Thursday, April 3, 2014

Schlesinger Twins: Questioning the Willinger report that the judge used to take custody from Beth (part I)

There have been requests for the original documents dealing with this case. There are a lot of pages. Basically we have a court decision which based on  psychologists who had ties to the father which took custody away from Beth and gave it to Michael. Something rather unusual. Prior to that Beth had full custody because of Michael's attempt to have Beth committed to a mental hospital by falsely claiming he was a psychiatrist. However it was determined by the police psychiatrist that she was not mentally ill. An additional reason for Beth being given custody is because of her claims of physical and mental abuse

There was a psychiatric evaluation at the social agency Esra as the result of Beth being lured under false pretenses for a visit regarding child rearing - by someone she thought was her friend. In fact Dr. Schlesinger's supporters had convinced the friend that Beth was suffering from post partum depression and needed to be evaluated. That psychiatrist concluded that Beth was not mentally ill. There was another psychologist - who Dr. Schlesinger had surreptitiously visit the twins at a social agency.  She observed them for only a few minutes before she was discovered and kicked out. However she wrote a 5 page report not only on the twins but also on  Beth (based on what Michael told her). This "report" was submitted as evidence to the court also.

Basically I am going to start at the end, where recognized experts who examined Beth were asked to confirm or deny the reports from Dr. Schlesinger's experts that were the reason that the judge took full custody from Beth and gave it to Michael. I am simply going to give some excerpts from these reports. It should be clear that the judge's justification for giving custody to Michael is deeply flawed.

 Dr. Willinger [the author of the main report the judge replied upon ] concluded the children were 'retarded' because they did not speak 200 words at 2 years old. Yet she had only seen them when they were 14 months and 16 months old.

Dr. Willinger based her assessment of the developmental delay on the very general scales of child development.

“A healthy linguistic development can be seen if a child of approx. 18 months has an active vocabulary of 50 words, the “critical amount”, in order to achieve the so-called “vocabulary explosion” which leads a child to have 200 words by the time they are 24 months old, so that they learn about 9 new words a day. It is easy for parents to ascertain a linguistic delay.” Willinger Report

 This is totally debunked by the expert that Beth consulted - Dr Sinko Sanz - who stated:

“I believe however, that these scales do not take into account inter-individual development. This is not just my personal opinion, but the limitations of these development scales are recognised in professional circles. This is also the reason why I rarely apply them…”

Dr. Willinger´s claims were also contradicted by a scientific study that Beth's lawyer submitted, that concluded speech retardation could not be recognised under the age of 3.

Dr. Willinger criticised Beth for not questioning the opinions of her pediatrician, health visitor and child psychologist, who all told Beth that the children were healthy and well developed in her care. She said Beth should have looked on the Internet, seen the development scales, realised her children were not at the right stage and then questioned their professional expertise.

Dr Sinko-Sanz, from a human perspective, defended Beth's actions and said they were perfectly understandable.

“It is a situation where she (the mother) is under strain and where, as far as I know, was given different opinions by many different people. In such a situation you tend to accept the statements that are positive. I think that's understandable. Even more so where the people that said that everything was okay (with the children´s development) were medical professionals.” Court hearing 17 June 2011

Dr. Willinger fabricated test results for 180 questions that Beth had not even filled out! When Mag. Oberschlick produced the pages that Beth hadn't sent back to Willinger and asked her during the 10 hour hearing how she nevertheless had test results for these pages, Willinger denied that the test hadn't been filled out and said she had the completed tests in her office. Even though her original handwriting was on the pages in Beth's possession. She claimed:

“A test for both children was filled out. I have these tests among my documents. It is a mystery to me where these other filled in tests come from. I didn't give out a second document.”  Court hearing, 24.6.2011

Judge Göttlicher did not question this bizarre statement or investigate the matter further.
Both further psychiatric assessments by Dr Leixnering and Dr Wörgottor totally discredit the Willinger report

Willinger´s report was based on just 2 short assessments of the children.  By contrast, Dr Sinko-Sanz had assessed them over a 6-month period and said they were developing at their own pace.

Willinger´s assessment of  Beth as ´incoherent, illogical, delusional´ was later wholly refuted by 3 senior psychiatrists; Dr Marianne Springer Kremser, Dr Wörgetter and Dr Leixnering, who all confirmed Willinger had fabricated a diagnosis and there were no mental health problems whatsoever.

4.7.1     Dr. Willinger describes the father´s interaction with the children as follows:

The child raising ability of the children´s father can be shown by the given ratings. The children´s father is able to reflect in a variety of ways on the needs of his sons, by being able to recognize their emotional and physical needs.

In the interaction with his two sons, a loving, caring, intimate, very safe and routine behaviour can be observed.

        In contrast, Dr Löffler, who saw the children long after, on 21.7.2011, just 4 days before the father was awarded sole custody, described the relationship between the father and the children as follows:

Children´s father: no outreach (of children) to children´s father, no independent contact initiated, children´s father crosses boundaries in his behaviour, little reaction to the needs / signals of the child (turning away, ignoring). Danger Report, 21.7.2011, Dr Löffler

Judge Göttlicher herself initially accepted there were flaws in the Willinger report    
 In fact, Göttlicher herself initially raised doubts about the self same Willinger report.  Her sudden, drastic decision of 25.7.2011 was highly irregular and unusual considering that just 2 months previously, in May 2011 she denied the father's application for temporary custody on the grounds that the children were well cared for with their mother and she saw no danger: The judge noted:

“The mother takes good care of the children both in their daily care and upbringing and concerns herself with their welfare. This is well attested in the submitted reports in the file, including the reports of the Social Services (second district) and the statements from play groups. This point (the care of the mother for her children) is also not disputed by the father.” 

 Further, even Willinger attested to the loving parenting Beth showed the children:
"Even the report of the court expert, Dr Willinger states that the mother lovingly and caringly looks after the children and they are closely bonded to her.” Appeal Court decision, Denial Temporary Custody May 2011.

The fact that the Appeal Court acknowledged there was apparently nothing wrong with Beth but then said this didn´t affect parenting ability custody decision is simply outrageous.

“From the great wealth of evidence during the proceedings, it is apparent that the mother does not suffer from a psychiatric illness. However, child raising competence has no direct correlation to mental illness.” p.2 Appeal Court decision 2013

update Further refutation of Willinger

        Judge Göttlicher refers (original custody decision) to Beth's claims that Michael Schlesinger was also violent generally during throughout the marriage.  However she goes on to say that “the expert [Willinger] found nothing in the whole examination that indicated that the father might be aggressive, violent or not in control of his impulses. Oddly Judge Göttlicher did not send Dr. Willinger copies of the police documents attempt to have Beth committed nor his subsequent eviction order and restraining order and all mention of it is omitted from the Willinger report. 

          In the custody decision, Judge Göttlicher failed to mention Willinger’s hypothesis as stated by her in the 10 hour court hearing, that either the mother is not mentally ill and everything she alleged about the violence is correct, or she is mentally ill and is paranoid.  Beth's lawyer asked what we could deduce about the father if Beth were not mentally ill and Dr. Willinger stated this would be 'manipulation' by the father:

 “If we accept the opposing hypothesis, that the mother is not mentally ill, then the father's actions can be seen as manipulation.' Transcript, court hearing Willinger, 24.7.2011

As three further psychiatric reports (including a court commissioned one) all confirmed the mother is clearly not mentally ill, according to Willinger's reasoning, the father is manipulative.


  1. Yet still no statement from any chabad rabbi despite biderman's (now proven) involvement.

  2. Did the court not publish a reasoning for its decision?
    Surely the courts reasoning must have been published and be made available to Beth.
    I think it would be really helpful, if Beth could publish the reasoning for the final decision of the court, instead of all these other tidbits.

    1. yes the court gave reasons - As I noted it was based on this Willinger report which has been refuted by a number of major psychologists. As I noted I am working back from the refutation. The reasons of the court are the reasons that are being rejected as wrong here by subsequent expert testimony.

      In sum, the court based on the Willinger report claimed that Beth was not a competent parent and had significant mental issues. In addition it claimed that the children were significantly delayed in develop because of Beth. All the claims as well as the methodology used to arrive at these claims are asserted by later experts to be simply wrong and a result of a less than professional evaluation by the Willinger. It also directly contradicts earlier very positive evaluations by the various therapist, doctors and social workers.

      In essence the Willinger report is describing someone that professionals who are not associated with Dr. Schlesinger do not recognize and say is a false picture of Beth.

    2. The Appeals Court ruling states the mothers evaluation was not the reason the father was awarded custody.

    3. What was it based on then?

    4. Unless Beth releases the entirety of the court decision only she knows. The excepts that were published on this site read that the appeals court said that the custody decision was not based on the evaluation of Beth.

    5. "The excepts that were published on this site read that the appeals court said that the custody decision was not based on the evaluation of Beth." - I didn't see that anywhere on this site. Please explain.

      "Unless Beth releases the entirety of the court decision only she knows." - according to your earlier comments you know too. Why don't you tell us? You are behaving in a very strange way. If you say you know something written in one of these blogs is incorrect, why are you so scared to provide evidence? Until you do so, I have no reason not to believe what is being published. All the evidence that has been published so far backs up everything the mother has claimed. If you are anything like 'Rabbi' Biderman, I would have reason to question your own moral code.

    6. See right on top - in this very post above:

      "The fact that the Appeal Court acknowledged there was apparently nothing wrong with Beth but then said this didn´t affect parenting ability custody decision is simply outrageous."


      "“From the great wealth of evidence during the proceedings, it is apparent that the mother does not suffer from a psychiatric illness. However, child raising competence has no direct correlation to mental illness.” p.2 Appeal Court decision 2013

      What the appeals court is saying is that it is true that Beth does not suffer from mental illness - but nevertheless they have serious concerns about her "child raising competence."

      Of course it goes into more details on this point in the full court decision that Beth is suppressing, by not releasing other than these limited excerpts, apparently because if the public saw the entire court decision they will realize the issues the court found with her that were not related to her mental wellness.

    7. Nat, you will have to help me out here. The ruling that led to what the Austrians called transfer of custody in 2011 (we in the civilized world call this legal abduction/kidnapping under the threat of lethal force), that was based on the Willinger report WRONGLY asserting Beth had mental issues? Have I understood this correctly?

      In 2013, when Gottlicher again ruled that the father should have custody, she acknowledged that the mother had no mental health issues but instead raised concerns about her "child raising competence". Where was the evidence for this taken? Was it taken from the discredited Willinger report?

      Nat, the picture you are painting confirms what we all believe to be an entirely corrupt court process, with Biderman knowingly being party to it.

    8. Of course it goes into more details on this point in the full court decision that Beth is suppressing... apparently because if the public saw the entire court decision they will realize the issues the court found with her that were not related to her mental wellness.

      You mean that DT is supressing. He said that he is in possession of the court documents. It is him who wrote the above post with the excerpts he felt were relevant.

      Your comment is based on two basic assumptions:
      1) That Austrian courts operate like US and British courts. Where decisions are written in a neat and orderly fashion. Unfortunately European courts, in many ways do not function as US/British courts do.

      2) That court decision is overwhelmingly damning of Beth and her position. Which would mean that DT is being intentionally deceptive in his support for her.

      Those two assumptions make your arguments inherently flawed. Another simple reason that Beth and DT may not have published the court documents/decisions is that they are all in German. Since this is a blog read primarily by English speakers, with a few Israelis/Hebrew speakers sprinkled in, the number of folk that would benefit from german language documents is incredibly few. Further translation is expensive.

      Now, as I have said before(and admittedly most recently) that DT says that he has seen all the documents, and that is good enough for me. I trust him. However, if you feel that you don't, perhaps if you were willing to pay for professional and unbiased translation of the documents to be done, we could prevail upon DT and Beth to publish them.

