Monday, February 07, 2005

Is The Jewish Community Of Baltimore Protecting Sex Offenders or Backing Innocent Men Falsely Accused?

Let's talk about a few individuals in Baltimore.

Let's start off with Rabbi Eliezer Eisgrau. Read up about him at:
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/eliezer_eisgrau.htm

One of Eisgrau's biggest supporters is Rabbi Yaakov Menken (owner of www.torah.org).

Read what Luke wrote about him at:
http://www.lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/yaakov_menken.htm



31 Comments:

Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Is The Jewish Community Of Baltimore Protecting Sex
>Offenders or Backing Innocent Men Falsely Accused?

Protecting sex offenders.

February 07, 2005 11:32 AM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

Shabbat 54b - any rabbi who is in a position to denounce a transgression and fails to do so is punished along with the transgressor.

February 07, 2005 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, the Awareness Center piece is simply not credible. All they have is accusations. Just because someone accuses another person doesn't make him guilty. These people are vigilantes, who will destroy a person's life because of an accusation.

February 07, 2005 2:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I now took a look at Ford's profile on Y. Menken. On absolutely no evidence, he pretty much accuses Menken of taking advantage of the young women he employs. And you cite him as an authority. Disgusting!

February 07, 2005 2:14 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>I'm sorry, the Awareness Center piece is simply
>not credible. All they have is accusations. Just
>because someone accuses another person doesn't make

In this case, it is very credible.

>him guilty.

The question isn't legal guilt. The question is whether these are credible allegations.

Thay are.

>These people are vigilantes, who will destroy a person's
>life because of an accusation.

The Awareness Center has lists of names as do I that we have not posted. We both require a baseline of documented information before we name people.

I can't tell you how long their list is but I have several dozen names on mine.

February 07, 2005 3:12 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>I now took a look at Ford's profile on Y. Menken.
>On absolutely no evidence, he pretty much accuses
>Menken of taking advantage of the young women he
>employs. And you cite him as an authority. Disgusting!

I'm familiar with the case and am aware of the underlying facts. It is sufficient to say that Menken will not be suing Luke anytime soon.

Luke has been very accurate and careful with his words concerning the troubling allegation involved.

I am satisfied that if this ever came to a civil suit, Luke would have no problem winning.

February 07, 2005 3:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We both require a baseline of documented information before we name people."

Well, what's your baseline for documented info? Is the mere fact that someone wrote an accusation in a letter enough? Do you need an affidavit? A news story? What documented info is there in Eisgrau's case?

February 08, 2005 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Luke has been very accurate and careful with his words concerning the troubling allegation involved."

The fact that Ford knows how to choose his words carefully so as to avoid legal liability is meaningless. There are plenty of ways to imply things without saying them.

February 08, 2005 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" It is sufficient to say that Menken will not be suing Luke anytime soon ... I am satisfied that if this ever came to a civil suit, Luke would have no problem winning."

So what if Menken didn't sue Ford? There could be lots of reasons for that; for example, he might feel that the damage to his reputation that would result from the charges being aired in court would outweigh whatever he would gain by suing (which, seeing that Ford is usually penniless, would be minimal).

As Ray Donovan (I think) said, after being acquitted on charges of corruption: "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

Luke as much as said that the man is a sexual abuser. If the evidence is credible, let him post it. If not, he shouldn't say anything at all. As it stands, this is nothing more than dealing in vicious rumor.

And by the way, has this met your "baseline" criteria of documented evidence? I suspect not. Yet, you do not shrink from attacking the man.

February 08, 2005 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The following is from the Awareness Center's own posted policy:

"Please note, the only individuals who are listed on our site, are ones who'd had allegations made against them which were then published in reputable newspapers, have transcripts from televisions shows where the case(s) have been discussed, have police records and/or we have court documentation regarding the case."

They tend to break this policy all the time (Eisgrau is just one blatant example), which is why it's impossible to respect what they're doing, and probably one of the many reasons why the AC's board members have been resigning in droves.

