Day three began with Jon Little calling the mother of the first alleged victim. This is the person Krawatsky’s team had pinned their entire defense theory to in claiming that she’s the one who influenced all 3 children to fabricate allegations against him (for some unarticulated reason).

She said that her other children who had attended Shoresh really enjoyed it during their first year, and that her son was looking forward to attending. She said he was happy for he first week but afterwards his behavior changed, like hiding under his blankets, coming home with stomach aches, and running around at night instead of sleeping. She said he stayed home from camp for a few days because of it. She said he was 7 years old at the time in 2015.

She said he started not wanting to eat, even his favorite foods and asking odd questions about his body like asking – she was interrupted by an objection from the other side, but after a sidebar the objection was overruled. She said she was concerned about his questions. She said that as a mom of two other kids, especially in the Orthodox community, the questions weren’t typical because the Orthodox community has a value of tznius and they hadn’t taught their kids about sex education, the proper names for body parts, descriptions of puberty, and never changed in front of their kids.

She said that during the second week of camp her son started seeming like he didn’t want to go to camp. She said she reached out to his counselors, Adam Lombardo and Jacob Zelaya, and a few days later she got a call back from Krawatsky. She said that Krawatsky first said her son was a sweetheart and then asked if he could talk to her son. She said she asked her son if he wanted to talk to Krawatsky and her son ran out of the room.

She was concerned at that, she said, but continued talking to Krawatsky, who offered to provide her son social skills training. She said she refused this offer. Her son went to camp most days during the third week, she said, but was having so many issues with stomach aches and vomiting so he didn’t attend the camp overnight. She also said that another day while they were waiting at the camp bus stop he painted the car seat with nail polish so they took him home to clean it up because they were concerned about him.

She said that when she asked him what was going on he didn’t want to talk about it. She said he didn’t mention interactions with Krawatsky during first camp session.

Regarding her son’s relationship with the second alleged victim she said that her son mentioned the second alleged victim as a friend, that they got along and his mother worked at the camp, and that her son talked about him after camp ended.

She said that she was concerned with her son after camp ended. She said she hadn’t acted on her initial concerns regarding a physical incident she’s heard about where in the course of a disciplinary incident with her son he’d been shaken, but she had at that point decided not to send her kids back. She said her son’s behaviors were continuing even after first session ended, but she didn’t make any other decisions about it at that point. Her son’s vomiting got worse, she said, and he started walking in on his parents changing and refusing to get out of bed. She said he also tried to pick the bathroom when his sister was in the bathroom changing in addition to walking in on her and her husband changing.

Before he went to Shoresh, she said, her son loved reptiles and kept aquatic frogs, was very close with his siblings, loved the book The Trumpet and the Swan, his temperament was easygoing, friendly, and social, and was excited to do new things.

Before Shoresh she said she hadn’t known the family of the second alleged victim, and didn’t know Krawatsky aside from seeing him around in stores and the like and recognizing him as the Shoresh rabbi and saying hi either in fall 2014 or winter 2015. She said she hadn’t known Rabbi Dave really either except from shul and around the neighborhood.

Her son said something else in August of 2015, she said, that caused her concern. She and her husband, she said, decided to consult with a rabbi because in the frum community you seek Daas Torah when you have a major decision to make about something. After her husband consulted with Rabbi Dave, she said, she didn’t go to the police. She said her husband got a call from Pulsipher (CPS). She said she didn’t talk to Pulsipher at that point but that her husband said he had.

She said that CPS investigated and Krawatsky was indicated for sexual abuse, but the finding was downgraded to unsubstantiated after a settlement with CPS.

Regarding the third alleged victim she said that he was her nephew, and that the extent of their relationship was going on hikes by the Potomac with her husband and their kids and then going to her in-laws house once a month with them.

She said she wasn’t close to her nephew, the third alleged victim, that she spoke to her sister in law once a month, but wasn’t close to the kids and wasn’t generally close to her nieces and nephews. She said her sister in law asked her to speak to her son, the third alleged victim, about Shoresh when they were at an ice skating rink after camp in 2015. She said her sister in law had severe concerns about the third alleged victim, and that she mentioned to her sister in law that Krawatsky had been indicated for sexual abuse of her son, the first alleged victim. She said that her sister in law then shared concerns for her own son because he was smearing poop on the walls of the bathroom. She said her sister in law asked her to speak with the third alleged victim.

She said she didn’t initially talk to the third alleged victim, but after a lot of concern and seeing what her sister in law was going through she agreed to talk to the third alleged victim later on at their in-laws’ living room.

