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.

Yesterday began the civil trial between Shmuel Krawatsky and the families of his alleged victims. Krawatsky was publicly accused in a Jewish Week article in 2018 by 3 families of sexually abusing their children at Camp Shoresh, a day camp near Baltimore. Shortly following the accusation, Krawatsky filed a federal defamation suit against the families which was dismissed for jurisdictional reasons. Krawatsky then filed another defamation case in state court in September of 2018. In response the families filed a countersuit for the sexual abuse allegedly committed by Krawatsky against their children.

The case has dragged on for 6 years, bogged down in endless procedural fighting. A number of parties were dismissed from the case on both sides. The Jewish Week, and journalist, Hannah Dreyfus, who initially covered the allegations for the Jewish Week (now owned by 70 Faces Media), had initially been defendants in the defamation case, but were removed from the case in summary judgment. Camp Shoresh was also removed from the case after a ruling from the judge determined that they didn’t have sufficient notice to have known that Krawatsky was a potential threat.

This set the stage for the trial.

Given how complicated this case was, with claims and counterclaims against multiple parties, the judge broke the trial up into several parts. The first part, which began yesterday, is to determine whether or not the alleged abuse actually happened. Once the jury makes a determination on those claims the remaining claims can be decided.

The central allegations of the case are this: That at various times Shmuel Krawatsky repeatedly either molested, or orally or anally raped these three children in the poolhouse at Camp Shoresh. This part of the trial centers around whether or not those alleged abuses happened. Since this is central to the question of both damages for defamation and damages for abuse, and the burden is on the defense to prove their counterclaim, the defense is presenting its case first.

To simplify, the defense for the purpose of this post means the families accusing Krawatsky. The Plaintiff is Krawatsky.

The Defendants’ attorney offered his opening statement first. He began by laying out the context of case, where the burden of proof lies, and the meaning of the burden of proof – preponderance of the evidence. To illustrate the meaning of that burden he described a perfectly balanced scale, and preponderance meaning even the lightest feather weight tipping it in one direction.

He then reminded the jury about the ages of everyone involved at the time. Given that the abuse is alleged to have taken place in 2014 and 2015, the children would have been around 7 or 8 at the time. He showed pictures of each of the three children at those ages.

He then gave some details about the case, describing how the first alleged victim disclosed in 2015 after mentioning to his parents that he had had a dream in which Krawatsky had pissed on him. After discussion with his parents he eventually told them that Krawatsky would walk around the Shoresh locker room naked and regularly tickled boys. He also alleged that Krawatsky offered him $100 to touch his penis, and that Krawatsky anally raped him. The second alleged victim claims that Krawatsky offered him $100 to touch his penis, but doesn’t remember the rest. The third alleges that Krawatsky repeatedly orally and anally raped him over two summers.

He then laid out how the CPS investigations into these allegations shook out. Before getting into the specifics he laid out the three possible designations that CPS can give to a case after investigating: Indicated, unsubstantiated, and ruled out. Indicated means that CPS believes abuse or neglect happened and feels confident they can prove it. Unsubstantiated means that they believe abuse or neglect may have happened but don’t feel they can prove it. Ruled out means they don’t believe abuse or neglect happened at all.

He described how the first and second alleged victims’ CPS cases resulted in indicated findings, and the third resulted in an unsubstantiated finding. After an appeal by Krawatsky, the indicated findings were changed to unsubstantiated out of a desire to spare the boys from having to relive the trauma by testifying at the appeal.

He then preemptively addressed a potential strategy by the plaintiff, telling the jury that they may hear that the parents coached the kids to say that Krawatsky abused them for a specific reason. He told the jury to asked themselves what the parents stood to gain by doing that, and asserted that they were simply loving parents who stood up for their kids.

He told the jury that he would show them examples of Krawatsky lying during the course of the case, including him lying about having and using a cellphone while at camp (which is important because he is alleged to have taken illicit photos of the children on his phone despite claiming that he never had or used a personal phone at camp), and that he lied about giving the children gifts (which often is a tactic used by an abuser who wants to groom their victims), telling the jury that they would see an actual gift given by Krawatsky to the children as an exhibit in the case.