February 08, 2005 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that this site has deleted the post raising questions regarding Luke Ford. Ford too deleted his post referencing it from his site.

No doubt Ford (or JWB) asked for it to be removed (or perhaps this is actually their site). They dish it out all the time, but are allergic to criticism themselves.

February 08, 2005 12:35 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>So what if Menken didn't sue Ford? There could be lots
>of reasons for that; for example, he might feel that
>the damage to his reputation that would result from
>the charges being aired in court would outweigh
>whatever he would gain by suing

Actually, there is one basic reason Menken doesn't sue: every word is the truth.

February 08, 2005 12:50 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>JWB) asked for it to be removed
False.

>(or perhaps this is actually their site).
I have no link to this site.

>They dish it out all the time, but are allergic to
>criticism themselves.
I have no problem with criticism. You want to argue issues/facts fine. As of yet you haven't produced any facts to argue.

February 08, 2005 12:53 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Well, what's your baseline for documented info?
>Is the mere fact that someone wrote an accusation
>in a letter enough? Do you need an affidavit?
>
>A news story? What documented info is there in
>Eisgrau's case?

Eisgrau:
A credible written statement from a victim, a police investigation and statements as to non-cooperation by the Jewish community.

There is also additional information which I won't get into at this time.

In this particular case, I'm satisfied that both the Awareness Center and Luke Ford met a baseline of documentation before posting.

February 08, 2005 1:04 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>The fact that Ford knows how to choose his words
>carefully so as to avoid legal liability is
>meaningless. There are plenty of ways to imply
>things without saying them.

Anything you believe Luke has implied about Menken is accurate and true and further, it can all be established if necessary in a court of law.

February 08, 2005 1:08 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>and probably one of the many reasons why the AC's
>board members have been resigning in droves.

You have any facts? No. You have any statements from the past board members to this effect? No.

As usual, you demonstrate your hypocrisy. You demand documentation and proof yet you make spurious allegations that you know aren't true and that you could never prove.

February 08, 2005 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Actually, there is one basic reason Menken doesn't sue: every word is the truth.”

Documentation, please?

“ A credible written statement from a victim, a police investigation and statements as to non-cooperation by the Jewish community.”

A written statement from a victim is not independent documentation. If that’s your standard, it’s pathetic. The police investigation was inconclusive, and so cannot serve as proof. Non-cooperation by the community is not proof of anything. You indict yourself with your very defense.

“Anything you believe Luke has implied about Menken is accurate and true and further, it can all be established if necessary in a court of law.”

I repeat, is it confirmed by *independent* documentation? If not, you have violated what you claim are your own guidelines.

“There is also additional information which I won't get into at this time.”

Because it doesn’t exist. If it did, and it was definitive, Eisgrau would be in jail.

“ As usual, you demonstrate your hypocrisy. You demand documentation and proof yet you make spurious allegations that you know aren't true and that you could never prove.”

I’m not the one claiming documented information as a standard of proof. You are. I’m simply holding you to your own statements, which so far seem empty.

February 08, 2005 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone who's followed Jewish Whistleblower since the Protocols (ME) days realizes the utter futility of trying to turn them around with a cogent argument. JWB lives by their own inherent twisted logic consisting of "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot", and will spend countless hours fanatically tearing apart every point of disagreement (usually in ways that make no sense whatsoever).
Let's face it, you can't win when you're dealing with a crazy person who's on a "righteous mission" and has nothing better to do with their time than tear people down.
Luckily, it's pretty transparent to intelligent readers what's going with here, so don't give up making those logical arguments! JWB will never get it, but we do!

February 08, 2005 2:49 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>>“Actually, there is one basic reason Menken doesn't
>>sue: every word is the truth.”
>
>Documentation, please?

When it becomes necessary, no problem.

February 08, 2005 3:06 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>A written statement from a victim is not independent
>documentation.

