Continuing in our coverage of the Krawatsky trial, after lunch on the second day, Shannon Pulsipher, one of the CPS social workers who investigated the allegations against Rabbi Krawatsky, was called by Annie Alonso.
Shannon Pulsipher is a CPS worker who worked for Frederick County CPS for almost 17 years, including 2015. She received training in investigating child sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and how to recognize grooming. She was also educated in proper interviewing techniques for child victims of sexual abuse, including asking open-ended questions, not asking yes/no questions, and not asking leading questions.
Pulsipher testified that she did an interview with the first alleged victim at the Child Advocacy center that wasn’t recorded per state’s attorney’s rules at the time. Child Advocacy Centers are places where children can be brought for evaluation of any disclosed or suspected abuse, receive resources to help them, and meet with social workers. She said that the first alleged victim made a disclosure during that investigation.
Following the interview, she said, she spoke to the first alleged victim’s parents, as well as Krawatsky (on 9/2/15) and the second alleged victim(on 8/24/15), and compiled a report within 30 days. She said that when she spoke to the second alleged victim it was at his house, at his father’s request, with his father present. She said she made no mention of the existing allegations before the meeting. She was accompanied to that meeting, she said, by detective Davies who was not in uniform but was armed. She said Davies was also at Krawatsky’s interview, which was not recorded as per standard practice in Frederick county at the time.
She said she asked several questions of K and at one point he said that he would never expel someone from camp, but said that he ultimately had to expel the second alleged victim for hitting another kid in camp. She said she asked Krawatsky about tickling kids and Krawatsky said the most he would do is give high fives. At no point, she said, did he mention that he had physically held the second alleged victim during a meltdown (despite it having already been established that he carried the second alleged victim to his mother). According to Pulsipher, Krawatsky also denied every discussing Lashon Hara with with the second alleged victim.
After that interview, she said, she spoke with the camp directors, including Rabbi Dave Finkelstein, as is typical in such an investigation to get an idea of how the camp functions. Her impressions of Rabbi Dave, she said, were frustrating because he had unethically done things he shouldn’t have in doing his own investigation into the allegations which she had never told him to do. She said she hadn’t wanted him to talk to anyone about it and he still did.
She said she then went back to Shoresh with Detective Davies and the first alleged victim on 9/8/15 to revisit the location where the abuse allegedly happened. She said she was not otherwise familiar with Shoresh before this case.
Present at the camp, she said, were her, Davies, who was armed, the first alleged victim, his father, and Rabbi Dave. Camp was not in session at the time. She said that she, Davies, and the first alleged victim went inside the locker room and walked through, allowing the first alleged victim to point out where things occurred in the room. She said that neither she nor Davies forced him to say anything then or ever. While they were inside, she said, his father and Rabbi Dave waited outside.
Following this, she said, they all left the camp. She said she then spoke to the second alleged victim’s therapist about his client, but not about the first alleged victim. She said the purpose of meeting with the therapist was because the second alleged victim was seeing him about his behavioral issues and the families of the first and second alleged victims had decided to have a meeting with the therapist and see how it went. She said she doesn’t remember if she was there when the playdate happened, but she was there with the second alleged victim and the therapist. She said she didn’t remember seeing the first alleged victim’s mother in the room with the second alleged victim.
She said that at the time the second alleged victim did not disclose and said he didn’t remember anything. She said she wrote reports in both cases – the first and second alleged victims. She said that in her report about the first alleged victim she indicated Krawatsky for abuse, and in the report for the second alleged victim she found it unsubstantiated. She explained that indicated means they have sufficient evidence to believe sexual abuse occurred, and unsubstantiated means they believe something happened but can’t quite prove it.
Following a settlement agreement, she said, the indicated finding in the first alleged victim’s case was downgraded to unsubstantiated, but the unsubstantiated finding in the second alleged victim’s case never changed. She said that unsubstantiated reports stay in the system so if another kid comes forward they still have it. She said she wasn’t involved in the third alleged victim’s case, and that after the appeal in the first two cases she was no longer involved at all.