She said she spoke to the third alleged victim about The Obsidian Mirror, when you hold a lot within obsidian it makes you feel like things aren’t clear, but when you talk about those things it’s like the obsidian shatters and you can see them clearly. She said she wasn’t yelling but she does have an intense voice. She said she didn’t threaten him or say she would do something to him if he didn’t speak.

She said their conversation lasted a few minutes, and that his parents where there. She said she didn’t speak to him about Shoresh at all. Last time they saw each other, she said, was in 2016, and she isn’t close with him or his brother.

Regarding the second alleged victim she said she first learned who he and his mom were during the first week of camp in 2015, and has since met him around Thanksgiving 2015, and then again in the therapist’s office at the playdate. She described the playdate as coming about because the therapist, the second alleged victim’s father, and her husband had arranged them, and that she was not involved in the planning of them but knew and didn’t object to them.

She said that of the two such sessions she didn’t speak to the second alleged victim during the first one and was not in the room during the playdates. Regarding the efficacy of the playdates she said she felt the therapist thought they were a good idea for the second alleged victim, but her son didn’t really want to go back for the second one. He went back anyway, she said, but it wasn’t easy to come down to Rockville for the second session between the length of the drive and childcare, which made it inconvenient, a sentiment she shared with the parents of the second alleged victim.

She said she had not met the second alleged victim’s father prior to the second playdate, or his mother. She said she first met the mother on January 13th of 2016, when Krawatsky’s CPS appeal hearing took place.

Between August 15th and the CPS hearing, she said, she only spoke to the father of the second alleged victim once by phone, and that while she never spoke to the mother by phone her husband had.

Between the CPS hearing, she said, and Krawatsky filing suit she spoke to the parents once to invite them to her older kid’s bar mitzva, and once at dinner with them, once when they visited the family of the first alleged victim in Georgia after their move.

Regarding the playdates, she said, she didn’t speak to the second alleged victim during the session, but did talk to him after the session in the therapist’s office. Present at the time, she said, were the second alleged victim, his father, the therapist, and her. She said that she told the second alleged victim that if he had something to tell his parents he should tell them because it would make him feel better and because she and her son would not be returning for a third playdate. She said her son was running around the yard and she needed to take him home so her conversation with the second alleged victim only lasted a few minutes. She said she didn’t yell but said that she has an intense voice, especially then since her son was outside unattended.

Regarding Adam Lombardo, her son’s counselor at Shoresh, she said she called him in early September. After Krawatsky was indicated, she said, she had received a call from Adam and had come away from it feeling uncomfortable. After the investigations were over, she said, she wanted answers about her kid and why he wasn’t getting better so she called Lombardo back. During that call, she said, she made no threats to him and didn’t talk to him about testifying at the CPS hearing. She said she never called him about the CPS hearing or to speak to him about CPS, and said she never called him again after that one call.

Regarding her conversation with her nephew, the third alleged victim, she said she only had the one conversation with him about the obsidian mirror, but never spoke with him about details of what happened at Shoresh. With the second alleged victim she said she only spoke about what happened at Shoresh.

She said she had turned down Krawatsky’s offer of social skills training for her son because it seemed inappropriate and made her uncomfortable.

After Shoresh in 2015, she said, she noticed behavioral changes in her son that hadn’t always been there, in particular there were certain songs that triggered him – especially Uptown Funk. She said that they were at breakfast while on vacation in Tampa and the song came on and his face went blank and he tried to bolt out of the room. She said that when he hears it now he immediately pits in Airpods to avoid hearing it. Another example she gave was the green wristband Shoresh used to give kids who could swim, and that when he got one after camp at an event he would get scared and pick at his wrists.

She said that she doesn’t really like kids other than her own, and that’s still true today. She said that her son made his disclosure to her. She began explaining what she understood happened to her son at Shoresh, but was stopped with a sustained objection. She began explaining that she responded to the disclosure in the way she did because she loves her son but was stopped again with a sustained objection.

She said that her decision to talk to her nephew after her own son disclosed was because she saw the concern in her sister in law and knew her son had symptoms and triggers consistent with abuse and that Krawatsky had been indicated, and out of love for her sister in law and her nephew she spoke to him. She said she had spoken to the second alleged victim too because she didn’t want to have a third playdate and because her son was running around outside and because she thought the second alleged victim would feel better if he talked to his parents.

Direct examination ended and Chris Rolle cross examined her.