I'm curious as to what kind of "independent documentation" I need? As of course these are almost always cases where abuse is committed in private without witnesses. What is your definition of "independent"? What is your definition of "document"?

Perhaps you could reference it to a case you agree is true (Rabbi Baruch Lanner? I hope.)?

February 08, 2005 3:12 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

...
>I’m not the one claiming documented information as a
>standard of proof. You are. I’m simply holding you to
>your own statements, which so far seem empty.
...
>A written statement from a victim is not independent
>documentation.
...

A credible victim statement along with other documentation that supports it is sufficient to me. My standard is the truth with a little extra.

The little extra: Confidence that in a court of law I could make the case.

February 08, 2005 3:18 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>>“There is also additional information which I won't
>>get into at this time.”
>
>Because it doesn’t exist. If it did, and it was
>definitive, Eisgrau would be in jail.

You are ignorant of how the criminal justice system works. Try researching the original and current Michael Jackson cases.

February 08, 2005 3:21 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>Let's face it, you can't win when you're dealing with
>a crazy person

Independent documentation please.

>who's on a "righteous mission"

Independent documentation please.

>and has nothing better to do with their time

Independent documentation please.

>than tear people down.

They do that to themselves.

February 08, 2005 3:24 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>>“Anything you believe Luke has implied about Menken
>>is accurate and true and further, it can all be
>>established if necessary in a court of law.”
>
>I repeat, is it confirmed by *independent*
>documentation? If not, you have violated what you
>claim are your own guidelines.

Crimes of abuse are typically committed in private there are rarely witness or independent evidence.

Look at the Rabbi Lanner case. He was not convicted by any "independent documentation".

That is not my standard (read above). Nor is it the standard used by anyone else in such cases. If it were, no pedophile/child molester/exploiter of women would ever be brought to justice.

Do I have sufficient information/documentation to satisfy a civil court regarding Menken? Yes.

February 08, 2005 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just curious, why *did* you remove the post on Luke Ford?

February 08, 2005 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm curious as to what kind of "independent documentation" I need?"

The point is that the statement of an alleged victim is not sufficient. Just because you choose to believe the victim (perhaps because of some bias you have?) does not make the story true, and does not give you the right to smear people.

February 08, 2005 3:59 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

>The point is that the statement of an alleged
>victim is not sufficient.

Which I of course never said.

>Just because you choose to believe the victim
>(perhaps because of some bias you have?) does not
>make the story true, and does not give you the
>right to smear people.

As usual you ignore most of my questions.

A statement from victims with corroborating information is often enough to convict a person, take their money away and feature them in a news story. Please see: Catholic Church abuse scandal.

February 08, 2005 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

False claims usually come to the surface fairly quickly.

And as all people who've been victimized know, it is hell to come forward with what happened to you, it is no piece of cake, it's anxiety-inducing....it's almost as bad as the victimization itself.

February 08, 2005 4:16 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

All the statistics and research indicate that false allegations of this nature are uncommon.

February 08, 2005 5:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, false allegations of sexual abuse and rape are more common than most people are aware.
See http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/adult.html.

February 08, 2005 8:02 PM  
Blogger jewishwhistleblower said...

As usual you reference garbage science. Here are actual statistics I've posted before:

Unlike US law enforcement agencies, our neighbor to the north, America lite or Canada keeps statistics as to false reports of sexual assault.

The Province of Ontario reports that about 5.7 percent of all such allegations were false in the first four years of recording such statistics.

The Province of British Columbia reports 6.7 percent of sexual assault allegations have turned out to be false.

It also appears that a large portion of false allegations involve allegations where the victim makes allegations against an unknown abuser. A Toronto police squad that restricts itself to handling major rape cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim, reported that a whopping 30 percent of cases -- 69 out of 232 cases -- turned out to be false.

So the statistics indicate that false allegations against a known person are quite uncommon.

February 08, 2005 9:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home