Rabbi Greer must cough up $15 million to his Rape Victim

A federal jury Thursday ordered prominent Rabbi Daniel Greer and his Elm Street yeshiva to pay a former student $15 million in compensatory damages because the rabbi raped and repeatedly abused him 15 years ago.

The jury awarded an additional $5 million in punitive damages, to pay the lawyers.

In adjudicating a civil lawsuit brought by Eliyahu Mirlis, a former high school student at the Yeshiva of New Haven, the jury deliberated in U.S. District Court here for 12 hours over two days before coming to its unanimous decision.

The eight jurors slapped Greer with the eight-figure bill for the emotional suffering he caused Mirlis by assaulting and battering the boy over a three-year period, from his sophomore to senior years at the high school. The panel calculated the total after also concluding that Greer and the yeshiva had shown recklessness and intentional infliction of emotional distress and the school separately had displayed negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

That sum was less than half of the $38 million that the plaintiff’s attorney, Antonio Ponvert III, had requested.

Jurors also requested that the court nail Greer with extra punitive charges to pay Mirlis’s lawyers. That added another $5 million to the bill.

“This completely justified all my faith in the justice system. Even an incredibly difficult case can be resolved fairly on the facts,” Ponvert said. “What the plaintiff suffered and what has been suffered by children for generations need to stop, period. Child abuse, in all forms, is a plague that we all need to work together to stop.”

When asked why he believed his side prevailed, Ponvert responded, “The truth.”

Greer’s defense said the rabbi plans to appeal the verdict.

“We are extremely disappointed by the jury’s verdict, and intend to pursue all potential options to set it aside, including an appeal,” defense attorney David Grudberg wrote in an email.

The verdict followed a suspenseful four-day trial here at U.S. District Court, with a cliff-hanger ending about whether the yeshiva was also liable.

Two victims — Mirlis and the yeshiva’s assistant dean, Aviad Hack — both described their underaged sexual encounters with Greer in graphic detail. Shira Mirlis, the victim’s wife, said the abuse had hardened her partner, preventing him being vulnerable. An expert in childhood sexual abuse and a University of Connecticut professor, Julian Ford, explained to jurors that the inability to trust was an normal response to “betrayal trauma,” as he diagnosed Mirlis with post-traumatic stress disorder.

From Greer’s side, the jurors didn’t hear much of a denial. The rabbi repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. (He denied only one accusation: That he’d had sex with Mirlis on a forested parcel of land in Hamden.) The defense’s other witnesses presented only mitigating evidence: Neither the rabbi’s wife, Sarah Greer, nor his secretary, Jean Leadbury, had noticed anything unusual, they testified. The team’s defense instead, relied heavily on a set of cheery wedding photos showing Mirlis continued to maintain a relationship with his abuser, honoring the rabbi at life milestones.

The final day in federal court Wednesday wrapped up with attorneys presenting 40-minute closing arguments from a podium arms-length from the jury box. The lawyers’ summations of the case volleyed from high-minded (with references to the Founding Fathers) to ad hominem (with accusations of deception and cheating).

Ponvert, Mirlis’s counsel, said the two victims’ testimony and an expert’s diagnosis proved the accusations against Greer were more likely than not true — meeting the lower standard, a preponderance of the evidence, used in civil suits as opposed to in criminal trials.

Ponvert, from the firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, argued that the yeshiva also deserved blame. Hack, effectively the school’s manager, had suspected the rabbi was abusing Mirlis, once even trying to beat down a locked door where Greer was having sex with the boy inside. He failed to report his suspicions to child welfare and law enforcement authorities as required by law.

The defense, Ponvert added, still hadn’t fleshed out its counter-arguments: why Greer couldn’t deny the accusations, why Mirlis would want to attack someone he revered, why Hack admitted to only one sexual encounter as a student if he truly wanted to bring down the rabbi, and why the University of Connecticut pyschiatry professor might have been so “duped” by his client.

