Mrs. Markowitz May Move to England After Case is Settled


chaimkeh-smallMrs. Yenty Markowitz, the mother unfairly accused of starving her three-year-old son Chaimkeh, might move to England to live with her husband’s family after the trial is over, Rav Shmuel Poppenheim, longtime spokesman for the Eidah Hachareidis said today. “It is unclear how long this trial will take,” said Rav Poppenheim.

Mrs. Markowitz had been treated brutally since being arrested, both by the police and later by jail personnel. Much of that information is emerging and will continue to be reported here on and in some of the chareidi Israeli media.

The Israeli secular media has already passed judgment on Yenty, and much of the Jewish online media has until now just repeated the unproven charges leveled against Yenty.

There is a good chance that when it is all over and she proves her innocence, the family will move to Britain to get away from the police and the state prosecutors who are out to get her,” Rav Poppenheim said, confirming a story that appeared in the daily Yisrael Hayom.

{Yair Israel}


    this has been a blood libel of sorts
    at least Matzav is reporting the otehr side. no one else is. no one. we need more voices sayign the truth. this has been a cover-up or something. there are so many medical questions that remain unanswered. Hadassah has been hiding something. They were reckless in the way they handles the case. The kid was hospitalized there for SEVEN MONTHS, and then they claim the motehr starved him?! Why was he starving for 7 months when he was under their care?
    That is just one of tens of questions.
    this whole case is a perfect example of how broken teh ISraeli justice system is.
    so there’;s no lashon hara here. we are protecting people. they should know how biased and dangerous the Israeli justice system can be – especially when it comes to datim and chareidim.

  2. Ruth, have you read Chofetz Chaim lately? According to Halacha we are required to judge Yenty favorably and we are NOT required to judge Hadassah or the police favorably. If anyone asserts otherwise, please bring halachic proof.

  3. Well I read most of the “blood libel” brochure (published by the pro-mother side) with great interest.
    In this brochure, I found one page of the medical report on the case.

    It says:
    1) the child was accepted to Hadassah Ein kerem weighting 8,14 kg, which is a BMI of 12,xx (when 19 is the minimum)
    2) In height and in weight he is among the lowest 3% of his age group.
    3) His weight would befit a 0.5 years old, not a 3 years old.
    4) During the whole month of february the child had no defecation
    5) doctors tried to feed him by mouth, this led to vomiting and stomach aches.
    6) A series of test (MRI, CT, angio, serology, etc) was conducted, but nothing could be found
    7) Doctors resorted to feeding by gastrostomy, the stomach ache worsened. No weight could be gained. Nothing could be seen on imagery.
    8) Doctors resorted to gastro-jejunostomy, stomach ache worsened, no weight was gained.
    9) contrast liquid took a full week to get to the rectum, although no occlusion could be found

    So does this not look as though something was sabotaged?

    At some point, because the child had recurrent fever and skin lesions, they thought he had a rare auto-immune disease calle traps. So they tried to treat him with an anti-rheumaticum that seems to help against traps (but apparently is not tested for children). After a week, they stopped, since the child got mycoses. They took the treatment up several weeks later with a very slight dose.

    This is the only error that could be reproached to the doctors.

    Nothing about cancer (pro-mother side stopped mentionning cancer, prove that he was treated for cancer was promised, but never brought by pro-mother side)

    But you know what? What should they do it someone else was fooling them?

    In the end, they found the reason of the disease and could cure it. Proof: the child gained weight and could be discharged, was taken to a different hospital which also agreed to discharge him.

    PS: Only the chareidi sites disclose the full name of mother and child (as in the title of this article). The “wicked” secular press is much more attentive to the privacy of mother and child.

    Once again, we are following the guidance of those who are trying to help Mrs. Markowitz. Most of the chareidi media, especially online, did not know her last name to report it, and the same can be said of segments of the secular media. And please don’t preach about the “privacy” of the mother and child after the same secular media has exposed everything, including pictures they had no permission to publish, about the family. Our goal is to help this woman who, according to our sources, has been maligned, to put it lightly.

  4. Why did I need to know this lady’s last name? Bad enough that her first name was publicized.

    what about all the other people with that last name who aren’t even related?

    Some things are better left unpublished.

