Topic : 06/13 Teacher Sex Scandal, Part 2

"The principal of the school attended their wedding as did many staff members. I think that clearly implies that nobody close to the situation thought their relationship was inappropriate. The previous French teacher postponed her retirement until Ogletree was certified to take over the position. That more than implies that she was well regarded within the school community. They do NOT need to prove otherwise, there is NO evidence to suggest that their relationship was inappropriate during the time he was her teacher."

You didn't refute the timeline and I honestly don't know. Did Joelle marry her husband/teacher a year after she graduated?  If so, you don't see anything inappropriate about that?  If the administrators and teachers attended this wedding, and you take that as tacit approval, I think that sends up some red flags about the whole district.  Regardless, I don't understand how you can point to the school community's acceptance of their wedding as a validation that there was nothing inappropriate going on and then turm around and question the administration's judgment when they suspended Joelle.  Have the teachers and principal that attended the wedding come to Joelle's defense now?

The big deal is that unless she is stupid, and maybe she is, they got married within a year after she graduated. That implies, unless they stand up and prove otherwise, they were dating while she was in high school ad sexually involved.

The principal of the school attended their wedding as did many staff members. I think that clearly implies that nobody close to the situation thought their relationship was inappropriate. The previous French teacher postponed her retirement until Ogletree was certified to take over the position. That more than implies that she was well regarded within the school community. They do NOT need to prove otherwise, there is NO evidence to suggest that their relationship was inappropriate during the time he was her teacher.

Pay attention, there were four witnesses. The three boys and the teacher.

The three boys offered statements as witnesses because they say they were there, the teacher only tries to refute their statements.

Actually, there are more witnesses to the events in question. Matt testified and gave sworn statements several times that he had been to the Ogletree house TWICE. Once to move a piano, which he claims was a ruse for Ogletree to seduce him. The other people testified that Matt arrived after them and left before them.  The other time was the French Camp sleepover. There were other witnesses that Matt actually DID help move a piano along with witnesses who testified that Matt TOLD them he helped move a piano. There were witnesses at the French Camp. So how could Matt have been at the Ogletree's home only twice and still maintain that he had sex with her in her home?

The other boy claimed that she changed out of her color guard uniform during the spring of a certain year. He made that statement to several different people - the school administration, CPS, in his sworn testimony. Several school officials confirmed that Ogletree did not become the color guard sponsor until the following fall.

If she were not there, she should offer testimony that she was some where. If she was not wearing a wrap skirt, she should offer testimony that she was wearing red pants or whatever.

Did the boys give a specific date? I don't recall seeing that in the court documents I read. If Ogletree's assertion is that the alleged events did not happen, how do you testify as to what you wore during something that didn't happen?

Even her husband says the boys slept over.

Yes, because he was THERE during the school sanctioned event. That has been clearly established.

While the boys were in school, they did not go to the administration Years later, after they graduated, the administration is conducting an investigation, because a girl complained of current inappropriate behavior

No. Where are you getting your information? The boys were overheard by a teacher at school. This all happened while they were still students at the school. Several students in the french class testified that these boys would attempt to flirt with and make suggestive comments to Ogletree in class.

She put her case in the Jury of Public Opinion to be tried, so we all judge. Just like you, Judged her to be innocent, with your opinion.

Yes, but isn't it advisable to base your opinion of FACTS? Several posters have given the link to the court testimony. You should read it. Seriously, you have so much misinformation about this case when the real testimony is easy to fine. I didn't know what to believe until I researched the case on found the testimony and judgment of the ALJ.

Dr Phil said that he did not know who was telling the truth. I read the Administrative Law Judges opinion as I have read  many Judge's rulings. His ruling had to do with her teaching certification and not her guilt. CPS-Child Protective Service rules on whether she is a danger to her children and if her children are in harms way.

Do you think that CPS intervened without just cause?

As a parent I would be addressing the CPS issues, not suing the DR. Phil show to try to win a lawsuit.

You are right. There were a couple of separate events and hearings. The girl complained and the boy were interviewed and later the boys were approached a couple of times again as witnesses for CPS and the Administration.

Also, note that there was a mistrial in the criminal case, not an acquittal. The Administrative hearing was June 22, 2006, as I said, some years after the students had graduated and this was the subject of her appearance on the Dr. Phil show.

The fact is, as Dr. Phil says, there are many questions that remain unanswered. Like for instance, you say that the boys slept over  at a school sanctioned event. She should be able to produce the permission slips, that the administration MUST have on file ad strangely it is this school administration that does not believe her. You know, the one's at her wedding.

I only know what the testimony and the court records show. The testimony given by Joelle's husband and a few others was that the Ogletrees began dating in the fall after her senior year. Prior to pursuing a relationship, her husband spoke to both her parents and the then principal of the school to find out if anyone had any concerns or objections. Nobody did.  It was also revealed in court documents that Joelle Ogletree had had a long term boyfriend prior to dating her husband.

The Administrative Law Judge who reviewed the case determined that the circumstances of the Ogletrees' courtship and marriage were completely irrelevant to this case. The school officials, in pursuing Joelle's certification being revoked, admitted that they had no objections to the marriage prior to this case. If the people so intimately involved in this matter cannot come up with an objection, I fail to see why strangers on the internet should. Furthermore, when Matt brought this up on the show, Joelle gave him opportunity to elaborate as to why this would be relevant. If there had been small town gossip about the relationship, Matt had a perfect chance to air that....he did not. he could not come up with a reason why it would be relevant.

I know a teacher who married her former teacher. She had a crush on him during school, but he didn't take it seriously and nothing happened. They began dating about a year or so after she graduated from high school. They now have been married for over ten years, have two children , and both teach at that same high school. These situations are rare, but they do happen, and they are not always indicative of something sleazy or pedophilia. If nothing was happening while one participant was a student and only after they were both consenting adults out of public schools, then no, I don't think it is anybody's business.

I don't think their relationship is relevant as far as court proceedings go, but that isn't the point.  The point is, what does their relationship indicate about Joelle's understanding of student/teacher relationships and personal boundaries?  Joelle brought this case to Dr. Phil for the court of public opinion --- and that is entirely different from a court of law.

It is interesting that you perceived Matt's failure to elaborate on Joelle's marriage as an indication that there was nothing to the story. I saw it as quite the opposite -- that the relevance was self-evident.

I also find your anecdote about person who married a teacher to be missing the mark.  We're not talking about someone who had an unrecquited "crush"  that turned into dating "a year or so" later.  We're talking about  a teacher  who started dating a former student within months of her graduation.  As a presumably responsible adult, he may very well have known the letter of the law and how to stick to it.  But the circumstances suggest that there was something going on while she was still a student.  I find it hard to believe that he suddenly noticed her a few months out of school.  (Honestly, when I first heard that fact brought up on the show, I didn't think much of it.  I assumed that he must have been her teacher YEARS ago and that their relationship only started when she returned to the school as a colleague.  This is entirely a different story, to me, knowing how soon the romance with a former teacher started.)

Regardless of whether or not Joelle's relationship with her teacher/husband was legal or not, it certainly tested the limits of ethics.  More importantly, however, is that it gives us insight into her mindset.  If Joelle went straight from high school to a relationship with her teacher, she may not have a healthy understanding of what an adult relationship is.  It is entirely logical that she would view her advances on school boys as something they would enjoy -- just as she either fantasized or really did have advances from her teacher.  Based on what little I know of her, from her "notes", her "games" and her "camps",  Joelle appears to be frozen in high school.  I'm no psychologist, but I think it is very telling that this woman went straight from high school, to marrying a teacher from the high school, to teaching at the high school and socializing with high school students.  This woman is afraid to grow up and be independent.  

 I read the Administrative Law Judges opinion as I have read  many Judge's rulings. His ruling had to do with her teaching certification and not her guilt.

No. It ruled on her guilt or innocence as it pertained to her teaching license. The standards for an ALJ are MUCH more lenient than that of a courtroom or bench judge. The school district did not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, they only needed to prove it was more likely that the events occurred than they did not occur. It couldn't. That is a pretty clear indicator of how she would have faired in a criminal trial.

Do you think that CPS intervened without just cause?

LOL! Oh yeah, CPS NEVER gets involved in cases that turn out to be without merit! Anytime somebody calls CPS, they MUST investigate. That is their job. I have been involved in many cases where CPS was called in simply on unwarranted suspicion or false accusations. Should they investigate every case? Yes. Does it always equate to guilt? No way. And they don't simply close a case for lack of merit. The leave the door open should further information become available. As far as I can tell, her children were not removed from her home, and apparently she is being allowed back in schools. I don't think CPS is breathing down her neck, they are leaving the case dormant.

There were a couple of separate events and hearings.

And the boys accounts of what happened differed wildly and implausibly in each separate event.

Also, note that there was a mistrial in the criminal case, not an acquittal.

And then the charges were dropped. Don't you think the DA would have pursued the case against a child molester if he had a snowball's chance of winning.

The Administrative hearing was June 22, 2006, as I said, some years after the students had graduated

The testimony used for this judgment was from the original criminal trial, court depositions, and CPS reports. I have to agree with the ALJ that the boys testimony simply was not credible. Not even a little.

it is this school administration that does not believe her. You know, the one's at her wedding.

It is not necessarily the school based administrators who don't believe her or who pursued the charges.  These things are usually turned over to county or even state school authorities. It is not necessarily the same administrators as when she married her husband. If you read the testimonies as you say you did, you would see that SEVERAL teachers and school personnel testified on behalf of Ogletree.  People in schools have jobs, and those jobs may very well be to investigate every allegation, even if they don't believe it.  I have been in that position myself.