In closing, Ponvert asked for $38 million in damages to repay Mirlis for his stolen childhood and his pain since. He argued that Mirlis’s first experience with intimacy should have been dating a girl he loved. “Not a forced kiss, not fellatio, not anal sex. Not with a man and not with a rabbi. Not pseudo-romantic nights in motels with alcohol and hot tubs. Not coerced intimacy but real intimacy,” Ponvert said. “What this man did to Eli Mirlis has affected him in such a way that he cannot have a trusting relationship. And at the end of our lives, ladies and gentlemen, what do we all have but relationships with people that love us and the people we love, the moments we share with them and the experiences that bond us? Eli doesn’t have that.”

When defense attorney William Ward stood up, he first thanked the jury for being in attendance —  “more than I can say for the plaintiff,” the lawyer added, pointing out that Mirlis had been largely absent throughout the trial aside from a few hours on the stand Monday afternoon. He then argued there was no hard evidence of abuse in the exhibits. He called Mirlis a “liar” and a “cheat.”

“That’s not even an inference; it’s an admission,” Ward said. Mirlis “told you some other lies, big or small.”

The defense attorney made one last attempt to explain why Greer hadn’t denied the accusations. Because Mirlis had spoken with police a year ago, keeping silent on “anything that tends to incriminate you” by pleading the Fifth would be “wise,” Ward explained. “That could mean anything that puts Mr. Mirlis or Mr. Greer alone in the same room during four years in high school, anything.” He added that Ponvert had fired “loaded questions” throughout the trial, cornering Greer into remaining silent. (Local police decided not to pursue a criminal investigation of Greer, concluding that the statute of limitations had expired, according to law-enforcement officials familiar with the matter.)

Ward repeatedly sought to impeach Mirlis’s credibility. Mirlis, for example, testified that his grades suffered when he rebuffed Greer’s entreaties, but Ward pointed out that his report card didn’t reflect this, with five As and two B-pluses in classes Greer supposedly taught.

Several times, though, Ward himself twisted Mirlis’s testimony to make it sound deceptive. In one misrepresentation, Ward claimed Mirlis had lied about when he first informed his wife about Greer’s abuse. Ford, the UConn psychiatrist whom Ward described as a “hired gun,” said Mirlis kept the molestation secret during couples counseling —  a fact that wasn’t incompatible with Mirlis’s account of first telling his wife when they were dating. But Ward conflated the two, making it sounds like Mirlis had misled someone. That’s despite the fact that Mirlis testified, under oath, that Ford didn’t ask when he first confessed to his wife, so he didn’t tell the psychiatrist.

In another attempt to portray Mirlis as dishonest, Ward said Mirlis had lied about having sex with Greer repeatedly for 26 hours at a hotel in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Ponvert had indeed tried to portray the stay as an overnight orgy, but Mirlis had corrected him on the stand. To avoid violating the Sabbath, Mirlis indicated that they had sex only before Friday’s sundown and after Saturday’s sundown. By closing statements, Ward had reshaped that exchange to look dishonest. “It’s not ‘the 26-hour sex-fest’ that he told you in direct, isn’t it? It’s a lie, it’s a lie,” Ward claimed.

Ponvert fired back with a seven-minute rebuttal, calling Ward’s speech the “most bizarre and inaccurate” closing statement he’d heard in his career. Flustered with anger, he paused once to compose himself.

“I’m so frustrated I don’t know what to say at this point. Everyone wants this man out of here!” he exclaimed, his voice rising. “He’s [Greer’s] a child molester.”

Ponvert ended by saying it had been an honor to represent Mirlis, as well as a weighty responsibility. “I share that with you,” he said. “I ask you to accept that burden.”

During the two full days that jurors argued in a locked room, starting at 11:35 a.m. on Wednesday, the rabbi paced around the courtroom, asking his lawyers about court procedure, gossiping with his wife about spectators and making several trips to the bathroom. Sarah Greer serenely read a book in the stands.

At 3:03 p.m. on Wednesday, jurors knocked on the door to indicate they had a question. They handed an unsigned, yellow sheet of paper to the marshal. It read, “If we finish this evening, will [we] be able to render a decision tonight or still have to come back tomorrow?” Judge Michael P. Shea sent his deputy into the room to let them know that if the court accepts their verdict tonight, they wouldn’t have to return.