    We have been in touch with those heavily involved in helping Mrs. Markowitz. We were told to mention her name. People must realize that this is a real woman, from a real family, like your and mine, who has been treated unfairly, to say the least. Few have discussed this injustice. So to answer your question, we have been following the direction of those trying to help Mrs. Markowitz and would never do anything to hurt her or her family. We are hear to report the truth and not simply repeat the half-truths or complete untruths being reported by various segments of the media.
    Elisha Ferber,

  5. 1. this is the first i’m seeing her namew in the media, thank you matzav very much.

    2. reading one of the weekly magazines this week, which detailed the child medical history, it look to me like the hospital is trying to cover for the mistakes of an ethnic minority doctor.

  6. Dear Ruth:
    Chaim was admitted to Hadassah Ein Karem as a hematology-oncology patient. He was administered Anakinra, an anti-inflammatory drug approved only for adults with rheumatoid arthritis over the age of 18. For children under the age of 18, there is no medical evidence substantiating it’s use: furthermore, Chaim suffered from cancer, not arthritis, and most of the medical literature clearly state that this medicine is CONTRAINDICATED for cancer.

  7. Let’s see:

    1. child in care of mother = child sick
    2. child in hospital, mother has access = child sick
    3. remove mother’s access to child = healthy child

    The evidence, however circumstantial is may be, seems to require an investigation.

    Matsav Editor, please ask your sources where the mommy’s “evidence” that the child has cancer is?

    There is more here than meets the eye and like it or not the global standard is to put children in a protective state whenever there is any evidence. There is evidence here.


  8. RUTH – not only is Anakinra not approved for children — even in adults it is not considered to be used as first option because it might cause cancer. The doctor “in charge” of the onco ward has on the Hadassa website his supposed license number to be a medical doctor in Maryland, but that license has lapsed. so he is a liar there too, even in his credentialing.

  9. No-one brought proof whatsover that the child was treated for cancer.

    Since the pro-mother side is ready to publish
    1) the mother’s full name
    2) the child’s full name
    3) photos of the child without covering anything
    4) the photo that the pro-mother side says should not be published in colour
    5) details of the child’s medical report

    I suppose that if they evidence of oncological treatment, they would published it, as their “speaker” promised a few weeks ago.

    What i see is that
    1) Hadassah ein kerem categorically denied that he got treatment for cancer
    2) that the family seems to stop claiming (e.g. in the mother’s interview) that he was treated for cancer.

    When you read the medical report published by the family itself to show how “bad” those doctors are, you come to the conclusion that they did everything they could to cure this child.

    Comparing those Doctors to “Dr. Mengele” is not only an insult to them, but also to the real victims of this inhumane monster.

    And I would like you to show me where it says in hilchot lashon hara that this is allowed.

    I mean think of the chutzpah:

    – The child got multiple, expensive tests, and as far as I understand the hospital was ready – at least in a large measure – to forgo payment (Dr. Birnbaum said they were not charged the 2000 Shekel per day a stay in hospital normally costs, chareidi press reported they went to the social welfare because of the payment for the hospital)
    – they were confronted with a very mysterious Failure to thrive, but in the end found the cause and were able to cure the child.

    And how do these “holy Yidden” thank them?
    By calling them “Mengele”.

  10. RUTH, you are lost. you are just repeating everything you’ve read who knows where. and don’t make iut sound like all frum yidden called the hospital “mengele”. if a few people did, don’t paint everyone in that light.

    – If the mother suspected of starving her child was caught on hidden camera, why didn’t hospital officials act immediately, to prevent her from doing so repeatedly at the expense of the patient?

    2- If she was indeed deemed a danger to the child, why didn’t the hospital seek legal intervention to obtain a restraining order, distancing her from her son rather than permitting his condition to deteriorate?

    3- Why wasn’t the hospital staff taking corrective action for the patient when the mother was not present and how can it be that the hospital staff operating 24/7 was not seeing the continued deterioration in the toddler’s condition?

    4- Assuming the mother has Munchausen by proxy, why did the hospital and social workers fail to notify the family, her husband, towards awareness and seeking assistance for her?

    5- Assuming the mother is not fit, inflicted with some illness, perhaps Munchausen by proxy, why was she not given appropriate treatment but instead, thrown in jail? Why did state social workers cooperate with police against the interest of the mother and possibly her child?

    6- Why were efforts by askanim beginning on 17 Tammuz, before the media blitz, ignored by police and the hospital? The askanim said if the mother is indeed ill, why isn’t she being referred for care instead of imprisoned?

    Rabbonim also question where all the liberals are hiding, explaining that if this case involved a secular/chiloni family, the feminists and human rights activists at the very least would be inundating the High Court, but here, when a devoted mother and wife is chareidi, the silence is deafening and the champions of justice are nowhere to be found.

    On the same line, the Rabbonim question the lack of patient privacy, with authorities failing to explain just how the x-ray of the ’starved child’ appeared in all the Israeli media.

    And if they suspected wrong-doing or a problem with the mother, why weren’t rabbonim contacted to intervene?


  11. Again: I cited from sources published by the mother’s side. Do you need a reference for this “famous brochure” or for the medical report published on the pro-mother website? Here it is:
    The medical report alone (p. 3 only):
    and here you find a possibility to download the brochure (where you find the same medical report)

    If you don’t know to read words like gastro-jejunostomy in hebrew, how can I help you????

    Now your question:

    1) this question is full of hypocrisy.
    You saw what happened when the hospital/social services/prosecution/police intervened. (social security office ransacked, death threats to social security and hospital staff, demonstrations in front of hospital and private homes of doctor(s), phone calls to their family members, policemen pelted with stones when they wanted to see the mother at her home where she was at house arrest, etc).
    So the reactions that took place IN REALITY sufficiently justify that you want to be sure about what you do before you act.

    2) The hospital did seek legal/social welfare intervention to obtain a restraining order. The arrest was a decision by the prosecutor’s office based on the evidence they had seen and had nothing to do with the hospital (hospital refused to have her arrested on their grounds)

    If you mean: why did it take them so long to see that it was the mother?
    I suppose: because they were unsuspecting.
    Now you can say that this is a systematical error. In order to combat/eliminate the risk “Munchhausey by proxy” you should keep the mother far from the child right from the beginning and never trust any mother.
    Do you really want this to become a general rule in pediatric hospital? Should 99,9% of childdren and mothers suffer because of 1 in 1000 (or even less) mothers who suffer from Munchhausen by proxy? This is slightly disproportionate, so I think it is still justified to apply “trust” as a general rule, even if it can endanger victims of Munchhausen by proxy.

    3) According to the interview with Dr. Birnbaum published here
    (and perhaps also in the last Mishpacha magazine), they did take corrective action, when the mother was not there: when all attempts at feeding the child had failed and he was between life and death, they started, very carefully, feeding him by night, when the mother was not there. They started with minute quantities, since they expected negative reactions (as was the case every time they tried feeding him at daytime), but it went well: suddenly, the child could sleep, was not nervous any more, etc.
    In this interview, Dr. Birnbaum says they had a lot of trust in the mother (at the beginning), they let her take temperature, listened to her reports, etc.
    When she reported that he was vomiting where no vomiting was possible, they started to suspect something.

    Later they fed the child by night, made sure nothing could come out of the child, hung an empty bag on the tube. What happened? Suddenly the bag contained a white liquid. Where did it come from? Obviously someone had put it there. They gave the bag to the police. (They found more bags with the mother).

    4) Up to now the whole family (and you yourself also) apparently refuse to aknowledge that she has Munchhausen by proxy. So what do you want to do???? Read the pro-mother blogs and comments and brochures and wallposters: they all say that she is an Eshet Chayil, an examplary mother, no-one believes she could harm her child!
    Is this enough evidence to answer your question?

    5) Why was the mother thrown in jail:
    a) It seems that she badly harmed her child and that police/prosecutors had enough evidence to put her in jail for this.
    b) Perhaps it would have been preferable to seek another solution, but it seems that the mother and her immediate surroundings were not very cooperative (refusal for psychological testing, no declarations (which is her good right), threats from the surroundings of the family, etc…).
    And once again: the reactions after the arrest certainly contributed to lengthen the arrest (and also showed how justified it was, because there really was imminent danger)
    6) Why isn’t she referred for (psychological) care?
    This question is also hypocritical, since she herself refused psychological examination, and Rabbonim and Askanim apparently encouraged her to do so.

    7) patient privacy:
    As I mentionned earlier, the pro-mother side are the first to violate patient privacy.
    I don’t know of any x-ray published. One newspaper published a black-and white photo of the starved child. The pro-mother blogspot and the pro-mother-brochure published the same picture in colour. So I suppose that the pro-mother side is in posession of the picture. So it would be logical to conclude that they leaked it to the newspaper.

    I find particular hypocrisy in this question, because the pro-mother side always argued that the fact that the video was not released to the public proved it did not exist. (we will only believe it once we have seen the video evidence)…

    I hope I have answered all you questions. Don’t hesitate to ask if you have more of them.

  12. Ruth,
    you are the sole voice of reason here. and i thank you for that because it is getting very depressing listening to all the idiotic comments that make no sense and parade as frumkiet. don’t let these people get to you. you are rational and care about the TRUTH. justice is truth.

  13. Yasher Koach Ruth for being a voice of kiddush Hashem and truth. Tose of you who malign her are guilty of sinas chinam of Hadassah Hospital, it’s doctors and staff and indeed the entire non ultra chareidi State of Israel. The chesed of Hadassah towards this child is clear and the evil of calling another Jew “Mengele” is sick . I wold suggest that all of those who so hate the government of Israel not only not use its medical facilities but move to England. You have a deep seated hatred of other Jews, that is not what a person who lives in the Holy City should have. filters the truth to one side only. That is sheker because it is not the whole truth. The case will be tried and the facts will come out, which Doctor at Hadassah is Mengele? How can a Jew be so full of hatred of another Jew who devotes his life to healing others.

  14. “The case will be tried and the facts will come out”, but you, good people, along with the whole Israeli establishmant, have already tried and judged this woman and found her guilty. This is lynching. You’re whining about judging favorably? Shame on you! How about judging this mother favorably?

  15. Lots of emotion here. People shouting (or its talkback equivalent), calling each other names, citing lists of facts which contradict each other, from sources which are hard to verify.

    What is the bottom line? The lady is going to be tried in court on a charge of child abuse. All the evidence will be brought out then, along with the confirming sources.

    Instead of blowing our tops and calling each other very uneidel names – let’s just wait a bit. Let the trial take place and the evidence on both sides be shown.

    Why waste our time and energy fighting each other over something that can’t be settled yet when there are so many pressing causes that need our action? If someone is concerned about sick children, there is Bikur Cholim. One can volunteer to help their parents, too. On a practical basis, the issue is settled – there will be a trial and that’s it. So let’s move on and do things which are constructive.

  16. Everyone is allowed to think his/her own thing and not fight about it. Many of the things we hear is not true (for both sides) if this will cause such a machlokes then i dont think it is proper to post anything here.

  17. Ruth, Since you seem to have a lot of time on your hands, it is my assumption that you do not work. If I am correct in tha assumption, Yediot Achronot is looking for some biased, Chareidi hating “jounalists”. Please apply and get off this site

  18. ruth — I note you do not explain why any doctor would give a drug that is not supposed to be given to anyone under 18 to a toddler? And why would that doctor lie about his license — he says he is licensed in Maryland, but has not had that license since 2007. Once a liar, always a liar.

  19. Yes, I cannot explain, nor justify that they gave a drug only permitted to adults to a small child.

    But this is a far, far cry
    – from Mengele
    – from the assertion (by the pro-mother-side) that the child received chemotherapy against cancer as a result of a misdiagnosis. This assertion seems to have evaporated in the meantime.
    – from the assertion that the hospital is responsable for the child loosing weight and almost starving (in fact he was already heavily underweight when he came to hospital, and not gaining weight is due mainly to the fact that all feeding attempts mysteriously failed, independently of Anakinra).

    It would have been completely fine with me if the mother’s side had said, from the beginning, in good faith: the hospital staff administered anakinra (an anti-rheumaticum) in small doses, stopped after a week when the child seemed to have a negative reaction (mycoses), and went back to the treatment about a month later. We want to complain about this because the drug is not accepted for children and serology/DNA tests did not confirm TRAPS.

    But that’s not what they did. They used vague accusations to created smoke screens, to make believe that the whole “Failure to thrive” issue could be blamed only on “drug experiments”, arguing that this could prove the mother’s innocence.

    That’s why I wanted to put things into perspective.