A Righteous Indignation

This author has spent less than 10 days investigating this awful chapter of humanity.

Chaim Levin posted on his Facebook page that he spent 13 days "researching".

On January 17, Hannah Dreyfus came storming into town with an explosive article citing particular details of the Krawatsky case that occurred in 2015. There was no event to coincide with the article's release, and there was no new information presented. But she represented that it was "investigated". Interestingly, it was released only a short time before the Shoresh annual fund raiser.  And as a member of the press, we must assume her investigation was thorough.

Within 24 hours, Shmuel Krawatsky was fully convicted in the court of public opinion as well as fired from his full-time and part-time jobs. He was ruined.  These investigations must have just been better than anything else before.

The case itself was of no particular importance to me (other than being concerned that a potential terrible event that may have occurred within our community) Rabbi K, as the article describes him, is not my personal friend, he was neither the teacher, nor counselor to any of my children or their friends.

But I found 2 things particularly disturbing when reading her article. First, I believe in the integrity and fairness of our system.  The Dreyfus article discounts and disrespects the proper authorities. They had been looking at all available details over the last 2 years and the case itself is sealed. It is therefore clear that proper authorities had access to far more when they came to their decision not to pursue prosecution. But with citing "legal experts" and confusing the topic of "unsubstantiated/ indicated" (which she states can be accomplished by the  "browbeating" of "a high priced attorney"), and limited financial resources of Frederick Child Protective Services, Dreyfus told her reader that this little town was not equipped for such a sophisticated case and they simply blew it.   Second, I was bothered by the complete discounting of the lie detector test.  I wondered if he had failed the polygraph test if she would have cited the same complete lack of reliability. It was clear to me there was an agenda.

Those were my 2 issues. I did not involve myself in the facts of the case because I knew none of them. After voicing my displeasure about these specific issues on social media, facts about the case, and the people involved began coming at me. Many of these stories seemed to be potential game changers demanding additional investigation.

My first move was to contact Miss Dreyfus as well as her editor-in-chief, and former Baltimore Jewish Times editor Gary Rosenblatt. I explained that in my limited role, facts came at me about prior accusations made by Mrs. Avrunin that were of a sexual nature involving her and other children. I also told them of stories that question the mental health of Mrs. Avrunin.  I said I felt these were game changers and asked if they were interested in hearing these stories and conducting further investigation. The answer and follow up answer that I received back was the typical “if you have some proof you would like to present please send it and we be glad to look at it”. There was no interest.

There was an effort on social media to combat on a point by point basis the facts Dreyfus chose to present. But the debate and efforts were falling very short of telling the whole story.   I was going to learn and expose the full truth.

There were things I felt everyone needed to understand.

• How was it that 3 kids came forward?
• Why Rabbi K, as opposed to any other Rabbi?
• Why were these allegations phrased in the way they were (“... $100 to touch…”)?
• If untrue, how could a child possibly know of the subject matter at all?
• Who are all the people involved and what are their relationships to one another?
• What are the actual parts of a case like this and how did they arrive at “indicated” and then “unsubstantiated”?
• Are there actual liars involved here? There has to be at least one, right?
• Did this happen or not?

I have never met any members of the Avrunin family.  As I became an investigator and dug into this, facts about Mrs. Avrunin emerged that became more and more disturbing by the day. I reached out to the Frederick detective, to the State's Attorney, Child Protective Services, to past and present members of their homeschooling network, to the multiple synagogues that they came and left, to past Rabbis, Shoresh staff members, neighbors, coworkers, and even high school classmates.

When we hear of an allegations of abuse we imagine a family whose lives are turned upside down after being rocked by such a horrible topic coming into their lives. I have deduced pretty clearly that did not happen here. We are dealing with a cocktail of histrionic personality disorder, mixed with severe overparenting, concurrent with a weakened emotional state from a life changing event. (Google the bold words for more info)

When our children go to camp we know there is a responsibility to talk to them about their personal space, inappropriate touching, and how to inform a parent or teacher. This is a five minute conversation that the parent as well as child can't wait to get over with. In the Avrunin home this was a topic and conversation that was ever present. Details and stories of abuse were discussed frequently and to a level of detail certainly not appropriate in front of any aged children. They were on constant vigil waiting for the molester to come. But why?

Zahava Avrunin was born Rachel Katon in Seattle. She frequently spoke in overly glowing terms about her hero, mentor, protector father Dr. Wayne Katon who was a frequently published  psychiatrist in the field of mental behavioral health. Among the topics he covered were depression, sexual behavior and personality disorders. He passed away only 3 months before the alleged Krawatsky abuse. One can only speculate if his passing was a pivotal moment in Rachel's mental health.  Rachel's mother is a clinical social worker who is involved in the field of social and sexual behavior as well.  In Dr. Wayne Katon’s public obituary, there is reference to a second daughter. Jodie Katon is a published PhD in the field of [guesses?] mental and sexual health.  

I reached out to Jodie via Facebook and was contacted almost immediately by Chaim Levin who introduced himself as some sort of attorney’s office and instructed me to cease and desist “nicely”. He told me that my message to Jodie  (“Hi Jodie. Is there a phone number I can call you at?") is harassment. I asked how is that harassment and to please clarify if he is an attorney telling me that Jodie is represented and does not wish to speak with me. Levin resisted a direct answer and instead began asking me if I defend molesters and what I'm doing. I said that with regard to Jodie I already got my answer (that she did not want to speak with me) and that I was only seeking the truth. There is more to my Levin interaction but it is unimportant for this story.

I spoke with a behavioral health expert to try and understand the resistance to speak with me. Victims are always on guard for further victimization. They utilize protectors to shield them from bad guys like me who may have an intention to do them harm. Chaim Levin lives to be that guy. He preys upon that exact weakness to seek his own attention. Was Dr. Katon that person to his daughter? Did she feel vulnerable to this when he died? Was some sort of high alert defense enacted at his passing?

Rachel frequently boasted to friends of a “spider sense”. She felt she could understand a wide range of topics from isolated, unrelated events. She tried to inject herself into people's lives and attempted to exert control through manipulation and even intimidation. It would not be a great divide between her growing a conclusion, and making a frenzied quantity of phone calls to everyone she knew to spread the “news”. This behavior put intense pressure on families. Families were forced to change their lives, break off all contact and pray the plague would stop. Others actually moved out of town.

She accused a child of abusing her son because the other 7 year old was gay. All other parents were put on alert via frantic phone calls.  She accused a father of molesting his son (via phone call to the stunned man's wife) because the child used the word "penis" during a play date with her son.  She accused a synagogue of allowing her son to be bullied during groups (there was also an allegation of her son being bullied at Shoresh). These are only a few of many details that showed me a pattern of abuse claims and erratic, emotional behavior.

So now onto the facts of the case and the unanswered questions above.

The actual story begins with the Bxxxx child. For years before the supposed incident, he was a behavioral problem, reportedly from being in a home where he witnessed domestic abuse between his parents. Both in school and in previous year's day camp, there were consistent reports of violent and troubled behavior often necessitating intervention by those in charge. The Avrunin child reported being continually punched in the stomach all summer by the Bxxxx child but he boasted that he maintained self-control in not fighting back due to the very small size of Bxxxx.  Although he was truly his victim, Avrunin child said he felt bad for Bxxxx child.


Camp Shoresh had a popular activity called Let's Make a Deal. The structure of this activity was that head counselors were given Monopoly money, including $100 bills, to hand out to campers who caught their attention by doing good deeds and other positive acts. At the end of the day, each bunk would pool their money, and based on the dollar amount, choose a box of that dollar figure that either contains pies of pizza, for instance, or rolls of toilet paper. Again, the name of the game was getting the attention of the head counselor and getting them to give you $100 due to your actions.

Early on this day, the Bxxxx child had a complete behavioral meltdown lashing out at other children and even placing one child in a choke hold. In this extreme circumstance, and contrary to the rules, Rabbi K physically lifted the diminutive child and removed him from the room taking him into the adjacent changing house where he put him down, maintained a grip on his arm, and wagged a finger in his face saying "you will NOT behave in this way..." Avrunin child was standing nearby and witnessed the entire episode. This was the moment Avrunin child witnessed a man physically overpower a child he felt badly for. This was the pivotal moment. It was also the second time for the Bxxxx child in only 3 weeks of camp. He was kicked out as a result of this. 

A quick word about this changing house. Dreyfus included a creepy and suggestive stock image (see the credit) of campground bunkhouses in the seclusion of the woods at dusk. 

The Shoresh bathroom and changing building is a very large building in the center of the campus which is also the main bathroom for the entire camp during activities. This building is described by everyone I have spoken to as the equivalent of Grand Central Station during the camp day. There is no possibility of privacy in there.  The interior ceiling reaches 16 feet in the center and nowhere do the walls extend higher than 8 feet.  Above the 8 foot mark, the ceiling is one with the outdoors. There is no ceiling.

There is no audio privacy anywhere within that building. The Rabbis, which included all of them, did not utilize one of these sectioned-off areas to change, but used the pump room which contained pool equipment. This door does not have a lock on it, which is stated in the police report. But it should be noted that this room was not alleged to have had any abuse within. It is unclear why Dreyfus gave this eerie sounding room any attention when the police reports clearly indicate that there was no allegation of anything within it. Dreyfus though, felt the need to point out the privacy of the pump room and the nakedness of Rabbi K within. 


Above is the actual story. But the legal story begins with an odd dream by Avrunin child, a few weeks after camp had ended, about Rabbi K peeing on him. Joel and Rachel Avrunin helicopter-parent over the situation and aid the child into developing the actual and complete meaning of the dream


There are 3 police reports which were requested via the Freedom of Information Act. These are the only case files available to the public on this case.

[Police Report #1 Details] 

A few weeks later (after camp), the Avrunin child tells his father of a dream regarding Rabbi K. The father called Rabbi Finkelstein (not police?) who in turn, called police.  Per the police report, Avrunin boy had a dream Rabbi K was peeing on them and that he had seen Rabbi K naked many times and told this to his father, Joel.  As the investigation began the police brought Child Protective Services to speak to the Avrunin child. He described that he was to go swimming, forgot something, came back into the changing room and Rabbi K was standing there naked holding his bathing suit in his hand “being inappropriate”. He said “I’ll bet you’ll touch my private parts for $100”. Avrunin child stated that Bxxxx child “responded” by touching for 5 to 10 seconds.  Avrunin child did not.  Rabbi K then yelled at him that he was going to get him “expelled”. He said no one else was in the changing room except for another boy that walked in at the end but didn’t notice what was going on.  Asked if money was exchanged the boy said No.

He continued to tell police and CPS that there were actually 2 other instances. The 2nd time was another day at camp that he was to go swimming but realized his underwear was still on so he returned to the locker room along with Bxxxx child to once again find Rabbi K naked yet again. This time Rabbi K said I bet you would touch my privates for $20. They didn’t respond because the previous time Rabbi K yelled at them.

The 3rd time no money was involved and occurred yet again in the changing room but was only inappropriate touching via tickling.

The police report goes on to describe the interview with the Bxxxx family at their home. In it, the boy and father denied any abuse or any propositioning.

The last page of this report is at the office of Dr. Ben-Ami. The Avrunins insisted both boys to be at the same practice where Avrunin child is already a long time patient. This insistence began only after the incident allegedly occurred. Per the doctor, Joel demanded that twice the 2 boys attend together and be recorded. Dr. Ben-Ami describes how Mrs. Avrunin was very aggressive in pushing the Bxxxx child to speak. That he didn’t say even "one word" amid firm and strong verbal pressure from Mrs. Avrunin. When questioned directly by the investigators, the Bxxxx child responded with denials and “I don’t remember”. Further, the child admitted to having sat through 2 sessions of practice of “what to say and talk about today”. Mrs. Bxxxx immediately added that she was only looking give prepare and comfort the child.

[End of Police Report #1 Details]

The abuse described in the report was Avrunin child describing details that mainly occurred to Bxxxx. But Bxxxx denied it. The Doctor describes pressure by Mrs. Avrunin on the Bxxxx child and practice sessions where he prepared for, and obviously failed his coaches.


After the interview at the Bxxxx home, the Bxxxx father, with his already established fiery temper, made phone calls to many people involved and told them emphatically that his son was sure none of this ever happened. He went on to explain that he is shocked at this and did not believe any of it.

Mrs. Bxxxx was previously a staff member at Shoresh, Assistant Director Junior Shoresh. When her son was kicked out she ceased many friendships at the camp and began an intense relationship with Mrs. Avrunin. This would explain how Mrs. Avrunin was involved in the practice sessions and how, after multiple times denying anything inappropriate, the Bxxxx child was still identified as a victim. In fact, almost nowhere in police report #1 does Bxxxx child make any allegation at all. But it is clear that both Mrs. Avrunin and Mrs. Bxxxx continued to push the child through therapy and to say things. Clearly, with a long history of outbursts and violent behavior in school and camp, the Bxxxx child was in need of therapy. But the therapy and coaching he was given seems meant to embed experiences and memories not treat them.

