Messages By: will6012

She stated that the notes were given to him in the open, in front of the other students, as this conversation was taking place. There is NO evidence that they were given in secret.

For Heaven's sake, will you please READ the ALJ testimony. The I am so sorry was NOT in response to the other note. He said something somewhat insulting or teasing to her, she responded sarcastically, and then felt badly about it. You don't have your facts straight...not even Matt testified that the "sorry" note was related to the other note. READ the ALJ document!

You kind of DID bring it up with your response to my comment about Joelle's lawyer saying "NO" therefore it's "NO".  There was no attack, and the" drop it" was to the issue of her inability to take a polygraph at this time...directed at us ALL, myself included.....as an argument to support her guilt or innocence.  She can't do it.  As a point of law, the school Board's decision is opened for an appeal. As you cannot force a person to take a polygraph,  there are no grounds for an appeal.

My point, if you will re-read the original post, was that I was a bit surprised that anyone, including Dr. Phil would question the actions of a person acting on legal advise, especially with a pending lawsuit.  It would be equally wrong to suggest that any of the school board members or the principal take a poly at this time, as they are under legal advisement, and I'm sure, if it is ADEQUATE council, they can't! 

To use that against any of the parties involved, to me, is a prejudiced mind set.  Everyone protects themselves, as they should...and I feel that the issue of Joelle not taking a polygraph was, under the circumstances,  not  the right thing to do.

Your opinion is respected, but different from mine.  Yet, at no time did I suggest that any of the Board take a poly, and I'd just appreciate the rights of all to not be used against them.  In my opinion, that was done to Joelle since many posting made reference to it  as a negative towards her.  Again, only my opinion, the issue should not have been raised on the show, as she was opened about her present legal process.

If her case were not opened to appeal, and a lawsuit, the courts would not be hearing it.  I've never heard of a refusal to take a polygraph being opened to appeal, while her issue of volunteering is.

Under the law, they are not comparable.  So whether or not we agree, until the laws are changed, the two issues fall into different legal categories.  That FACT was my point...certainly not to infer that the school board defy their attorneys.  So why are so many inferring that Joelle not be allowed to do the same, without judgement?  The lawyers on both sides have their jobs to do, and since it is a pending case, they call the shots.  I resent that Joelle's following her legal advise was challanged by anyone, as it wasn't done to the school board.  I think that you missed the point of the original post.

I will get around to reading the documents.

You seem to forget that this is the Dr. Phil message board. I am basing my information on what I saw on the Dr. Phil show.

You cannot reasonably explain the secret notes or coded (if you prefer I use that word) to a teenage boy (I can use that word because it is fact). This makes you irritated at me.

Anybody has yet to explaon why Matt was the only student recieving notes those days or day. Why would Joelle write 3 notes to him....

I keep saying I think there is a missing piece, and perhaps the missing piece would be the notes Matt wrote in response to Joelle. ....which would be in her possession....therefore destroyed/ and/ or not brought forward....

.....which would mean they were incriminating.

3 notes from her...none from him....logical?

.....or missing piece?

This doesn't make it illogical. Sorry.

If Joelle destroyed them it is pointless for Matt to even mention, in the court of law and in the world in general that would be hearsay.

Why would Joelle continue to write 2 more notes without one respond? That's Illogical

I hear that, loud and clear. Very good point.

However, it is still logical that Matt would have responded at least one time to three letters....you made it logical. 

It wouldn't be illogical to say he forgot about his return notes, from what I hear....

...after all, he is "your little scarecrow"

Let's play a game of  FACT & LOGIC:

Ive maintained the position that Joelle is hiding something. Logically speaking, this is possible.

Joelle wrote 1 note...FACT

Matt wrote 1 response....Logical, but not fact.

Joelle wrote another note....Fact

Matt wrote a response.....Very Logical,  but not fact.

Joelle wrote YET ANOTHER NOTE....Fact

Matt wrote a response......very extremely logical...but not fact

After recieving three notes it is extremely logical to assume Matt responded AT LEAST ONCE.

Matt brought the notes he had forward: Fact

Joelle brought NO notes forward: Fact

Questionable: Yes

If Matt responded who would be in possession of those notes: Joelle (which would be a fact)

Logical reason Joelle would not bring Matt's responses forward if she had them? Incriminating

3 notes from her, zero notes from him: NOT logical

Missing pieces: Very Logical 

I am certain you did not attend the MLK rally, help in New Orleans, killed like a Kennedy, etc. .....so according to YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.......your opinion must not count.

What have YOU DONE personally to fight racism, to build up your people........sound like you are looking for excuses to me , for being  a racist yourself. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in his recent memiors (did you read that, I have) ,he supports ALL DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE, NOT ONLY BLACKS.

You should read his book, Dr. Phil should have had him on his show , rather that Al Sharpton........

And if you want to fight slavery, maybe you should take up the Womens movement.........women are still treated as slaves today.

Don't play Jesus and start handing down judgement yourself.....listen to your own words...then eat them.

1.  quit doing polygraphs on your show dr. phil.  they're not admissable in any court in our country and so why on earth would you do them on your show for hundreds of thousands of us americans to be tainted by? 

2.  i just completed a jury duty assignment as juror number one in a first degree murder case.  i was shocked that one of the witnesses (defendants only witness, a forensic anthropologist) in this case who has credentials that would take me 5 years to read, would totally trash his reputation to help the defense.  without going into all the details you have to trust me that he totally lost his reputation on that day from the jury as well as all the people present in the courtroom.  anyway i have the same feeling about this guy that you have doing those polygraphs.  i knew from the moment that the show began that those results were going to be, that this young man was lying.  very predictable this guy is.  whatever someone else's results are.....his are the opposite.

3.  i certainly do not know if she is guilty of sexual misconduct based on what i saw on your show.  however, i do feel very confident that she is guilty of having very poor judgement as a teacher and i really don't think that teaching is her calling in life.  she should maybe consider stopping her fight for her job back, and pick up another career.

4.  i'm trying to think about what this young man had to gain by doing such a thing.  what's his motive?  i can't imagine any of my students (i work with at-risk teens), doing something like this.  they do some pretty dumb things, but it's always to their advantage (or so they think).

that's all i wanted to say.  thank you for letting me share my thotz and i welcome any other's thotz on the questions that i struggle with.

Let me preface this by saying that I believe that Dr. Phil McGraw gets it right over 95% of the time.  But, this one?  He totally blew it.  The lady school teacher didn't exhibit enough emotion over the "problem" and he shot her some critical looks and asked why she wasn't more upset about all that was being discussed in the first show. 

DUH!  It was six (6) years ago and she had to deal with a criminal trial with maybe not seeing her daughter for high school graduation, college graduation and maybe a marriage ceremony and possibly a grandchild's birth.  And, when she was released, if she wasn't "shivved" and killed as a child molester in prison, she'd have to register as a sex offender when she got out.  My take watching her?  She had a steel resolve in letting all know she was railroaded into court on these felonious complaints and a smart jury said "What?" and dropped the charges.  Ya shouldn't have done that to her Dr. Phil....

Dr. Phil was concerned that she didn't display enough emotion.  Again, DUH!  She was "emoted out"!  After all, she's been through for SIX (6) years of intense scrutiny including a criminal trial where she was exonerated,  she didn't need to cry and yell at the three (3) lying kids that put her in the situation she found herself in.  It was obvious to me she was there to show that all three (3) boys were lying through their teeth about what they said happened. (which was true as per Dr. Phil's expert polygraph examiners)  She had transcripts of the criminal trial where all the boys were totally inconsistent in their testimony.  Dr. McGraw never refferred to them or read any part of them once.  Why?

Her story was told with a little bit of, maybe, "she may have done it... or she may not have done it" type attitude.  After watching both shows, there is NO doubt in my mind.  She was railroaded into court on a trumped up charge fueled by a political agenda.

She refused to take a polygraph test on advice of counsel.  Some of you said she should do it anyway because it was not admissable in court.  Let's get our courts straight folks.  It's not addmissable in CRIMINAL court but CAN BE admissable in civil court under certain circumstances.  And in civil court, in some states, the "defense" can have questions asked which is NOT relevent to the case but could taint a jury's judgement.  (Remember OJ was NOT convicted of murder in criminal court but WAS CONVICTED in civil court)  The rules of evidence in civil court is MUCH MORE LENIENT than criminal court.

There were two (2) shows, which I thought was appropriate in telling the "story".  The two (2) shows that were originally shown could have been condensed into one telling her story, with the second show dealing with something else entirely.  Here's how I would have presented this entire story....

The two (2) day show should have been condensed to one with her story and all the polygraph data...  Here's how the second show should have gone:

1)  A chronology of events to state:

     a)  Someone tells the school officials that the boys had sexual encounters with the teacher.

     b)  The boys should be questioned as to the veracity of the claim.  This was done. (This starts a BIG problem)

What happened:  The Principal of the school or Guidance Councelor questioned the boys as to whether this happened.  They were all together at the time.  (NOTE:  This is NOT an accepted law enforcement interview technique for sexual crimes)

All three (3) boys stated that they "DID" the teacher, a felony in all 50 states at their age at that time.  At this point in time when school official learn a felony has, or may have been, committed, by law, in all 50 states, interrogation by school officials must stop and the police be called in so that law enforcement criminal investigators conduct legal interviews of the victims.  This DID NOT HAPPEN!  The school officials interrogated ALL THREE (3) BOYS AT THE SAME TIME IN THE SAME ROOM in violation of state law (Only law enforcement or court appointed investigators can question suspects, witnesses or victims of a felony).  This would constitute contaminating the multiple victims (3) statements.

c)  The "victims" were questioned by the police and at some point within a few days after the complaint against the the teacher was filed and they took a polygraph test.  All three (3), one of which was a former city Mayor's son, was adjudged to be telling the truth by the city police polygraph examiner.

A few days after that, one kid recanted, saying nothing happened at all.  But WAIT!!  He passed a POLYGRAPH TEST by the local police!!!  Hmmmm....  A second kid, the mayor's son, by phone, on the 1st, show, also failed miserably on his test. after passing a polygraph by the local police.  Gee... as did the THIRD kid who appeared in person on the second show. 