Next Pulsipher was cross examined by Chris Rolle.
He started by asking her to clarify what happens when a case in found to be unsubstantiated by CPS and whether it stays confidential. She confirmed that it did. He then asked if someone applied for a job with a child while having an unsubstantiated finding they’d still be able to get the job since it’s a private matter. She answered that it’s up to the school, but didn’t know if the school would be able to find out about the finding.
Regarding the locker room walkthrough at Shoresh he asked her why she wanted to do that. She said she just wanted to see it for clarity. He asked her if she was there the whole time, and she said yes. He then set the scene for a question: The 5 of them (Pulsipher, Davies, Rabbi Dave, the first alleged victim, and his father) met outside the locker room, then she, the first alleged victim, and Davies went inside while the father and Rabbi Dave stayed outside – How long was she inside? She said 10-ish minutes.
He asked her if she left the locker room at all during that meeting and she said no. He asked if Rabbi Dave came in and she said no. He asked her if she was at any time aware of Davies taking his gun out of his holster, or threatening the first alleged victim with it, and she said no. He asked her if that was ridiculous, and there was a sustained objection to that question. He asked her if she’d remember seeing that and she said yes.
He asked her if she saw Davies tell the first alleged victim to stop lying and withdraw his statement and she said no.
He then asked her if she was involved in arranging the playdate at the therapist’s office and she said she wasn’t and had no knowledge if it happening. She said she didn’t recall the father of the second alleged victim including her in emails about it and said she didn’t recall being involved in any emails about it at all. She said she found out about the playdates after they happened and that she received no videos of then.
He asked her if she was aware of the recording the second alleged victim’s mother had made of his disclosure and she said no and that she’d never heard it.
He then asked her what the purpose of her meeting at the therapist’s office was and she said it was because the second alleged victim was ready to talk. He asked her if the objective was to get more information from the second alleged victim and she said maybe. He asked her if she had reason to believe the second alleged victim had different information this time than the first time she’d spoken to him and she said that she hadn’t but if he was talking to his doctor she wanted to hear what he was saying.
He asked her if it was usual to do a second interview with a child and she said no. He asked her if it was clear at that second meeting that the second alleged victim was saying he didn’t remember any abuse, and she said yes. He asked her if that was why the finding was ultimately unsubstantiated and she said yes. He asked her if the unsubstantiated finding was because there was no physical evidence and no indication the abuse actually happened, and she said no, his behaviors showed differently than what he was saying and his answers showed differently.
He then asked her if she was aware that the second alleged victim’s family had had a house fire in fall 2015 that had displaced them to a hotel, and she said yes. He then asked her if she was aware that the second alleged victim had been prescribed a very powerful medication that he had had a severe allergic reaction to that had resulted in him being hospitalized and she said no.
He then asked her if she was aware that he had been expelled from camp for hitting another child and that Krawatsky had been involved in the incident and she said yes. He asked her there was any other evidence other than what the first alleged victim said about what the second alleged victim had experienced and the second alleged victim’s behaviors that caused her to find the allegations unsubstantiated (as opposed to ruled out) and she said that the second alleged behaviors at the first interview and what his parents said were enough.
Rolle ended his cross examination and Annie Alonso redirected.
Alonso asked her if an unsubstantiated finding means something could have happened, and she said yes. Alonso asked if gift giving is an indication of abuse and she said yes.
Pulsipher was excused from the stand.
Next Annie Alonso called the father of the first alleged victim.
The father of the first alleged victim said he lived in Baltimore from 2006 to 2016 because he had a job in Washington DC, and as an Orthodox Jewish family he wanted an Orthodox community to live in. He described Orthodox communities as being tight-knit, and said that Baltimore was the biggest community close to DC. He described growing up as a traditional Conservative Jew and befriending an Orthodox schoolmate at college who invited him to Orthodox services. He said he became Orthodox in 1997 or 1998.
