Giving Heidi And Mendy The Benefit Of the Doubt

Last week we were all witness to a public display, initially on tv to millions of viewers (I could not find, with just a quick search, specific numbers of how many people watch any given episode of The People's Court, but they are supposedly one of the top rated shows in their time slot in a number of categories), and then on YouTube to thousands of viewers as the video was spread among the Jewish community via email, blogs, twitter, bulletin boards and other forums, to an episode of a frum couple suing a laundromat for $3000 for having damaged a wig that inadvertently got into their bag of laundry. The episode started off benignly enough, each side making good arguments with little proof, but then turned ugly near the end as the "judge" uncovered what looked like a scam and ruled against the frum couple.

Because I posted the video and condemnation originally, so I am posting this now. I tried originally to think how to be dan this couple l'kaf zchus, but could not find a way. Everything they did pointed to a stupid scam that was uncovered at the last minute. Since then I have thought about it and come up with some alternate possibilities.

But first, Vos Iz Neias sent out Rabbi Yair Hoffman to try to track down the couple and speak to them, getting their side of the story.

Here is what Rabbi Hoffman has to say:

They are known as Mendy and Heidi.  And they are a couple that is under some pretty intense scrutiny about a televised court-case involving a wig that was washed at a laundromat.  Up until now there has only been one side of the story told.

The majority of people who have seen the case on You-tube have concluded that they are woefully guilty.  Halachically, there is an obligation called being “Dan leKaf z’chus” – judging someone favorably until they are proven to be guilty.  It is similar to a concept that has made this country great – the idea of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Many people, even those that ostensibly observe Torah law, fail in this critical area.  I know that I did.  And I feel pretty guilty about it.  When I first observed the video I quickly concluded that this couple – Mendi and Heidi were guilty of:

a] pulling some sort of shtick and

b] at the heart of perhaps the greatest Chillul Hashem in 60 years of television history.

c] rather stupidly appearing on court TV

After having spoken to the couple tonight (arranged by VIN News) at length, and after having spoken to the wigmaker, and after having reviewed emails and communications from both Georgie companies – there is not even a question that not only has this couple not been proven guilty of trying to perpetrate a fraud, but the overwhelming evidence from my perception is that they have been completely railroaded.

Is it possible that five parties involved are perpetrating an elaborate charade to make this couple look innocent?  Anything is possible – but in my estimation, it is extremely remote.  The matter is being investigated further and videotaped, later on this evening, and will be broadcasted as soon as it is feasible.  In the meantime, here is their side of the story.

1] The wig that was ruined was not, repeat not a short wig.  It is a long wig.  If you look carefully at the wig on the Youtube video – you will see that it is a long wig.  It looks like a short wig, but it is not.

2] The main impetus of the judge was that this wig she was examining looked like a short wig.

3] The judge never asked if there were two receipts, the first for the ruined one and the second for the one Heidi was wearing.  The wigmaker told this author that she charged $3000 in total including highlighting, streaking and cutting (still long though) for the first wig.  She charged $1500 for the second wig she was wearing which she gave them AT COST because she felt terrible for them.

4] The judge made phone calls to both Georgie companies.  She ascertained from company #1 that Heidi did purchase a wig.  She spoke to a woman that worked for company #1 named Sylvia.  The office was closed and the phone number was forwarded to her cell phone.  The judge asked whether what was sold to Heidi was a short wig or long wig.  Sylvia answered a long wig.  The judge asked for the receipt number.  Sylvia answered that the office was closed. 

5] The judge then called the other Georgie company (there was a divorce involved here).  The other company said that they do not manufacture that type of wig.  An email from company #2 is in file with VIN News.

This author’s preliminary conclusions are:

1] The judge clearly confused both companies thinking they are one.  Hopefully this was not done maliciously, but was just sloppy work by the judge.

2] The judge, like I did initially, assumed the damaged wig was a short wig.  It is not.

3] The couple, actually it was just the husband, made a very silly decision to appear on court TV.  He thought that this was the better way to go because at least this way if there was any money awarded it would not come from the landromat but from the court TV.  He had to cajole and convince his wife to appear.

4] Neither the husband nor the wife are the best communicators, and neither of them should be hired as press spokespeople.

In short, a grave mistake was made here by the entire Torah community that lashed out at this couple.  These are the preliminary conclusions.  As mentioned earlier, the matter is being further investigated and all the evidence is being examined.  I personally would like to issue an apology to them.

As just an aside, the woman had donated her previous shaitels to a Tzedaka in Eretz Yisroel.

Personally, I find his explanation  a bit of a stretch, but since it is sort of plausible, they do deserve the benefit of the doubt.
However, I think they do not deserve an apology because regardless of right or wrong they made a tremendous chilul hashem.

They were stupid for trying to resolve this on television. Television shows live and die by the drama, and the Heidi and Mendy couple should have known that they were picked for tv courtroom not because of their beautiful hair (both real and not real) but because their lawsuit had the potential for good daytime tv drama. That meant they could not, should not, be expecting a simple slam dunk case, even if they really felt they were 100% correct, and not pulling a scam.

Whether or not Rabbi Hoffman is correct in his explanation I don't know, but their going on tv to talk about religious Jews spending $3000 on sheitels seems to me to be, in and of itself, a chilul hashem making Jews look pretty pathetic to anyone watching.

Then you get to the arguments and see that they presented absolutely no proof to anything they said, and you wonder what they were building their case on. They talked about a ruined wig worth $3000, but showed no proof that this was the wig. They went to professional to evaluate the damage, but did not get any statements from any of the three they visited. blah blah blah. Watch the video and see they showed no proof of anything they claimed. So I dont know how they expected to win, except based on logic.

The only real alternate explanation I can believe is that this is a tv show and they distorted the case and what actually happened, for the purpose of getting the best drama for ratings purposes. That would be similar to what the mother of a Modern Orthodox model recently claimed about how her daughter had been portrayed on tv with her words being edited and twisted, for the benefit of the television show, and they showed her in a bad light. I can believe that here too something in the show was distorted and edited to create the drama.

So there is room to give them the benefit of the doubt, whether for my simple reason or for Rabbi Hoffmans more detailed investigation, even though they looked lousy on television.

They should still apologize to the Jewish community for making it look stupid, superficial and glitzy (really? $3000 wigs?) and putting themselves in the position to be caught, even if not true, in a scam the way they were.

UPDATE: R' Hoffman from VIN has interviewed Georgie about the incident: