PATHOLOGICAL ANONYMITY
On
Not a shred of evidence has ever been offered by Ms. Barkdull to substantiate the rape charge. The AC and anonymous smutblogger JWB continue to call Barkdull a “rape victim.” But she is not. She was NEVER raped. At least not by Rabbi Worch. We are outing her here not as a victim, but as a perpetrator who set out to destroy a man—and succeeded—behind the veil of secrecy.
In the end all Nancy Barkdull managed to provide was a collection of private, intensely intimate online postings, under pseudonyms which she attributes to Worch.
What should the role of an organization like the AC be in this case? Seek out the truth? Call up the accused and ask for his reaction? Well, no such hope there. As former AC board member Rabbi Ari Kahn told Luke Ford, “It's a victims' advocacy forum. It is not necessarily interested in establishing truth.”
The disturbing question we, media providers and receivers, must not forget, is why was Nancy S. Barkdull awarded the shelter of anonymity by online reporter Luke Ford. Why, in fact, does he continue to shelter her in all his references, calling her “Jane” and, indeed, censoring her name from published interviews where it comes up.
Nancy Barkdull is not employed by Rabbi Worch—so no work related abuse can be cited in her defense.
Nancy Barkdull does not depend on Worch for her school grades, or, indeed, for anything at all.
Nancy Barkdull is not a minor. Her sexual activities are driven by adult choice.
Nancy Barkdull is not feeble minded in any way. She should not receive extra protection at the end of a bad relationship so she could ruin her ex-lover.
On the other hand:
Rabbi Hershy Worch is not employed by any Jewish organization. No public good was served by his destruction.
Rabbi Hershy Worch does not possess any capacity at all by which he could act to seek vengeful action against Ms. Barkdull. If anything, she is the one who should be stopped from further harming him.
Why, then, was Nancy S. Barkdull awarded a shield behind which she could hide while launching one attack after another on Rabbi Worch’s good name, exposing the most vulnerable sexual aspects of his personality, fabricated and otherwise, with no recourse for him to pursue?
When the accusations made by TAC, and served regularly by Luke Ford, became too outrageous, their victims started to fight back. As the veracity of each charge evaporated before even the scantiest examination, the AC began to lose board members, including its strongest and, presumably, most legitimate advocate, Rabbi Joseph Blau. Fleeing this career-ending scandal, Rabbi Blau still believes in the AC’s dogma of “Victim Prime.” Only as recently as a week ago he told Steven I. Weiss: “When an alleged abuser is identified… that person has supporters and defenders, and that becomes a very difficult situation.” As if there’s something inherently wrong in the very idea that an accused man seek to refute the accusations against him.
But rogue anonymity is now not the exception but the very rule of the debate surrounding the AC’s allegations. After I exposed Vicki Polin publicly for the first time as the “Rachel” who, back in the “recovered memory” ‘80s accused the Jews of Chicago of participating in satanic rituals, complete with baby slaughter and fornication on open Torah scrolls, anonymous attacks against me became exceptionally vicious. Vicki Polin utilizes several victimology websites under a variety of pseudonyms, all of which were enlisted to target me.
The details of my business were put out, with a proviso for individuals to contact my clients and try and intimidate them. The IRS anonymous complaint number was given out, asking people to report me. The names of my wife and daughter were put online, just to avail me of that rare sense of intimidation.
The fact that I was never accused of sexual abuse mattered little to the AC chief, who felt justified in exposing the intimate details of my own life, since I’m supporting my good friend Worch in his struggle to recover from Polin’s and Barkdull’s onslaught.
This article, exposing Nancy (Nanne) S. Barkdull and leveling the playing field, if you will, is not an attempt to stop Ms. Barkdull. In my opinion she should be allowed to make her allegations. In fact, I encourage her to approach the Chicago Police or District Attorney and launch a criminal complaint. But that complaint must bear her full name. She should not be permitted to hide behind the forgery of protected identity.