A strictly Orthodox man found guilty of the kidnap, rape and false imprisonment of his ex-wife has been jailed for 14 years.
The man, in his sixties, showed no emotion as Judge Nigel Peters passed sentence at Snaresbrook Crown Court on Monday.
In addition to two 14-year sentences for two counts of rape, he was sentenced to seven years for kidnap and false imprisonment. The sentences will run concurrently [....]
Defending barrister Jonathan Goldberg told the judge his client may
have acted in the heat of the moment following a discussion with his
ex-wife about the paternity of two of their children.
“A husband discovering one and possibly two of his beloved children are or may not be his is grave provocation and mitigation and explains this extraordinary behaviour on the day in question,” he said.
In passing sentence, Judge Peters told the man: “You have planned and committed an act of great degradation and great cruelty in locking up your ex-wife, having tied her down and raped her.”
Judge Peters said the man had lured his wife to his warehouse under the pretext of looking after his granddaughter, before spraying her with mace, tying her up, and bundling her into what was described as a “dungeon”.
The imprisonment of the woman in the warehouse following her rape was, according to the judge, the “major aggravating factor” of what he described as “one of the more extreme and unpleasant cases to come before the courts”.[...]
Jewish Chronicle
A Charedi woman who said her ex-husband raped her retracted the claim because she feared being stigmatised by the strictly Orthodox community, a court heard.
During the court proceedings the complainant has sent several emails from Israel, where she had gone before the trial, withdrawing her allegations.
But prosecution barrister Charlotte Newell told the court that the woman feared the effect a conviction would have on her family in the Charedi community.
Giving her closing argument, Ms Newell said she had “retracted her complaints because to put up with what happened that day is easier and more tolerable to her than the break-up of her family and the effect it had on her.”
In a previous letter the woman had told the court, “I do not wish to proceed with the matter further as it will lead to the break-up of my family. The real victims will be my children.”
update: Jewish Chronicle
A strictly Orthodox man has been found guilty of kidnapping and raping his ex-wife.
The man was convicted of one count of kidnap, two counts of rape and one count of false imprisonment. [...]
During the trial, the woman had sent emails to the court withdrawing her allegations. The prosecution said she had done so because she had feared being stigmatised within the Charedi community.
========================================================
Jewish Chronicle - accused man claims wife had rape fantasy
June 25, 2015
A strictly Orthodox man has denied raping his ex-wife in a "dungeon", claiming the woman encouraged him to act out a "rape fantasy".
Denying allegations of kidnap, rape and false imprisonment, he told a court on Wednesday that the woman had insisted on taking part in "rough" sex sessions.
A jury had previously been told that the woman was knocked out with gas, carried down to what she described as a dungeon, in a warehouse in north London, and was bound and raped twice.
The alleged victim claims she was left in the building with no way of escaping.
The defendant denied her version of events, claiming the "dungeon" was in fact a "safe room" where his family could hide in case of persecution
He disputed the complainant's allegation that they had not had sex since their divorce around six years ago, and said they had continued to sleep together in a double bed at the warehouse.
The man described in detail the sexual demands of his ex-wife and claimed she had insisted on the couple acting out rape fantasies.[...]
On the day the rape is said to have taken place, the defendant told the court the couple had became engaged in a "screaming match" about his unwillingness to give the woman a get. [...]
Jewish Chronicle
“A husband discovering one and possibly two of his beloved children are or may not be his is grave provocation and mitigation and explains this extraordinary behaviour on the day in question,” he said.
In passing sentence, Judge Peters told the man: “You have planned and committed an act of great degradation and great cruelty in locking up your ex-wife, having tied her down and raped her.”
Judge Peters said the man had lured his wife to his warehouse under the pretext of looking after his granddaughter, before spraying her with mace, tying her up, and bundling her into what was described as a “dungeon”.
The imprisonment of the woman in the warehouse following her rape was, according to the judge, the “major aggravating factor” of what he described as “one of the more extreme and unpleasant cases to come before the courts”.[...]
Jewish Chronicle
A Charedi woman who said her ex-husband raped her retracted the claim because she feared being stigmatised by the strictly Orthodox community, a court heard.