He described Orthodox Judaism as looking similar to Conservative in some traditional ways, but in Conservative Judaism you do the things that are meaningful to you and give you a sense of connection to God and the Jewish people, whereas in Orthodoxy you follow everything more strictly and the connection comes on its own. He said he is no longer Orthodox.
Regarding Shoresh he said that he sent two of his older kids in 2014 and then sent his next son, the first alleged victim, there in 2015. He said he chose Shoresh because his sister sent her kids there, he knew it was Orthodox, and given how few family experiences Orthodox families get to have he wanted them all to have a nice family experience with Shoresh.
He said that his sister was the mother of the third alleged victim.
He said that for the first year the kids loved camp, which is why he chose to send them back. He said that he felt they were becoming part of the Shoresh Family and participated in Shoresh events during the school year as well. He said his older kids also loved attending Shoresh in 2015.
He said his younger son, the first alleged victim, really enjoyed it at first – he came home every day tired because of the long drive each way, but he really enjoyed the first few days. After the first week, he said, he noticed his son wasn’t eating a lot of breakfast, and that while his son had always been the most even tempered of his children he started fighting with everyone, not eating, repeatedly going to the bathroom and running around in the middle of the night, and saying weird and concerning things about camp. He said this all started around the second week of camp.
He said that prior to Shoresh he didn’t know Krawatsky, but that when he saw the behavioral changes he did think it involved Krawatsky at the time because he was under the impression that Krawatsky was making his son uncomfortable, but he said he didn’t address it at the time. He said he had some concerns about Krawatsky after hearing about disciplinary issues at the camp. He said he was concerned that Shoresh wasn’t a well-run cam from a discipline standpoint and didn’t want to send his kids back the following year.
Right after camp ended, he said, his son’s behavior kept deteriorating to the point where they went on a family hike to Sugarloaf Mountain, which his son generally loved, but he kept running into the woods to run toward the edge. He said that he kept telling his son that he’d fall off if he kept doing that but his son didn’t seem to care if he fell off the mountain. He said his son was fighting with his siblings during the hike, and didn’t seem like the same kid he’d sent to camp.
Two days later, he said, he was sleeping and his wife came in and told him about the dream their son had just disclosed to her. He said he had been concerned about the discipline in general in the camp, but this dream was horrifying. He then said he had a discussion with his son to see if it was just a dream or if something had happened.
After hearing about the dream on Tuesday of that week, he said, he and his wife discussed next steps. He said they contacted Rabbi Dave because as a practicing Orthodox Jew they have their own internal system of justice, their own internal courts, security, and they have a strong Jewish tradition not to report things to police or secular authorities without permission from a rabbi. He said that the term for someone who violates these rules is called a Moser (informer, rat).
He said he had known Rabbi Dave before this and had seen him at shul and around in the community, and when his sister said she was sending her kids to Shoresh he reached out to Rabbi Dave at shul to ask about Shoresh since he was the camp director. He said he reached out to Rabbi Dave about the abuse on Wednesday of that week, had a second call with him on Friday, and met with him on Shabbos.
He brought his son on Shabbos, he said, with him to Rabbi Dave’s house, which doubles as the Shoresh office. He said he stayed with his son the whole time, and that his son appeared upset during the whole meeting. Dave didn’t take it seriously, he said.
The following Tuesday, he said, CPS called him regarding the allegations, and his son was interviewed by CPS. Afterwards, he said, he was asked by Pulsipher to bring his son to Shoresh for a second interview. He didn’t really want to, he said, but was trying to do what CPS told him. He said he had concerns about the meeting there, especially about bringing his son back to the scene where the alleged assault happened, and he expressed his concerns about Rabbi Dave’s presence at this meeting and asked Pulsipher not to allow Dave to be present.