After the initial meetings Joel Avrunin explained that his son had tried so hard to befriend the Bxxxx child even though he was hit so often by him. That knowing his son so well, he would want to help if he saw a boy was in trouble. Joel clearly explained to his son that to take action, more than the testimony of a single 7 year old was needed.



[Police Report #2 Details]
On Feb 10, 2016 Joel Avrunin's sister, Sharon Avrunin-Becker, advised Frederick Child Protective Services of an allegation and they brought Frederick detective back to the case to investigate. She alleged that her son acted erratically, peeing in the bed, smearing feces on the walls and other behavior like calling himself dumb and stupid. She attributed it to Rabbi K. The detective asked if Rachel Avrunin was involved or had contact with her child and she said yes.  (author's note: Sharon is physically handicapped and confined to a wheelchair so she could not be in all the rooms with her son at all times and Rachel had spent substantial amount of time with Becker child who has been described as "on the spectrum") Mrs. Avrunin had met with Becker child and explained about "lying". She furthered that "people who hold in lies will blow up and die".

The boy tells of many unrelated, non-chronological assertions having to do with a game of drowning the boys would play with each other, Rabbi K would ask me to touch his penis, he would yell at me about drowning other boys and then touch his penis, he would threaten me, he would force me into the changing room, he would threaten to cut off my ear and my penis. There were 5 other kids in there. There were many other kids in there. They were busy doing other things. I don't know who they are...The interview was sporadic and erratic. Ms. Lowman the interviewer clearly had trouble piecing it together and requests a break. She then requests the boy give her step by step. He is "frustrated". We went in the pool and played the drowning game, he pulled me in the locker room, asked me to touch his penis, I then went back in the pool, then back in the locker room there were 8 kids. 4 on one bench and 4 on the other and they were talking to each other. It happened 5 times this year and 10 times last year.

The remainder of this Report #2 is a brief interview with Rabbi K where he said he does not not know about any drowning game. He denied any knowledge of any of Becker child's claim. There are then interviews with Junior counselors at Shoresh who all thought very highly of Rabbi K.

Case is closed when detective and State's Attorney decline to prosecute.
[End of Police Report #2 Details]


[Police Report #3 Details]
In January 2017 the Becker boy now comes forward and alleges, with similarly erratic style new allegations that he forgot which include "my mouth and butt, and his mouth and butt". The language, the threats, the descriptions, are all highly disturbing as well as contradictory and nonsensical.  There are no follow up questions to the child about pain, noise, privacy, returning to activities, etc.  

Case is suspended. State's Attorney cites the other 2 cases and declines to prosecute.
[End of Police Report #3 Details]



None of the details or accusations are consistent within any one police report and certainly not across the 3.



The first 2 police cases are noted as CLEARED/ CLOSED. When CPS notes a file as "indicated" or "unsubstantiated", it is registered in a non-public State database. The CPS case is then sealed. Dreyfus notes she saw the CPS case file. She did not. I requested it and was denied. I asked if anyone had it and was told it was impossible. I asked if Mrs. Zipora Schorr had the file and the answer was the same: It was impossible to unseal without a judge's order. Further this was not a trial nor in the style of a trial where you can watch the entire proceeding. Therefore, the parties were not personally witness to all matters of the case. No one involved has access or was witness to all parts of the hearing's file. 


What is "indicated", or "unsubstantiated", or "unfounded"? How and why did Rabbi K's case wind up "unsubstantiated"? The Dreyfus article spends much time splitting hairs on this topic and definitions.  When an allegation involving child abuse is brought to the police they allow CPS to make a determination on the merits of the accusation. The CPS determination is within the police department's case file as it's own determination.  For instance, a charge of molestation opens a police file. "A man molested me on the moon" is immediately labeled "unfounded" by CPS. But "A man molested me in the bedroom" is labeled "indicated" after a brief verification that the child and circumstance is credible. In almost all cases of "indicated", an appeal is filed which allows CPS to conduct a more exhaustive investigation before closing their file and referring the case's final disposition back to police who will take it to the State's Attorney to decide how to handle. This was all standard and there was no special influence or slick lawyer maneuvers to speak of.