During the court proceedings the complainant has sent several emails from Israel, where she had gone before the trial, withdrawing her allegations.
But prosecution barrister Charlotte Newell told the court that the woman feared the effect a conviction would have on her family in the Charedi community.
Giving her closing argument, Ms Newell said she had “retracted her complaints because to put up with what happened that day is easier and more tolerable to her than the break-up of her family and the effect it had on her.”
In a previous letter the woman had told the court, “I do not wish to proceed with the matter further as it will lead to the break-up of my family. The real victims will be my children.”
update: Jewish Chronicle
A strictly Orthodox man has been found guilty of kidnapping and raping his ex-wife.
The man was convicted of one count of kidnap, two counts of rape and one count of false imprisonment. [...]
During the trial, the woman had sent emails to the court withdrawing her allegations. The prosecution said she had done so because she had feared being stigmatised within the Charedi community.
========================================================
Jewish Chronicle - accused man claims wife had rape fantasy
June 25, 2015
A strictly Orthodox man has denied raping his ex-wife in a "dungeon", claiming the woman encouraged him to act out a "rape fantasy".
Denying allegations of kidnap, rape and false imprisonment, he told a court on Wednesday that the woman had insisted on taking part in "rough" sex sessions.
A jury had previously been told that the woman was knocked out with gas, carried down to what she described as a dungeon, in a warehouse in north London, and was bound and raped twice.
The alleged victim claims she was left in the building with no way of escaping.
The defendant denied her version of events, claiming the "dungeon" was in fact a "safe room" where his family could hide in case of persecution
He disputed the complainant's allegation that they had not had sex since their divorce around six years ago, and said they had continued to sleep together in a double bed at the warehouse.
The man described in detail the sexual demands of his ex-wife and claimed she had insisted on the couple acting out rape fantasies.[...]
On the day the rape is said to have taken place, the defendant told the court the couple had became engaged in a "screaming match" about his unwillingness to give the woman a get. [...]
Jewish Chronicle
A charedi man kidnapped his ex-wife and raped her in a "hidden dungeon" before leaving her there to go home for Succot, a court heard this week.
The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is accused of one count of kidnap, two counts of rape and one count of false imprisonment on October 15 last year.
An associate is accused of aiding and abetting two acts of rape. Both men deny the charges
Charlotte Newell, prosecuting, told Snaresbrook Crown Court, that the men had sprayed the alleged victim with gas that knocked her out and carried her down to what she described as a dungeon inside a warehouse, in Stamford Hill, where she was bound and raped twice. She was then locked in, with no obvious means of escape.
She eventually cut herself free and phoned the police. [...]
If it were a Reform man or Conservative man who allegedly did this would the news report is as "Reform man accused of raping his ex-wife" or "Conservative man accused of raping his ex-wife"?
ReplyDeleteOf course not.
Such treatment is reserved for the Orthodox and especially for the Chareidi.
Do reform/conservative people claim to be the only true form of Judaism who are holier than everyone else? Do reform/conservative Jews have a culture whereby they expect other Jews to support them financially so that they can sit in kollel and be holy?
ReplyDeleteThe headline is fair. The chilul hashem is caused by the person who allegedly committed these crimes not on the reporting.
"Do reform/conservative Jews have a culture whereby they expect other Jews to support them financially so that they can sit in kollel and be holy?"
ReplyDeleteTo bring that up, in this context, is sick.
Did the accused'community (his chassidut / rebbe or his yeshiva / RY) do anything. Or itwasnt the RY's relative, so no one cares.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is extremely relevant to bring this up. Why do you think it is sick? Please explain.
ReplyDeleteIts relevant in the story, but not in the headline.
ReplyDelete(How does an innocent 'charediyah' know what a 'dungeon' is? Its her quote in the story?)
excellent point
ReplyDeleteBecause you are cynically suggesting that the Kollel ethos - which you obviously disdain - can have some sort of causal relationship with raping and torturing! You should be ashamed of yourself.
ReplyDeleteHaving accepted that this is relevant for the contents of the article, why do you feel it is not suitable for the headline? Chareidi/chassidic people often wear a dress code that clearly shows the group they want to associate with, that is their headline, and first impression. I think the article was entirely justified.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you posting this? The JC is an anti religious secular paper about Jews. Gutter press, basically, when it comes to frum yidden.
ReplyDeleteJust because they call the accused 'Chareidi', does it mean he is? The JC has no idea what the definition of Chareidi actually is (like everybody else).
So basically, this a Jew accused of a serious crime. Albeit in halochoh there is no issur of marital rape - only a strong hashkafic issue. And I bet you the details are exaggerated by the JC - they do it often (like all papers).
What exactly is the purpose of posting it? Jews, like everybody else, do commit crimes. It's not child abuse, so no protection issue involved.
@John - I would suggest you reread the original article and reread you comment. Also take several deep breaths.
ReplyDeleteYou are all over the place 1) trash the messenger as geing aniti-religious 2) claim that the alleged assailant is not Chareidi 3) there really wasn't any crime according to halacha [really absurd and wrong excuse] 4) claim the details must have been exaggerated 5) there is no need to mention when Jews commit a crime because they are no different than other people 6) awareness that chareidi men my do such things does not protect anyone
The kollel ethos is heavily promoted throughout chareidi/chassidic communities. It is these communities who regularly raise funds from other Jews to pay for these kollels/yeshivot. It now appears that these communities seem to have their fair share of rapists and paedophiles so it looks like all that money was raised in vain. They are no better than any other cross section of society.
ReplyDelete1) Ask anybody in the UK whether the JC is anti religious. It's been anti-religious for the last 50 years (if not more). You simple do not know.
ReplyDelete2) No, I said, how do you know that the accused is Charedi? Just because the JC says so? See 1) above.
3) Noted
4) Find me a newspaper that doesn't exaggerate the details. All papers exaggerate sensationalism. That's how they sell. Kal Vechomer an anti religious one about religious Jews (see 1 above).
5) There is no need, unless it has a tachlis (purpose) of some sort. Or please tell me the need in this particular case.
6) I don't follow you. That is my point.
That post is no different than something the FM blog would post. No To'eles (benefit), nothing. Just gutter journalism.
I expect more from you.
Good Voch from London.
@John - it is clear from your response that you are torn in two directions 1) it isn't likely that a chareidi Jew would commit such a crime vs 2) why talk about it because these crimes happen in all communities
ReplyDeleteThe obvious point is that it is important for chareidi Jews to understand that they are in fact capable of such crimes and such crimes do in fact happen - carried out by friends, family and neighbors. We consequently need to provide services such as Shalom Task force, legal protection for women and educational so that women know to protect themselves against possible attacks. We need to take such accusations seriously - even if there are sometimes false accusations.
It is no different than child or domestic abuse which for years the community either denied it happened or said that there are a few nuts why talk about it.
You might notice that the Torah doesn't say to coverup the existence of crimes.
Please cut out the psychological stuff. I am not torn in two directions (or even three). I am fully aware that Jews, orthodox or non orthodox, charedi or non charedi, or even non Jews commit crimes.
ReplyDeleteBut trawling the internet looking for charedi crimes to post is exactly what FM does and not what I expect from a talmid chochom and/or this blog. This particular case has no to'eles whatsoever. And the torah does discuss loshon horoh for no to'eles.
And if you still feel a need, you should not cut and paste from a rabidly anti religious newspaper. Just have one paragraph stating - the JC reported a Charedi Jew is accused of raping his wife in a monstrous way. That will tick all your boxes.
Do you know how to read? She was his EX-wife - not exactly marital rape!
ReplyDeleteWhy is someone who has relations with a nidda, Chareidi? Would anyone call a mechallel shabbos or one who eats chometz on pesach, Chareidi?
ReplyDeleteMoe has a point, and I can understand it, even though I am not hareidi.
ReplyDeletethere is an "us and them" whoever you view it. If teh goyisher press wrote that a Jew committed a crime, then it would certainly feel like anti-semitism. But within the Jewish community, the rules are different, and Hareidi press might label non-hareidim as well.
It is a bit like why blacks can get away using the N word, when whites cannot.
John, the JC is not anti-religious, but they do hold the Orthodox and especially the Ultra orthodox to a higher standard. Theyhave a Judaism page, with a weekly dvar torah, although if I remember, it was attacked whenever they allowed a non-orthodox minister to write in it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Anglo Jewry are sick and tired of hareidi attacks on the Orthodox Chief Rabbi, whenver he does something that is a bit too imaginative for them.
But this case is a member of the hareidi community, as self described, rather than someone who is true hareidi, ie who fears Hashem.
Someone who dresses with the typical attire of the Chareidi/Chassidic communities, and who lives among them, and who davens in their shteibels, and who is integrated into their society is considered Chareidi.
ReplyDeleteI know many people who have a genuine fear of Gd and who keep as many mitzvos as they can to the best of their ability, but who do not outwardly look Chareidi, nor do they associate themselves with that group of people. Not even the Chareidi community would regard such a person as Chareidi, but they instead regard Todros Grynhaus as Chareidi.
Being Chareidi today, for all practical purposes, means belonging to that group of people by dressing according to a uniform and adhering to their culture.
Whilst your definition may be textually accurate, it is not the accepted societal meaning across the Jewish world today.
@Eddie, as I have explained above, your definition of Chareidi is textually accurate but is not the modern understanding of the word according to people both inside and outside of those communities.
ReplyDeleteIf this person lived amongst the Chareidim and was part of their society, then it is fair that he is regarded as one of them. Please don't try to disassociate anyone who doesn't keep all the mitzvos as non-chareidi or there will be no one in the world who fits your criteria.
Why is it that the Chareidi community feels as though secular laws don't apply to them? I'm not talking about a few lone individuals (which has been demonstrated many times!), I am talking about their infrastructure such as minimal standards of secular education:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.vosizneias.com/206744/2015/06/18/london-numbers-show-hundreds-of-missing-haredi-boys-in-londons-education-system/
Maybe everyone is getting a bit tired of hearing how the Chareidim are better than everyone else when they are actually no better (perhaps worse as they claim to be holier!), regardless of whether you measure individuals or their group behavior.
The sooner the Chareidim break away from Judaism, the sooner the rest of us won't have to be embarrassed to be part of the same religion as them.
How dare large numbers of them request Tzedakah from us whilst holding everyone (including their non-Jewish governments) in contempt.
Why is it that the Chareidi community feels as though secular laws don't apply to them? I'm not talking about a few lone individuals (which has been demonstrated many times!), I am talking about their infrastructure such as minimal standards of secular education:
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that you pretend to concern yourself with what Torah-true Jews think?
You ask about secular laws, and then cite a report about registered in schools. Do you know what percentage of London Bachurim go to Gateshead, Manchester and Eretz Yisroel to learn? London is not renown for its successful yeshivos. Regardless, what does the registration numbers have to do with driving laws?
Oh.
Maybe everyone is getting a bit tired of hearing how the Chareidim are better than everyone else when they are actually no better (perhaps worse as they claim to be holier!), regardless of whether you measure individuals or their group behavior.
Nothing more than pure hatred and jealousy.
The sooner the Chareidim break away from Judaism
Are you projecting yourself and where your lifestyle may unfortunately lead you?
Toldot - not quite sure what you are trying to prove, you obviously didnt read my last sentence - there are 2 implied definitions, the scoietal one which u agree with, and the correct etymological one, which is how the term hareidi was used in the Torah.
ReplyDeleteJust bear in mind that all the justifications you give for this post also apply to FM's posts.
ReplyDeleteThey all 'spill the beans' on alleged charedi misbehavior, they are all l'toeles as they teach us to protect ourselves, and they are all news that is not printed in Charedi newspapers. His is even better, as he doesn't just cover alleged sexual crimes.
Granted, your blog is more intellectual, but apart from that, in principal, I take it according to your own logic, you have no problem with his blog and the work he does.
@RaP - you are rather glibly referring to matters which I am not convinced you know what you are talking about. Freud has not be tossed overboard by revisionisist who favor pop psychology. Freud simply did not accurate describe people and his therapy does not work any better than randomly picked alternatives - including no treatment (placebo) and it costs a lot more.