The meeting, he said, ended up consisting of him, his son, Davies, Pulsipher, and Rabbi Dave. He arrived with his son, he said, and they went to the field entrance of the locker room. He said that he and Rabbi Dave stood outside while Pulsipher, Davies, and his son went in. He said that he stayed outside with Rabbi Dave for a time, and had no firsthand knowledge of what happened inside. At some point, he said, everyone finally came out and they all left.
He said he was advised leter that CPS had closed its investigation after indicating Krawatsky for abusing his son. That, he said, opened the door for his son to start getting treatment.
He said he was aware that the finding was later changed to unsubstantiated after an appeal by Krawatsky.
He didn’t know the second alleged victim’s father at the time. He said that he has known him since around September of 2015 when they first communicated. He said he initially learned about the second alleged victim’s father from Rabbi Dave, looked him up on LinkedIn, and found that both were working as engineers in the field of optoelectronics.
He said he didn’t know the second alleged victim’s therapist at the time. He said he was first connected to the therapist as his son was doing worse and worse and kept asking him to see the second alleged victim. He said he was hoping that after the case was closed he could help his kid heal. He said he tried getting the two kids together, and the father of the second alleged victim thought it would be best to happen in a supervised setting and suggested his son’s therapist.
The first alleged victim’s father said he communicated with the therapist by email to understand the plan since the therapist wasn’t his son’s therapist. He didn’t feel that this joint session was ideal for his son, but if it could help his own son, and the second alleged victim’s father wanted it too, he felt it should let it happen. He described the goal of the meeting as helping to heal his own son, as well as the second alleged victim who had been kicked out of school at that point.
He said he was not in the room with the therapist and the boys, but in the waiting area where he couldn’t hear what was happening. After the meeting, he said, he didn’t see his wife talk to the second alleged victim. He did say he knew it happened, just not firsthand.
Moving on to his sister he said he doesn’t talk to her much and can’t remember the last time they spoke, maybe just once a year, but not often. When they all lived in Maryland, he said, they were much closer, and spent most Sundays hiking together, and meeting at their parents’ house so the cousins could spend the day together. Their sons, the first and third alleged victims, got along well together and with the third alleged victim’s brother.
He said he took the actions he took after hearing his son’s allegations because he’s his son’s father and he’s the only one who could defend and protect him in this world. What he did, he said, he did to keep him safe not only from physical harm, but also to help him with the emotional pain he was in.
Direct examination ended and Benjamin Kurtz cross examined him.
Kurtz began by asking the father of the first alleged victim about what he’d said about not talking to his sister in a year, asking him if he remembered his sister being at his son’s deposition four months prior to the trial. He said he didn’t remember her being there .
(Kurtz did this a lot during cross-examination: Asking questions that seemingly directly contradicted what the witness had testified and asking so confidently that anyone watching might be sure he’d have some evidence to refute any denial of his assertions, but then never actually contradicting them with evidence.)
Regarding the emails sent between him and the therapist in arranging the playdates Kurtz showed him the emails and asked him if he saw in the recipients’ address list any mention of Pulsipher or Davies. He said he didn’t. Kurtz then tried to get the emails entered into evidence, something that had already been agreed to before trial wouldn’t happen, and there was an immediate objection, sidebar, and then sustaining of the objection. Kurtz also tried to pull similar moves several times.
Moving on to camp in 2015, Kurtz asked him how many sessions his son attended that summer. He answered that his son left after first session. Kurtz then asked him if the disclosure happened in August and he said no, it happened after close of second session in August.
Regarding the dream his son initially disclosed, Kurtz asked him about the timeline of that disclosure. He said that the dream happened after the second alleged victim was expelled from camp. He said that the dream was at first about Krawatsky urinating in front of his son, which as disclosed to his wife, who then ran down the hall to tell him about it. He said he then went to his son to see what was happening, and his son was describing that it wasn’t just a dream, that he’d seen Krawatsky naked.
He said that this disclosure of Krawatsky being naked happened the next morning. Kurtz asked him if he’d ever testified to that before, and he said that he didn’t know, he’d been asked to describe this many times, and it was a couple of days in all of them trying to figure out what happened. Kurtz asked him if he was an intelligent guy who remembers things, and he said yes to the best of his ability. Kurtz asked him if he had any memory issues, and he (jokingly) said he hoped not.