At 3:19, they sent out another note. “We could use fresh coffee and donuts. Dunkin’ Donuts, please.”

The jurors sent out a note at 4:35 p.m. asking to replay Hack’s deposition. At 5:01 p.m., a second note said they’d finish deliberations on Thursday.

Back in the courtroom at 9:10 a.m. on Thursday, jurors examined the last 20 minutes of Hack’s deposition. Under pressure by Ward to name exact dates when Greer had sex with him as a student, Hack said he could not remember a single instance, aside from the first fondling. In the same clip, Hack said he knew about mandatory reporter laws, “certainly by 2007” — two years after Mirlis graduated.

For nearly four hours, the jury discussed whether the yeshiva had been negligent. After lunch, they wrote in a note that they couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict on that specific charge.

At 12:51 p.m., Judge Shea asked them to shrug off any fixed conclusions and reassess the evidence. “This is an important case for all parties. Therefore it’s important for you to reach a verdict without anyone surrendering a conscientiously held view,” Shea said. “There does not appear to be a reason why this case could be tried better or more exhaustively on either side, nor that any other men or women will be more intelligent, more impartially chosen or more competent to decide the case than you.” He added that jurors in the minority, in particular, should reexamine why more of their colleagues had tipped to the other side. “Take as much time as you need to discuss things; there is no rush.”

At 3:39 p.m., the jury handed back their ruling. After reading through verdict form, count by count, each juror stood individually to affirm agreement with the decision.

The defense team left silently, hurrying outside into oncoming traffic. Red-faced, Greer hugged Ward in the parking lot behind the courthouse, then slid into his minivan.

Beginning in the 1980s, Rabbi Greer oversaw the revival of the neighborhood around his yeshiva at the corner of Norton and Elm streets, renovating neglected historic homes.

Over the years, Greer has also crusaded against gay rights in Connecticut, at times played an active role in politics and government, and advocated for keeping nuisance businesses out of the Whalley Avenue commercial corridor. He and his family earned national attention for exposing johns who patronized street prostitutes in the neighborhood, for filing suit against Yale University over a requirement that students live in coed dorms, and then in 2007 for launching an armed neighborhood “defense” patrol and then calling in the Guardian Angels for assistance to combat crime. In the 1970s, Greer also led a successful campaign to force the United States to pressure the Soviet Union into allowing Jewish “refuseniks” to emigrate here and start new, freer lives.

Trump administration's new aide is pro-Hamas

Kris Bauman

A pro-Israel lobby group in the US has warned that the Trump administration’s recently tapped advisor for the Arab-Israeli conflict has a record of anti-Israel positions and sympathy for the Hamas terror organization in the Gaza Strip.

The Zionist Organization of America released a statement Wednesday calling upon National Security Advisor Herbert Raymond McMaster to nix his recent appointment of a former US Air Force officer Kris Bauman as chief NSC advisor on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Bauman, who previously served in the Obama administration as chief of staff to General John Allen, then a Senior Advisor in the Defense Department, was tapped earlier this month to replace Yael Lempert.

Lempert, an Obama-era holdover, was accused of pushing the Trump administration away from Israel’s position on key issues including Jewish housing in Judea and Samaria, and towards the Palestinian Authority.

But Lempert’s replacement, the ZOA argues, is hardly an improvement, with his own history of hostility towards Israel.

In Wednesday’s statement the ZOA dubbed Bauman “pro-Hamas” and noted his involvement in drafting a blueprint for a final status arrangement to be initiated by then-Secretary of State John Kerry which would have included a return by Israel to the pre-1967 borders and the deployment of US ground troops in the area.

“Bauman would deny such secure borders to Israel,” the ZOA wrote.