An Administrative Law Judge can not rule on guilt or innocence. That was the job only of the Criminal Courts and they declared a mistrial and a mistrial does not declare guilt or innocence. I understand your confusion, many people want to take the OJ Simpson civil verdict, which was that he was "Civilly liable for the deaths or responsible to pay for whomever murdered them.

If you want to bank on the ALJ's ruling, then stay within their jurisdiction. If the ALJ could have ruled that she was innocent, the school administration would be compelled by their attorneys to settle.

There are three legal proceedings, the ALJ ruling, CPS, and the Criminal charges filed by the DA. Only in the criminal trial was her guilt or innocence Bengt tried, but there was a mistrial The DA chose not to refile, due to the sandbag recanting of one of their witnesses. The DA never declared that they thought she was innocent, they just believed that the case was not worth pursuing after they lost a witness.

Do you believe that they got all of the Catholic priests that were molesting children or do you believe that many of them were never held accountable for lack of evidence or the witness was too shakey?

What caused the teacher and the boys relationship to deteriorate.? Out of all the boys in the school she chose to call him and a few others to help with the piano and only he showed up to help her husband and he cousin Danny, according to her.

You are wrong again. The ALJ ruling was not based on infomation from a criminal mistrial. It was based on 3 days of testimony fromJune 20-22, 2006 and 15 witnesses, including one alleged viitm and the teacher.

The big deal is that unless she is stupid, and maybe she is, they got married within a year after she graduated. That implies, unless they stand up and prove otherwise, they were dating while she was in high school ad sexually involved.

In a court of law, the standard is what is reasonable, so unless hey can prove that they did something unreasonable and unlikely, like getting married without dating or engaging in sex. They met as teacher a student and I don't send me children to school to meet, date, and become romantically involved with a teacher that should only have influence over a child's educational mind.

OJ Simpson as acquitted of murder, so I am sure that you made the same statements about the people who hounded him chanting "Murderer" or do you have a double standard and "Innocent until proven until guilty" did not apply to OJ.

She never provided evidence of the first polygraph which if we accept that she passed, then it only applies that the boys passed their first one. Her attorney would only advice her not to take a polygraph, if he expected her to fail, because passing a polygraph on Dr. Phil Show would surely force the school to settle.

I know this to be a fact. I am very close to law, I don't want to say how close, but ask this question of an experienced attorney.

Yes, and when I was in high school,I saw many of girls in male P.E. teacher's office's after school. Nothing was done about it,until many years after I graduated, they found one of the male P.E. teacher's in a hotel having ex with a 14 year old girl. He went to prison an they fond out that this had gone on for years.

Pedophiles put themselves in positions where they have access to children. It is not that teachers and priests are pedophiles, it is just that pedophiles know that they can wear that disguise and gain access to children. Why do you think that convicted sex offenders are prohibited from taking up residence close to schools.

I am glad to see that at least, you are not using her first name as if you know her and have personal knowledge of her. Pay attention, there were four witnesses. The three boys and the teacher.

The three boys offered statements as witnesses because they say they were there, the teacher only tries to refute their statements. If she were not there, she should offer testimony that she was some where. If she was not wearing a wrap skirt, she should offer testimony that she was wearing red pants or whatever.

She does not, because attorneys tell guilty people not to make statements that can be prove false. If she says she were some where or wearing red pants,then she would have an alibi witness. Oh, she has never offered one. WOW. Even her husband says the boys slept over.

Let's say she were telling the truth. She has such a trusting innocent relationship, that the boys felt sexually safe to sleep over. Something went wrong? The one boy was never sexually involved, but now says she was the first, the second boy makes a poem but does not identify the teacher. While the boys were in school, they did not go to the administration Years later, after they graduated, the administration is conducting an investigation, because a girl complained of current inappropriate behavior. As adults the boys decide that something was wrong and they spoke up and if we believe her, as adults they decided to seek revenge, but for what.? They had no contact with her as adults and they were not seeking money.

She put her case in the Jury of Public Opinion to be tried, so we all judge. Just like you, Judged her to be innocent, with your opinion.

Im not even going to address the OJ simpson comments because I cant for the life of me, figure out how that has anything to do with this case (unless it was simply an attempt to bring in an inflammatory case). 

For one, Im completely blown away that you think its unreasonable for someone to be not sexually active at one point in time, and married 12 months later.  In fact, I find it a bit offensive and illogical.    In reading and rereading your comments and several of your posts, I feel as though you are addressing issues and concerns faced in your own experiences and allowing those to color your opinion of this case.

Also you say that she brought this to the court of public opinion for us all to judge, just as I judged her to be innocent?  I didnt judge her to be innocent.  Thats how our justice system works.  INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty.  She was not declared innocent because there was a mistrial instead.  However, she was also never found guilty.  Under our justice system, she is then INNOCENT!  Thats not my judgement,  its the foundation of the American justice system.