The State's Attorney, Police Dept, and even the Avrunin private investigator all concluded there was heavy coaching in play. And there was no other evidence. Rachel Avrunin was in total control of all 3 of these boys and was clearly witnessed AND reported to have coached all 3. Dreyfus intimates that Krawatsky's slick lawyer negotiated the case down to unsubstantiated. In fact, the case was preparing to be stamped "unfounded" due to all the coaching. Nathan Avrunin, Joel's brother and former Broward County prosecutor (you will have to Google to understand why former is italicized) came up to Maryland, spoke to the State's Attorney, understood where this was going and why, and negotiated it up to "unsubstantiated".  Krawatsky knew that "unsubstantiated" would seal the CPS case file and assumed this nightmare would be over so his attorney fell right in with the deal.  But the recent activism, in violation of court order, prevented that.


Case #1 and Case #2 were simultaneously stamped (by CPS) "unsubstantiated" and "cleared/ closed" by Frederick PD. Both of those were covered by the appeal that was filed directed at Case #1.  Case #3 was single day event of Jan 12, 2017. No further interviews, investigation, or action was taken. CPS called it "indicated".  An appeal was immediately filed by Krawatsky. A couple of weeks later, CPS, on their own volition and due to their own internal discussions, downgraded their finding to "unsubstantiated". Simultaneous to this, Fred PD labeled the case "suspended" and stopped anything further. No appeal was heard and no negotiation occurred. What does this say about their feelings from the previous allegation? That it is a shocking and dramatic escalation? Or just more of the same?

As noted in the police reports Avrunin and Becker were unhappy with the decision not to prosecute. They spent much time making calls to try and drum up support within the community. This was in direct violation of the court's order to seal the case. Avrunin quickly moved out of state and continued their quest for a win in the court of public opinion. They found their man in Chaim Levin. Levin turned to his friend Dreyfus who was more than happy to put the partial facts out into the public spotlight. Both of them noted their research and investigation. Both claim to be defender's of the public interest of the Jewish community. This entire "article" is only 8 days of my own investigation into people I have never met and people I do not know.


--------------------
UPDATE (2/4/18 9:20am): NEW EXPLOSIVE INFO.
The upgrade to "unsubstantiated" was based on the appeal hearing from accusation and police report #1. (which had #2 lumped into it).


Notice that the date of the allegation in police report #2, by Avrunin's sister is February 10th 2016. That is the precise day the State's Attorney and police department upgraded the case to "unsubstantiated" and "cleared/closed" the file! In other words, only moments after they were informed of not getting the result they wanted, allegation #2 came forward. Pure coincidence? 
--------------------



About 30 years ago, Gary Rosenblatt, editor-in-chief of Jewish Week was editor of the Baltimore Jewish Times. At that time, Mrs. Zipora Schorr fired then Beth Tfiloh principal Peter Abelow for reasons unknown to me. But what long time Baltimoreans do remember is Rosenblatt writing no less than 6 articles attacking her in the Baltimore Jewish Times. It is remembered as ugly. He is currently writing opinions in Jewish Week where he is going after her job asking questions about what she knew and when she knew it. My point is not that he is wrong or right, my point is that he could have found out the answer himself! She had no access to the file because it was sealed! He just didn't want to.


Kids do not lie. 3 kids coming forward is like lightning striking 3 times. But if you fail to mention the lightning machine in the background, you have failed to tell the whole truth. You have willfully misled people. And if you represent yourself as a member of the Jewish media, you have a bigger obligation than your own activism. With no facts but the ones presented, the reader is forced to fill in the blanks with nonsense and then debate minutia on Facebook. This entire horrible article I've written, and all of the opinions openly discussed are only due to, because of, and in response to Jewish Week and Levin. As they seem to be enjoying the fame and adoration of their fans, the entire episode, this article included, sickens me.


Are Rachel Katon and Joel Avrunin liars? No. They believe every word they say for reasons and conditions way outside of my training. They have pumped it into their children's heads and into the heads of the families they control. They are on a mission to make sure the world is ready for molesters who are ominpresent. Rabbi K is not one of them.


These are my conclusions from all of the people I spoke to, approximately 30. When I tried to talk to the family, Chaim Levin immediately jumped in as protector, ordering me to cease and desist. I explained to him that I was only after the truth. He didn't care. And what I've learnt is that these activists generally don't care about the truth either.




To email me:  arighteousindig@gmail.com

1.