Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Another Great "It Was A Frame Job" post...

Dr. Mazeltov Borukhova was sentenced to life in prison (without the possibility of parole) for hiring her cousin to murder her husband. The motive for the killing was that she had just (days before) lost a custody battle to her estranged husband, Dr. Daniel Malakov.

Truth be told, the evidence against her was pretty solid and it was pretty much an open and shut case. A sad story all around, to be sure.

Of course, as in a case like this, you'll have some people who believe (what else?) that she was framed by the authorities. A poster on Vos Iz Neias (Tuvia, #53) made the following comment:

We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case. As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative. Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives. We do not know a lot of details about the case. Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case? Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences? Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it? When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.

Oy... where do I start.

OK, let's take it from the top.

We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case.

For starters, *we* aren't judging her - the state of New York is. And the state of New York *can* judge her. Indeed, not only can they, but they are required to under the 7 Noachide mitzvos. Or did you think that the civil authorities were supposed to turn her over to a bais din?

As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative.

There is direct evidence regarding her cousin -- Mikhail Mallayev shot Malakov in broad daylight in a park in front of witnesses, who testified at the trial. As for her, there is plenty of evidence to show that she was in on the plot too. And, if you're going to tell me that you require only eyewitness testimony, then I assume that you're in favor of turning loose someone who murders a Jew with no eyewitnesses?

Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives.

But she's not being judged under a Torah standard. There is no court set up to judge such a case. And, let's not forget, a properly constituted bais din had extralegal ways of getting rid of people whom they felt should be executed for their capital crimes but could not be executed properly for one techinical reason or another. (I think I have a post about that coming up in the next week or so.)

We do not know a lot of details about the case.

Actually, we know a great deal about this case. On a scale of 1 to 10 regarding knowledge of the murder case, this one's at least a 9.

Everybody getting so emotional about this whole thing, but wake up!! Why should we trust goishe investigators, who get $$$ and higher positions for closing the case?

Let's look at it this way. Police officers get a salary because someone has to pay them to do their jobs -- just like any other position on earth. Likewise, doing a good job earns you a promotion, again - just like any other position on earth. What sort of system would you have? One where the police don't get paid and get promoted for NOT closing cases?

Did any Rabbi step in to evaluate any of the evidences?

No, for several reasons. First of all, rabbis, by and large, are not forensic experts capable of judging evidence in a murder. Secondly, it's not their job to do so. Thirdly, I suppose you expect the police to bring in a rabbi when it's a Jew on trial, but not an imam when it's a Muslim on trial?

Did any Jewish Leaders open their mouth to request fair judgment, the way Toiroh requests it?

See above... she's not being judged on a Torah standard because she lives in a time and place where that is not applicable. Or, is it your opinion (since there is no Jewish court capable of trying such cases) that no Jew should ever be put on trial anywhere in the world for anything?

When the Jews are quiet then goim do what ever they want. I will not be surprised to find out that DA planted evidence to raise a political scandal “Look Religious Jewish could also kill!! Look they are not so innocent!! Etc.

Ah, yes. The DA planted the evidence. I suppose he also killed Dr. Malakov, bribed the witnesses, stole Dr. Borukhova's and Mr. Mallayev's phones, made the phone calls and text messages between them, returned them and then took $20,000 out of her bank account and gave it to Mr. Mallayev, just to show that a Jew could kill someone.

Tell me, sir, do you actually think before you post things?

The Wolf

UPDATE: That's what I get for posting from memory. The contact was 65 calls between her and the murderer in the days preceeding the murder, not text messages. My apologies for the error.

39 comments:

G*3 said...

Those evil 'goim' trying to frame an innocent ehrliche yid. They just have it in for us!

frumheretic said...

"We can’t judge her since she did not have any Din Toiroh about this case."

Yes, thank goodness. This is another matter in which I feel that secular law is superior to "Toirah" law, since regarding the latter ein shaliach l'dvar aveirah.

Mikeinmidwood said...

I love the way you responded to this stupid comment.

Ezzie said...

Oy.

Anonymous said...

Hi this is Tuvia,
I do not intend to offend you, but I see that you are full of Midois. As we all well know from Toiroh that when person gets very much emotional his intellectual capacities dramatically drop. All information that you are calling “direct evidence” is purely based upon the press. Did you visit any court hearings during prior or during the trial?



"...text messages between them, returned them and then took $20,000 out of her bank account and gave it to Mr. Mallayev.."

Where did you get that from?
Could you give a link where did you read regarding text messages, what was on them? Regarding $20.000 from her bank acc. I have read that only he deposited $20.000, and that they could not prove that it came out from her bank acc. Please let me know where did you read that from? Thanks!

snibril said...

I wish I was full of Midois. And Toiroh. Aren't Midois a good thing?

Anonymous said...

Tuvia:

You attack Wolf by asking:

"Did you visit any court hearings during prior or during the trial?"

Did you go to any hearings? Yet you wrote:

"As fare as I understand there is no direct evidence in this case, not for her not for her relative."

So, by your own standard, unless you went to all the hearings, where do you come off saying that there was no direct evidence?

BrooklynWolf said...

Tuvia,

Thanks for commenting.

Alas, that's what I get for posting from memory. She and the hitman had exchanged 65 phone calls in the days before the murder, not text messages. My apologies on the error.

In any event, while *I* may have learned of the evidence through the press, the key players in this drama did not. The police and the DA learned about the case first-hand. The jury (who has no vested interest in how the case turns out) had the evidence presented to them directly, not through the press. The judge (who has no vested interest in how the case turns out) also saw the evidence for himself and could have ruled any of it inadmissible if it was improper. So, while *I* know about the case through the press, let's not forget that I am not a player in this drama.

Furthermore, you still have not answered the rest of my points my original post.

The Wolf

E-Man said...

Has anyone heard about dina dimalchusa dina? I mean from what I learned it sounds like the jews are subject to the laws of the land outside of Eretz Yisroel. But hey, who cares about what Shmuel says in the Gemorah anyways, am I right?

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

To E-man:
IIRC, Dina De'malchusah does not the prosecution of capital crimes.

Also, although I have no reason to suspect any mishandling in this particular case, there is rising awareness of intentional and unintentional frame-ups in the American court system.
See:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/19/sunday/main4954764.shtml
(hat-tip to Daas Torah)

E-Man said...

So according to that a Jewish serial killer that was never seen by two Jewish witnesses should never be tried. That seems very odd.

E-Man said...

And can you just tell me where you learned that it has nothing to do with capital crimes.

E-Man said...

Remember, I am talking about in a country other than Israel. According to this idea you bring up about dina dimalchusa not applying to capital cases, a jewish serial killer in America should never be tried.

Ari said...

Personally, I have made it a point to not get too worked up by Vos iz Neias commenters, because 50% are what I would describe as Jewish rednecks, and arguing with them is pointless.

But now that you've brought it up, it's precisely this us vs. them mentality that has given some Jews the moral "justification" for tax evasion and welfare abuse. While our history has been one where it truly was us versus them, this is generally not the case here in the U.S. Some people will never understand that. (shrugs)

Nice Jewish Guy said...

First of all (and Wolf can vouch for this) I have a family member in the Queens DA's office, and rest assured that Borukhova is as guilty as they come.

Secondly, it seems that Tuvia (who I suspect is the original commenyer on VIN) seems unable to bring himself to admit that a Jew can be capable of committing a crime. If this same situation had involved a black or Hispanic family, I doubt Tuvia would be arguing so vociferously on the defendant's behalf. Well, Jews are as capable as anyone else of committing crimes. And since dina demalchutei applies, it is irrelevant as well as impractical for a Rabbinical court, which has no jurisdiction and no power, to do anything. Tuvia really ought to grow up and get real.

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

And can you just tell me where you learned that it has nothing to do with capital crimes.From the Encyclopedia Talmudis on the topic:


יש מן הראשונים סוברים שכל עיקרו של דינא דמלכותא דינא לא נאמר אלא בדברים התלויים בקרקעות, כמו במכס שאומר המלך לא יעבור אדם בארצי אם לא שיתן המכס, וכמו אם גזר המלך שכל מי שמשלם מסים מן הקרקעות יאכל פירותיהן, וכן מס הגולגולת שהמלך אומר לא יהא בארצי אם לא יתן כך וכך

יש מן הראשונים סוברים שלא אמרו דין המלכות דין אלא להפקיר ולהפקיע הנכסים מבעליהם,

יש מהראשונים סוברים שלא אמרו דינא דמלכותא דינא אלא בדברים שהם לתועלת המלך, כגון בעניני המסים שלו ומה שהוא מחוקיו, אבל בדברים שבין אדם לחברו אין דינו בהם דין

Here's a dissenting opinion, but it is severely qualified:

ויש חולקים וסוברים שאף בדברים שאין שום הנאה ותועלת למלך דינו דין, וכן יכול לעשות חוקים בארצו כדי שלא יבואו העם לידי [טור ש] הכחשות וקטטות, ודינו דין, ודינים שבין אדם לחברו דינו דין, שאם לא כן לא תעמוד הארץ ותיהרס

Here's the qualification which is directly relevant to our topic of prosecution in court:

אף להסוברים שדינא דמלכותא דין גם בדברים שאינם לתועלת המלך אלא בין אדם לחברו, מכל מקום אין זה אלא בדברים שאינם נגד דין תורתנו, אלא שאין מפורש אצלנו דין זה, אבל אם הוא נגד דין תורתנו והדין מפורש אצלנו ודאי לא יעשה כן בישראל, כגון שהם מכשירים עד אחד וקרוב ופסול וכיוצא בהם דינים פרטיים שבין ישראל לחברו פשוט שלא נדון כמותם, שאם לא כן בטלו ח"ו כל דיני תורה It says explicitly that court proceedings between Jews (not limited to capital prosecution by the way, but ALL prosecution!) are only valid if they operate according to Jewish law.

Looks like Tuvia's argument does have a leg to stand on after all.

E-Man said...

Ok, but then you have to admit that a Jew could be a mass murderer of other Jews and then he could never be prosecuted. That is what you are saying. I don't think the Rishonim had these cases in mind. Especially since they lived in a society where the courts mistreated Jews. I would be shocked if any modern Rabbi would say a Jew that is a mass murderer can not be prosecuted.

E-Man said...

Plus this opinion of יש מהראשונים סוברים שלא אמרו דינא דמלכותא דינא אלא בדברים שהם לתועלת המלך, כגון בעניני המסים שלו ומה שהוא מחוקיו, אבל בדברים שבין אדם לחברו
אין דינו בהם דין
I think a murderer being judged is litoeles hamelech. he can't have people murdering each other in his kingdom. Murder is not Bein adam lichaveiro only.

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

I see that I overstated my point. Perhaps the malchus could be able to judge a murder case between Jews when it maintains a stable society as you argue, but Tuvia's point remains valid: "Torah demands clear and direct evidence, not circumstances and motives.Wolf countered:
"But she's not being judged under a Torah standard. There is no court set up to judge such a case. And, let's not forget, a properly constituted bais din had extralegal ways of getting rid of people whom they felt should be executed for their capital crimes but could not be executed properly for one techinical reason or another.This is exactly the problem: She is not being judged by the Torah standards which she is entitled to by halacha. Even the extra-legal ways of getting rid of people has its rules. Where is the guarantee that this trial is conforming to even those less rigid rules?

By responding, "well, what choice to we have? Not let them prosecute Jewish cases at all?" is not a reason to criticize sincere yidden like Tuvia who haven't resigned themselves to become assimilated and accept it as "life in America".

We should all be pained and saddened by this miscarriage of halachic justice which is the reality of Western galus.

Anonymous said...

Hi! This is Tuvia.
All what I wanted to say is that just because court had found then guilty does not make my opinion as a frum Jew to believe that they are guilty. Because nor DA or the judge are not tzadikim and in most cases they are totally reshoim. You are all assuming that what ever investigation they have made was fair. Who said that they had any investigation about the case? I work in law firm and know abundance of cases where people were convicted of crimes that they have never committed. Just because they have a motive, police and the DA did everything to “prove” their agenda, to close the case, and in some instances to cover the real person who committed the crime. You could look up some books and articles that Prof. Alan Dershovitz wrote on how in his practice he have proved, how Police had planted and fabricated the evidences and prepared their witnesses how to lye. For those who are interested on the subject could visit
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/19/sunday/main4954764.shtml

As I said earlier, I am not believing the story, as persuasive as the press makes it, until the Kosher Beis Din will paskin that they are guilty.

Anonymous said...

Freelance Kiruv Maniac:

By the way, thank you for your link, I enjoyed the stories!

Anonymous said...

"She is not being judged by the Torah standards which she is entitled to by halacha."

She's not being judged by a Bais Din, because she's not being charged with a violation of the Torah. Yes I know murder is a violation of the Torah, but she's being charged with a violation of NY law, and has no right to have a violation of NY law tried by a Bais Din. She's being judged by the same laws that apply to anyone else in New York who is charged with the same offense. If her trial was unfair she can raise it on appeal. Under your logic, Moslems should be judged by Sharia law, Catholics by Catholic law, Druids by Druid law, Zoroastrians by Zoroastrian law.

(Besides, since it's New York, I'd suspect you'd have a hard time finding a jury that didn't have at least 3 people with smicha, yoreh yoreh etc.)



Ichabod Chrain

Nice Jewish Guy said...

OMG. Tuvia, do you have any idea at all about how police and investigative work is done? What do you do at this law firm?

Because nor DA or the judge are not tzadikim and in most cases they are totally reshoim.Hyperbole.

And by the way, Mr. I-work-at-a-law-firm, the guilt was decided by an impartial jury, not by the judge.

Just because they have a motive, police and the DA did everything to “prove” their agenda, to close the case, and in some instances to cover the real person who committed the crime.And sometimes things are exactly how the evidence makes it look. Sometimes, when it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it actually IS a duck! And not a chicken with a beak glued to it's face.

As I said earlier, I am not believing the story, as persuasive as the press makes it, until the Kosher Beis Din will paskin that they are guilty.Sure, because a Beis Din has NEVER been manipulated. Everyone knows that Batei din can never be influenced. (eye roll).

Tuvia, I'm sorry to say this, so please understand that I mean this in the most sympathetic manner possible, with all the love that one Jew can have for his fellow.... you're an idiot. You don't even know what you don't know. So you can go on believing, if you want, that it was all a huge frame-up. Go on believing that a woman-- who had a huge motive for killing the one person standing in her way of sole custody of their child, whose phone records showed a gazillion calls in a short period of time to the relative accused of being the triggerman, whose fingerprints were found on the silencer, whose bank account recieved money from the woman, a woman whose version of the horrific events kept changing and were different than other eyewitnesses-- you go believe she was framed. That Richard Brown looked at all the above evidence, and said, "well, even though it surely must have been a random mugging, we'll pin it on the mother".

So if SHE didn't do it Tuvia, where's the real killer? Should OJ Simpson be looking for him too?

Tuvia, I hope no one ever commits a serious crime against you or anyone you love. That's all I have to say.

BrooklynWolf said...

FKM,

Thanks for commenting.

So, I'm curious... what would have done now? Suppose, for the sake of argument that you are correct - this is a halachic miscarriage of justice. So, what would you do with a Jew who murders another Jew (or anyone else, for that matter) as happened here. You can't ask New York state to apply halachic standards of justice simply because due to the lack of mumchim, it is impossible to do so. Would you then simply say "well, there's no properly constituted Bais Din to deal with her and her cousin, so they're free to go?"

The Wolf

BrooklynWolf said...

Tuvia,

I would ask you the same question that I asked FKM above, and would appreciate an answer.

In any event, you have now twice indicated that you believe that Dr. Borukhova was framed and that the DA made the case up. Do you have any evidence to this effect? Or do you simply feel like slandering innocent people to make a point?

The Wolf

Baruch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hi, this is Tuvia. Whether I know about this case or not it is irrelevant at this point, the only thing I want to tell you is that there are too many mistakes in the case and that’s what blocks me from accepting the DA point of view.
Let’s think for a moment; she is a doctor that means that she has some brain. This whole thing does not make any sense;
#1. Why would she kill him in the middle of a Sunday in a park, with so many witnesses? She could’ve killed him at night when he comes home from work (end of October gets dark early).
#2. Even then why wouldn’t he wear anything on his face? Did not wear gloves? He just walk away hoping that nobody would see him, and was not extra careful with his fingerprints. (he knows that he has them on record from 15 years ago).
#3. What did she gain by saying that she did not hear shooting, when people 4 blocks away heard it?
#4. Why would she buy the spy camera on her credit card not cash?
#5. Why they did not get disposable sell phones. And many more details that’s just does not make any sense what so ever.
Well you could say she went crazy and so on, but why the “shooter” got crazy as well? It was not about his daughter, he is not a woman (daatan Kalah), at the end he is the one doing the “favor” not to sit in jail for the rest of his life (he has family and career too)? He could not wear proper gloves and a mask? At least to cover himself, come on?!

Abe said...

So the more obvious the evidence against someone, the more we know they must not have done it because no one would be stupid enough to create such obvious evidence?

Right...

BrooklynWolf said...

Tuvia,

You're making the mistake of thinking that people always act rationally. The fact of the matter is that people often act irrationally... especially when involved in something highly emotional (such as planning the murder of your husband).

You ask why the murderer did not wear a mask. I suppose that's a good question, but it does not change the fact that he did murder someone in the park, without a mask, in front of eyewitnesses.

You can ask why she claimed not to hear the shot that killed her husband -- but that doesn't change the fact that she *was* there (a fact that no one disputes) -- not ten feet away from where the murder was accomplished.

You can ask why she didn't get disposable cell phones -- but the that doesn't change the fact that she exchanged many, many phone calls with the murderer in the days preceding.

By your logic, Booth couldn't have shot Lincoln, because he was a well-known stage actor and surely theater-goers would have recognized him. Why didn't he wear a mask? Why did he shout something making his voice recognizable? By your logic, Booth must have been framed...

The Wolf

Anonymous said...

Hi, this is Tuvia!
#1. By the way does anyone of you know why Toiroh (whether in the time of Sanhedrin or now) does not accept circumstantial evidence and/or motive as proof?
#2. Did you check the link in my previous reply? What do you say?

BrooklynWolf said...

Tuvia,

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding your link - no one would deny that there are times when some individuals may be corrupt. However, you are making the claim that *all* (or, at the very least, the cops and DAs in this case) are corrupt. I think that's an unfair and fallacious comparison. You wouldn't like it if someone made the case that just because one Rebbi in a school was a child abuser that therefore they all must be, would you?

In any event, you still aren't dealing with the reality. Whether the Sanhedrin would accept circumstantial evidence is not relevant because the Sanhedrin does not exist today. If there was a Jewish court that could try such cases, then we could argue about whether this case should have been tried in that court - but since it does not exist, the point is moot. Therefore, my question to you was as follows:

Given that there is no Bais Din qualified to hear such cases, what should the state of New York do with Jews who commit crimes? Should they just let them go (regardless of the evidence) since there is no qualified Bais Din? If not, then just what do you propose?


The Wolf

Anonymous said...

I think you are still did not get my point, which is; just because the goishe court found someone guilty does not make that person guilty in my eyes, regardless of the “evidence” that they have presented. The basses for that thinking are that they were not found guilty in a court that is based on Toiroh principles. I know that such court does not exist today, and for that matter they are being judged by a goishe court, but their decision is nothing for me to the point when tomorrow they will go free because they will win the appeal I will have absolutely no problem to become Mechusonim with any one of them!


Tuvia

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

Wolf asked:

"Suppose, for the sake of argument that you are correct - this is a halachic miscarriage of justice. So, what would you do with a Jew who murders another Jew (or anyone else, for that matter) as happened here?
Would you then simply say "well, there's no properly constituted Bais Din to deal with her and her cousin, so they're free to go?"

