Replies to '06/13 Teacher Sex Scandal, Part 2'

In response to the girl that was at the taping.  Joelle reacted like many do after years of fighting to get back what is most important to anyone that has worked hard to acomplish a goal and the respect of their peers. Their good name. 

Most often, someone that is assumed to be guilty of a crime that embarasses them or their family, inspite of what the court rules, will do anything to just "make it go away".  Yet Joelle remained in the community, encountered the 'wheels of justice' which whether you are the the accused or the victim, is very emotionally and physically demanding. THEN she went on to fight for her right to teach and in the end she can't even do volunteer work? 

Trust me - you hit enough brick walls in regard to a legal issue and you finally learn - You have two ears and two eyes and one mouth.  Stop drowning out your opponent  with your words.  Instead watch and listen to your opponent.  Listen and watch long enough and let someone else be your 'pit bull' (Dr. Phil in this case) and the truth will piece itself together.   

Watch the tape again.  Watch her eyes and his eyes as they speak.  His flite about - kept look to the right - which indicates he is searching the "Creative" part of his database files - which leads to inconsistancies in his story.  Joelle on the other hand searched her left side of her brain - that's the part where facts are kept.  Joelle had plenty of emotion going on inside her head and in her fingers.  She was concentrating on what Doug was saying and remembering what he had said under oath. Not only was taking notes a very smart thing to do - but it also gave her a place to channel her energy. 

Today's society is quick to allow teachers and politicians to be the scapegoat for their bad kids and miserable jobs.  I don't know how old you and your friend are, but if you engaged in sex before you were 25 with a boy the same age or younger - think about those first times together - Did your partner even get his underware completely "off" before he did?

The "Quickness" of the boys was a running joke among the girls at my school.

Amen!

Something is NOT 100% above board here. She may not be guilty of everything she's accused of, but she's not being forthcoming.

My GUT feeling tells me the boys may have exaggerated some things, but this supposed "educator" is hiding something. Deep down I believe she knows she crossed the line with her students. And the fact that she placed herself on national television tells me she has PROBLEMS.

 Phil said he was surprised at her response to his accusations, but rather focused on details of his story.

That makes perfectly good sense to me. Get rhil, Phil.  She's been defending herself in court and other places all along. She has denied the accusations what more is she suppose to do, give this poor chump even more credibility by once again refuting him? Nay, say I. Her pointing out his lack of consistancy, poor memory does reflect badly on anything he says.

As you said, Phil, you can remember details of such encounters when you were sixteen. I'm older than you and I can assure you that my first sexual encounters are firmly embedded in my ingrams.

But the kicker that the kid was lying is simply this: I don't care how inexperienced a 16 year old boy is, when he's being kissed by a hot French teacher all alone in her home, the deed would be done!  My hands would have instanly been up that t-shirt or down those biker shorts  automatically.  And the hand job?  Give me a break....no hormone-engorged teen would settle for that.

The problem with lying is you are committed to remembering the lie forever. If, on the other hand, it's only truth you speak, you never have to remember what you said.

RLP

And....if she'd been emotional, she would have gotten criticism from the gambit of guilty, to histrionic.

This is a composed woman, intelligent, and with years behind her of this matter, PLUS the total backing of her husband.

I thought the "student" -gave it away- when he put the personal jab that she had been the student of her husband, and was furthering that legacy with him, also a student. 

She nearly lost her composure at that point, as it seemed so unexpected, but the prior, she was in a "fight" mode of countering his "story".

I TOO had difficulty in determining if there was any truth, as the "boy" (and he'll always be a "boy", never a man) and the teacher each sounded SO convincing.

I do know in life experience, caught in a lie, with a parent behind you, losing face with fellow students, etc., it is the way of a coward to STAY with their story.  (Example:  murderers on death row maintain innocence forever and die maintaining their innocence.)

I WANTED to believe the teacher.  I also recognized the difficulty with "outsiders" attempting to decide who is telling the truth, and who is lying. *

I saw the gratitude expression of the teacher when Dr. Phil asked by applause whom of the audience felt the boy was telling the truth, and who thought the teacher was, and though a healthy smattering of applause to the first, a thunderous applause to the later.

I also saw the "thank you" the teacher expressed to Dr. Phil when he revealed the polygraph "conclusive" test results of "lying", "deceptive", administered by the primo of polygraph testers; Jack Tramarco.

At the  risk of sounding know-it-all, even "I" heard the change of tone by the boy in his answers!

The boy also faltered numerous times in Dr. Phil's questioning, having questions posed by one who questioning from a non-biased position, and therby he was "unrehearsed" by himself.

Might be of note, liars, who lie often, or have something treasured to lose (like ego/face) can tell a story for so long that even THEY believe it.  I believe this boy has not totally come to this point, for if he had, or am I correct that a true sociopath/psychopath would have passed the test because they believe themselves?**

And then, the cherry topper; Jack Tramarco asked the three TRUTH questions in the form of had the boy ever lied to keep himself out of trouble, and two others, to which the boy insisted he had ALWAYS told the TRUTH and had never lied.  The boy attempted to back track about "white lies" (oh....that's a biggie in which are white and black, now aren't they?) when Dr. Phil told the boy he would have to be the first to have been able to answer yes to those three questions as he (Dr. Phil) put his hand over his heart, saying he couldn't!

Oh and a final....would some have rathered a "Jerry Springer" moment versus the behavior of a woman who is a lady in all respects who has been up against a "prank" out of control.

Reminds me.... I believe Dr. Phil summed it up, that the boys were possibly fantasizing about an attractive teacher. 

I hope this will be a vindication for the teacher and that she can recoup her life.  I have great respect for her, and I would hope faced with this, I would behave in like manner.

I don't know what can be done for the boy, because he continued to lie, sitting right next to John Tramarco at the end of the show.

OH AND.....you want "reaction".......just read the eys of the teacher's husband....one male to another.

-charms-

* Same as in family court, the LIAR is so often believed!  There need to be polygraph tests there!  BECAUSE......

**yipes, then that WOULDN'T work with ABUSERS iin family court.....!  Darren Mack had undergone psychological testing, and according to one "wierdo", the worst was "anti-social", and then again, I have to ask the question, isn't "anti-social" also sociopath/psychopath?

The whole show I had this feeling that she was not forthcoming.  Her reactions were almost juvenile and incomprehensible about the "coded notes."  I agreed with Dr. Phil that those notes seemed to be inappropriate.  And driving students to your house, please.  How is that avoiding the appearance of anything amiss.   Dr. Phil's point that she never addressed the allegations I found odd too.  She kept trying to go back to "testimony" instead of telling us what "really" happened.  But beyond all of that, her and her attorney not allowing her to take a polygraph was so sketchy.  If I was those boys I would have insisted that if you make me take one you take one too.  She did absolutely nothing to convince me that nothing untoward happened here.  Quite the oppositie, she was quite unbelievable to me. 

A most interesting show, to say the least....I'm still not totally convinced of anything....While it was obvious that the boy was not telling the whole truth, she acted like she was not telling the whole story...If I had to make a definite choice, I'd rule in her favor...But the notes and some of her reactions left the puzzle somewhat unsolved to me...I got the feeling Dr Phil felt the same way...I felt sorry for her husband too.

I also think that 160 years in prison is incredibly extreme...This nation is too anxious to toss people in jail for victimless crimes....Even if she did what they accused her of, I'd call them lucky and the husband the only true victim...However, that's a big if.