(Kurtz, as usual, was doing his best to once again seem like a belligerent prick to the father of the first alleged victim.)
Kurtz asked him if he remembered his depositions and his conversations with the CPS workers and detectives, and he said yes. Kurtz then asked him if he’d ever before stated before that day that his son’s dream “morphed” into a real thing that happened the same morning, to which an objection was made and sustained.
Kurtz then asked him if he recalled before that day ever saying that it was more than a dream the next morning, and he said that he had said that to Davies outside the CPS interview room during the initial CPS interview. Kurtz asked him if there was a recording any other time he told this story – to detective Davies, or in depositions – and he said he didn’t remember.
Kurtz then asked him about taking his son to the camp with Pulsipher, Rabbi Dave, and detective davies and asked him if he’d found out since that day that his son had claimed he was threatened by Davies at gunpoint, and he said yes. Kurtz asked him if he believed his son about that, and he said that be believed his son was terrified. Kurtz pushed on saying that wasn’t what he’d asking, and the father of the first alleged victim said he didn’t believe a 7 year old could tell the difference between a detective with a gun and being at gunpoint, and that he believed his son’s terror and that he was scared, but didn’t know exactly what happened.
Kurtz asked him if he tried getting Davies investigated by state police, and he said yes. Kurtz asked him if that meant he had believed what that accusation from his son against Davies, and he said yes (referring back to what he said about believing how his son felt). Kurtz then asked him if he was aware that Pulsipher was in the room the entire time (attempting to impeach his testimony regarding believing how his son felt), and he said that that wasn’t his testimony (meaning he wasn’t referring to what actually happened) it was her testimony.
Kurtz then asked him if he though Pulsipher was lying, and there was a sustained objection. Kurtz asked if he thought she was mistaken, and there was another sustained objection.
Kurtz moved on to ask him if there was a time when the investigations were all over, the findings were unsubstantiated and it was clear no charges were being filed, and he said that he wasn’t trying to be coy but there had been a lot of gates in that question that he didn’t fully understand. Kurtz then said he was sure he wasn’t, and asked him if in 2017 there was a time he started talking to Chaim Levin, and (after a sidebar and an overruled objection) he said yes. Kurz then followed up to confirm that every investigative avenue had closed and there was no more investigation from CPS or possibility of criminal prosecution, and he said yes.
Kurtz then asked him if he reported Krawatsky to the FBI and NCMEC, and he said yes. Kurtz asked if anything came from those reports, and he said he got a call back from Moe Greenberg of the Baltimore county police. Kurtz asked if anything legal came from that and he said he wouldn’t know. Kurtz asked if he’d gone to a hearing or trial after that and he said no. Kurtz asked him if he’d be aware of a trial and he said yes, but that he wouldn’t be aware if the FBI had maintained a file.
Cross examination ended and Annie Alonso redirected.
She asked him why he waited for Shabbos to go see Rabbi Dave, and he said that that was when Rabbi Dave had asked him to come for his investigation. She asked about Kurtz’ question about meeting his sister at the deposition and asked if he coordinated those depositions. He said he didn’t remember seeing her and if he had it had only been in passing.
Redirect ended.
Next a video deposition in lieu of live testimony (de bene esse) was played of Kovi Barron, counselor of the third alleged victim and his brother in 2015. Kovi said that his last job was at Shoresh, aside from volunteering at hospitals and shadowing doctors. He said it was his dream job to go to medical school and that he still might.
He said he worked at Shoresh around 2013-2015 when he was around 18 years old. He said he was 27 at the time of recording. He said that he had been employed initially as ropes course counselor during his first year at Shoresh and was a counselor for the lower boys division during his second year. He said that there were about 10-12 campers per bunk in that division and that on average each bunk had two counselors, one senior and one junior. He said that his bunk was bunk gimmel.