    9. "In 2013, when Gottlicher again ruled that the father should have custody, she acknowledged that the mother had no mental health issues but instead raised concerns about her "child raising competence". Where was the evidence for this taken? Was it taken from the discredited Willinger report?"

      The only way to answer your question of "where was the evidence for this taken" of her lacking "child raising competence", is to read the full unredacted copy of the appeals court decision. But since Beth adamantly refuses to release it, and instead only releases very selective excerpts that she chooses, as a result of her not wanting the public to read the court decision and know what her lacking "child raising competence" was determined to be a result of.

      So to truly answer your question we will need Beth to release the full decision rather than her selected excerpts. But she refuses (for good reason.)

    10. Nat, you are being selective what you tell us. Is this because you only want to share information that is in the father's favor? You are guilty of the very thing you are accusing the mother of!

      If you want us to believe you, show us the evidence. Beth has shown us plenty of evidence of corrupt Rabbis and faked psychological reports.

    11. RMT: Let Beth and RDE publish the full court decision, whether in the original language or a full translation.,, and leave it to the readership to translate it if it is in the original language. There were several apparently German speaking posters here the last time a German document was published on this DT blog a few days ago. Worst comes to worst you can even run it through Google Translate to get a pretty good rough translation that could be a starting point.

      But first lets see the decision published. There is absolutely no logical reason for the refusal to publish the court decision (other than it may contain so-far withheld information demonstrating that Beth is in the wrong.)

  3. If Rabbi Biderman thinks his actions are right why doesn't he explain his actions.
    Whar does his reluctance to do so tell us?

  4. Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,
    thank you very much for your very extensive answer, I appreciate your help.
    However, this was not my question at all: in the verdict, the court must have given a short summary of the case, the verdixt and the reasoning behind it. This would have been made available to Beth. If published, this would really explain things: either the reason for this verdict, or the corruption...
    I do apologize for not having been more clear in my original question

    1. Beth doesn't want to publish the entire court decision. Only the stuff she thinks enhances the case in public.

    2. "Denied" Chaim "Denied"

    3. That is a wild accusation. Why don't you show us some documents to back up your claim? Or would you prefer to hide behind anonymous comments to make baseless allegations.

    4. Sorry, my message above was directed at Nat, not Victoria. I should have made myself clearer.

  5. Nat you seem to know quite a lot? maybe you can share the reason then as you disagree with the above.
    Maybe with your help it can lead to some unanswered questions

    1. I didnt disagree with anything.

    2. Nat, you clearly have a lot to say on this case, and by your own admission have internal knowledge. Why don't you put your points of view over in a more respectable manner instead of making unsubstantiated allegations in anonymous comments?

    3. See above for the substantiation I provided. It is from the Appeals Court decision. And DT's (RDE's) post above - the main part of this post - provides some excepts from the court decision that I quoted above.

    4. What is the evidence of this "child raising competence" questioned against the mother. Was this simply taken from the since-discredited-and-corrupt Willinger report?

  6. All i can see from an outsider is 2 parents that split up. Both wanted custody of the children and the father has won this through all his corrupt avenues and the mother has been left with minimal contact to the children.
    The community in Vienna are all scared to speak up, Rabbi Biderman is siding with the father.
    They are all in this together.. Its beyond me how anyone can have email contact with a judge..
    There are 2 small children who have had their lives turned upside down and are crying for their mother yet NO ONE in Vienna seems to want to help them..
    NO KIDS SHOULD BE MADE TO SUFFER and that is what everyone should see
    A resolution MUST MUST come soon and stop destroying the lives of these beautiful boys

    1. The resolution to this tragedy should be father maintains custody and mother gets a lot more visitation including some nights.

    2. So, despite the corrupt courts wrongly awarding the father custody, and despite the violence of the father, the children should stay with him???

      WAKE UP!!!!!

      It doesn't take a genius to figure out this is someone from Vienna coming up with such a ludicrous suggestion.

    3. Chezkas Kashrus why should the father and the philipino's maintain custody? Does not sound very kashrus to me!!


  7. Jonathan RosenbergApril 4, 2014 at 2:49 AM

    You see the word "CORRUPTION" jumping out of every paragraph.