Next was the plaintiff’s opening.

He began by saying that they aren’t blaming the kids at all, that they were just young, impressionable children being pressured by their parents to invent these allegations against Krawatsky. He laid out an alternative view of the case: The first alleged victim first told his mother that he had a dream about Krawatsky pissing on him, but his mother doesn’t remember how she got from her son disclosing the dream to him alleging that Krawatsky had raped him.

He then reminded the jury that Krawatsky was the one bringing this case against the parents as a defamation suit to clear his name from these accusations. The only thing worse than being a child molester, he said, was being falsely accused of being a child molester. He then told the jury that this was a civil case, and that there was no criminal case because police and the DA had declined to prosecute.

He then told the jury that he suspects a lot of them believed the story when they initially heard it from the defense because why would 3 kids lie? He then laid out 5 reasons why the allegations shouldn’t be believed:

Location: The location of where they claim the abuse took place (which he explained in a later point).

Corroboration: Listen for what’s not there: No DNA, hair, blood, or corroboration of any of these allegations.

Witnesses: There are no witnesses to the event identified by the children except for one nonverbal child who was being shadowed by a paraprofessional.

Believability: The third alleged victim claims he was anally raped every day it didn’t rain (meaning every day there was swimming as an activity) for two summers in the pool locker room while lots of people were around. We will show video of regular day to day operation of this location. The claims this happened repeatedly with no one noticing are not credible. The only way into the pool is through the locker room, back and forth. Kids and counselors are constantly in and out.

He continued by saying that there are no other alleged victims of Krawatsky, and that it’s unlikely for a serial rapist who worked with children for 15 years to not have any other similar allegations.

Timeline: 3 boys at Shoresh, all in the same group, all swimming at the same time with the whole division – it’s unlikely that with that many people around that these rapes could have happened so frequently with no one noticing.

He then moved on to address claims he believed the defense would make about behavioral changes indicating abuse in the alleged victims. He said that 2 of the 3 boys had behavioral issues before the alleged abuse. Alleged victims 2 and 3 were already seeing a psychologist. The behavioral issues these boys had, he said, predated the alleged abuse and weren’t caused by it. He laid out how one of the boys had been expelled from Shoresh at one point, and that another child had never been away from his parents before, having been homeschooled, and was having issues being away from his parents for the first time. He reiterated that these issues were not caused by Krawatsky.

After camp, he continued, the first alleged victim had this dream, and that both of his parents reacted to it, but that neither could remember who first heard the dream from him. He then said that the camp reported to CPS (although it should be noted that in previous filings by the defense, the camp allegedly took longer to report than they should have, initially reaching out to Krawatsky to discuss the allegations and reassure him that they would stand by him), CPS interviewed the kids, and the first alleged victim claimed that the second alleged victim was with him, but the second alleged victim contradicted that account and claimed nothing happened.

He then said that he first alleged victim was interviewed by his therapist and also denied any abuse at the time. He then laid out the plaintiff’s theory of the case: That, desperate to get another kid to corroborate their child’s story, the parents of the first alleged victim colluded with the second alleged victim’s therapist and parents to allow them to speak to the second alleged victim directly at the therapist’s office, but that after two sessions the second alleged victim still denied that any abuse happened. He then said that the first alleged victim’s mother asked to talk directly to the second alleged victim, and that during that conversation she pressured him to say specific things, which, scared of her, he weakly acknowledged.

The plaintiff’s lawyer then played a recording of a conversation between the second alleged victim and his mother. The gist of the recording is that over the course of about 10 minutes of gentle questioning by his mother at the time, the second alleged victim repeatedly offered contradictory accounts of what had happened, at times reaffirming and at times denying the allegations against Krawatsky. At various times he referenced bad things other people had told him Krawatsky had done.

The lawyer then described proper interviewing techniques (not asking leading questions, not asking yes or no questions, or leading questions) and then claimed the kids were coached into their answers.

