The Weberman trial has come to a seriously guilty verdict.
I understand there are questions of how he could have been convicted with no actual physical evidence and it basically being a case of his word against hers. I don't know how the legal issues deal with that, but that is precisely why so many molesters and abusers walk free, even after they have been caught - because at the end of the day the case is basically almost always lacking evidence. That is because the rape/abuse/molestation is always done in private, we are dealing in situations where the victim (even if just alleged) is usually a child who does not know about saving possible evidence, and they often only step forward many years later, so any evidence that might have existed is almost always long gone.
For whatever reason, the jury decided to believe the victim, in this case, rather than the defendant, despite the minimal evidence.
The fact that there are molesters in the broader Orthodox community isn't what bothers me the most - orthodox Jews are humans like anyone else, like members of any other group, race and sect. We have failings and desires and illnesses and temptations just like anybody else has. We have our sick people, our violent people, our dangerous people, just like any other group. It is unfortunate, but we are all just humans, and no matter how religious or not religious, not everybody in any given group or community will be on the up and up, to put it mildly.
What bothers me more is how people will defend such a sick person. To start with their excuse is always how can you trust that person (the alleged victim), that person is a child and has no neemanus, a woman and no neemanus, if it happened a long time ago why are they only stepping forward now, there is no evidence, they are looking for revenge for x y or z, etc.
Then, after guilt has been determined, the argument becomes anti-semitism, anti-religion, the court didn't hear the truth, the court is biased against accusations of molestation and usually more anti-semitism and anti-religion.
Never can the guy actually be guilty in their mind, only because he is religious. It does not matter that the accuser was also religious (in most cases in the Orthodox community), and in this case formerly religious. The victim must be the liar, and the alleged or convicted perp must be telling the truth. I don't get that - the guy was found guilty, but some people will turn it into anti-semitism and would like to see him still teaching children or counseling (despite not being licensed) kids.
That is what bothers me most - how people will ignore the worst just because he is "one of us". Even forgetting that the victim, and all the other victims, are also one of us.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
It's remarkable how halacha-related words and phrases can be trotted out to by those who passively or even actively support an anti-halachic reign of terror. The "right" vocabulary, dress, and speech patterns don't equate to the right moral outlook.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe headline to this story states "Weberman is guilty but some think he is innocent"
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that, in the year of "their" lord 2012 (or תשע"ג if you prefer), there are so many frumme, ehrliche, chasidic north American Jews who genuinely believe that:
(a) no frumme, ehrliche, chasidic Jew could ever possibly be guilty of any crime whatsoever,
(b) every jury in every court across every state of the Union is rigged so as to automatically find any frumme etc Jew guilty of every count on every indictment, and
(c) every aspect of life in the United States is inherently institutionally anti-Semitic?
This attitude is self-defeating. In "the old days" in der heim, where real anti-Semitism was rife and a hard fact of everyday life, frumme etc Jews would up sticks and move elsewhere. But today our brethren in religion, living far, far more safely and comfortably in a democratic country bitch and complain about the perceived wrongs described above. Nevertheless, they know only too well that they will never enjoy those privileges anywhere else - not even in the Jewish state of Israel established in part to enable all Jews not to encounter daily, institutional, anti-Semitism.
Mr Weberman would appear to have a scrupulously fair trial, and he was found guilty by a jury of his peers. But his supporters are complaining that he was not tried before a beit din and that the jurors were not frumme yidden.
Mr Weberman will, in due course, be sentenced for those crimes and very probably he will be jailed for a long time. But in the eyes of so many ultra-orthodox Jews a fellow ultra-orthodox Jew can do no wrong. I have never seen those people stand up to support those who they regard as less observant. Perhaps the latter do not count in their estimation as being deserving of their support.
And that, my friends, is what is so very wrong with orthodox Jewry and Judaism today: a deep-seated inability to face the stark truth - if it does not suit their purpose.
Good post. Are you sure she's "formerly religious" and not just "formerly Satmar"? Not that it affects your main point, but it's a detail to correct if it's wrong.
ReplyDeleteI personally do not know, but that is what i read. I think Weberman even tried to use it against her in his defense.
ReplyDeleteWhatever she was going through in her early teens, she's now married to a frum guy.
DeleteNot. Before the trial, he went around with a recorder, even on Shabbos. There's proof of that. (He even used it as proof. Just ask the DA) He drives on Shabbos together with his wife.
Delete