Please note: Krawatsky has since been found liable for abusing two of the three alleged victims. We’re continuing to summarize the day-to-day of the complete trial to keep a public record.

On Friday, 2/9/2024, the Krawatsky’s began their defense against the allegations of sexual abuse. As mentioned in previous posts, while the Krawatskys had initially filed a defamation suit against the families and had then been countersued for the alleged abuse, the families were allowed to present their case on the abuse first since the question of whether or not the abuse happened was central to every other claim.

To start their case off the Krawatsky’s lawyer, Chris Rolle, called Detective Mike Davies, the officer assigned to investigate the sexual abuse allegations against Krawatsky.

He started by saying that he currently works at the Maryland highway safety office as a manager for community engagement, and previously worked at the Frederick County Sheriff from 2003 to 2023. He said that while at the Sheriff’s office he had started in patrol, then served as a community deputy, and then worked in criminal investigations specializing in crimes against persons, including sexual abuse. He said he had investigated likely over 100 cases of sexual abuse.

He said he had gotten numerous trainings for investigating sexual abuse, and that one of the most important for child sexual abuse was the Finding Words protocol, which was a protocol for interviewing children. He said it was a weeklong training that he took in 2009 which gave them methods for interviewing children including rapport building, identification of touch, inquiring about abuse scenarios, and how to question a child, including not asking leading questions, asking open ended questions, and avoiding yes/no questions.

He said that at the time interviews were not recorded because they were done at the Child Advocacy Center with a social worker or forensic interviewer, and police would watch the interviews on a CCTV in a separate room. He said he didn’t interview the kids in the Krawatsky investigations, but that Shannon Pulsipher and Brenda Lohman had done them.

Regarding the Krawatsky case he said the complaint came in on 8/19/15, and Pulsipher interviewed the first alleged victim at the CAC on 8/19/15 for about an hour. For the sake of the children being interviewed, he said, they try to limit the time of the interview to an hour or so, but not hours and hours. He said that after the CPS interview he met with the father of the first alleged victim.

Next, he said, he interviewed Krawatsky at his school. He said Krawatsky was not notified before the interview. He said that Pulsipher had scheduled the interview with Krawatsky and he knew she was coming, but not that Davies was coming. He said that up until that point there was nothing atypical about the case. He said Krawatsky was interviewed for 30-60 minutes.

Next, he said, he decided to see if the first alleged victim could take them all to where the abuse had happened to get a clearer picture of the layout of the facility. He said that the first alleged victim said it was a changing room or locker room and that Krawatsky – but was cut off by a sustained objection.

After meeting with Rabbi Dave at the camp, he said, he, Pulsipher, and the first alleged victim went into the locker room, leaving the father and Rabbi Dave at the doorway outside. He said that he and Pulsipher asked him questions about whether it looked familiar, and details of the abuse. He said that the first alleged victim confirmed the details, and then Davies went to see the layout of the pool area. He said there were other rooms on the backside of the locker room, on the pool side.

He described the locker room saying that when you walk in there’s boys on the left, girls on the right, then an exit to the pool at the end of the hallway. He said there’s only two ways in or out, one at either side of the hallway, and that the pool can’t be accessed from anywhere else but through the locker room.

He said that after they were done, Rabbi Dave and the father were brought into the locker room. He said that all 5 of them exited the other end of the locker room to the pool deck, then they walked to the lifeguard stand and the pump room. He said that he asked the first alleged victim if he had been to the lifeguard stand or pump room, and he said no. He said he took pictures of the pump room.

He said that they then all entered the locker room from the pool door and left through the locker room. He said that he, Pulsipher, and Rabbi Dave met to discuss the allegations, and the first alleged victim and his father left.

He said that he and Pulsipher were with the first alleged victim the entire time when Rabbi Dave and the father were outside, and that Rabbi Dave never came in. He said that he was never alone with Rabbi Dave and the first alleged victim. He said that he never unholstered his weapon, or made threats to the first alleged victim to withdraw his statement, and that he would never do such a thing.

After that meeting was over, he said, he had numerous meetings at the CAC with different teams. He started explaining all the people involved in such investigation and was stopped by a sidebar.

He said after meeting with the CAC group he interviewed the second alleged victim and another child who Rabbi Dave had mistakenly identified to him as being involved. He said that he interviewed the second alleged victim at his home with his father because his father requested that it be at home rather than at the CAC, which they accommodate when requested. He said that the second alleged victim didn’t disclose after Pulsipher interviewed him. He said the second alleged victim was asked questions about what the first alleged victim had said and he said that it didn’t happen. He said that the second alleged victim said he hadn’t been abused by anyone.

He said that to resolve the contradiction he reviewed the case with the state’s attorney’s office. He said that in the meantime he had received communications from the first alleged victim’s parents but didn’t recall what they were. He said that he reinterviewed the second alleged victim in December of 2015 at the request of Pulsipher regarding the playdate at the therapist. He said that that interview also wasn’t at the CAC.

At the second interview, he said, the second alleged victim said that something had happened, that he had been solicited with $100 to touch rabbi Krawatsky’s penis area one time.

He said he didn’t take any further steps in that investigation.

Davies said he testified at the CPS appeal hearing for Krawatsky on 1/13/2016. After that, he said, another case opened with Brenda Lohman at CPS. He said that he and Lohman met with the third alleged victim and his mother a the Child Advocacy Center. He said that he learned in that interview that the mother of the first alleged victim and the third alleged victim had spoken. The two are aunt and nephew. He said that the mother of the first alleged victim had told the third alleged victim about the importance of not lying and what could happen if he did.

Davies repeatedly referenced his notes during the direct examination.

He said that the mother of the first alleged victim told the third alleged victim that people who lied would blow up inside, according to the child’s mother. After talking to the mother of the third alleged victim, he said, Lohman talked to the third alleged victim. He said that he watched from an adjoining room at the CAC. He said that Lohman asked the third alleged victim how many times it happened, and he said it had happened several times.

He said that the third alleged victim told Lohman that other kids were in the locker room at the time the abuse happened, but didn’t identify any of them. He said that the third alleged victim had said he’d discussed with his mother what he’d say at CPS. He said he doesn’t recall what the third alleged victim’s mother said before the CAC interview.

After that, he said, Krawatsky was interviewed again at the CPS office. He said he then reviewed the third alleged victim’s case with the state’s attorney’s office and took no further steps. For this investigation, he said, he had interviewed 3 junior counselors as well who worked in the same age group as the alleged victims.

On 1/5/2017, he said, he was notified by CPS to meet with Lohman at the CAC to interview the third alleged victim regarding new allegations. He said he went to the CAC, and this time they had a dedicated forensic interviewer, Kirsten Dunn, do the interview, and he and Lohman watched from a CCTV feed. He said that the third alleged victim made additional allegations that Krawatsky had touched his penis and butt, and put his penis in his butt, and that Krawatsky had him put his own penis in Krawatsky’s butt, and that there was oral sex both ways numerous times over three different summers in the locker room and changing room areas. He said that the third alleged victim identified himself as being the only child present during these incidents.

He said he then reviewed with the state’s attorney and took no further steps. He said that he is not friends with Rabbi Dave, and that prior to these allegations the two had never met or had any prior communications. He said that he is not aware of any other allegations against Krawatsky, and that his investigations were not compromised in any way.

He said that he had never requested any search warrants for anything in this case including for Krawatsky’s phone.

Direct examination ended and Annie Alonso cross examined.

She asked him if during the first investigation into the first and second victims’ allegations he was aware that the allegations had only been reported 84 hours after they were reported to Rabbi Dave, and he said that he had found out later in the investigation. She asked him if he was assigned with Pulsipher on the first two cases and he said yes.

She asked him to confirm the following details: That he said he was assigned with Pulsipher on the first two cases; That the first step was to interview the child; That he watched Pulsipher interview them; that he didn’t leave during the interviews; That the interviews were not recorded; That the first alleged victim never alleged he was abused in the pump room; That the boy incorrectly identified by Dave said he didn’t see anything, and that the victim said the boy who had walked in had come in at the very end of the abuse anyway; that the first alleged victim claimed that Krawatsky was naked; That Davies next spoke to the father of the first alleged victim and never met with his mother; That he next went to the house of the second alleged victim with Pulsipher, while armed; That the second alleged victim’s father was there, and that he spoke to the second alleged victim about the allegations while Shannon and the father were in the house.

She then asked him if the second alleged victim actually said he denied it at one point and then kept saying he didn’t remember, and Davies said he didn’t describe that, and that maybe Pulsipher’s interview had that detail. She asked him if after the second alleged victim’s interview he spoke to Rabbi Dave, and he said that he had but not on the same day. She asked him if he had asked Rabbi Dave to email him if he had any more information and if he knew that Rabbi Dave was the director of the camp, and he said yes.

Regarding his interview with Krawatsky at his school on 9/2/2015 She asked him if he hadn’t asked Krawatsky to come to the police station or CAC and hadn’t recorded it, and he said yes. She asked him if he had Krawatsky if he had ever gone into the locker room, and he said that he hadn’t because he assumed Krawatsky had to go in there for work.

She asked him if he could have issued any search warrants in this case, and he said that he could if he had felt there was probable cause for one. She asked him if he had asked for any, and he said that he hadn’t, including for Krawatsky’s phone, computer, and house. She asked him if he had ever verified that Krawatsky had actually changed in a utility closet (implying not with the boys) and he said no, other than later with some junior counselors.

Regarding the trip to Shoresh on 9/8/2015 with the first alleged victim, he confirmed that it was with him, Rabbi Dave, Pulsipher, the first alleged victim, and his father, and asked him if they had all gone into the locker room, and he said yes. She asked him if there were no video cameras there at the time in 2015, and he confirmed.

She asked him if he had Rabbi Dave, Shannon, and the first alleged victim walk through, and he said that Rabbi Dave wasn’t a part of the walkthrough. She asked him if he remembered testifying at the CPS hearing on 1/13/2016, and he said yes but he didn’t remember what was said. She read a part of his testimony from that hearing which was that Rabbi Dave took them all to the the locker room and unlocked the door, camp wasn’t in session at the time, and Rabbi Dave walked them through the locker room to show them where the incident occurred.

She asked him if at that point he was aware that the first alleged victim was 7 years old, and he said he would have known at the time. She asked him if he had his gun that visit, and he said yes. She asked him if he remembered if the first alleged victim was about waist height, and he said that he remembered him being average height for a 7 year old. She asked him if he and Pulsipher spoke to him about what happened there, and he said yes. She asked him if the first alleged victim had made any disclosures about what had happened, and he first seemed to not remember, but then said that the first alleged victim had made the allegation about being offered $100 to touch Krawatsky’s penis.

She asked him if he thought it might be traumatic to bring a child victim to the location of his abuse, and he said that it could go either way which is why they reviewed the idea internally, and had CPS ask the parents for permission. She asked him if it’s usual to gather evidence with victims, and he said sometimes.

Regarding the follow-up visit with the second alleged victim on 12/22/2015 (at his therapist’s office) she asked him if before that visit, on 12/8/2015, he had closed both the first and second cases, and he said yes. She asked him if anyone had needed his approval to have the two boys meet, and he said no. She asked if it was because it was case closed and there was no further evidence gathering, and he said yes. She asked him if when he arrived the parents of the first alleged victim were there, and he said no.

She asked him if he and Pulsipher decided to speak to the second alleged victim and he said yes. She asked him about his demeanor and he said he didn’t remember. She followed up asking if the second alleged victim had been scared or shy, he said could be.

She asked him if when he met with the second alleged victim that second time he had disclosed that Krawatsky had done something mean, and he said yes. She asked if he recorded it, and he said no. She asked if he spoke to the second alleged victim’s parents, and he said yes but that he didn’t record that either. She asked if he learned there was a recording by the mother of her son’s disclosure, and he said yes, but he didn’t remember getting the recorded. She confirmed to him that it had never been provided to him.

Regarding the investigation of the third alleged victim’s allegations she asked if he had gotten that on 2/9/2016 and was assigned to partner with Brenda Lohman, and he said yes. She asked him about CPS scheduling the interview and if he had spoken to the third alleged victim’s mother about her son’s disclosure, and he said yes. She asked if the mother had said she’d seen some odd behaviors from her son including self-hating talk and smearing poop on the bathroom walls, and he said yes. She asked him if Lohman had conducted the interview while he watched, and he said yes.

She asked him if the third alleged victim had had a stuffed animal with him at the time, and he said he didn’t. She showed him a copy of his report to refresh his memory, and he said that the third alleged victim had had a stuffed animal but didn’t remember what it was. (When the third alleged victim had testified in court he had been clutching a small stuffed rhinoceros.)

She asked him if after that interview he had decided to talk to Krawatsky, and he said yes. She asked if he had set that interview up with Krawatsky and his lawyer, and he said that Lohman had. She asked if he had gone along and he said that he had gone unannounced to the meeting at the CPS main building, and that the meeting wasn’t recorded.

She asked him if at that interview he found out that Krawatsky had learned about the allegations from Rabbi Dave (before the surprise interview), and he said yes. She asked him if Krawatsky had said he had never disciplined the third alleged victim in the locker room, and he said yes. She asked him if Krawatsky had said he’d been in the locker room with the third alleged victim, and he said yes, but only as a group. She asked if Krawatsky had denied being alone with the third alleged victim in the locker room and he said yes.

She asked him if Krawatsky had said that counselors change in the locker room, and he said yes. She asked if any of these interviews had been recorded, and he said no.

She asked him if he’d spoken to some counselors given to him by Rabbi Dave, and he said yes. She asked if he’d asked the counselors if they’d spoken to Rabbi Dave (about the case) and he said no. She asked if that was the end of the investigation, and he said yes.

She asked him if he was once again assigned to the third alleged victim’s case with Lohman in January of 2017, and he said yes. She asked if the third alleged victim, at age 9, had come to the CAC nervous, and he said yes. She asked if it was not recorded, and he said yes, but that he and Lohman had watched the interview on CCTV. She asked if there was a disclosure and he said that there was. She asked if after that disclosure he had scheduled another interview with Rabbi K, and he said no. She asked if he had closed the case on 2/20/2017, and he said yes.

Going back to the second alleged victim, she asked him if he remembered when he went to the house to interview the child and his father, and he said yes. She asked him if he remembered that the second alleged victim had had an MRI and had been under sedation, and he said he didn’t believe so.

Cross examination ended and Chris Rolle redirected.

Rolle asked Davies if he was asked (just a few minutes before) if the second alleged victim had said that Krawatsky had said something mean, and he said yes. Rolle asked if Pulsipher had followed up on that and he said that she had in the second interview. Rolle asked if he remembered what was said, and he said he’d have to go back. Rolle let him review his notes, and then he said that initially the second alleged victim had said no, but had then said yes.

Regarding the meeting at the camp in September of 2015 Rolle asked if he had testified upon cross that Rabbi Dave unlocked the doors of the locker room, and he said yes. Rolle asked if he had a chance to review the locks during the investigation, and he said yes, there were no internal locks inside the room, and it was only lockable from the outside. Rolle asked him if someone could lock it from the inside, and he said no.

Rolle asked him to describe the locks from the outside and he said there was a latch on a shed or outside garage door, a lock and a padlock, and on the inside was just a door handle.

Redirect ended and Davies was excused.

Next was another De Bene Esse deposition video showing testimony from Adam Lombardo, counselor to the first and second alleged victims, and self-described mentee of Shmuel Krawatsky. An attorney for Camp Shoresh, which was a party to the case at the time, questioned Lombardo. Adam is originally from Silver Spring but now lives in Jerusalem. His highest education is high school, and he’s in Yeshiva now in Jerusalem. He wants to be a community leader and help develop communities.

Adam said he was employed by Shoresh between 2014 and 2017 when he was between 15 and 18 years old. He said that before beginning his work at Shoresh he had to complete a background check, had to be fingerprinted, and had to attend a mandatory orientation for all staff led by Drew Fidler, a social worker and child protection policy expert. He said that Fidler spoke to them and showed a PowerPoint about crucial parts of camp, including rules about no lap sitting, no touching of campers, no being alone with campers at any point in camp.

He said he remembers the reporting policy being to report “up and out,” which he explained means that if you see something concerning about a child you report up and out to a head counselor and that counselor reports to Rabbi Dave or Phran Edelman and then you were relieved of the matter. (Maryland law, as of at least 2014, requires that all persons who are aware of child abuse or neglect report it directly to the relevant authorities.)

He was shown a 19 page slide and questioned about their contents.

He said he recalled receiving a presentation regarding a slide that said “Protect camp” and remembered Fidler giving a presentation about the bullet points on that slide. He said he remembered the slide about how to discover abuse and how to respond if you hear or suspect abuse. He said he remembered a slide with a flowchart of specific examples of what abuse includes. He said he remembered learning about “up and out” reporting.

He said that he received a staff handbook when working as a counselor. He said he had reviewed the handbook prior to the deposition. He was asked to look over the section called “Staff with Campers” and the sub-heading “Relationships and Inappropriate Intimate Behavior.” He reviewed the sections on verbal and physical contact. He said that while working at Shoresh he never saw a staff member inappropriately touching, kissing, back rubbing, massaging, slapping, or spanking any camper.

He reviewed the section on physical punishment never being appropriate, and said he had never seen a staff member strike a camper.

Regarding the section on child abuse prevention and reporting he reviewed the first bullet point saying that all staff must be fingerprinted and background checked with CPS, and said he had to do that before working at Shoresh. Regarding the bulletpoint about suspected child abuse he said he recalled the reporting policy of the camp to be be reporting “Up and Out.”

In explaining “Up and Out” he said that meant he would report to Rabbi Dave if he was there, and if not he would go to a head staff member. He said his direct supervisor would have been Rabbi Krawatsky.

Regarding the section describing the job description of a counselor and general responsibilities, he read the second bullet point which said to stay aware, keep an eye on all campers, and make sure everyone is safe.

(The general gist of this part of his testimony is to demonstrate that the camp had policies and mandatory training of those policies required for all staff.)

He said that he had a concern for one of his campers, the second alleged victim, because he would at times, when things didn’t go his way, have a tantrum and start being violent, like pushing, shouting, screaming, losing control, which Adam said made him concerned. He said he remembered some of this violence being directed at the first alleged victim who was in the same bunk.

Regarding the handbook saying that counselors must be in the pool with kids unless they were a designated watcher, he said that designated watcher meant sitting in a chair by the pool watching the kids who were sitting on pool chairs, lounging around, playing sports next door, making sure they were there, or that if a camper needed a restroom that their counselors were aware of it.

Regarding the missing persons section of the handbook he was asked if there was a time when he was a counselor in 2015 when any of his campers went missing, and he said that the second alleged victim had at some point gone missing while doing an activity. He said that something had not gone the first alleged victim’s way and he had a tantrum and fit and lost his cool and started running. He said he pursued the second alleged victim who ran to the community center and was found with his mother who was trying to get the situation under control. He said that the second alleged victim’s mom worked at Shoresh, and that other than that one incident he didn’t recall any other missing camper incidents.

He discussed the policy regarding notifying a lifeguard if a camper was missing during buddy check and said he recalled buddy check being running down the numbers every camper was assigned at the beginning of camp to see if everyone was there. Other than the incident when the second alleged victim ran off, he said, there were no other missing campers.

He recalled being assigned to bunk aleph for all 3 summers he was employed at Shoresh. After being shown a camp roster he recalled that first session of 2015 he had 9 campers, and that two of them were the first and second alleged victims. He said that there were two counselors assigned to bunk aleph.

He said that he recalled the first alleged victim as being a sweet, happy kid, very cheery. He said his recollections of the second alleged victim were that he was a sweet, very nice kid aside from when something wouldn’t go his way and he’d go be difficult and go into rages. He said he didn’t remember how frequently these rages happened. Asked to recall two other campers (they believed may have been the boys referenced by the first alleged victim as having walked in at the end of one of the abuse incidents) he said that one was nice, not athletic, and liked to play cards, and the other as a fun, lively, good time kid.

He described the typical schedule for kid in his bunk as everyone getting on buses, coming to Adamstown, where the camp was, getting off the buses, joining their appropriate groups for davening, then going to first activity, which for them was usually swimming, followed by another period, then lunch, learning, then two more periods, then dismissal. He said that lower boys division had 5 bunks.

After being shown a schedule he recalled swim session being 50 minutes. He said that approximately 60 kids in the division would be swimming at the same time, with at least 10 counselors and a few lifeguards present. He said the pool was right in the middle of camp – really center stage – and that the boys locker room was attached to the pool area. He said that while swim was scheduled no campers could be at another activity.

In describing the scene during lower boys’ swim he said that it was controlled chaos because a bunch of kids were running around, and there are kids and counselors in and out of the water, and around doing stuff. He reiterated that the morning started with davening and then went into swim. He described the scene in the locker room prior to swim as kids all over the place, excited, running into bathroom and shower stalls to get changed, with some kids already dressed, and everyone being excited to jump in the pool.

Once swim began, he said, if a camper needed a bathroom one of the counselors that were on the side would escort them to the bathroom. He said that counselors were told to check the bathrooms periodically during swim sessions. He said that if his bunk was assigned to a different activity after swim they would use the bathrooms at the pool primarily, and that if counselors had to use the bathroom they would use the poolhouse bathroom.

He said that he recalled no point during the day when the locker room was closed or locked so boys couldn’t use it. He said that he didn’t remember where counselors would change when getting ready for swim. He said that he didn’t remember where Krawatsky changed but that he doesn’t remember him changing in front of kids in the boys locker room.

He said that while he was a counselor he never observed Krawatsky walking around naked in the boys locker room, or any rabbis or staff doing so, and didn’t recall seeing Krawatsky propositioning any kids in the locker room, sexually assaulting any campers there or anywhere at Shoresh.

He said he was aware of the allegations and remembered being contacted by law enforcement. He said he remembered Davies asking if he had spoken to the first alleged victim’s mother and he said he remembered her being very frantic and expressing to him that if he lied she was going to subpoena him and bring him to court, and that he shouldn’t lie (repeatedly stated).

He said he didn’t remember who contacted whom for that conversation, and didn’t remember asking her questions during that conversation.

He said that he recalled testifying previously on this case and was shown a transcript of that deposition. Using that to refresh his memory he said that he remembered the first alleged victim’s mother asking if he had noticed Krawatsky going behind curtains with either her son or the second alleged victim, and he said he didn’t remember that. He said that he was 17 at the time of that conversation.

During the summer of 2015, he said, the first and second alleged victims never reported to him any issues with Krawatsky. He said he knew Krawatsky since 2015 and never saw anything suspicious about Krawatsky’s interactions with kids at Shoresh.

He said that he became a counselor to share his energy and love for Judaism and make some money. He said he made bonds with the kids and the camp and cared for and took care of the children. He said that with that care and love he would report abuse if he saw it and wouldn’t deny it just because he liked his boss. He said that reporting abuse would be an important goal of his and said he saw no abuse from anyone in ca mp toward any of the kids, and never suspected any of Krawatsky for the entire time he was at Shoresh (2015-2017).

He said he spoke to other counselors as part of the camaraderie and social aspect of camp.

(At this point court ended for the day, but to keep the coverage easy to follow I’m including the rest of Lombardo’s deposition from Monday 2/12/2024)

Adam was then questioned by Jon Little. Jon asked him how he had known there was a transcript of the CPS hearing (which he later mentions testifying at) and he said he was made aware by the camp lawyer. Jon asked him when the last time he spoke to the camp lawyer was, and he said that they’d spoken the day before (the deposition) for about an hour about prepping for the deposition.

Jon asked him when the last time he spoke to Krawatsky was and he said the previous Monday, and that they spoke about Adam getting names of funders in the community to help him raise funds for his studies.

Jon asked him when the last time he spoke to Rabbi Dave was and he said two months prior they had spoken about him coming back to Shoresh as a division head. Jon asked him how often he spoke to Rabbi Dave and he said that he didn’t keep track but not often, but that he wanted to. Jon asked him when was the time before last that he had spoken to Krawatsky and he said that it was about 5 months prior. Jon asked him how often he had spoken to to the camp layer before the previous day and he said that they had corresponded by email but he didn’t remember when or how frequently.

He said he remembered testifying at a CPS hearing when he was 17 and that after that hearing he went back to Shoresh. He said that Rabbi Dave knew he was testifying about that, but didn’t remember if they had discussed his testimony.

He said that Krawatsky was his supervisor in 2015 and that the camp had a policy of not texting. Jon then asked him if Krawatsky was exempt from that policy and he said yes because Krawatsky was a master educator. He said that he learned Krawatsky was exempt when Krawatsky texted him. He said they would have been in contact (by text during the summer).

Jon asked him if he had ever called Krawatsky to help with the second alleged victim’s tantrums, and he said yes, because Krawatsky was his head counselor, but didn’t recall how many times.

Jon asked him if when he had testified for CPS he had said that the first alleged victim had had a problem with a counselor named Jacob Zelaya, and asked him where he’d gotten that information from, and Adam said he didn’t remember. Jon asked if that information had come from Rabbi Dave and he said he didn’t remember.

Referencing the camp schedule he’s been shown Jon asked him if before the pool activity the locker room would have been empty, and he said yes. Jon asked him about his use of the term center stage to describe the pool area and asked him if he had discussed the pool area’s traffic with the camp lawyer before his deposition, and he said yes.

Jon showed him a copy of the CPS transcript and asked him if he’d said that kids could go to the bathroom during swimming, and Adam said yes. Jon asked him if he had testified that there was a head counselor watching them during swimming and if that head counselor was Krawatsky, and he said yes.

Jon asked him if in 2015, after camp, he had reached out to the parents of the first and second alleged victims on a Friday by phone, and he said yes. Jon asked him if those were the inly families he called after camp in 2015 and he said yes. Jon asked him if that was because Rabbi Dave had asked him to, and he said no. Jon asked him why he did it, and he said it was because of his good conscience.

Next he was questioned by David Mulquin, a lawyer for the family of the first alleged victim.

Mulquin asked him when the last time he had seen the orientation presentation before that day, and he said that he’d seen it the day before. Mulquin asked him if when the camp lawyer had asked him in the deposition to rely on his recollection about the presentation from 2015 he had actually seen the document the day before, and he said yes. Mulquin then asked him when the last time he had seen the PowerPoint, and he said the day before. Mulquin asked him if when the camp lawyer had asked him to think back to 2015 about that document he was actually relying on his memory from the day before, and he said that it had jogged his memory as to what he’d seen in 2015.

Regarding buddy check, Mulquin asked him if that was something done at the beginning of an event, and he said yes. Mulquin asked him about his recent contact with Krawatsky asking if Adam had called Krawatsky or the other way around, and he said that he had reached out to Krawatsky looking for help with potential fundraising for his school. Mulquin asked him if during the course of that conversation he had mentioned to Krawatsky that he was doing a deposition, and he said yes.

Regarding Adam’s last conversation with Rabbi Dave, Mulquin asked who had called whom, and he said he had called Rabbi Dave. Mulquin asked him if during the course of that conversation they had discussed him coming back as a division head, and he said yes. Mulquin asked him if rabbi Dave had made an offer, and he said he had asked Rabbi Dave and Rabbi Dave had said he was going to bring it up the following week.

Mulquin asked him regarding his conversation with the mother of the first alleged victim if it was fair to say she had told him not to lie, and he said yes. Mulquin asked him if she had emphasized that it was important that he not lie to her and he said yes. Mulquin asked her if she had told him what to say and he said he didn’t remember. Mulquin asked her if when he was asked earlier about it he had said that she had emphasized that he not lie to her, and he said yes.

Mulquin asked him if after that call with the first alleged victim’s mother he had called Rabbi Krawatsky, and after refreshing his memory he said yes. Mulquin asked him if after his conversation with Krawatsky, Krawatsky had told him to call his lawyer, and he said yes.

Kurtz then asked some questions.

Kurtz asked him if it was standard policy that he couldn’t text campers but that he was allowed to text Krawatsky and he said he was only allowed to text Krawatsky. Kurtz asked him if he remembered anything about there being a policy about having a phone or not, and he said yes. Kurtz asked him if he just remembered Krawatsky being exempt and he said yes.

Kurtz asked him if he would cover or lie to protect a child molester for donations to his school, and he said no.

Kurtz asked him if when the mother of the first alleged victim told him “don’t you lie to me” he had taken that as “hey, please say the truth” or as a threat, and he said he had perceived it as hostile from the tone of her voice.

Kurtz asked him regarding the bathroom policy at the pool if Krawatsky was one of the counselors who would be in a position to take kids to the bathroom, and he said he didn’t recall.

Lombardo’s testimony ended.

Following the first day of the Krawatsky’s defense the judge ruled to dismiss one of the counts against Krawatsky in summary judgment. The count was invasion of privacy which had been alleged mainly against the camp and Rabbi Dave in particular for allegedly leaking private school records from the second alleged victim, but the camp and Rabbi Dave had previously been dismissed from the case in summary judgment. The remaining counts were left intact.

The families’ lawyers tried arguing that the count should be preserved because the allegation made in court about the pictures Krawatsky allegedly took of the boys after abusing them would also be an invasion of privacy if they had been distributed (which couldn’t be established because Krawatsky’s phone just happened to stop working right when he filed the lawsuit), but the judge dismissed it on summary judgment nonetheless.