ReplyDelete.As for Queen Esther there are many questions that preclude the black and white statements you have been making. Anyone familiar with the various discussions in Chazal and the commentaries is fully aware of the difficulties
@John - as I said there is no to'eles in continuting this "discussion". You don't accept the legitimacy or integrity of what I do and I don't accept your arguments or motivation.
ReplyDeleteI'll end this discussion with your repeated reference to Failed Messiah - Please take note of the famous Brisker observation regarding the difference between the cat and the housewife in regards to mice. You obviously can't tell the difference between them. - There is nothing more to discuss
The Brisker Rav famously said that both the housewife and the cat want the mice out of the house. But the housewife wishes they were never there in the first place, while the cat is delighted to have them for supper. The group at the Kosel fell into the category of the Brisker Rav’s “cats.”
http://www.mishpacha.com/Browse/Article/3218/Snatching-Defeat-from-the-Jaws-of-Victory
So the only criterion for deciding whether one community is better than another one, is how many rapists and child molesters it produces per capita? What a daft notion - focus on the lowest scum of both societies, and declare that the 2 communities must be pretty much the same..
ReplyDeletewould the newpaper (or almost any other newspaper) print a headline "conservative jew involved in raping his ex wife".
ReplyDeletebut they put up such a headline for an orthodox jew.
I have not commented on this thread, so I am not sure why or how you replied to something I may have said on another post dealing with "female orthodox rabbis">
ReplyDeleteI am not arguing with you and Freud is not the subject of any of the discussions. I merely had mentioned one known quote from Freud in another post that was then used to attack me as "proof" that I am a "feminist" which is just a huge joke. That's all. I am not an expert in Freud, but like most people I know he was a major figure in the development of psychiatry and psychology, and I was not commenting at all if he was a good or lousy therapist which frankly I couldn't give a darn about. Most psychiatrists are notoriously bad therapists since like most doctors they are arrogant and impatient and are quick to resort to prescribing psychotropic medications that quite often are harmful to patients suffering from a variety of emotional and mental conditions. But again this is not mys subjects.
As for Queen Esther of course there are plenty of Chazal and as there are Chazals about everything. But as we know the Chazals are right now not helping deal with unique challenges of modernity such as the need to give formal education to women which in spite of Chazal's prohibition,s in the last 100 years has been over-ridden because of Hora'as Sha'ah and Eis La'asos LaShem Heifeiry Torasecha so that even though conventionally over the millenia is was point bland assur to teach Jewish girls Torah and there were no formal schools for them, yet in the last 100 years the decision of the Gedolim of our times over-ruled all the old Chazals that spoke out against Chinuch for girls outside of the home and instituted Bais Yaakovs and Seminaries and much more to be Mechanech Bnos Yisroel so that they not be lost to assimilation and worse.
Also Ester runs counter to everything that came before her, while in the past it was males who were the Melachim (and hence also "Man malchi? Rabbanan!") with the onset of Golus the greatest Monarch to come out of the Churban of the first Golus is Ester HaMalka a female Jewish ruler over not just the Jewish people but over the greatest empire in those times. Similarly in our modern age, women have been given new and unexpected opportunities to rise to the top, and should come as no suprise that they want and will get even more serious positions of leadership in the Torah world. It's happening with the MOs clearly and it is already on the way with the rest of the Torah world. But we are in the middle of this phenomenon so for now we sit back and stay tuned and enjoy the show!
Devorah, Ruth etc.
ReplyDeleteLoshon Horo can also be about a particular segment of society, in this case "charedim" or a town. See Chofetz Chaim
ReplyDeleteYou can't just throw huge concepts like "loshon horo" around without factoring in other relevant halachic concepts and w
ReplyDeleteYou can't just throw huge concepts like "loshon horo" around without factoring in other relevant halachic concepts and wider issues. It is like saying "dina malchusa dina"!!
ReplyDeleteOr indeed Jews in general.
ReplyDeletePerhaps one reason is that the editors know - consciously or not - that Judaism is not a major factor of influence in Conservative Jews' lives, and the crimes they commit do not reflect badly on Judaism, just on society in general.
ReplyDeleteNo-one is accusing chareidi jews, or jews in general, of committing these crimes. One anonymous individual has been charged. That is the extent of this blog post, and it isn't - cannot be - loshon horo.
ReplyDeleteThis is a typical "he-said/she-said" case. There's no proof either way. And in a case where there's no proof, an acquittal is required.
ReplyDeleteI guess you're not familiar with the todros grynhaus case then!!!
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that once again excuses are being made to defend the alleged perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the JC is being accused of being anti religious and exaggeration.
We have seen so many cases recently of sexual and mental abuse of innocent victim s. The shame is that all you so called "good Jews" who learn no stop and try to show you are more righteous than the rest of us, will not acknowledge any wrong doing, even when it stares you in the face.
What self respectbperson or, in deed, Rabbi have for themselves, or for others wnen they immediately protect a perpentrar over a victim. We never see any compassion for victims, only more abuse, because they are brave enough is to speak out.
Why is this?
Who is the victim? The accuser? The accused? Not clear. More information needed. Does she altogether deny having continuing relationship with him? Or will she hide behind legalisms that she already testified, but not to that issue? (She might not be able to testify again; england has some strange laws about things like this.)
ReplyDelete2. Did she ever publicly request a get? General request, or serious equest, through a recognized bet din? These questions may very well be relevant now. Or did she not testify about a get during her testimony, cause she was having a relationship with her ex? And in some jurisdictions, having a relationship invalidates a civil divorce.
Maybe the alleged perpetrator was violent and threatened with weapons? Maybe he threatened or harmed/abused her children?
ReplyDeleteLike you, I can also make up crazy stories that have not been mentioned by the news reports so far. Your comment only serves to attempt to undermine the case against the alleged perpetrator without any basis whatsoever.
Maybe you should leave the facts to the courts and credible news sources rather than your hateful anonymous comments.
I didn't find this http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/news/crime-court/tottenham_man_acquitted_of_sexually_assaulting_orthodox_jew_14_1_3950289 in the jc paper.
ReplyDeleteDid the crown prosecute for false accusations?
who is the alleged perpetrator? no claims of violence (except "forcing", an unspecified charge), no claims of weapons, no claims of harm or abuse to children.
ReplyDeletebut claims of rape that may very well be false.
its over ten days since the testimony, I presume a decision has been reached, but I havent seen any guilty verdicts (not guilty may very well be suppressed under british privacy laws.)
I pointed out below similar false accusations. http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/news/crime-court/tottenham_man_acquitted_of_sexually_assaulting_orthodox_jew_14_1_3950289. any (non monetary) recompense to the falsely accused?
Welll, not even he disputes the facts about the sexual intercourse, the dungeon, etc.
ReplyDeleteHe seems to have been refusing a get for six years. So probably she will have initiated the divorce.
So on this basis, what would be more credible: that she consented, then changed her mind and went to court or that he is lying?
Who cares what "would be more credible"? For a criminal conviction you need proof, not merely being "more credible".
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Many laws require intent. It's impossible to prove intent, and that can only be done on the balance of probabilities.
ReplyDeleteThe act itself of having allegedly committed the crime must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) in order to convict.
ReplyDeleteThe act itself is admitted. Read the reports.
ReplyDeleteThe act itself isn't a crime, just like eating potato chips isn't a crime. If the potato chips eaten is stolen then the theft is a crime. If the sex was coerced then the rape is a crime.
ReplyDeleteJust as with someone charged with theft it must be proven in court that the product was stolen, not just that he ate potato chips, same too over here it must be proven in court that the act was forced.
The act itself is the coercion (or in the other case the theft.) The act is not the sex (or in the other case eating the potato chips.) It must be proven that there was coercion (or theft.)
of course it is illegal to eat stolen potatoe chips. Where did you grow up.
ReplyDeleteThe violence seems to be proven and admitted. What is also proven is that she sued.
Therefore, I think he will have a hard time establishing that it was consensual. Especially if she initiated the separation and has been waiting for a get for six years...
But I am not quite astonished that the crowd on this blog has no big qualms about raping an ex...
I specifically stated it is illegal to have stolen potato chips; but it is not illegal to have potato chips. If someone is charged with theft the prosecutor can't go to court and simply prove he ate potato chips; he needs to prove they were stolen potato chips.
ReplyDeleteSame with sex. Proving there was sex is meaningless and legal. Proof needs to be made that it was coerced.
Anyone can sue. That proves nothing. And he does not need to prove it was consensual. For a criminal conviction it needs to be proven it was non-consensual. By default the law provides the presumption of innocence and assumes no crime, thus no coercion, unless proven otherwise.
Moe, 2 questions:
ReplyDelete1) are the potato chips Shehakol or Haadamah?
2) Are u discussing the vernacular law or halacha?
Let's just wait and see. But I think that hiis defense strategy is weak and I suppose he will be convicted...
ReplyDeleteI addressed your question in an earlier comment. I am speaking of secular law. Jewish Law has even higher standards and requirement for proof. In Jewish Law the judges must be convinced of his guilt beyond any doubt in order for them to convict. Not merely proof beyond reasonable doubt. And in Jewish Law the required proof for a criminal conviction is generally two eyewitnesses.
ReplyDeleteHe has been convicted.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/138792/orthodox-man-found-guilty-kidnapping-and-raping-his-ex-wife
The wife recanted.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#United_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice
http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-infamous-inmates-who-were-wrongly-convicted.html
http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrongful-conviction
http://www.oddee.com/item_98768.aspx
Doesn't british divorce law require giving a get? (britain does not have separation of church and state like US has)
ReplyDeleteDavid (Michael Schlesinger Vienna) lets get it right
ReplyDeletehere. ‘The woman had sent emails to the court withdrawing her
allegations. The prosecution said she had done so because she had feared being
stigmatised within the Charedi community’.
She did not recant she was quite obviously frightened and
intimidated. Where have we heard this
before and you know you are an expert on that.
Talking of miscarriages of justice Michael you are the perpetrator of
one of the worst miscarriages of justice in the Jewish world. You Michael, who have lied about and
maligned an innocent young girl and got other people to lie about her. You Michael, who have admitted in court that
you forged her signature regarding her benefits. You Michael who attempted to dispose of your
then wife into a mental home with the help of the crooked psychiatrist Foldes and
taken her children away from her with the help of Family Court Judge Thau have
the cheek to post about miscarriages of justice. Let’s not forget the Rabbonim in your neck of
the woods, Eisenberg who stood by and didn’t want to know Biderman who lied and
continues to lie for you and all the other so called Rabonnim and community in Vienna
none of whom have batted an eyelid at the disgrace you have brought on your
community or the injustice you have done to your innocent wife. None of your ex-wife’s allegations have been
recanted and there is no doubt about your violence and dishonesty or the
dishonesty and corruption of the courts in Austria or the people who have
helped you in your vile deeds. If
anyone out there has any doubts about the veracity of the situation in Vienna let
them be aware there are many more Michael Schlesingers out there and plenty
more frum innocent young girls.
If an accuser recants and says her accusation was untrue, it is a miscarriage of justice to criminally convict someone of a recanted accusation. Even if the prosecutor theorizes the reason she recanted was because of something else.
ReplyDeleteDavid she never said the charges were untrue!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/138727/orthodox-ex-wife-withdrew-rape-claim-over-stigma-fears
Giving her closing argument, Ms Newell said she had “retracted her complaints because to put up with what happened that day is easier and more tolerable to her than the break-up of her family and the effect it had on her.”
In a previous letter the woman had told the court, “I do not wish to proceed with the matter further as it will lead to the break-up of my family. The real victims will be my children.”
Honestly, who is surprised by this conviction? This is not an isolated case, but simply another member of the chareidi community who committed sex crimes and then used the community to intimate the victim and witnesses.
ReplyDeleteThe only surprise is that the judge figured out exactly what happened and did the right thing.
@Monty - I am surprised at your allegations. This is not a common allegation despite your claims. Please present evidence to support your allegations that this is business as usual and with the implication that in contrast to the non-chareidi world it happens on a regular basis in the chareidi community!
ReplyDeleteI don't think I was clear in my original point. I am not suggesting that sex crimes are common amongst the chareidi community (I genuinely hope not anyway), what I am saying is that, once allegations come to the surface, it appears the community mobilize themselves using all means available to them to steer the perpetrators away from facing justice.
ReplyDeleteExamples include, Todros Grynhaus, Chaim Halpern, Nechemya Weberman, Baruch Lebovits and no doubt countless others. The fundraising and witness intimidation techniques appear to be common themes organized by the influential members of their communities, something which does not happen to the same extent in other strands of Judaism.
1. That is the prosecutor speaking, claiming she only withdrew the complaint because of that reason.
ReplyDelete2. The defense maintained that she withdrew the complaint out of sincerity, since her original complaint was untrue and she indicated as such in her withdrawal.
3. The wife is still married to the husband and does not want the husband incarcerated as it will break up her family if he is taken away from the family and children and jailed. And she and their children will be hurt more, and worse, by his conviction. As the purported victim she is within her rights to withdraw her complaint against him, for any reason, even if it had been true. Especially as the family will be hurt far worse if he is jailed.
Monty is just another typical anti-Chareidi bigot who sees monsters under every bed he looks at that seems Chareidi to him. His heroes are the heroes of the '60s sexual revolution.
ReplyDelete@David - where does she say that her original complaint to the police was untrue?
ReplyDelete"He also said there was no evidence to support prosecution claims that the numerous retractions issued by the woman were not genuine."
ReplyDelete@David - sorry but that diyuk is not proof that she lied in her initial complaint.
ReplyDeleteplease produce a clear statement that she is quoted as saying she lied about her husband.
My point is that she retracted he accusations. The idea that she only retracted (i.e. said her initial claim was untrue.) The idea that she only retracted out of fear is nothing more than the prosecutors theory.
ReplyDeleteEngland does not have our american bill of rights. Thus, the accused does not have a 'right of confrontation' that would require the complainant to testify in court. Nevertheless, he should have subpoenaed her, and presumably, her non appearance would be held against the crown / prosecution.
ReplyDeleteAnd the issue of previous intimacies over the past years of separation would be put before the jury, as would the issue of rough intimacy, etc.
In america, if convicted in such a case, the penalty would be minimal.
Speaking of minimal sentences, the trenton.nj defendants are scheduled for sentencing this week. My original opinion was one year (plus or minus one day; it has some relevance for such benefits as eligibility for a slightly short sentence / early release, other 'minor' differences..)
ReplyDeleteHowever, those that pleaded guilty will also be getting a year, so those that made the government go through a trial should be getting more, so they will get two years, theose thad plea bargained should be getting the year.
They'll probably postpone this week's sentencing anyway.
The point is that a criminal complaint was found to be true without the husband having a chance to cross examine an accuser. Police recorded statemenrs should not be enough for a conviction of rape or kidnapping.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone knows the name of the defendant and why it is not published?
ReplyDeleteEngland has laws about that.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably to conceal the identity of the victim who is his ex.
ReplyDeleteFor those who are casting doubt on the guilt and saying it may have been consensual, they may have continued having a sexual relationship after their six year separation etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteI see the situation as follows: Erev succot she was heard screaming hysterically by police and they found her locked in a cellar wearing just a dressing gown and having been gassed and tied up after just having sex. Am I being extremely naive in assuming that as a charedi mother with children she would have been preparing for yom tov and would have been with her children either getting them ready to go to shul or seeing to the younger children, bathing them and getting them ready for bed and doing all the normal things a charedi mother would be doing before yomtov like doing last minute activities in the kitchen in preparation for the festival. In my wildest imagination I cannot see that she would be craving wild sex in a cellar and wanting to be tied up and left there over succot. Did she arrange a babysitter to mind her children whilst she 'enjoyed' this 'activity'? Come on folks, get real, look at the situation realistically.
Point 3) You seem to be a Rabbi so you probably know what you are talking about, but, according to my Rabbi and all Rabbi's I know, if the wife does not agree, it is NOT allowed according to Halacha. Rape is not allowed according to Halacha by any stretch of the imagination. Also, if a couple intend to divorce they may not be together. She has been begging for a get for many years. She had all the intentions of divorcing. 4) Believe me nothing was exaggerated. I know!!
ReplyDelete