The papers and internet are discussing the infamous Satmar Weberman Trial.
Satmar and their ilk are outraged that such an issue should go before a goyishe court. They contend it should only have been dealt with by a Beis Din. Be that what it may, you can bet that if the court will find Weberman guilty they will continue this line and scream that it’s a blood libel.
I believe that Weberman will be found innocent, or guilty of a minor misdemeanour because the onus of proof from the court will ironically be greater than that required by a Beis Din. Weberman’s attorney argued that there was no evidence, no DNA etc. He is right. DNA and body fluids are not required to prove guilt according to Halacha.
My prediction is that they will be hypocritical. They will claim that the court found him not guilty in the main, and they will use this as proof that he “did nothing”. Proof from a goyishe court? Yes, that’s acceptable, but only if they do not find you guilty.
12 thoughts on “The Weberman Trial: my prediction”
C’mon. Do you really believe what you just wrote?
You just created a strawman with whom you are wrestling with. No one thinks that beis Din is a better venue, only that given the current environment and how the narrative is being framed, the courts are skewed against him from the get go.
Anyway, I have big doubts about the weberman story, because.
1. With all the talk of many victims, it is only her word against his, and I don’t buy that all other victims are intimidated by Satmar.
2, The DA didn’t want to press charges for over a year due to lack of evidence, but was forced to because of all the pressure, etc.
3. I do not believe Satmar are that stupid to publicly back support someone, who they might have the slightest doubt of his innocence.
4. He didn’t take the plea deal, even though there are “many other victims”, (maybe he is saving face)
5. Given the incendiary media environment plus other factors, everyone, including those who are 100% sure that he did it, agrees that he has no chance of a fair trial.
6. From all the clues I am getting, this girl come
Comes from a highly dysfunctional family which is being cynically manipulated by the ex-religious crowd who are desperately trying to “burn down the house”.. Weberman, a symbol of power and influence, is their fall guy.
It’s not one person and you know it
How can I know something that the Jury doesn’t?
No, I don’t believe the NY post, the NY Daily News, the “advocates”, Yankee Horowitz, Harry Maryles etc.
All the above declared him outright guilty as soon as the charges were raised.
Every objection raised by his peers is immediately declared “COVERUP” “Burying heads in the sand”, “Cannot deal with reality”. etc. etc.
It appears more like a crusade, maybe a repeat of the Salem Witch trials.
I personally think it is very likely he is guilty, but believe he deserves his day in court.
(And so did all those friends of his who raised money believing that at the very least, given the immense pressure and the way the media vilified him, he deserves a good lawyer)
I’m talking about others who came out and spoke about him not to do with this particular case. Do you really think they would do so, some in full view of cameras just to ‘get at him’?
Can you please provide a link to those others?
Why didn’t they testify?
Please don’t quote delusional Devora Feldman who who was quoted today, “Feldman said she feared punishment from the group when she attended Sarah Lawrence College and drove on its campus—two actions Satmar women are prohibited from taking. Although her car had tinted windows, she said she was convinced a dark car with the Vaad logo was following her.”
You are asking why people in Satmar don’t testify?
You think those that made various comments did so because they are also from crazy Satmar families?
Leaving the court case aside for a moment, I understand that among the allegations are claims that he was secluded with the complainant for lengthy periods, that he bought her personal items, and so forth. These would be very serious halachic transgressions even if no sexual intercourse had occurred. I don’t think these allegations have been denied; if so, how can he be treated as someone who should be given the benefit of the doubt?
Agreed. He’s certainly no saint and anyone who sends their child or adult to him would need to get help.
your prediction “you can bet that if the court will find Weberman guilty they will continue this line and scream that it’s a blood libel”, was spot on
what do they eat for breakfast?
one more to go?
So much for predictions …