“Instead of leaving Israel with defensible Israeli borders, Bauman plans to send in U.S. troops and Palestinian Arab ‘security’ forces. Sending in American troops would embroil the U.S. in wars in Judea/Samaria and Gaza- when the U.S. already has more than enough military conflicts to contend with. Moreover, so-called Palestinian ‘security’ forces have too often used their American training and weaponry to kill innocent Israeli civilians – and couldn’t stop terrorist organization Hamas from taking over Gaza. Bauman proposes also relying on Jordan for Israel’s security, when Jordan is already having enough trouble assuring its own security nowadays.”

The ZOA also cited Bauman’s 2009 PhD dissertation, which the group claims blames Arab violence against Israelis on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who Bauman wrote “derail[ed] the peace process almost completely”.

Bauman also blamed Israel for not “engaging” the Hamas terror regime, and accused the Jewish state of turning the Strip into an “open-air prison”.

“Israel and the Quartet refused to engage with Hamas and instead turned Gaza into an open-air prison.”

But former Ambassador to Israel and Obama-appointee Daniel Shapiro pushed back against the ZOA’s statement, calling the claims against Bauman “overheated rhetoric”.

Bauman, Shapiro told the Jewish Insider, is a “dedicated friend of Israel”.

“He has worked for years, side-by-side with senior IDF leaders, to develop arrangements that would ensure Israel’s security in a two-state solution. To equate such efforts with being ‘pro-Hamas’ is beyond offensive - it’s ridiculous.”

David Berns and Jonathan Shrier two backstabbing Jews working in the US Consulate in Jerusalem

David "the dope" Berns

The two US officials that embarrassed the Trump administration, that told Israeli officials that the Kotel is not part of Israel, have been outed, and it turns out that they are two self-hating Jewish traitors.

One of the disgusting bastards is none other than David Berns, the political counselor at the US Consulate in Jerusalem and the other bastard is Jonathan Shrier, the economic counselor to the Consulate . They are Obama holdovers and it's time to clean house......
The Trump administration has already clarified that the traitors did not speak for the administration.....

Taking a ‘Sharp Knife’ to the Gemara

“Does a sharp knife cut verses?” This pungent question, asked by Rava in Bava Batra 111b, is a way of asking how much freedom the rabbis have to interpret the Torah.

 The role of the Torah in the legal thinking of the Talmud is a fascinating one, which has intrigued me since the beginning of my Daf Yomi reading. 

In general, one might say that the Talmud exists because to put it in traditional terms, the Oral Law was given to explain and supplement the Written Law. 

Biblical laws tend to be terse and generalized, and they seldom cover all the contingencies that might arise in life. 

The Torah prohibits labor on Shabbat; but what exactly constitutes labor? 

The Torah prohibits Jews from exploiting one another in commercial transactions; but how do you measure exploitation? 

The Mishna, the digest of the Oral Law, is needed to fill these gaps. In turn, the Gemara is needed to resolve ambiguities in the Mishna.

At the same time, however, the rabbis are always at pains to show that what might seem like new laws, which go beyond and sometimes even contradict the laws of the Torah, are in fact in harmony with the Torah. 

To do this, they are compelled to read against the grain of the biblical text, in ways that strike the uninitiated reader as highly counterintuitive. 

They will, for instance, make important deductions based on the presence of a prefix or suffix of a single letter; or they will look for other uses of a given word elsewhere in the Torah, and draw conclusions based on the context of those seemingly unrelated usages. 

The rabbis’ hermeneutics are far from lawless—they have a rigorous method for making deductions from the text—but they often give the impression of doing whatever needs to be done to make the Torah mean what they want it to mean.

Last week’s Daf Yomi reading, in Chapter Eight of Tractate Bava Batra, was largely devoted to this kind of biblical interpretation. 

The subject of the chapter is the laws of inheritance—a topic of central importance in a patriarchal society, where most wealth was held in the form of land or livestock. 

The basic halakha about inheritance is laid down in Babmidbar 27, where we read about a man named Zelophehad, who died leaving no sons, only daughters. 

The state of the law at that time was apparently that only male children had the right to inherit property. But the daughters of Zelophehad went to Moshe to protest, demanding that they receive their father’s estate. 