Rolle started by setting the timeline: Her son, two nephews (third alleged victim and his brother), and the second alleged victim all went to Shoresh at the same time in 2014 and 2015 in different bunks in the same division, and then asked her if they all went to swim at the same time. She said she didn’t know.

He asked her about the timing of the first indication or allegation of abuse from her son and If it was August 11 of 2015 and she said around that time. He said that the dates weren’t so important and asked her to confirm the timeline that camp ended after June and the allegations began in August, and she said yes.

He then set out a timeline and asked her to confirm: That her son had initially spoken to her and not to his father about the allegations, and then her husband called Rabbi Dave, and then Dave called CPS, and then CPS contacted her husband, and then her son went to CPS for an interview, and then he asked her if CPS interviewed the second alleged victim and she said she presumed so.

He asked her when she heard that the second alleged victim had denied being abused and she said she didn’t know. He then asked her if she had heard that before the playdate at the therapist and she said she didn’t remember but she knew the allegations were unsubstantiated by CPS. He asked her to clarify if she had heard that the second alleged victim had said nothing happened and she said she had heard that, and that CPS had found the allegations unsubstantiated, and that she had heard those things prior to the playdate at the therapist.

He asked her if after the playdate she knew or discovered that CPS was going to interview the second alleged victim again and she said she didn’t remember. He then asked her if the next event in the case was Krawatsky’s appeal, and she acknowledged that Krawatsky’s attorney filed the appeal, and he asked her if she testified at that hearing. She said she had on January 13th 2016.

He then asked her if she was aware of the recording the second alleged victim’s mother had made of her son’s disclosure, and she said she no. He then asked her if she testified truthfully at the CPS hearing and she said yes. He then asked If after that hearing her sister in law had asked her to talk to her nephew and she said no. Rolle asked her what happened and she said that just after Thanksgiving in early December her sister in law asked her to speak to her son, but that she didn’t know exactly when he eventually made his disclosure.

Rolle asked her if she knew that her sister in law had the previous day testified that it was the same day as her conversation with him, but there was a sustained objection.

He then asked her if she knew that in February 2016 the first report was made of her nephew’s allegations to CPS and she said she didn’t remember when it was. He asked her if she remembered testifying at the CPS hearing under oath in front of an administrative law judge and talked about the reasons why she went to the playdate meeting at the therapist, and she said yes. Rolle then told her she had said something different then, and there was a sustained objection.

He then asked her about her having said at the CPS hearing that the reason for the playdate was because her son was concerned for about the second alleged victim and she said that her son was concerned about the second alleged victim and had been asking to see him since camp. He said he thought she had said the reason was because the second alleged victim was in pain, and she said that she was concerned for his pain because her son was concerned about him. He asked her how her son knew what was going on, but there was a sustained objection.

He then asked her if she had told her son what was going on with the second alleged victim and that he’d denied being abused, and she said she didn’t remember what she told him but that he’d been concerned for his friend since camp. He asked her what he was concerned about and she said her son had wanted to see his friend since camp and she generally understood that he was concerned but she didn’t remember if she told him anything about the allegations.

He then asked her about having said at the CPS hearing that the second alleged victim wouldn’t feel better until he saw her son and was willing to talk, and she said that her son felt that he wanted to see his friend and the therapist felt that the two should see each other so it would be accurate to say that he would feel better after this meeting.

He asked her about her having said that the reason for the meeting was because the second alleged victim was in pain, and she said she stood by that answer. He challenged her saying that at the CPS hearing she had said it was because the second alleged victim wouldn’t feel better until he saw her son and was willing to talk and she said that that was the impression she was under from her son, and her husband had said the same. He asked her if she agreed with that, and she reiterated that that was the impression she was given at the time. He asked her if that’s what she said at the CPS hearing and she said she didn’t remember but she she agrees with it.

He then played a clip of her saying that she knew the second alleged victim would feel better if he spoke about it, and asked her if nothing came from the first playdate, and she said that her son didn’t like it and didn’t want to go back. He asked her if the objective had been to make the second alleged victim feel better and she said yes, according to his therapist. He asked her if she was worried that the second alleged victim was in pain and she said that her son and the therapist were worried.

He asked her if one of the concerns in setting up the playdates was not to contaminate evidence, and she said that while she knew about the playdates she had no involvement in setting them up. He told her that she had said so at the CPS hearing, and she said that she was probably quoting her husband. He asked her what she meant by that and she repeated that she was quoting what her husband had said.

