After telling the Boys Club that I intended to go public in an effort to bring forward someone who knew about the crime, they responded with the following letter. In this letter, the Club denies demanding an eyewitness and states their need to verify my story by someone who saw it happen or heard about if afterwards. Both statements appear right alongside one another. The duplicity is glaring.
January 21, 2000
Dear Mr. Chester:
I have shared with the Boys & Girls Clubs (“the Club”) your letter to me of December 31. As I understand your letter, you are not renewing your earlier demand for a payment from the Club of $250,000, nor are you asking the Club for any specific assistance at this time. Rather, you are giving us notice of your intention to make public your allegations. There are some serious misstatements in your letter that I would like to correct. First, we have never asked you for “eyewitness corroboration.” Clearly, given the nature of your allegations and the fact that the events that you recounted occurred some 36 years ago, it cannot be surprising that the Club needed some verification of your story.
Although the Club has been communicating with you for more than three years, in that time, you have been unable to give us any information that would allow us to determine the identity of the person that you say perpetrated this assault on you in a room with several other campers present. The person whom you initially identified was never an employee of the Club or connected with the day camp program. You also indicated in some of your early correspondence that you might not be the only victim of this conduct. If this incident occurred in the manner that you have indicated or if others were subjected to similar treatment, there must have been someone who could verify your story either because he or she was there or because it was known in the Club. We can find no one who has any knowledge of the events that you related to us. More importantly, I think your characterization of the Club’s attitude as one of “extreme adversity and deliberate indifference” is both unfair and unwarranted. As I am sure Mr. Hardoon told you when he represented you, there are complete legal defenses to any claims that you might seek to bring against the Club. However, the Club has never sought refuge in those defenses in responding to you. We have listened respectfully and examined thoroughly everything that you have presented to us. The very fact of these allegations is painful to the Club and the people who dedicate their time and efforts in supporting the important work of the Club. You should know that this issue has never been treated lightly by the Club and individuals at the highest levels of the organization spent many hours in determining the appropriate response. Initially, we tried to get additional information from you. When that information was insufficient, the Club undertook its own effort to determine if there was anyone in the community who might be able to corroborate in some fashion the events that you claim occurred in 1963. No one was able to do that.
Ultimately, the Club concluded that it could not make the payment that you are demanding both because we could establish no facts that would support such a payment and because we were mindful of our obligations to our members as well as our fiduciary obligations as a charitable institution. We continue to believe that is the case. Please contact me if you feel further discussion would be helpful.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Judith A. Malone
cc: Linda Whitlock