The Wolf"
I suppose we would do what all autonomous Jewish societies did for all the centuries in galus after we lost the Sanhedrin. I haven't done any research to know exactly what an autonomous galus beis din did for capital offenses, but I think I can assume there was some halachic judicial process employed by the galus beis din and they didn't let any known perps go free!

But you are missing my point.
I'll just repost what I said above:

By responding, "well, what choice to we have? Not let them prosecute Jewish cases at all?" is not a reason to criticize sincere yidden like Tuvia who haven't resigned themselves to become assimilated and accept it as "life in America".

We should all be pained and saddened by this miscarriage of halachic justice which is the reality of Western galus.

BrooklynWolf said...

I think you are still did not get my point, which is; just because the goishe court found someone guilty does not make that person guilty in my eyes, regardless of the “evidence” that they have presented. The basses for that thinking are that they were not found guilty in a court that is based on Toiroh principles. I know that such court does not exist today, and for that matter they are being judged by a goishe court, but their decision is nothing for me to the point when tomorrow they will go free because they will win the appeal I will have absolutely no problem to become Mechusonim with any one of them! Tuvia,

So, according to your logic then, Jews have no right to consider any Jew guilty of a crime unless they are convicted by a duly-constituted Bais Din. So, I imagine, you would have no problem marrying into a family with a murderer, a child molestor, a Ponzi scheme operator, or, for that matter, anything else.

Is that correct, or am I misunderstanding you?

The Wolf

BrooklynWolf said...

FKM,

Can I assume that you consider Bernie Madoff's conviction a "miscarriage of halachic justice" as well?

The Wolf

Freelance Kiruv Maniac said...

As per the Encyclopedia Talmudis cited above, the state may try crimes between a Jew and Non-Jew even according to Jewish halacha.

So the conviction and penalties in the Madoff case are split: To those non-Jews whom he defrauded, the American justice is not a miscarriage, but to the Jews he defrauded, it is.
(I think Jewish justice would demand that he should be put to work at a hard (but lucrative) job for the rest of his life in order to pay off the swindles rather than just rotting in a jail cell-- doing no-one any good.
Don't you agree?)

Jersey said...

If I kill someone and no one knows, so I go free, I still kill someone.

It doesn't matter if you don't "hold" of American justice. So she may not have been convicted by your standards. She still did it!

Fact is, she committed a crime in America, and she committed a Jewish crime. Because America has a court system, she was tried by their standards and was found guilty. She therefore must suffer the American punishment.

Meanwhile, she never had a Jewish trial, but that simply means she won't also receive punishment from the Jewish court system.

She still did the crime, and she will be punished for it. But not having a court does not automatically mean she's innocent.

But here's what confuses me: there is evidence and there are witnesses. This case seems to have had little difficulty around it. What makes you think she'd go free in a Jewish court?

Do you think that Jewish courts are more lenient? Or that there are technicalities with the Jewish system that would prevent them from convicting her? Because if so, that does not speak well for the Jewish court system.

Do you honestly believe that this woman is innocent, or is that belief fueled by the lack of a Jewish court system? Do you know this woman to the extent that these claims seem unreliable, or are you just aggravated because she wasn't tried in a Jewish court?

Imagine that you are a Jewish judge and that all the same evidence was placed in front of you. Do you really believe you'd let her go?

I find this very hard to believe. I cannot believe that you truly think she is innocent. Your cries bemoan the lack of a Jewish trial, but that doesn't mean she's innocent.

I am simply stunned that you think she's innocent. This isn't an issue of "resigning oneself to assimilation into America" (I paraphrase). This is sheer blindness.

Anonymous said...

there is only circumstantial evidence and nothing more on this case.

josh waxman said...

I posted about this here.

R' Shimon ben Shetach was willing to call someone a rasha on the basis of circumstantial evidence. and the same gemara is willing to consider government execution as a way in which Hashem carries out His Divine justice, in the absense of a functioning bet din.

kt,
josh