It should be noted that he never really articulated a firm motive for the three parents to go along with this, or for the first parent to instigate this beyond claiming she had a desire to pin what she believed happened to her son on Krawatsky. The central thrust of their argument is this: She was an attached mother who overreacted to her son’s dream, and therefore did everything she could to get other kids to make the same allegation and pin what she believed happened to her son on Krawatsky. He offered no motives for the other parents.

Next the first witness, the third alleged victyim, was called by the defense’s lead attorney. He is currently 16 year old, and walked up to the stand clutching a somewhat worn out stuffed rhino. Sitting in the back, on the floor, was the second alleged victim holding his service dog.

The defense attorney, Jon Little, opened by asking the third alleged victim about his stuffed animal. He answered by saying he liked rhinos because they’re strong and offer protection. Jon asked him about the second alleged victim, and if he knew him. He replied saying he didn’t. Jon then asked if he knew the parents of the first alleged victim, who are also his aunt and uncle. He replied that he does, but hasn’t talked to them in a long time.

Jon then asked him about Shoresh. He described the regular day to day schedule at Shoresh. Jon then asked him about Krawatsky. He said Krawatsky was in charge of his age group at the time. He then said that he was regularly alone with Krawatsky in the locker room, and that Krawatsky would come up with pretexts to get him alone, telling him he was getting punished for various reasons. These punishments, he said, consisted of Krawatsky putting his penis in the third alleged victim’s anus and mouth, and putting the third alleged victim’ penis in his own mouth. The third alleged victim said he remembered Krawatsky’s penis being hairy and tasking bad.

He then said that he didn’t tell anyone what happened because he was scared of Krawatsky’s threats that he would cut the third alleged victim’s ears off and kill his family. He restated these allegations for summer of 2015 as well, saying he hadn’t seen Krawatsky between the two summers at all. He reiterated his reasons for not reporting, namely his fear of Krawatsky’s threats.

After camp in 2015, he described his aunt, the mother of the first alleged victim, coming over and telling him a story about a child who exploded from keeping too many secrets. He says he didn’t disclose anything immediately, but didn’t feel coerced or pressured by the story, and he never saw her again. He said he never spoke to her about Krawatsky. He said he later disclosed to his mother, claiming that Krawatsky only touched his anus and penis, an allegation he also made to CPS in 2016. However, in 2017, he disclosed that Krawatsky had raped him. He said he made these allegations to his therapist, CPS, and in two depositions before testifying yesterday.

He also testified to an incident that happened in 2016 between him and his cousin, when both were around 7 or 8, that at a sleepover he “hurt” his cousin because he had been threatened by Krawatsky that if he didn’t, Krawatsky would hurt him. He denied that the mother of the first alleged victim ever told him what to say.

Cross examination was conducted by Benjamin Kurtz, whose demeanor was angry and combative toward the third alleged victim. He opened by asking the third alleged victim about his brother who was with him at Shoresh. The third alleged victim said his brother was never with him when the abuse happened, but was at swimming generally when the abuse was taking place in the locker room.

Kurtz asked him if he remembered if his brother ever asked him if anything happened, or if he ever remembers telling his brother that he was in pain after each day’s abuse. To both he responded that he didn’t remember. Kurtz then pivoted to asking him about the incident he described between him and his cousin. The third alleged victim said he didn’t remember what exactly happened but he believes it was sexual, saying again that he only did it because Krawatsky had threatened him.

Kurtz asked him why he thought Krawatsky would know whether he had or hadn’t abused his cousin, and he responded saying that at the time he was scared that Krawatsky had cameras in his house and would know. Kurtz then repeatedly asked him questions about the incident.

Kurtz then asked him about the rape he claimed (in an earlier filing) happened at a water park in Pennsylvania. He said he didn’t remember if anyone else was with him at that rape, and also said he doesn’t remember if he ever gave a different answer to that question in the past when asked. Kurtz at this point just straight up combatively asked him if after repeatedly denying being abused he only remembered the abuse after his aunt told him the story of a child exploding from keeping too many secrets. He said that no, he remembered, but was too scared to disclose to anyone.

Kurtz then asked what about that story made him not scared to disclose, and he responded saying that the story made him finally not keep it a secret.

In a moment that shocked the entire courtroom, Kurtz then angrily and sarcastically said essentially, so when you thought that it was your family that would be killed you stayed quiet, but only once you thought you would explode you decided you needed to speak up, very strongly implying that the third alleged victim was a selfish person in his motivations for disclosing. It was a shocking moment because what they were discussing was what took place when the third alleged victim was 8 years old.

In my opinion what he was trying to do was make the jury think of the 16 year old, full sized teenager in front of them as an abuser himself who had attacked his cousin, and then selfishly pinned it on Krawatsky to deflect. I don’t think it landed the way he intended. To everyone in the courtroom it seemed like he had just attacked a victim of child sexual abuse for what he had done and said when he was 8.

Following a break, the third alleged victim’s mother was called to the stand. Annie Alonso handled her direct examination.

She started by asking the mom about her impressions of Shoresh. She said she sent her kids to Shoresh because she attended an open house and it seemed like a good place, and because they had friends who were also going. When asked about her other son’s experience at Shoresh, she said he had a great time. Her other son, however, she said, struggled, frequently coming home in his bathing suit, even though they were supposed to change after swimming, saying he didn’t go swimming to avoid getting in trouble. She said he struggled to fit in and that he’d get in trouble.

She said she didn’t know Krawatsky before her sons went to Shoresh, and that she first communicated with him at an open house held right before camp started for parents to meet staff. She said she spoke to Krawatsky shortly after camp started after he called her to let her know that her son had almost drowned a kid. She said she was devastated, but that Krawatsky assured her that the child was fine, and that he’d taken her son aside and handled what had been done wrong. She said she was relieved her son was avoiding an expulsion thanks to Krawatsky and that the other kid was ok. She said she didn’t know what she’d do with her son if he was expelled as she worked full time.

She said she spoke to Krawatsky again on the phone. She said he called her after her son got frustrated at a soccer game after the game ended before he got a chance to be goalie. He told her he was teaching her son calming techniques, involving Krawatsky and her son squeezing each other’s hands, and him squeezing his own hands to calm down. She said she was happy at the time that Krawatsky was taking a special interest in helping her son with his struggles.

She said she spoke to Krawatsky again before a camp overnight to ask for permission to pick her son up late that night rather than having him stay overnight as he wasn’t ready to stay overnight at camp. She said Krawatsky said her son was a great kid and that he welcomed him back the next year.

She said that prior to Shoresh her son had behaviour issues, namely anxiety, and easily getting angry and frustrated, but that she did notice a behavioral change after Shoresh. In particular she said that he started smearing poop on the walls in the bathroom, screaming about monsters living in the bathroom, and needing her to sit outside the bathroom while he was inside it. She said his anxiety became more raw and fearful.

Alonso then asked her about the stuffed rhino. She answered that he had gotten into rhinos because they’re big and strong and have a horn to protect them. His first rhino, she said, he got in 2014 or 2015, and he got the one he was holding in court a few years later. She explained that it was kind of like his security blanket that he takes with him to highly anxious situations like court or depositions.

She then moved on to talking about her family, saying she is close to one of her brothers, but that she isn’t really in touch with her brother and sister in law, first alleged victim’s parents. She said that her sister in law had only spoken to her son once to tell him the story about the boy who exploded due to keeping secrets and that she seemed normal during that conversation. She said that her son didn’t immediately react to hearing the story. She said that she knew about the CPS investigation into the first alleged victim’s claims, but didn’t discuss them with her sister in law.

When asked if she knew the parents of the second alleged victim she said that she only met the father once in 2017, and only knew the mother from Shoresh and that they never hung out socially. She said she never met or spoke to the second alleged victim.

Asked about her son’s CPS investigation she said that when he initialy disclosed she just thanked him and told him she loved him and that she wanted to talk to his therapist about it. She said he was already in therapy at that point. She said CPS got involved in 2016 and that she spoke to them, and to police about it, and that she remembered that the result of the CPS investigation was unsubstantiated.

She said she continued her son in therapy and added another therapist to his treatment plan for some more specialized therapy. He recalled the 2017 investigation too, where her son disclosed the rape, that the investigators were the ones she spoke to, and that the result of that investigation was indicated. She recalled that the finding was appealed, and that she received a subpoena to testify at the hearing, but was anxious about it and didn’t want her son to have to see his rapist again. She said that the result of the appeal was that the finding was changed to unsubstantiated, but that the change in finding changed nothing about how she acted toward her son.

On cross examination she was asked if the day her son disclosed to her was the same day her sister in law told her son the story about secrets, and she answered yes.

Next the CPS worker, Brenda Lohman, was called.

She said that she worked for CPS since 2014 and described her duties working for them. She also described the training she got in interviewing techniques.

She said that she remembered investigating the third alleged victim’s claims in 2016 after being assigned the case, and that the first part of the investigation involved reaching out to the family to have the child come in for an interview. She said she didn’t record the interview because the county didn’t allow that at the time. She said she referred the child to the Child Advocacy Center for medical evaluation.

She then said she remembered interviewing Krawatsky and that he claimed he was never alone with the child. She said she next spoke to the father of another child who was identified as being able to corroborate the third alleged victim’s account and that after finishing her report her disposition on the case was unsubstantiated.

She said that in 2017 she was involved in the second investigation following the alleged victim’s disclosure of rape. She said the interview with the child was conducted by another CPS worker but that she watched it live on CCTV. She said she met with the third alleged victim’s parents and spoke to Krawatsky again.

She said she asked him about having a personal cellphone at camp and that he denied having one at camp. She said she didn’t have the power to subpoena cell records. She said that she initially found the case to be indicated but on appeal that finding was changed to unsubstantiated.

On cross examination she was asked by Krawatsky’s lawyer, Chris Rolle, about the particulars of an unsubstantiated ruling. She was asked if someone with an indicated finding could work as a teacher or counselor. She answered that if it was a teacher the info would be forwarded to the school and the teacher would most likely be fired, but that there was no specific protocol for camp counselors. Asked the same question about an unsubstantiated finding she said that they could work with kids in a school but it would be up to the employer. She wasn’t able to answer if an unsubstantiated finding would appear on a background check, but said they stay on CPS internal records for 5 years.

Regarding the phone records, when asked, she said she doesn’t have the power to subpoena phone records, but that police do. As far as she knew, however, no such records had been subpoenaed by the detective on the case

On redirect Alonso asked her whether the detective was with her when she interviewed Krawatsky and she said he was not.

Next the defense called the third alleged victim’s brother. Alonso handled this direct examination.

He described the day to day at Shoresh, and said he was 7 in 2014 when he attended. He was in the same age group as his brothers, an only boys group. He said he saw Krawatsky with his brother one day when they were going to play gaga coming up the hill with the nonverbal kid, and thought nothing about it at the time.

He said he never saw his brother alone with Krawatsky but on multiple occasions he noticed that his brother was just missing from the group, during color war, and scheduled activities.

He said his brother had talked to him about the sexual abuse he had experienced at some point. He said he talked to CPS in this case, doesn’t remember which worker, and that he was in 4th grade at the time. He said he didn’t know the parents of the second alleged victim, but that he did know the mother of the first alleged victim, but hadn’t talked to her in years. He said that no one, including his aunt and uncle, his brother, or his mom, had pressured him to speak in this case. He said his mom had just asked him to come tell the truth in court in response to a subpoena by Krawatsky’s lawyers.

On cross examination Kurtz asked him to elaborate on what he meant when he said his brother was missing. He said that his brother would be missing from archery, arts and crafts, lessons, etc, and that he never said his brother was never missing from the pool area during swimming.

This was the last witness of the day. The jury was dismissed, and after a few small procedural matters court was adjourned for the day.