Significantly, this claim was made not in terms of fairness, and certainly not of gender equality, but in terms of the preservation of the family name: “Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family because he had no son?” the daughters demanded.

Moshe took this question to the L-rd, who told him that the women were right. From them on, daughters would have the right to inherit property under Jewish law—if, and only if, they had no living brothers. 

If a man had sons, they would divide his property between them, with a double share going to the first-born. The Torah goes on to lay down the order of inheritance: first sons, then daughters, then brothers, then paternal uncles. If none of these categories of relatives are living, then “ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family.”

This seems very clear; 

but turn to the Mishna in Bava Batra 108a, and we find that at some point between the writing of the Torah and the writing of the Mishna, the law has changed in a crucial way.

 According to the Mishna, “these both inherit and bequeath: a father with regard to his sons and sons with regard to their father.” 

In other words, not only is a son the heir to his father’s property, but a father is heir to his son’s property, provided that the son in question has no children of his own. Indeed, the father inherits before the deceased’s own brothers. Yet the Torah knows nothing of this rule because it does not list fathers in the order of inheritance. How is this discrepancy to be reconciled?

Here is where the “sharp knife” of rabbinic interpretation comes into play. 

Rather than admitting that the Oral Law contradicts the Written Law, the rabbis of the Gemara set out to prove that the rule about fathers is actually implicit in the Torah. 

How so? 

They assert that the term “his kinsman,” which in the Torah seems like a catchall for any male relative, is actually meant to refer to the father of the deceased. 

But in the verse from Bamidbar, “his kinsman” comes last in the order of inheritance; how, then, do we explain that the father actually precedes the brothers of the deceased? 

Here the rabbis focus on the word “next to him,” which suggest that the nearer a relation the heir is to the deceased, the earlier he comes in the order of inheritance. Because a father is a closer relative than a brother, he inherits before them.

But how do we know that this is where a father stands in the order of proximity? 

“And what did you see,” the Gemara asks, “to include the son as a closer relative than the father and to exclude the brother?” 

The reason has to do with relationships defined in other areas of Jewish law: for instance, a father can designate a Hebrew slave as a bride for his son, and a son can redeem a field that his father had consecrated. These legal rights are taken to demonstrate that a father and son stand in closer proximity than do two brothers, who cannot designate wives or redeem fields for one another.

The Gemara raises an objection, however, by bringing up the matter of levirate marriage. As we saw extensively in Tractate Yevamot, if a married man dies without children, his brother must marry his wife in order to produce an heir—or else perform the ceremony of chalitzah to cancel this obligation. 

This seems to suggest that brothers stand in a very close legal relationship to one another, even closer, perhaps, than fathers and sons. 

But the rabbis reject this idea, pointing out that the fraternal obligation of levirate marriage exists only in a case where there is no son; if the deceased has a son, the brother’s obligation is annulled. This goes to prove that the father-son relationship precedes the fraternal one in order of importance.

A little further on, 

The Gemara asks how we know that the Torah’s term “kinsman” really is meant to apply to a father? 

After all, the Hebrew term in question can refer to relatives of either sex; how do we know that, in this case, it doesn’t mean “mother” instead? 

If so, then a man’s mother would inherit his property, rather than his father. 

But this cannot be, the rabbis reason, because the verse says, “his kinsman who is next to him of his family,” and “it is the father’s family that is called one’s family, while one’s mother’s family is not called one’s family.” 

Paternal relatives, that is, are legally more significant than maternal relatives. 

At the same time, however, Chazal say that it is maternal relatives who do more to shape a person’s character: 

“Most sons resemble the mother’s brothers.” Clearly, the niceties of legal relationships have little to do with the actual strength of the bonds between family members.

Murdered Jewish DNC staffer was WikiLeaks’ source, say investigators

Seth Rich

The Jewish Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, investigative sources told Fox News.

A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report -- generated within 96 hours after DNC staffer Seth Rich's murder -- detailing the contents Rich’s computer said he made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.

“I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department.

The revelation is consistent with the findings of Rod Wheeler, a former DC homicide detective and Fox News contributor and whose private investigation firm was hired by a third party on behalf of Rich’s family to probe the case. Rich was shot from behind in the wee hours, but was not robbed.

