New abuse claim against Frankel

Sidney Frankel. Picture: Facebook

Sidney Frankel. Picture: Facebook

Published Nov 6, 2015

Share

 Johannesburg - Marinda Lydia Smith has never been able to emotionally connect with her mother - and she struggles to make physical contact with her children and the men in her life.

The 51-year-old, who has an irrational fear of closed doors, believes the reason for her emotional turmoil is the abuse she experienced 45 years ago, allegedly at the hands of Joburg stockbroker and well-known philanthropist, Sidney Frankel.

Smith is the newest plaintiff in a multimillion-rand civil case against Frankel, her affidavits added to those of seven other men and women who claim they were abused by him when they were children.

Frankel is accused of sexually abusing the now adult claimants, often at his Kyalami game farm, north of Joburg, with some of the claims dating back more than 40 years.

In a tell-all interview with The Star, Smith spoke of the more than a dozen times when Frankel allegedly abused her while her mother Rona Fourie was in another room.

Fourie, who also spoke to The Star, worked for Frankel for more than two decades at his brokerage firm as an accounts manager. During the school holidays, she would occasionally bring her daughter to the office where she worked, sometimes at Frankel’s request. Each time, he would ask to spend some time with the young Marinda in his office.

As Smith recalled the first incident of the alleged abuse when she was in Grade 1, she started sobbing. “He would place me on his lap when (my mother) left the office and then he would start the conversation by giving me a Rolo,” she said.

She said he would then put his hand under her clothes, using his fingers to penetrate her. He would whisper - usually three or four times - of how this was their secret. When she was let out of the office, she ran to the office bathrooms, seeing there was blood on her underwear.

She would wash the garments in the office sink and tried to dry them using the hand-dryers, feeling deeply ashamed. Smith claims this same type of abuse happened multiple times over the next few years, stopping only when she finished primary school.

“Eventually I would say to my mother that ‘I don’t want to go there anymor’. She took me there anyway, not knowing. I never told her. She was a single parent and I was scared she would lose her job. And she had to take care of five children, so I kept it to myself,” she said.

Smith said she doesn’t blame her mother, but recognises that their relationship had been severely damaged since she was a teenager. Yet that hasn’t stopped Fourie from supporting her daughter.

Fourie found out about the alleged abuse this year, after reports on Frankel’s case aired on television and Smith decided to stand with others who had allegedly been abused by the same man.

Since the claim was laid earlier this year, Ian Levitt Attorneys, representing the plaintiffs, has appealed to others to come forward.

Smith said she never had the money to pursue a case in the past, and never thought it would go anywhere. She said she had been plagued by nightmares after reliving memories of the abuse.

In the court documents filed on Wednesday, Smith is seeking R5 million damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and contumelia. Similar amounts have been sought by the other claimants.

Acting on behalf of Joburg stockbroker and philanthropist Sidney Frankel, attorney Billy Gundelfinger said his client “emphatically denies the latest allegations, as he does the allegations of the other plaintiffs, and the matter will be strenuously defended”.

In the plea submitted in September to the high court in Joburg by Gundelfinger, Frankel not only denies each of the allegations, but is also applying for the court to dismiss the claims and for costs to be covered by the plaintiffs.

While the lengthy period of time since the alleged incidents has prevented the eight claimants from pursuing criminal proceedings, Gundelfinger argues in the plea that even in terms of a civil claim, each incident has become “extinguished” by prescription.

It’s understood that the main argument from the plaintiffs will be that they realised the extent of the psychological damage only within the past few years, which means their claims have not prescribed.

However, Gundelfinger has stated that the plaintiffs will have to prove that this is true.

Related Topics: