Reply To: Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim

Home Forums Controversial Topics Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim Reply To: Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim

#717986
oomis
Participant

“There is no way a frum couple would go on public TV before 10 million viewers and risk lying. Besides for that, I believe them because they are frum people and doubt they’d lie in general, as they are Honest Yidden.”

First of all, don’t be so naive – frum people, like any other people, sadly lie all the time. It is a sad fact we have to face. I don’t think they were substantially lying in this case – I think the cleaners ruined her wig, through stupidity and negligence, or accidentally (maybe they first noticed the wig AFTER it went into the wash – who knows), but I also think they were not smart to come to a TV show unprepared with proper evidence. I have no doubt that even her short wig might have been very pricey. I cannot afford to buy these wigs,because they are so expensive, and the one she wore to the show was clearly a good one, so why would she pay anything less for the other one that was ruined? She should have kept her receipt (but how many people keep such meticulous records for a wig?). The only issue that really bothereed me was the Judge is not knowledgeable about wigs (by her own admission)and Wendy Williams, the black TV host who actually wears wigs all the time on TV, wears stuff that looks absolutely horrific, so I would never ask her opinion about this subject. Clearly Judge Milian needed to speak to a Jewish wigmaker AT LENGTH, regarding the damage that can occur to a human hair wig, which once it is cut off the head DOES NOT continue to respond like human hair in all cases. It cannot grow back when damaged, or repair itself. It does get matted, frizz up, break off, and become damaged, whether on or off the head, if abused. This wig was abused. And that is the only thing that should have mattered to the judge, which is why she dismissed the case w/o prejudice, so the couple could sue again, when they have the proper proof.