He said that he remembered the third alleged victim and his brother. He said he was trying to remember who was who, but that both were mischievous. One, he said, was not so great at sports and liked to run around and catch frogs during baseball, and would occasional jump on the ski ball machines to get the balls in the holes. He remembered the campers in his bunk being post-2nd grade, so around 7-8 years old.
He said the last time he spoke to the family of the third alleged victim was when he worked at Shoresh. He was asked about another child, and said he remembered that child was special needs and always had another counselor with him to help him if he couldn’t do the scheduled activity on his own, or to help him at lunchtime.
He was then asked about some notes on the camper roster indicating when campers were scheduled to be absent from camp, specifically if there was ever a week that the special needs camper with the shadow was scheduled not to be there. He said no. He said that when he worked at Shoresh he didn’t see any instances of staff inappropriately touching, kissing, massaging, letting campers sit in their lap, butt slapping, spanking, or physically punishing any campers. He said that if he’d seen any of those he’d have immediately gone to head staff and called child services, or whatever number was given to him by the camp.
He was handed a copy of the staff handbook and asked to read parts of it. The first part had to do with general responsibilities, and he read a section saying that staff should give each camper attention so everyone enjoys camp activities. He was asked if he was attentive and answered yes. Next he read a section about giving campers attention to keep them safe and asked if he at any point was concerned for the safety of any of his campers in 2015. He said no, including regarding the third alleged victim.
Next he read a section saying that during swimming a counselor must be in the pool with the kids unless they were a designated watcher, and when asked what that was he said lifeguard. He described his role during swim as being in the pool with the kids and giving swim lessons and said that if anyone had an issue requiring them to leave, his co-counselor would deal with that.
He was then asked about directives in the handbook about missing campers and asked if in 2015 there were any concerns about a missing camper in his bunk. He said no. He was then asked about the directive for lost swimmers and if he remembered what buddy check policy for swimming was, and he said he didn’t remember. He said he never recalled a time when he was in the pool that swimming was stopped because a camper was missing.
He was then handed a daily schedule and asked if it was accurate. He said it was. He said that generally his bunk was assigned swim first activity in the morning but that sometimes it varied if they went on a trip. He said that before swimming there was davening and learning after which all the bunks separated into their scheduled activities.
Swimming, he said, was 50 minutes from 10:20 to 11:10 AM, and that during that slot there were 5 lower boys bunks (All of them) at the pool, around 60 campers on average and around 10 counselors as well as head counselors and lifeguards. He described the pool as being closer to the main building, outside, the closest building before the baseball, archery, and ropes course fields and the arts and crafts building, and that there was a boys locker room near the pool.
In describing the morning swim sessions he said that they’d wait outside if anyone was inside changing, but generally they were the first ones there since swim was scheduled first activity for them, and then the boys would go into the changing area to change, and the counselors would go change in the bathroom or shower room separately, and then everyone would go out to the pool. He reiterated that the staff changed separately from the campers.
Before leaving the locker room, he said, they had to make sure all the campers had changed and left the locker room.
Next he was shown a series of pictures of the locker room. He was asked where the campers changed and indicated an area with bathrooms but said that it was a whole mush. He then said that not all 5 bunks would change at once. Each bunk, he said, would wait outside until the previous bunk had finished changed and exited the locker room at which point they’d go in, change, and exit to the pool.
He was then shown a picture of the hallway that led from the entrance at the far end of the locker room to the exit that led out to the pool area and confirmed that one could see all the way from one end of the room to the other. He was then asked about where a bunk would go to use the bathroom if they were playing sports and he said that they would have to go back to the main building, not the bathroom, to avoid the risk of running into the girls using the locker room. He then mentioned that the girls had a separate locker room in the same building.
He then said that if during swim a camper needed to use the bathroom they’d be escorted there by a counselor.