“My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks,” Wheeler said. “I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sits on his computer on a shelf at the DC police or FBI headquarters.”

The federal investigator, who requested anonymity, said 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments between Democratic National Committee leaders, spanning from January 2015 through late May 2016, were transferred from Rich to MacFadyen before May 21.

On July 22, just 12 days after Rich was killed, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party officials conspired to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont from becoming the party’s presidential nominee. That controversy resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as DNC chairperson. A number of Sanders supporters refused to back party nominee Hillary Clinton, and some subsequently formed groups to work against Clinton and the party.

WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange has stopped short of identifying Rich as the source of the emails, but has taken a keen interest in the case, and has not denied working with Rich.

“WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich,” the organization announced.

Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department has no suspects and no substantial leads as to who the killer or killers may be, sources close to the investigation said. Metropolitan Police, including the police chief, have refused to discuss the case, despite requests from Fox News dating back 10 months.

The department released a statement on the case saying it remains an active investigation and that detectives are working with Rich's family.

"If there are any individuals who feel they have information, we urge them to call us at 

(202) 727-9099 

or text us at 50411," read the statement. 

"The department is offering a reward of up to $25,000 for information on this case that leads to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible."

The FBI’s national office declined to comment, but sources said the bureau provided cyber expertise to examine Rich’s computer.

Wheeler believes powerful forces are preventing the case from a thorough investigation.

“My investigation shows someone within the D.C. government, Democratic National Committee or Clinton team is blocking the murder investigation from going forward,” Wheeler told Fox News. “That is unfortunate. Seth Rich’s murder is unsolved as a result of that.”

A spokesman for the Rich family said Wheeler was not authorized to speak for the family and called assertions Seth Rich sent emails to WikiLeaks "unsubstantiated." Brad Bauman said even if purported emails were to surface, it would not necessarily mean Rich had helped WikiLeaks.

"Even if tomorrow, an email was found, it is not a high enough bar of evidence to prove any interactions as emails can be altered and we've seen that those interested in pushing conspiracies will stop at nothing to do so," Bauman said. "We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth's murderers."

Whatever Rich's possible activities prior to his murder, the case remains a mystery.

Two assailants caught on a grainy video tape from a camera posted outside a grocery mart, shot Rich twice in his back, but did not take his wallet, cell phone, keys, watch or necklace worth about $2,000.

Police should consider all angles, Wheeler said, especially in light of Assange’s statements to a Dutch television reporter who asked about Rich.

“I am suggesting,” Assange told the Dutch reporter, “that our sources take risks, and they, they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

On Twitter, WikiLeaks announced the reward but said Assange’s statement “should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source for WikiLeaks or to imply that his murder is connected to our publications” because WikiLeaks has a policy not to release the names of its sources, even after their death.

In subsequent appearances on Fox News Channel, Assange confirmed, “We're interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged WikiLeaks sources.”

Assange has not returned a series of recent emails from Fox News about Rich. MacFadyen, who was considered a mentor by Assange, died of lung cancer on Oct. 22 at age 76.

D.C. police have announced a $25,000 reward for information leading to the conviction of Rich’s killer. 

Republican lobbyist Jack Burkman has offered a separate $130,000 reward.

Rich had been at Lou’s City Bar a couple of miles from his home until about 1:15 a.m. He walked home, calling several people along the way. He called his father, Joel Rich, who he missed because he had gone to sleep. He talked with a fraternity brother and his girlfriend, Kelsey Mulka.

Around 4:17 a.m., Rich was about a block from his home when Mulka, still on the phone with him, heard voices in the background. Rich reassured her that he was steps away from being at his front door and hung up.

Two minutes later, Rich was shot twice. Police were on the scene within three minutes. Rich sustained bruising on his hands and face. He remained conscious, but died at a nearby hospital less than two hours later.

Police detectives will not say whether Rich provided them with any clues about the identity of his attackers or their motivation, Wheeler said. However, Wheeler believes Rich could have provided information prior to his death of who was responsible for carrying out his murder.

