Messages By: will6012

Thank you for all the time you took to write that for me.   My step-father is black, my husband is black, I do love all people. All I said was I am tired of the black people that make excuses (like slavery) to stay on welfare and hate white people.  If I had a dollar for every time a black person said " I ain't workin for the white man" so basically they choose to indirectly take the hard working us citizens money.  You point was taken, not lightly.  I guess what I was trying to say earlier, but could not get it to come our correctly, was, THERE ARE WAY MORE AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THIS COUNTRY SUCCESSFUL THEN WHITE.  So, let's all stop having a slavery pity party ok?  As far as KKK. They are horrible hateful people and have absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.   We are all mixing now anyways, so in about 50 years, "black" and "white" will be grey. And I say RIGHT ON. 

Sorry --- for the long post, but I don't know how to reply to a message without the entire post repeated.

I didn't realize Joelle had married her HS teacher a year after graduation. If that is true, that really causes me to raise my eyebrows.

(As an aside, I really bothers me when people presume that one must have had sex with the person to whom he or she is engaged.  Call me old-fashiomed, but I like to think there are still people out there who wait and I would never presume a couple had premarital sex.)

That said, even if they didn't have a sexual relationship before marriage, one has to make an educated guess that there was some sort of courting/grooming/flirting going on while Joelle was still a student.  I don't know if Joelle's husband did anything inappropriate as a teacher.  But these circumstances suggest that, at the very least, Joelle does not have a healthy understanding of the teacher/student relationship.

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.

 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.

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.

I can't not begin to tell you how ill that this show has made me,  I have one question why would you have on your show two of the reasons we still want to use the n- word.  Those two African Americans you call them just want to start trouble and run their mouths.  How can you talk to them and be angry at another man for using the n-word.  Al Sharpen and those like him are the worst people in the world.  There isn't any bigger racist in America than those two.  How can you allow people who protest for murders such as O J Simpson and Jena 6 to appear on your show and you jump right in there with them..  You of all folks have let me down.  You want to holler at a man for using the n-word to look good for two people who should be hung bye their own race.  If a white man kills someone you don't see a bunch of white leaders protesting for them.  I agree their is some groups out there that do.  But the general white population does not stand up and protest for a murder we disown them.  As far a Dogg goes he said and he probadly should have had it edited out of the show before they put it on air.  I am asking you Dr. Phil do you agree with interacial marriage or where do you stand for you kids?  I am guessing that next we you will have the Peta people on their protesting for laws for unborn kittens.  Why don't you do a show that helps people understand why abortions is wrong.   I haven't seen you do a show yet on why gay is ok and should be excepted .   But you are probadly for gay and gay right and murders so kittens shouldn't surprise me.  I will pray to be more sensitive toward the n-word and for you.

Our courts and prisons are overflowing with murderers. In fact we are letting them out.   Why the heck are we wasting time on boys, young men old enough to know what the heck they are doing and be accountable for their actions, the woman too.  We're not talking about a 6 year old.  

 Prolonging this growing  up (concerning everything),  as we are doing is making criminals out  people who are no threat to us. Dr. Phil was just saying an 18 year old girl can not make her own decisions.

I am not going to be afraid of this teacher, I wish he would please go after someone I would be afraid of.

This topic has really sparked a heated debate!  Cases of he said, she said, are very difficult to prove.  If I could cite the number of cases that have been dismissed "IN the interest of justice", when young children were involved, the masses wouldn't believe me.  It sounds like a slap in the face to the victims, yet often, the interest of justice simply means that there has been no supporting solid evidence to justify the people's case at trial.  In New York, I doubt that Joelle's case would have made it to a trial.  Where do the problems lie?  Well, the defense attorney is not going to sit back and be passive.  The fact that Joelle married her teacher does not prove a molestation...yet the prosecution will put life style on trial to bolster the case.  It is odd that a student will marry a teacher, but odd is not a crime.  If you are alternate in one way, you often extend that attitude into other areas of your life, making yourself vulnerable to accusations, like those made against Joelle.  It is not intelligent to invite your students to your home, nor is it wise to ask for their help moving furniture.  It's crossing a boundary of professional conduct, but to Joelle and to her husband, it may be no big deal.  This reminds me of a saying that "Nothing is a problem until there is one.  Then it's a problem".  I believe it to be the case here.  The boys were invited to cross a line....are they mature enough to know when to stop?  At that age, not really, and many young guys(not CHILDREN) do get carried away by this familiarity...and so begins the problem.  They feel special, liked...and it's an opened door to the teacher falling victim to the cheerleaders' nightmare...sexual gossip and bragging....but having legal reprecussions that are very damaging.  The one young man recanted...so what reason did he have to lie in the first place?  By his own admission, he lied, hence the recant...so his motive?  Could it not be reflective of the others motives? 