Both of Dr. Phil's polygraph examiners were TOP NOTCH (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) but Dr. Phil treated both guys claiming being sexually assulted (NOT kids now, they're 20 and 21) like they MAY have told the truth.  (Sure hoped he apologized to his expert polygraph operators... that was like saying they didn't know squat about what they were doing)

OK... A summary:

1)  ALL the boys were lying.  (NO ambiguity in the polygraph results, there can be but was so obvious it was ruled out)

2)  They (the boys) were 14 at the time.  Hormones raging.  They're going to admit they didn't do a teacher when all the OTHER guys did while they're all sitting together!!??  To them, this would be a badge of HONOR!! (Think raging male teenage testosterone)

3)  They were interviewed all together, in one room, by school officials... (raging hormones again present) One of them is going to deny "doing" a teacher that their friends did?  (DUH!!)

4)  But... all the boys passed a city police polygrqph test!  Yeah... right.  We'll get to that again later.

OK... My personal opinion... The teacher, may have tried to be a "cool" friend, but more than likely, just made a really bad judgement call on trying to be a "friend" to these guys by joking around with them, maybe with a sexual overtone.  (BAD move!!)  My son called his teachers by their first name in high school which I did NOT approve of.  What in the world happened since Dr. Phil and I were in High School whe we had to address teachers with either Mr., Mrs. or Miss??  (Ms. wasn't invented yet)

OK... Here's how the 2nd show SHOULD have gone....

1)  Get the Principal or Guidance Counselor or some school offical to explain whay they didn't call the police after they determined a felony may have been committed.

1)  Get the local police polygraph examiner on the show to explain why the first kid said "Just kidding, I lied" after he had interpreted that the polygraph test said he was telling the truth. (BIG RED FLAG goes up here!)  Dr. Phil has THE BEST doing his polygraph testing!  Let HIS guys ask the local police polygraphy guy the questions.

2)  The second guy, on the phone, messed up a few time in his story.  He ALSO FAILED MISERABLY the polygraph test... BUT!!!... HE was the key... the son of an Ex-Mayor of the city this took place in.  (NOTE:  In a city... the "top cop" is NOT the Chief of Police" , it's the MAYOR.  If the Mayor speaks, in most case, the chief simply follows orders)  No ex-Mayor is going to let his son be labeled a liar... might ruin his chance at mayor, or better, later on.  Ask the local police why their polygraph examiner is so inept.  Look into some kind of political interference here.

3)  The third guy changed his story so may times I could hardly follow it when Dr. Phil was questioning him on the show.  HE FAILED HIS POLYGRAPH TOO!  DUH!  Gosh... is there a pattern here, or what??  And still, Dr. Phil treated him with kid gloves.

4)  Get the NEA union rep on the show and ask him why they didn't come to the teacher's aid with legal guns blazing.  I assume she's paid her NEA union dues.

This lady was doing what she was trained to do these days.  Try to teach and be a "friend" to the students.  Try to be cool and be in the "IN CROWD" with them.  What a load of crap.  Teachers are the same as parents as Dr. Phil defines them...  They (parents and teachers) should  teach, instruct and prepare kids for life.  They and the kids can have fun doing it... but the respect should be a barrier so that discipline is maintained and values are observed.

Where were you when all this was covered? Are you guys so done that you are talking in circles?

The polygraph examiners failed to comply with NSA and polygraph standards.

Polygraph are not admissible in court and they have no scientific basis and that means civil court.

The boy passed the actual test, but the examiner unethically interpreted the boys as fooling the machine by practicing deception. Maybe, that is why Dr. Phil did not apologize to the polygraphers and by standards they acted inept.

It seems like the boys were railroaded and did not know that the teacher was going to refuse the test, which was not properly administered. Dr. Phil knew she was not taking the test so why ask her on national TV.

The boys were questioned separately and not together and also on more than one occasion.

Your summary

1. The polygraph did not show that the boys were lying, but demonstrated that Joelle's attorney was afraid that it would show Joelle to be lying.

2. The boys were not 14. Try reading the SOAH docket no 701-06-1196.EC.

3. The boys were not interviewed together, but separate on different occasions. Read the docket.

4. They passed a State polygraph test, not a city police test and the Axciton polygraph machine used on the Dr.Phil Show was improperly applied and the examiners did not follow proper procedures and standards. It is required that a new examiner administer the exam upon request and the initial examiners interpretation be discarded.

2nd Show

1 Get Doug on stage to be questioned about meeting Joelle as a student in his class

2. Get the ex-boyfriend on stage and ask why he never testified for Joelle. Why did his father testify instead? Like his father really knew what was going on. Right!!!

Question: Joelle is appealing the dismissal of the Wrongful Termination case, based on 4th & 5th Amendment Rights, so what would this be based on? 4th Adornment normally pertains to improper search and seizures; 5th Amendment normally pertains to the right against self-incrimination. What's up with that?

No teacher is trained to pass secretive coded notes and have a slumber party with five boys.