The Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes' spokesperson Jerry Schmetterer told me last week that the date the D.A. asked for Avrohom Mondrowitz to be extradited from Israel was April 2007. If true, that was more than three months after the US-Israel extradition treaty changed, and the extradition became possible. But is it true?
The Brooklyn D.A. Charles Hynes' spokesperson Jerry Schmetterer told me last week that the date the D.A. asked for Avrohom Mondrowitz to be extradited from Israel was "April, 2007".
If true, that was more than three months after the US-Israel extradition treaty changed, and the extradition became possible.
But is it true?
It may not be.
I did some digging Friday and here's what I found – Hynes' office has made at least three different claims for the date it allegedly asked for the extradition of Brooklyn's most notorious pedophile child rapist, Avrohom Mondrowtiz:
April 2007 – Made on June 27, 2012 by Schmetterer to me in an email.
February 2007 – Made to the Jewish Week by Schmetterer on October 18, 2007.
January 2007 – Made to the Jerusalem Post by Schmetterer in October 23, 2007.
Hiding the real date Hynes asked for Mondrowitz's extradition is protecting someone or something.
The later the date, the more it seems that Hynes and his sex crimes chief Rhonnie Jaus did not want to extradite him, and that the complaints against them by victims and advocates are true.
The earlier the date, the more Israel and/or the US State Department appear to have been stalling, trying to block Mondrowitz's extradition.
Mondrowitz was not arrested until an Ha'aretz exposé on him was published in November 2007. The normal turnaround time on an extradition request is about 6 weeks from the time the State Department is asked to make the request until the other country responds, usually with the arrest of the individual sought.
Therefore, if things went as normal, the request would have been made in late September.
If Hynes truly made his request before that, it shows foot-dragging by either the State Department or Israel, or both.
My guess is that Hynes request happened in June or early July. The State Department probably acted on that request as it usually does. But Israel dragged its feet, just like it has on requests to extradite other haredi-connected criminals with strong political protection in Israel. And the State Department covered up that Israeli foot-dragging, in part to prevent an international incident and in part because it knew that no one in Hynes office really cared all that much.
But right now that is just a guess.
All we know for sure is the Hynes' office has given three different dates to the media. And we have no way of knowing which, if any one, is the correct one because Hynes is still withholding the documents that contain the truth.
And that's one reason why a Jewish newspaper that trumpeted Hynes release of documents to attorney Michael Lesher more than a week before Lesher actually received the documents was wrong to do so.
That newspaper, the Forward, reacted to the New York Times report on those released documents by calling the just over 100 released pages a "trove" even though Lesher and the Times clearly showed Hynes had given Lesher next to nothing and was withholding hundreds – perhaps thousands – of pages. Lesher's statements also show that the existence of some of those pages had probably been hidden from him and from the courts that handled Lesher suit and his appeal.
This is atrocious reporting and atrocious editing.
Perhaps the Forward Association board will take notice of this and similar problems that have become (relatively) common there over the past couple years since a new editor-in-chief was hired.