No teacher should get that familiar with any students...passing notes...seems like a big goof at the time...today, nothing is funny...and it is the direct result of bad judgement and immaturity on Joelle's part.  It does not make her a sex offender.  I have read references to the O.J. case being compared to this.  There were two dead bodies...so there had to have been a murder...it's called evidence.  Jonnie Cocoran did what any lawyer would do...raise reasonable doubt.  It worked in a highly publicized...overpublicized case of a miscarriage of justice....but it goes on every day, in every juristiction, in our court system.  O.J. is played out...his newest escapade...who cares? 

This case should be one of learning.  Teachers, keep your heads clear...you are not a friend to these students, you are an authority figure, an educator...keep your private life as such...do not invite your class to your home...it's asking for trouble..and don't get cutesy with students...relive your high school experiences at class reunions.  Pass your coded notes at those events....not in the class room.  So, your students won't LIKE you?  They LIKED Joelle...until....I'd rather they hate me. 

     My opinion is that nothing sexual went on betweeen the boys and Joelle.  She didn't ask for it...that's too harsh...no one deserves this, no matter how foolish he/she was.  This was one expensive lesson, a very scary and costly way for a woman to grow up....I hope she has learned, and will protect herself and her family, at any cost, from this point on.  Emotions...you can't judge them...we all respond differently, and any response can and will be suspect and criticized by a person of a different personality.  I think it is time for her to begin to pack up and move...hopefully to a better life with better foresight.  As for the boys...they went too far.  One day, as MEN, they will realize how far and I hope that each of them is repentent.  For every five men that I know today, three  will admit to lying about sexcapades in high school and trashing a girl's reputation.  Now they are sorry....maturity does come, but people pay a high price for high school hormones.  I was the bunt of such rumors, not true, but as a teen, they hurt me. It's a lesson that every Mother owes to her son...I shared my experiences with my mine, and stressed that if he ever does that to a girl's reputation, he does it to me, as I WAS that girl.  Hope it hit home.

Yes, this is not about OJ and never was.

It is however about the hypocrisy of some one who strongly shouts INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty and that the conclusion of the ALJ is their only reasoning when I know that they are biased. By all means every one state your iased opinios, but know that is what they are.

If they had applied the same logic to the Robert Blake, OJ, Michael Jackson, and other controversial decisions, then I would say, OK.

According, to Joelle's witnesses, the boys did not like Joelle They disrespected her, acted up, made sexual comments, and made her teaching life difficult. But then again, he chose to help this teacher move a piano in his free tme, then disrupted her class.

These boys were children and minors and two years in emotion development behind a girl the same age, which we easily protect from predators. Where do male predators grow from? Maybe, ABUSE. Many women in the sex industry, have a history of childhood abuse. Society seem to think that these children just grow up and are find. Must of the children saved by the Catholic priests came forth as adults and were still wearing their scars.

The bottom line is, regardless of so-called evidence, a possible inappropriate relationship with her husband when she was a student, dating him publicly two months after her graduation, the boys so-called inconsistencies, the sleepovers, sexual TELLS and the ALJ conclusion, we all form our own biased opinions.

Most people would rather put their trial in the hands of 12 biased  people with baggage, than one person that hides his bias under his rope.

Oh for Heaven's sake! NOBODY on this board has given you ANY indication of their feelings and opinions on the OJ trial, or any other trial, because the majority of us can stick the topic at hand without throwing out red herrings. Also, it is not just the conclusion of the ALJ, it is pages upon pages of evidence and testimony revealed in the SOAH document that leads me and other to believe that the boys are lying.

According, to Joelle's witnesses, the boys did not like Joelle They disrespected her, acted up, made sexual comments, and made her teaching life difficult. But then again, he chose to help this teacher move a piano in his free tme, then disrupted her class.

You clearly do not understand the dynamics of student-teacher interactions. MANY kids will cut up in class and be disrespectful because that is their nature. The testimony revealed that the boys were like that to many teachers. At the same time, these immature students can be charming and friendly, leading the teacher to believe they have an opportunity to "reach" them. They can be disruptive in class because they do not want to work, and friendly and helpful in other situations. Teenagers do not always put teachers in clear LIKE or DO NOT LIKE categories.

You have ZERO evidence of an inappropriate relationship between the Ogletrees. And again, given your alleged knowledge and respect for law, I am astounded that you would write "regardless of so called evidence".