Give us both sides of the story

[Sneeky]

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/Jon_Qwelane/0,9294,2-1630-1633_2054152,00.html

Ok, Jon Qwelane has an axe to grind with the whole world really but he raises a very interesting point here.

Those of you that watch Carte Blanche will remember that they have had 2 shows highlighting the lies, deception and misuse of funds at the Ithuteng Institution in Pimville, Soweto who's headmistress is Jackie Maarohanye. This project was all sponsored by Oprah Winfrey.

Now, at the launch of the Oprah Winfrey Schools for Girls, Jackie Maarohanye was amongst the invited guests, hobnobbing it with high level dignitaries, celebs and politicians.

Jon Qwelane raises some very important questions about this and I do too find it strange that she was there. Oprah would certainly not have invited her if she believed that this woman was guilty of the crimes she is accused of, and I am sure others would not want to rub shoulders with her either, especially at an event like this.
So yes, give us both sides of the story.

 

[Xarog]

Maybe she (Oprah) just doesn't know any better.

 

[Sneeky]

or maybe she does know better!

 

[noxibox]

A few days later, during the holidays, there were amazing scenes at the Protea Magistrate's Court in Soweto when Maarohanye appeared on one or two charges: here was this alleged cheat, this charlatan and crook, mobbed by hundreds of pupils of her school, dressed in their uniforms. They were accompanied by scores of their parents, who had taken the day off from work, to lend her moral support.

I don't know that this means much. Have we not witnessed vocal public support for others involved in fraud, even after they have been convicted?

With regard to newspapers seeking her side were they informed about her whereabouts? If they were given her overseas contact information do we know that they did not attempt to make contact with her?

Maybe Oprah does not think she is guilty, reserving judgement until the matter is settled. If someone I knew were accused of committing fraud I'd give them the benefit of the doubt until their guilt was proven.

 

[Sneeky]

Maybe Oprah does not think she is guilty, reserving judgment until the matter is settled. If someone I knew were accused of committing fraud I'd give them the benefit of the doubt until their guilt was proven.

This is perhaps where our views differ slightly. Guilty or not, the lady in question would not be on the invitation list, purely to combat the bad press. As in business, the person under investigation goes on leave of absence till it's all sorted.

As for the bad press, as Jon Qwelane points out, there was none? I find that very strange as both these stories were very prominent in the press at the time.
Time will tell.

 

[Sneeky]

Yes air, there are certainly lots of unanswered questions and irregularities there, of that there can be little doubt. To me the woman looks like a complete crook, but are we getting the whole story? If she is such a crook, wtf is she doing at Oprah's new school launch?
Kinda bemusing isn't it!

 

[Dmitrimm]

Perhaps...the organisers don't care.

 

[bekdik]

Didn't Oprah donate money to Jackie?