Back in December 2013 the ‘Jewish Chronicle’ reported that yet another jewish child molester – once again in Australia’s Chabad community – (1) had been discovered.
They wrote that:
‘Australian police have questioned the former principal of a fervently Orthodox Jewish boys’ school in Melbourne over allegations of decades-old child sex abuse.
Rabbi Avrohom Glick, 67, a senior official inside the Chabad-Lubavitch community, made a voluntary statement to police and was released, his lawyer said on Monday.
The allegations of repeated rape inside the synagogue adjacent to the college are understood to date back to the 1970s. Rabbi Glick vehemently denies them.
He was immediately stood down from his position as head of Jewish studies at the boys’ high school, its principal confirmed in a letter to parents on Monday.
“Notwithstanding that Rabbi Glick is a highly respected staff member and community figure, in accordance with our policy and procedure, he was immediately stood down from his position at Yeshivah,” Rabbi Yehoshua Smukler wrote.’ (2)
Subsequently it was claimed in 2014 that Glick had ‘been cleared by Australian police’ by the ‘Jewish Daily Forward’ (3) but what the article actually states is:
‘A senior Chabad rabbi in Australia who was accused of raping a student inside a synagogue in the 1970s will not be charged.
Detectives in Melbourne confirmed Friday that they have closed an investigation into Rabbi Avrohom Glick, who was then deputy principal of Yeshivah College in Melbourne.
Rabbi Glick, 67, vehemently denied allegations that he raped a student and forced him to perform oral sex, when police questioned him in December.’ (4)
Now the problem here is that while the Australian police have closed their investigation into Glick; they didn’t say they have ‘cleared him’ or ‘ruled him innocent’ which would be something very different. What appears to have happened is that the case against Glick was based on one piece of testimony by an alleged victim coming forward forty years after the fact and that – as Glick denied the claim – there was nothing else for the Australian police to investigate as they simply didn’t have enough evidence one way or another.
Put another way Glick wasn’t ‘cleared’: he was ‘let go due to insufficient evidence’ which is not the same thing. The latter doesn’t mean he didn’t do what has been alleged but merely the evidence available to the police doesn’t meet the burden of proof required to prosecute him.
It is further worth noting that even if Glick wasn’t himself a child molester; he certainly actively covered up for two in the form of Samuel David Cyprys (5) and Rabbi David Kamer. (6)
Since Glick was hauled in front of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in February 2015 to answer for his role in actively covering it up with ‘The Guardian’ reporting what happened as follows:
‘But when he and his mother reported the abuse to Glick, AVR said his scholarship was stripped from him and he was sent home.
Glick told the commission: “I have no recollection of AVR attending Yeshivah. I do not recall him.”
He conceded it was a “serious mistake” not to report another alleged abuser and teacher, Rabbi David Kramer, to police. Instead the school sent Kramer to Israel after finding out about the abuse allegations against him.
Glick told the commission that at the time he felt if Kramer was found to be guilty, he could simply be extradited from Israel. He denied he had tried to cover up the allegations.
Kramer has since been convicted for child sex offences in the US and Australia.
The commission heard that a victim told Glick about his abuse in 1986 and was sent to see the school’s director, Rabbi Dovid Groner.
Glick said he sent students to Groner for many reasons but he could not recall ever sending someone relating to child sexual abuse.
Groner also never informed him that other child sex abuse complaints had been made by students and their parents, Glick said.
Counsel assisting the commission, Maria Gerace, said it was “truly extraordinary” that Groner, who is now dead, would not have told Glick about students who were being abused in his school and under his care as principal.
“All I can say is Rabbi Groner dealt with many sensitive issues,” Glick said. “He dealt with them in strict confidence. He dealt with them very discreetly. I can’t say why he didn’t tell me other than that.”
Victims have told the commission throughout the course of the hearing that they had told Groner they were being abused, but that Groner never went to police or offered them help.
Glick was asked by Gerace whether he agreed that this failure by Groner to act was a “grave failing”.’ (7)
So, in summary Glick may – or may not – have actually been a homosexual jewish child molester but he certainly actively protected at least two of them!
References
(1) See my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/child-sexual-abuse-at-cheder-levi and https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/malka-leifer-jewish-lesbian-and-serial
(2) https://www.thejc.com/news/world/rabbi-raped-boys-inside-synagogue-tx7igd9i
(3) https://forward.com/fast-forward/193737/top-australian-chabad-rabbi-cleared-of-raping-stud/
(4) Idem.
(5) On Cyprys, please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/samuel-david-cyprys-jewish-child
(6) On Kramer, please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/rabbi-david-kramer-jewish-child-molester
(7) https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/12/rabbi-has-no-recollection-of-stripping-child-sex-abuse-victim-of-scholarship
Karl’s SubstackRead More
R1
T1