He then set the stage for his next question by saying that the second playdate was on December 3rd 2015, she was there in the waiting room during the playdate feeling frustrated, and asked her why, and she said that she was frustrated because her son hadn’t wanted to come back for the second one. He asked her if that was because it was a schlep to Rockville and she said that yes, it was an hour drive. He asked her if she had used that term “schlep” before and she said yes. He then asked her if she hadn’t wanted to schlep down again, and she said that her son’s therapist had told her that he was getting nothing out of it.

He then asked her if her reason for not wanting to come back was because of her too (meaning not just that it wasn’t working for her son but that she was annoyed by having to come all that way for nothing) and she said that no, it was because of her son, that he hadn’t wanted to go. She said that she may also have not wanted to go but her concerns were about him not wanting to go.

He then asked her if she had addressed the second alleged victim and told him that he needed to tell what happened to him, and she said no, that she had said he should tell the truth and that if something happened he should say so because it would make him feel better. He asked her if she was upset that he didn’t immediately say what her son had alleged, and she said no, she wasn’t upset.

He asked her if she recalled saying at her deposition that she didn’t want to schlep back, and she said that it was one of her reasons. He asked if she hadn’t said that it was because her son hadn’t wanted to come and she said that the reason she didn’t want to was because her son wasn’t getting anything from but, but that if he had she would have been fine with it.

(The implication of this line of questioning is that she was looking for a specific result – the second alleged victim confirming what her son had alleged by making the same allegation – and out of desperation to avoid having to schlep back down to Rockville she coached the second alleged victim into making an allegation that hadn’t really happened to support the allegations her son was making.)

He asked her why she hadn’t mentioned her son in the deposition if she was saying in court that it was because the playdates weren’t useful for him, and she said that she had both reasons and a lot of the reason she didn’t want to take the time out of her day was because it didn’t help her son. She said that if she thought it was helping she’d have driven very far to take him there and that she drives him to stuff he needs to do all the time, even further than Rockville, and that because this didn’t seem necessary (or helpful) she didn’t want to Schlep, but she would drive 5 hours for her son if it helped him, but would feel that driving 5 minutes was a waste of time if it wasn’t helpful to him.

He asked her if she felt it wasn’t useful because the second alleged victim wasn’t saying what she needed him to say, and she said no, it was because her son didn’t like being there. He asked her about having said during the deposition that she had no idea that the second alleged victim had denied the allegations, and she said she knew he said he didn’t remember (implying not that he’d denied it). He asked her if she had said today that one of the reasons she had said she wanted to leave was because her son was running around the yard, and she said that he was. He then told her she hadn’t said that in her deposition, and she said “ok.” He asked her if that part was new, and she said no, he was in the yard and she hadn’t thought of that but he was there, and her husband was taking a work call in the car, leaving their son alone in the yard.

He then asked her about the objective of her meeting with the third alleged victim, her nephew, and she said that her sister in law approached her after she’d told her sister in law that Krawatsky had been indicated for abusing her son, and told her that she was concerned about her son, the third alleged victim, having changes in behaviors including smearing feces on the bathroom walls and such, and didn’t know what to do, and asked her to talk to him.

He asked her if she had been asked to help by talking to her nephew and she said yes. He asked her how she could help him by talking to him, and she said that she didn’t know but she had been asked. He asked her if she’d talked to her nephew before, and she said that she had a few times but not close conversation. He asked her if she doesn’t like kids, and she said she doesn’t like other people’s small kids. He asked her if when she talked to her nephew she talked about obsidian, and she said that it was a story from The Obsidian Mirror. He asked if that was the book by Louise Wisechild, and she said yes.

He asked her about the actual title, The Obsidian Mirror: Healing from Childhood Sexual Abuse, and she said that she had read it. He asked her if it was about the affirming and inspiring story of the author confronting and healing from sexual abuse, and she said that she had read it after her son disclosed and the abuse was indicated, and that she had started reading books about abuse like someone whose kid was killed in a school shooting or by a drunk driver would read books about that too.

He asked her if she thought it was appropriate to read to her nephew at the time, and she said she hadn’t read it to him, she had taken a story and told a version of it to her nephew, but hadn’t read from that book to him.

Cross examination ended and Jon Little redirected.

He asked her if she had been deposed twice in that case, and she said yes. He then asked her if she had had to say this story to CPS, her son’s therapist, and all kinds of people for 8 and a half years (implying that each and every time wasn’t going to include every single one of the details the same way), and she said yes, and now in front of her son’s rapist. He asked her if the CPS hearing had been over two days in two parts, and she said yes.

Redirect ended and she was excused.