    That means money, and big money.

    Who is the money person then? Whoever you are, be assured, your wrong doings will catch up with you.

    We, the public looking in on this case are seeing the cracks, these cracks will just get bigger and bigger.

    When the cracks are big enough, thats when the children will be able to run out of those cracks to the arms of their mother.

    By that time we will know who you are.

    Cracks in your endeavours

  8. Recipients and PublicityApril 4, 2014 at 7:41 AM

    Every situation has it's upside, even if it's all downside.

    First, divorce is like what they say about nuclear warfare: "there are no winners, only survivors"!

    That being said, there are always consequences, usually unforeseen and unintended, that come out of any situation, and one such consequence that is now coming to haunt the Jewish community of Austria is that they are now being exposed for a bunch of mean and spiteful people, a virtual community of "anshei sedom", as if they had absorbed the worst qualities of the German Austrians themselves.

    The longer the good doctor and his svengali rabbi keep up their arrogant and self-destructive obstructionist "winner takes all" strategy the more the word gets out to other Jews all over the world to stay away from these people. Not to marry them. Not to be with them. To keep as far away from them when you meet them. They do not have a "yiddisha hartz" for they have hearts of stone.

    Day by day and week by week in the global village we all live in people are learning about this tragic case in the center of the sick heart of Austria and about the machiavelllian machinations of team father with his shnooky chabad poodle rabbi in tow, the more people will learn to stay away from Austrian Jews who harbor such psychopaths and inhuman and inhumane plotters in their midst.

    As they say, a rabbi deserves the community he gets, and that people can be known by the company they keep, and in this case it is all very unhealthy to say the least.

    So sure, dear doctor and shnooky chabad rabbi, keep up your antics, keep the kids locked up in Austria, pal around with all those Austrian judges and folks that you cozy up to, paint the mother as "crazy" -- but all you are doing with your stonewalling and miscarriage of simple justice and yashrus is reinforcing the message to the world that you are worthy of the virtual cherem you are creating not just for yourselves but for the rest of present-day Austrian Jewry.

    Shame on all of you!

    1. I am only briefly passing by, as Pessach prep takes priority. But after glancing at R & P's comment, I can't hold back a response:

      > divorce is like what they say about nuclear warfare: "there are no winners, only survivors"!

      It doesn't have to be this way!! It's that mindset that fuels all this lashon ha'ra, sinas chinam, and stam machlokes. Divorce is a Mitzvah from the Torah. No Mitzvah should be done out of negativity. Certainly not out of desire to win and hurt the other.

      Those who are truly concerned about the well being of these children, and bkhlal preventing yet another horrendous win-lose battle amongst am Yisroel, will be extra careful to use constructive language that is sensitive to the needs of EVERYONE involved.

      towards a chag kasher v'SOMEAKH...

  9. Jonathan Rosenberg well put, but may I correct you. It is not only the public that will NEVER let this matter rest!

    It is a shame that such force is needed to be put on a Jewish community and its leaders to make them do the right thing.

    Austria has been trying to repair its bad reputation. It is a shame that the Jews they are doing their best to ruin it again.

    The father or the Austrian Jewish
    Community will NEVER have peace
    until this corruption is completely
    exposed and amends are made!

    This is why the British Government are involved. It is not for votes! There are
    many ways for them to achieve votes
    other than supporting an UNJUST AND
    CORRUPT custody case in Austria!

  10. Nat reminds me of "Sarah" from previous posts:

    Sarah claimed she knew what was going on in Vienna, she tried to counter the mother's claims and challenged the release of further documents to verify her story. In the end, the relevant documents were released and Sarah was proven to be another corrupt person in support of the father. Perhaps not surprisingly, we didn't hear from her again.

    Nat, it sounds like you are another Sarah, if not the same person!

    1. Actually, "Nat"' writing-style is strikingly similar to that of "Sarah". Coincidence?

    2. "Sarah" claims to have left this blog, never to return.

      Or, she can just change her moniker. Changing her moniker is a lot easier. Every time your lies are revealed, just say "I'm leaving". Then, return under a new name and begin the lying and deception process again.
      When caught, just change name again.

      Quite honor this is bringing for the Rebbe and some of those who profess his chasidus.

    3. Get a grip. Not everyone who opposes your position is the same person. You need to stop being so paranoid when so many people disagree with your motherly defense of Beth. Having her parents post her under a pseudonym defending her to death does not prove much.

  11. In order for the public to be able to judge this case of who is right and who is wrong, we will need Beth to publish the entire Appeals Court decision rather than self-selected excerpts that we see here.

    1. Nat you have been rather persistent claiming that if the documents are published then it will be obvious who is right and who is wrong.

      Unless you have seen the documents you simply don't know what you are talking about. Unless you are a lawyer and/or a psychologist you have no inherent understanding of how to evaulate the decision.

      This case is a complex one involving not only evidence and judgment but reports of experts who were deliberately not given the full picture and were asked to answer questions which were not relevant or only tangentially relevant. In addition there seems have been "funny" business going on. Important evidence was concealed or simply disappeared.

      I am presenting the evidence in a systematic manner that will enable a full and objective evaluation of the judge's rather strange decision to take custody away from the mother and give it to the father who had been viewed as a threat to not only Beth but to the children. A father who has done his best to exclude Beth from his children life while he has them raised by two fillipinos.

      Once the information is properly presented it will become clear why the appeals court and the Supreme court rejected Beth's appeal - even though that was not in the best interest of the twins.

      In sum, I will eventually publish the full court decision - but we will first go through all the information - including that which the court system neglected or deliberately avoided considering. I will show that the basis for the custody decision was severely flawed and did not properly deal with the issue of what was best for the twins.

    2. Once the information is properly presented it will become clear why the appeals court and the Supreme court rejected Beth's appeal - even though that was not in the best interest of the twins.
      In all fairness the High Court rejected Beth's appeal, the Supreme Court simply declined to hear the case. The latter could be for numerous reasons, including her attorney(who it appears was on vacation at the time of a crucial hearing).

      My question is why was her attorney acting with such blatant incompetence and lack of concern for the client. In the US or Britain that would be grounds for having an attorney disbarred.

    3. After having presented a sixty page appeal in Beth's favour, the acting lawyer wrote to Beth telling her that the decision would come
      directly to her.

      It seems strange that having done so much work and believing in
      Beth's case, the lawyer did not
      want to at least wait for the result of his appeal. Win or lose! Very strange indeed!

      Are people being threatened in

    4. Where is this information some posters above are claiming incompetence or worse on Beth's attorney coming from?

    5. See Beth's blog about her court issues and why she has not switched lawyers after being denied by the Supreme Court...

    6. Rabbi Michael Tzadok, have you heard about Konstanze Thau? Please watch this video before posting any further comments:

    7. Watch,

      First this is an appeal to authority, which itself is a logical fallacy. The MPs in question admit that they haven't seen the actual documents. So why should I listen to them? Considering that George Galloway is also an MP, and given the many crazy things he says... does not make MPs all that reliable as sources for information.

      Further I am not sure what Konstanze Thau has to do with the comment I posted here, and to which you are responding. The details of my comment come from From Beth's Blog in which she writes:
      Beth, 29, learned the news from a rabbi that the Supreme Court had decided against her — days after her husband, Michael, had been notified...
      She discovered on Wednesday that the court’s decision had been sent out on December 24, but her lawyer had not read it because she was on holiday...
      Beth’s case is now being handled by Martin Preslmayer...
      “What also seems strange is that so many lawyers suddenly withdrew their power of attorney from the case without reason.

      Now I simply pointed out that the behavior mentioned here by her lawyer at the time of the decision, and apparently by several others, is considered a serious breach of ethics in the US and Britain.

    8. RDE: You should simply publish the full court decision now if you want to give Beth the credibility she craves.

    9. RY - Beth doesn't crave credibility - she already has credibility - she simply wants her children back.

      Regarding the court decision - I view it as seriously flawed conclusion based on flawed evidence and reasoning. As I noted before, after I have established the proper groundwork and context I am planning to publish the full decision.

