But a lot of research shows how unlikely it is. Yes there were some false charges in the past but police, DAs and psychologists have developed expertise in interviewing to screen out that possibility.

          Your imagined or imaginative mechanech is a shvantz if he failed to pursue a case because of that threat. If he had talked to any competent law enforcement figure he could have learned how not to have to worry about a false charge.

          You may have some personal reason for thinking this is a paranoid blog. the reality is that 20% of all kids are molested by someone by the time they are 18 (25% of girls and 16% of boys). That is right. One out of every five people you know was in some way molested, some worse and some milder. But it you keep spewing your hostile attacks about false charges, the people you are close to who were abused will never open up to you about it. You will compound their hurt by the stuff you say. There is a mageyfah in the community. Even the gedolim have said as much at Agudah conventions. They just aren’t willing to aggressively work to stop those people because of nebich their wives and children. Is that your real concern? get over it. Their blood is not redder than the blood of their victims.

          What is paranoid is your absurd insistence that it is paranoid to care about abuse and to believe the few who are indicted are victims.

        • So you admit that you work with a presumption of guilt. Good to have that for the record.

          Had that mechanech been accused you would have been the first one calling his story absurd ….. And how he is for sure guilty….

          I care tremendously for victims of abuse, however I also care tremendously not to destroy an innocent person and his/her family. The latter is something you don’t seem to care for.

          Once again, I’m arguing for a fair open minded hearing without the demagoguery, I’m not quite sure what your problem is with that.

          If you view yourself as a prosecutor, than make that clear before you post so any random reader will know you lack objectivity.

          • You are repeating yourself, adding nothing to what you said, nor acknowledging any effort taken to reply to you. Oh, yes you did add, “you admit that you work with a presumption of guilt.” You seem to have trouble with the idea that one can assess something as highly probably without concluding anything definitely. Please look up the words probable and presumption.

        • Chaim, if your story is true, the father and the mechanech should both be in jail. The father for the physical abuse and threats and the mechanech for not reporting the abuse to Child Services/Police immediately. What sort of mechanech is more afraid for his reputation then protecting the life of a child? He should be removed for life from chinuch. Lo Ta’amod Al Dam Reyecha is the law (our law), it is not a mere suggestion.

          I suspect that this is just another fairy tale that the fixers tell as fact in order to raise questions with the legitimate accusations of survivors of child sexual abuse and help protect the abusers.

      • “You are a racist homophobe”….. “twisted”…. “you are suffering from paranoid fantasies”
        The fact that you are full of rhetoric name calling, and lack of any substance has been spoken about here and other places. So for one, THAT has been floated around about you as the cornerstone of your reputation.
        What everyone keeps on pointing out to you and the rest of your OTD Klux Klan is that why do you recognize a persons right to a fair trial as long as he’s not a frum orthodox Jew??
        Is this so hard for you to get through whatever sick hate you have to Orthodox Jews?

    • Jenny, could you give some specific examples demonstrating your concerns? One would guess that you are frum. So, I entreat you, to give some examples of frum Jews persecuted as molesters (whether or not Yerachmiel Lopin wrote about them or not) who were subsequently totally exonerated. And by “totally exonerated” I do not mean getting off scott free with a plea bargain, or 6 months probation, I mean, really exonerated by the judicial system. Let’s get a discussion going here, re frum Jews who were accused of being molesters, but subsequently completely exonerated. by the judicial system, and please, do not use examples, like Kolko or Deutsch, Deutsch was on videosurveillance in one day, abused two boys in the molester’s shul. i think it was, in any case he got a bupkes sentence. on expletive videotape, grabbed the two different boys on the street, into the shul basement, i think and got off with basically, nothing, bupkes.. If Lopin had not written about it, do you think that his few month sentence would have been a zero month sentence. and, as you surely know, others, such as FM blog also carry these reports, So who is the guilty party, the perpetrato, the molester?????? or Lopin???

