Background-Joelle Ogletree Sues GRISD. I\'ve been surprised at some of the comments posted here recently (or attempted to be posted-all comments must be approved and ones that are either spam or full of personal attack and innuendo are deleted) ; at least the ones that are vitriolically against Ogletree and sound mostly like the commenters would like to run her out of town on a rail. Most of the commenters here have been supportive, so it\'s only a few disgruntled people who have posted character slams.
I don\'t personally know Ogletree but I do believe that in this country people have a right to defend themselves when they believe themselves to be unjustly accused. And, the standard of law here is that one is innocent until proven guilty. Those who do the initial investigation, such as police, CPS, school officials, etc, by necessity take the opposite tack of looking for guilt in order to build a case, but the final measure of how a person should be judged regarding any particular criminal case is a court adjudication, either by a jury or judge verdict. Sometimes people we think are guilty get off, and sometimes the innocent are badly served, but either way having a way for people to redress their grievances through the court system is enshrined in our democracy. (If you\'ve somehow forgotten this American concept, I suggest you go rent the movie "Twelve Angry Men")
I can\'t understand those who would want to deny that right to Ogletree and instead would like her to shut up, *get over it*, and continue to keep the slur on her name without any fight. Wanting her to have the chance to pursue the righting of her reputation isn\'t the same thing as saying that she would, by necessity, be 100 percent innocent-who knows? I certainly don\'t, but that\'s why the courts are there, to help get out the truth and bring about justice. If she believes herself to be wrongly accused and treated unfairly, why in the world should she NOT try to right the wrong? And if, as some speculate, she is fighting this in order to A. get publicity B. get money C. (and this is the most ridiculous argument) bring shame on the town she lives in, that will out in the court case, won\'t it?
I didn\'t post several remarks today; one was basically the "She should just get out of town" variety and the other had some smarmy *teenage boys scored* parts to it. Yuk. And the third smeared Ogletree as a pedophile-but she has never been adjudicated as one and that\'s WHY she seeks to clear her name; I simply won\'t post those types of comments. Let me repeat that. If you want to smear Ogletree here on the basis of something that has NEVER been determined by the courts to be true, and in fact, where she has at least partially been exonerated, your comments will not be posted. The basics continue to be:
The original trial was stopped as a mistrial. Had the DA believed he had a case, he would have refiled to try it again; that happens all the time. It is not up to the person who is being tried to bring the case again because of the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty; ie, it was up to the DA to prove his case, not for Ogletree to have to prove her innocence. Not only did he not do that, but in a later case, the judge ordered TEA to reinstate Ogletree\'s license. As one commenter said, TEA didn\'t judge as to Ogletree\'s guilt or innocence, trial-style, but nonetheless she is certified to teach in Texas again. (UPDATE: TEA actually did examine the evidence in order to make a determination.) And because the DA didn\'t choose to bring charges again (ask yourself if it\'s because one boy recanted, and there were inconsistences with the 2nd); for those who are so convinced that Ogletree is a pedophile, why isn\'t the DA\'s phone ringing off the hook with requests to re-file the case for trail? I\'m betting that the DA\'s case fell apart and he knows he doesn\'t have one.
I am not a fan of bringing up situations on daytime talk shows such as Oprah, Dr Phil, Monty, Springer, etc. I would not, myself, go on a talk show to discuss a problem, but must note here that two of the boys (who are young men now) also will be involved with the Dr Phil show today and tomorrow- are they publicity hounds? In it for the money? Because if you\'re going to paint one person with bad motives for going on television, then you must also do it for the others who also agree to appear. And if you say they only appeared for a chance to tell their side of the story, well, then, you have to grant the same motives for Ogletree. She apparently is continuing with forging ahead with a civil case against GRISD and, again, that is her right, just as it is the right of GRISD to vigorously fight and defend itself if it believes the charges are not grounded in fact.
Ultimately, whether she wins or loses, there will always be some in this town who believe the best of her.. or the worst. But meantime, stop with the Get Over it, Pedophile crapola and let her pursue her options to clear her name as she sees fit.
P.S. I notice that on the Dr Phil website it mentions that lie detector tests were given, which, essentially, to me, *tries* the original case on television. Will be interesting to see the results, which we will post here after the show (might be tomorrow as I suspect Dr Phil will drag out the test to the second day in order to bring in a larger audience). UPDATE: Boy # 1 (Let\'s just call him "C") Failed the polygraph
P.P.S. On those comments that won\'t be posted? That includes those that drag her husband into this.