      At this point I think it is more correct that Dr. Schlesinger and the Vienna community would like to reestablish their credibility.

  12. Why doesn't Michael publish them rather than being blamed for a corrupt decision, or is he enjoying being the focus all this attention?

    1. Beth published select excerpts of the court decision. Michael published nothing and is not engaging in a public P.R. war that Beth's family has hired guns to besmirch all their perceived enemies - all the while dragging her poor children into a public spectacle. Michael obviously wants no part in making a public scene or debate over his children. Once Beth is publishing small parts of the court decision that she feels will make her look good when it is only seen without the full transcript, clearly it is obvious she fears publishing the entirety of the court ruling rather than just small excerpts.

    2. Brav have you seen the documents in question? Who are the hired guns that Beth's family has hired. I am the only one who decides what is published here and when. Are you accusing me of being hired? Then you are simply a fool and/or a liar!

    3. See my comments above in response to Nat

  13. Why are Beth's parents being allowed to post on this site with multiple changing screen name aliases giving their support of their daughter the appearance of multiple personalities all the while hiding their own familial relationship to her?

    1. Visitor - please explain how you "know" that Beth's parents are 1) posting 2) they are using multiple names?

      With blogspot there is no indicator of interent identify. Even if it did many people are using software that conceals their internet identify.

      so are you claiming you have ruach hakodesh? Or perhaps you are a Martian?

      Please stick to the facts instead of raising claims that are not relevant and are impossible to verify.

  14. Wrong visitor. Beth's parents are not writing anything. All the posts are being written by genuine supporters, who cannot believe how a man can be
    so cruel.

    This cruelty extends far beyond Beth
    and the children.
    We are supporting Beth's family too.

    We also want to make sure that no one
    from outside Austria ever marries a
    Jewish Austrian, ever wants to study in

    Our campaign, not Beth's, will expose
    to the world what a cruel community
    the Austrian Jewish community is!

    As said repeatedly, this is a corrupt case and Beth and the boys are not
    being treated fairly.

    We don't need to see papers from a corrupt court

    It is now time for the father, Rabbi
    Biderman and the whole Jewish community to show companion love
    and respect to Beth , Sammy and Benji
    by making sure they have lots more contact.

    Why should the boys grow up without their mother for no good reason?

  15. Another uninvited "Visitor"! Beth has delightful and very nice parents who I have actually met - unlike many of the father's supporters - but one expression I've never heard in association with them is "computer literate"! Sorry if I'm underestimating you though, parents!

    1. You needn't be very computer literate to click "reply" on a website and post a comment.

      The video by the British news station a number of weeks ago showed them on a computer. I wonder if they were pursuing this blog at that time.

  16. Han can you kindly explain what exactly a British news station showed?
    Are implying that Mr and Mrs Alexander were shown on a TV station on a computer.
    What rubbish are you talking?

    1. Dennis, here is exactly what you are asking for:

      See the BBC News video at 2:34 minutes.

      Beth's parents quite happily on a computer laptop.

      So much for the "rubbish" as you eloquently put it, of Esther Lowenstein's false claim that Beth's parents are computer illiterate.

  17. Not Han, Not SarahApril 7, 2014 at 2:26 AM

    I think "Han" is "Sarah" yet again. Han, Sarah, Bubbe, or whatever else you have decided to call yourself today, why not answer some of the questions put to you before making ridiculous comments on irrelevant points? Could it be because you don't actually have the answers? Why not ask your local corrupt Chabad Rabbi?

    1. Not Naomi Rosenberg eitherApril 7, 2014 at 2:47 AM

      Han of the many monikers: Babies can go "on a computer" too, in fact they ADORE them. But blog.....?????

  18. Who cares if Beths parents or family are writing on this blog under different names. I bet they need some kind of outlet to vent their frustrations and upset. Who cares if Michaels supporters are using other long as the information is getting out there from both sides stop accusing eachother and wasting your time on trivia...ignore the names and focus on the boys suffering and the real issues here


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.