Police also have refused to release security footage from a market on the corner of the crosswalk where Rich was killed. The footage, sources told Fox News, shows two people following Rich across the tiny crosswalk just moments before he was attacked. The camera captured grainy footage of the assailants’ legs and Rich as he fell backward into the street after being shot.

WHITE HOUSE QUESTIONS AUTHENTICITY OF 'WESTERN WALL' SOVEREIGNTY COMMENTS

The Trump administration is denying that one of its top officials characterized the Western Wall as West Bank territory outside of established Israeli jurisdiction, after local reports claimed a US official said as much to counterparts in the prime minister's office.

"These comments, if true, were not authorized by the White House," a spokesman told The Jerusalem Post on Monday afternoon. "They do not reflect the US position, and certainly not the president's position."

Earlier on Monday, a report on Channel 2 indicated that a US official considered the Western Wall in Jerusalem — part of Judaism’s holiest site of the Temple Mount — outside of Israeli sovereignty. The wall and Temple Mount complex were taken over by Israel fifty years ago in the Six Day War, and their fate remains a core issue in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Netanyahu had requested joining Trump on his visit to the site, Channel 2 reported, only to be denied on these grounds.

"The statement that the Western Wall is on territory in the West Bank was astonishing. Israel has turned to the US on this matter,” an official in Netanyahu’s office said in response.

HARSH EXCHANGE BETWEEN TRUMP AND NETANYAHU TEAMS

A White House official called the Western Wall part of the West Bank and said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not invited to join US President Donald Trump on his visit to the site, according to Channel 2 who quoted the official on Monday evening. 

A dramatic appears to have been created between Washington and Jerusalem as US President Donald Trump's team as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's team both issued harsh statements on Monday evening less than a week prior to the president's much-expected visit to Israel. 

The drama unfolded when a senior White House official said that the Western Wall was part of the West Bank and not part of Israel's territory, as Channel 2 reported on Monday.
"The Western Wall is not in your territory," the official reportedly said. 

It seems that the official was prompted to make the statement after members of Netanyahu's team asked if Netanyahu could join Trump on the visit to the Western Wall and whether Israeli photographers could document the event, to which the Americans replied that the Western Wall was a "disputed territory."

According to Channel 2, the same official told members of Netanyahu's team that Trump's visit to the Western Wall was a private visit and also added: "No way, why is this your business?"

The official allegedly went on to say: "This is not your territory but rather part of the West Bank."
A source close to the preparations team in Israel told Channel 2 that the statements made by the White House official were received with utter shock by Netanyahu's team. "In Israel they're convinced that this statement is opposed to President Trump's policy as it was expressed recently in his behavior and in his firm resistance to the most recent Security Council resolution. Israel has turned to to the US [to discuss this further]." 

And as Netanyahu's team reeled from the shocking and negative remarks that were reportedly made by the US official today, it also faced another worrying report coming from a senior Fox news correspondent who took to social media to claim earlier in the day that the premier had asked US President Donald Trump to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv and not relocate it to Israel's capital. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Office denied the claim on Monday evening, issuing a  statement that said: "The things published on Fox News are a lie."

The premier's office was referring to a tweet posted earlier in the day by Fox News foreign correspondent Connor Powell, who wrote on Twitter that "everyone I've spoken to in DC that has been briefed on #Jerusalem embassy move says #Netanyahu told #Trump not to move embassy at this time." 

The firm denial coming from the prime minister's office was backed by a rare and unusual move. The statement released by the office included a transcript from Netanyahu's meeting with Trump in Washington which took place this February, acting as proof that the report provided by Powell was false. 

The transcript included the following:

"From a summary of the lunch at the White House: 'President Trump was asked about the embassy and explained that it (moving the embassy) will not cause bloodshed in the region, like he has been warned against (President Trump).' "

Netanyahu on Monday called again on Trump to move the embassy to Jerusalem, on the same day that his controversial Israel envoy pick David Friedman arrives in Israel to begin his tenure.