A “notorious” alleged chasidic sex abuser, who was sentenced
to up to 32 years in jail but got that verdict overturned because of a
prosecution violation, has all but admitted on tape to sexually abusing the
young man who testified against him, The Jewish Week has learned.
The tape, according to police documents, was made under the
supervision of NYPD Det. Steve Litwin in September 2008 and captures a secretly
recorded conversation between Baruch Lebovits and one of his alleged victims.
The tape was translated from the Yiddish — both apparently informally and by a
certified translator — into English for the prosecution.
It was not, however, introduced at Lebovits’ 2010 trial.
(Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes has pledged to retry Lebovits and his
next court date is scheduled for Nov. 19.)
Multiple e-mails to Hynes’ spokespeople seeking an
explanation for why the tape was not used at trial, and whether it will be used
in the upcoming retrial, were not answered.
During the recorded conversation, a transcript of which was
obtained by The Jewish Week, the victim alerts Lebovits to the fact that
others, including someone in Assemblyman Dov Hikind’s office, had heard that
something “happened between us.”
(In 2008, Hikind did a series of radio shows on the topic of
sexual abuse in the Orthodox community and was inundated with calls from
victims seeking his help; Hikind has confirmed to The Jewish Week that the
young man on the recording did share his allegations against Lebovits with his
office.)
On the tape, the alleged victim asks Lebovits, “You didn’t
tell anyone what went on between us?” to which Lebovits replies, “I didn’t say
anything.” The alleged victim then goes on to speculate about who may have
given this information to Hikind’s office, suggesting it could have been another
boy “who was then in the car together with us” and “saw the incident.” (Police
records show that Lebovits allegedly often molested boys in the front seat of
his car, at times with another boy present in the back seat).
According to the informal translation, written in Litwin’s
hand, Lebovits replies that the other boy “wasn’t present,” to which the
alleged victim responds, “You don’t remember.
Yes he was present.” At that
point, Lebovits instructs the alleged victim to “go ask [the boy] if he gave out
[the alleged victim’s] name.” (These comments do not appear in the certified
translation, which was done by a non-native chasidic Yiddish speaker and in
which a number of lines of dialogue are described as “unintelligible.”)
Later in the conversation, after the alleged victim tells
Lebovits that the case may be “given over to the police,” Lebovits tells the
young man to “deny it.”
When asked about the recorded conversation, Lebovits’
appellate lawyer, Nathan Dershowitz, confirmed for The Jewish Week that the DA
did disclose to the defense a transcript of a September 2008 conversation,
which Dershowitz characterized as “innocuous.” From Dershowitz’s response, it
is unclear whether the defense made its own translation of the tape, or even
received an actual copy of the tape from prosecutors. (Arthur Aidala, Lebovits’
trial attorney, did not respond to an e-mail from The Jewish Week seeking
information about the recording).
According to former Manhattan prosecutor and defense
attorney Mark Bederow, “There may be reasons why the DA would not introduce the
recording [at trial],” but that does not explain why the DA [apparently] did
not disclose the recording to the defense.”
“A recording made of the defendant at the behest of the
police must be disclosed to the defense irrespective of whether the DA intends
to introduce it at trial,” Bederow continued. “I have never heard of a
situation in which defense counsel, aware of his client being recorded at the
behest of police, simply relied on a transcript prepared by the DA rather than
demanding production of the actual recording.”
Bederow added: “As transcribed [by the prosecution’s
translators], the recording appears to have significant evidentiary value to
the prosecution. Innocent men generally don’t speak in the manner attributed to
Lebovits in the recording, and a jury hearing a defendant voluntarily
incriminate himself in his own voice in a non-coercive atmosphere is powerful
evidence.”
Indeed, the district attorney’s case against Baruch Lebovits
has been plagued with problems throughout its five-and-a-half year history. And
questions about the office’s handling of it have emerged amid controversy about
Hynes’ diligence in prosecuting haredi sex offenders and those who would
intimidate and tamper with victims.
Initially, prosecutors had three
within-the-statute-of-limitations witnesses against Lebovits, all of whom had
sought and obtained rabbinic backing to report their abuse to the police.
One
of those witnesses abruptly dropped out of the case before trial, and there is
substantial evidence to indicate that he was intimidated into doing so by
Lebovits’ supporters. (Despite this, prosecutors never sought to bring
witness-tampering charges against the individuals involved in the
intimidation).
Read More At:
