Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Robert and Allison get to remain anonymous in all of this while JS had his life ruined in large part to their bogus allegations? This is totally messed up.

Shame on the therapists for convincing kids and their parents that awful things happened to them. If you aren't questioning your value to society right about now, you should be.

Finally, the WH rabbis have a moral obligation to address all of this in front of the congregation. An individual was falsely accused of doing terrible thing, many members of the congregation rushed to judgement, formed an angry mob and ruined his life.

You seem like a passionate person.

People under the protective order are bound not to identify ‘Robert and Alison,’ legally- because it would identify a minor, ‘Jenny.’ Which is the point I was making,

If you feel this strongly, then instead of attacking a stranger on the internet, channel your ‘value’ into the GoFundMe. Start a petition. Contact those in authority with your concerns. There are many things you can do if you feel this strongly.

However, it doesn’t change my opinion that ultimately the amount of detail given in the article could cause JS legal trouble, as he is bound by a protective order.

Maybe you’re not bound by that order. Maybe you’re a concerned friend, or just a concerned citizen. Maybe you have more agency than you realize. Perhaps you can channel your passion into positive action.

I have donated and have a lot more to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Robert and Allison get to remain anonymous in all of this while JS had his life ruined in large part to their bogus allegations? This is totally messed up.

Shame on the therapists for convincing kids and their parents that awful things happened to them. If you aren't questioning your value to society right about now, you should be.

Finally, the WH rabbis have a moral obligation to address all of this in front of the congregation. An individual was falsely accused of doing terrible thing, many members of the congregation rushed to judgement, formed an angry mob and ruined his life.

You seem like a passionate person.

People under the protective order are bound not to identify ‘Robert and Alison,’ legally- because it would identify a minor, ‘Jenny.’ Which is the point I was making,

If you feel this strongly, then instead of attacking a stranger on the internet, channel your ‘value’ into the GoFundMe. Start a petition. Contact those in authority with your concerns. There are many things you can do if you feel this strongly.

However, it doesn’t change my opinion that ultimately the amount of detail given in the article could cause JS legal trouble, as he is bound by a protective order.

Maybe you’re not bound by that order. Maybe you’re a concerned friend, or just a concerned citizen. Maybe you have more agency than you realize. Perhaps you can channel your passion into positive action.

Anonymous wrote:Why do Robert and Allison get to remain anonymous in all of this while JS had his life ruined in large part to their bogus allegations? This is totally messed up.

Shame on the therapists for convincing kids and their parents that awful things happened to them. If you aren't questioning your value to society right about now, you should be.

Finally, the WH rabbis have a moral obligation to address all of this in front of the congregation. An individual was falsely accused of doing terrible thing, many members of the congregation rushed to judgement, formed an angry mob and ruined his life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

Legally, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thank goodness for JS.

Okay. Not my case. Not my children.

You seem very invested. Maybe do something positive with these feelings. I hear there is a gofundme if you feel this strongly.

I, on the other hand, think maybe less identifiable details should have been given. Because ultimately these details identify the child, ‘Jenny.’

We disagree. And that’s fine. People disagree about things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

Legally, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Thank goodness for JS.

Anonymous wrote:I can understand the want to try and clear one’s name publicly, however, I have a feeling this is just going to cause JS more legal trouble.

He was subpoenaed to give a deposition for the civil case. I looked on the court website for this case. A court order dated 3/16/22 states, “ORDERED that Mr. Silverman is precluded from disclosing the identities, or any information that would lead to the disclosure of the identities, of the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr.”

While the article gives pseudonyms, the reporter expressly states Mr. Silverman was his source. That he (the reporter) saw and received communications from Silverman about those involved in the civil case. And the reporter included that the reporting was going on while the civil case was still active. (Though typically a HIPPA/Protective order doesn’t expire just because a case ends).

Giving this level of detail to a third party (the reporter) about a case involving minors, with a HIPPA/protective order, seems like a very ill informed decision.

I knew exactly who ‘Robert & Alison’ were from reading this article. As I think anyone who had children at the school at the time could also easily figure it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the story first came out, although we didn't have kids there or attend that synagogue.

It's tragic that this man's life has been destroyed, his relationship with his kids irreparably ruined, all due to gossip. The main characters who started this, "Robert" and "Allison" in the story, are the ones who should be prosecuted.

The story is silent as to whether "Robert" the WHC parent who hurled the accusations at the preschool teacher was ever investigated himself for when a different preschool teacher reported to DC Children's and Family Services that his daughter drew a picture showing daddy with a snake between his legs. I hope that little girl got some help and is away from the people who hurt her.

I believe in karma. I feel like anyone reading this article who ran in those circles at the time could probably figure out who “Robert & Allison” are. Whether they (allegedly) did something or not, maybe they’ll suffer some sort of reputational damage from those that know them.

Small consolation, I know, but I’d be giving them some serious side eye after reading this article.

I think "side eye" is small potatoes compared to the preschool teacher losing custody of his kids, when by all accounts he was a dedicated parent. Plus apparently multiple WHC families participated who were "friends of Robert and Allison" participated in the vandalism of the teacher's car and home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the story first came out, although we didn't have kids there or attend that synagogue.

It's tragic that this man's life has been destroyed, his relationship with his kids irreparably ruined, all due to gossip. The main characters who started this, "Robert" and "Allison" in the story, are the ones who should be prosecuted.

The story is silent as to whether "Robert" the WHC parent who hurled the accusations at the preschool teacher was ever investigated himself for when a different preschool teacher reported to DC Children's and Family Services that his daughter drew a picture showing daddy with a snake between his legs. I hope that little girl got some help and is away from the people who hurt her.

I believe in karma. I feel like anyone reading this article who ran in those circles at the time could probably figure out who “Robert & Allison” are. Whether they (allegedly) did something or not, maybe they’ll suffer some sort of reputational damage from those that know them.

Small consolation, I know, but I’d be giving them some serious side eye after reading this article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the story first came out, although we didn't have kids there or attend that synagogue.

It's tragic that this man's life has been destroyed, his relationship with his kids irreparably ruined, all due to gossip. The main characters who started this, "Robert" and "Allison" in the story, are the ones who should be prosecuted.

The story is silent as to whether "Robert" the WHC parent who hurled the accusations at the preschool teacher was ever investigated himself for when a different preschool teacher reported to DC Children's and Family Services that his daughter drew a picture showing daddy with a snake between his legs. I hope that little girl got some help and is away from the people who hurt her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not buying this at all. Police failed to press charges? What are the families saying? Is it only this substack that exonerates him?

This sounds suspicious. I mean, how many child abusers are actually convicted? Barely any.

Do the families know?

I have so many questions regarding this article. Both about the parents and JS. Some things make perfect sense, other parts of the article I really question.

Though as someone mentioned, this particular forum does in fact seem pretty pro JS, probably not the place to ask legitimate questions.

I also agree with the user who said the analogy of satanic panic is wrong. It is definitely more about rich well connected DC elite.

Anonymous wrote:Not buying this at all. Police failed to press charges? What are the families saying? Is it only this substack that exonerates him?

This sounds suspicious. I mean, how many child abusers are actually convicted? Barely any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knew him before the WHC awfulness. We could never figure out why the ex had such incredible vitriol towards him and why, when it was so clear that he deeply cared about his boys and being a father, she continued to fight for sole custody. We have plenty of friends who divorced, but never have I seen a dad who fought so hard to stay engaged with his kids. The only reason we could think of was that he “out momed” her and that’s why she hated him.

He was definitely a fish out of water here and I know people didn’t understand why he was so involved with the PTA etc. Sadly, he operated in a more female space and most people here (men and women) didn’t know what to think of him. If he’d come across as gay, I think people probably would not have given him a second thought. But a straight dude who is highly engaged with kids stood out big time here and there were many who quietly questioned his motives. The fact that he was a photographer also raised red flags for people because he was already different and people were trying to figure him out. Not his fault, but I do wish in hindsight I’d been able to sort of give him a “hey you aren’t in Burly anymore bro” heads up because I genuinely do not think he understood how he was being perceived in the DMV (or maybe he didn’t care?).

Robert and Allison clearly drove the witch hunt and they had the power and influence and money to do it. I’m not sure we’ll ever know if they were acting out of genuine concern for their child or if JS was a convenient scape goat to distract from something that was happening at home. When I read this article I thought of the expression “sometimes the best defense is offense.” Jenny was having issues and they needed an outside source to blame. They didn’t like JS and they were able to flex on the most basic of parental fears because he is so different than the standard DC dad/male.

It’s a very sad story and there are no winners here.

It was odd that his ex had such hatred towards him. And for years.