      You have your head screwed on backward, but I am willing to help you here on this site, with others probably, in fixing the angle of your head. Let’s talk further. Give me what you think is the most egregious example of a frum perpetrator being persecuted by Lopin. Thank you for you cooperation perhaps together we can reverse the angle of your head. In the long run, it may relieve some of your distress. Awaiting your response, to me or anyone else, very truly yours, chashdan…

  4. I saw on failed messiah that the Rabbi told the kid to go to the police-seems kind of strange to me that an abuser would tell his alleged victim to go to the police–but, that’s just me using that objective brain again.

      1. This is how Gribetz, his attorney, is characterizing the conversation. We don’t know if the characterization is accurate. Even if those words appeared, a lot depends on tone and context.
    • Robert Millman @ 9/05 10:01AM
      Just a further note of caution. You probably also saw a claim on FM that Bais Rivka in Crown Heights is not opening due to financial difficulties. Fact of the matter is that the school is open. Be cautious re your sources, particularly when some of them have an axe to grind. Things can get really really twisted… Although, frankly, the motivation re the putative phone call is not clear…

      • I think that one needs to be at least open to the possibility that, when an accused is telling his accuser to call the police about his accusations that…..he may be…..now hang on here, but i am going to say something earth shattering…..ready????–ok—he might be….not guilty??????–I know, I know, crazy me, send me to re education camps, damn me for trying to be objective, I know–I am so old school.

        • I marvel at your ability to evade the main point of the post. I asserted that it doesn’t mean much that a defense lawyer claims his client is innocent when talking to a reporter a long time before a trial. I showed two cases where Kenneth Gribetz made equally unfounded claims and his clients went on to conviction by a jury (on all counts) or pleading guilty to 88% of a 30-count indictment. How, Robert Millman, does your belaboring the phone recording story, in any way speak to my argument.

          I find that most of the defense of named and indicted defendants consists of distractions.

          • not sure what the point would be in stating that something was on a tape, if indeed it turned out not to be on the tape—-taint the jury pool?–but then the prosecutor could play the tape and show it to be a lie, and it would explode in his face–so–I am assuming it to be there, or this attorney is dumb, and that probably isnt the case.

            • There is probably an element of truth to Gribetz’s claims. Lawyers are skilled at spinning rather than outright lying. But he is a very partisan source and his job is to defend Bodenheimer. Given his track record, odds are excellent that his claims do not prove anything.

            • I understand what a lawyers job is–I just dont understand what the purpose of claiming something exculpatory exists which could be so easily disproven–who would the attorney be appealing to, and why risk being shown to be such a liar if it turns out to be untrue?

            • I think you are deliberately not addressing the fact here–it is one thing to protect your client’s image–it is entirely ANOTHER to say that there is a RECORDING that exists in police hands that is exculpatory to your client, if it doesn’t–that would blow up in your face, and anyone you were indeed trying to influence will turn on you.

            • I am assuming there is some recording in the hands of the prosecution. Whether it is exculpatory is the sort of thing that defense and prosecution routinely argue about at trials and beforehand. It does not hurt a defense lawyer’s reputation to argue for the exculpatory interpretation, even when the jury agrees with the prosecution. Stop treating the defense attorney as someone whose reputation rests on being impartial. Only a dunce hires a defense attorney who is impartial.

  5. The reason in this case most people assume he is innocent is because there is only one accusation against a man with 40 years in chinuch and even after his arrest nothing,not even on the blogs where people can hide who they are.

    • How many years did it take for the Yeshiva University scandal to reach the media?
      We do not yet know if others will step forward re Bodenheimer, at a future time, as I believe at least two victims did, at last minute in the courtroom during Weberman’s trial. Someone please correct me if I have confused the two minuvalim Weberman and Leibovits. Quite sure that there was a dramatic appearance of at least two additional victims/witnesses?

        • Ah, yes, thanks for the correction, YL.
          Also, assuming that the orchestrated phone call to Bodenheimer was reported accurately, all that that indicates is that Bodenheimer is too smart to get caught in a trap, and, in addition, is certain that the grand master Gribetz is going to exculpate him, one way or another.

  6. The reality however is that when there are false claims, the accused, once exonerated,
    is not likely to go after the accuser for two reasons: (1) the accuser rarely has the money to
    make that a worthwhile suit, and (2) it is extremely, extremely difficult to win a defamation
    case in the United States.

    So give an example of such a case in the Orthodox community. When a person is “exonerated” after being convicted and incarcerated they often sue the authorities for misconduct as well as the accusers.

    By the way, what is the meaning you are using as to the word “exonerated”? The National Registry of Exonerations lists people as “exonerated” even when they have not been found by any official government body to be factually innocent. That may be because of misconduct by the investigators, experts, judges or poor representation and have nothing to do with “innocence”. There still may be clear evidence of child sexual abuse in the case.

    Presumably there are many more false accusations for which there is never any conviction. >That being said false accusations are estimated to be less than 10% of all accusations.

    And yet you cannot provide us with one single example of such a false allegation of child sexual abuse in the Orthodox community that meets my above criteria. If false allegations were at 10%, you would have a significant number of such cases each year. I reject your statistics. The last time I looked at law enforcement statistics, most false allegations involved allegations of abuse where the accuser never named or identified the abuser (ie. I was assaulted by a stranger and later it is found that there was no assault and no stranger) and false allegations against a named person were uncommon. Moreover, in the Orthodox community all evidence from the hundreds of cases I’ve read over many decades indicates that a proven false allegations against a named person in the Orthodox community that leads to criminal charges and a conviction is so rare that I can’t even come up with one case as per my previously stated criteria.

    • Why won’t the defendant testify in this case? And once he does testify (which I was assuming to be the case) won’t the prosecutor necessarily attempt to show that the defendant is lying. And once the prosecutor makes that attempt, will the tapes be admissible?

      I was wrong on the 801(d)(2)(A) point.

      Depending on the content of the tapes, couldn’t they get them in for something other than the truth of the statements. If, for example, on the tapes the Defendant is heard encouraging the victim to go to the police with his complaints, shouldn’t that be admissible as evidence because it is something that a guilty person wouldn’t say, true or not. In other words it is not hearsay because it is not being offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.”

      • ” If, for example, on the tapes the Defendant is heard encouraging the victim to go to the police with his complaints, shouldn’t that be admissible as evidence because it is something that a guilty person wouldn’t say, true or not.”

        Wow, you are extremely gullible. If someone, let’s say, was in denial about what he did, or was aware his victim/ the police might be leading him into a trap and was careful not to incriminate himself over the phone, isn’t this exactly what he would say whether guilty or not?


        “baal tshuva,” please use a real email address in the future. Yerachmiel Lopin

        • You are misunderstanding the context of what I wrote. This is my fault because I meant that post to be a reply to Benny Forer not jewishwhistleblower. My point was not whether I would personally find such evidence compelling. I meant as a pure legal matter such an argument would be sufficient to get the recording admitted as evidence.

    • “So give an example of such a case in the Orthodox community.”

      Here is the case I found in the other Bodenheimer thread http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/117800/gateshead-man-cleared-sexually-abusing-teenage-boy

      I do recall reading about one other case online, but in that case no charges were ever filed.

      “By the way, what is the meaning you are using as to the word “exonerated”? The National Registry of Exonerations lists people as “exonerated” even when they have not been found by any official government body to be factually innocent. That may be because of misconduct by the investigators, experts, judges or poor representation and have nothing to do with “innocence”.”

      First of all, all those things, while not directly speaking to innocence, certainly have something to do with innocence. Second you can search through the National Registry to find the reason they are deeming the person “exonerated.” There are many false accusation cases, albeit none involving Orthodox Jews.

      My statistics came from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse

      I am certain that you are right that false accusations are incredibly rare. But it is important to note the difference between incredibly rare and non-existent.

See Commenting policy ( http://wp.me/pFbfD-Kk )

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s