He then said that the counselors would change to get ready for swimming either in the bathroom or shower stalls. He then said that when he worked at Shoresh he had never seen Krawatsky change in front of campers. He said he didn’t know where Krawatsky did change, but he had never seen him walking around naked, propositioning a camper, sexually assault a camper anywhere, and that during his time as a counselor he never saw any suspected signs of child abuse.
He was then made available to questions from the other attorneys present. First was Chris Rolle, one of Krawatsky’s lawyers. Rolle asked him if he was Krawatsky’s direct report, and he said that Krawatsky was head of lower boy’s division and that there were a few others for the lower boys division and a number of head counselors like Rabbi Dave and others. Rolle asked him to confirm if Krawatsky was a head counselor working with him and in charge of the same things he was in charge of, and he said yes.
Asked to describe Krawatsky’s interactions with the kids he said that Krawatsky was a fun guy, fun personality, always truing to make everyone lively and happy, that he was the life of the party and that if anyone seemed down Krawatsky tried to lift their spirits. He said that he had never seen Krawatsky act inappropriately with a child, have physical contact with a child (despite it having already been established that Krawatsky had carried the second alleged victim to his mother), or have kids on his lap.
He said that during swim Krawatsky was either at the pool swimming or on the side just making things fun, and that he was in charge of swim time. He said he had never seen Krawatsky leave the area or go off by himself, or seen Krawatsky in the locker room at all, walked in on Krawatsky naked, seen him changing in the locker room, or seen a child go into the locker room alone during swim. He said that if he’d seen a child entering the locker room alone he’d have sent a counselor after him because such a thing would be concerning to him.
He said that he never left a camper alone in the locker room and never would because if a kid refused to swim he would have to stay by the pool anyway. He said he’d never seen a child alone in the locker room. He also said that he had never heard a child inside from the outside or seen anyone naked in the locker room. He said that being well versed in Jewish religion and customs, and being that Shoresh was an Orthodox camp, it wouldn’t make sense for someone to be walking around naked in the locker room.
He said he only worked there during the summer.
He was then questioned by the families’ lawyers.
He was asked if when a camper would be escorted from the swim area back to the locker room to use the bathroom the counselor would wait outside the locker room, and he said yes. He said that the last time he spoke to the lawyers for Shoresh or Krawatsky was when he worked at Shoresh. Asked about a specific lawyer for Shoresh he said that the first time he’d spoken to him was a month or so before the taped deposition.
He said that the lawyer was trying to get ahold of all the counselors so they could have word with them to see if they remembered anything about the case. He said they asked him if he could speak and they did a few times by phone about what was going on, when he should be available for the case since he lived in Israel, and to introduce the idea of a video deposition like the one he was taking. Each call, he said, was around 10-20 minutes during which they discussed his testimony. He said they never met in person.
He was asked about the number of boys and girls in each division (by gender, not age levels within each gender division) and he said it was a lot of kids, around 240 kids, so he couldn’t have been around them all all the time. He also said he couldn’t always see where Krawatsky was at all times. Regarding times a camper needed discipline during swim he said that it was never his job to discipline kids and that maybe the lifeguard would blow a whistle or something.
He said he never saw a kid try to drown another kid, including the third alleged victim (Krawatsky had, according to the third alleged victim’s mother’s testimony on the first day, called her regarding her son attempting to drown another child. The implication was that if he hadn’t seen something that had already been established to have happened, what else might he have not seen?).
He was asked about his schedule for giving swim lessons and said it wasn’t every day. He was asked if he was allowed to make calls during the sabbath and said he wasn’t. He was asked about his first contact with the Shoresh lawyer who had reached out about testifying and said that he had gotten a missed call from the lawyer on Shabbos and couldn’t pick and and had played phone tag with him for a little bit. When they finally connected, he said, he was asked if he’d be available to give a deposition for the case.
He said the lawyer told him no facts or opinions on the case, and then tried asking the lawyer why he asked him about the halacha around answering calls on Shabbos, that that was pretty random.
The deposition ended, as did that day of trial.
Some People Live More in 20 Years... 