Before I drill down into a few of the transcript details, let me remind that the ALJ at the Austin hearing about Ogletree's teaching license found ALL of Chayce Wilson's allegations to be fabricated. (And that it wasChayce Wilson that made the sexually oriented comments during the *I Never* game.) As I mentioned on a previous post, this is pieces of the actual transcript from the Administrative Law Judge hearing in which the question of whether Ogletree would get her teaching license reinstated was considered. The 80 page summary has been written up here before, and you may want to read the overview first, including link to the PDF which is online at TEA.
Here's a scan of some relevant pieces about Chayce's testimony. (Note that the pages are not consecutive, but culled out). In the first pages, note that there were video and audio presentations of Chayce's testimony, and that the judge watched and listened before making his decision. That's what is referred to in some cases when an attorney says "You will see..."
p 17. (Joelle's attorney).
The evidence will show that Chayce has problems with the truth. He ignores it. He gave different accounts every time he was asked. And each time he said he was telling the truth. Not that these different statements were not just different based on new information, they were based on inconsistent information. That he had no sex, that he had a little sex, that he had some sex and that he had a lot of sex. And his accounts of sex with his teacher-his accounts are unbelievable that he would have sex with his teacher in the middle of the school day, in the middle of the school where her husband's classroom is around the hall even with unlocked doors. You can see in his testimony that he talks about contorted positions that don't make any sense. He talks about pleasureable sex but never to completion...
And you also will hear uncontrovertible, undisputable evidence that Chayce's allegations based on seeing Ms Ogletree change out of her color guard and then having sexual acts are disputed clearly. That she wasn't in color guard. You will see in his testimony that he admitted lying and he admitted lying about lying.
And I told you when I took his deposition, I was under the impression he was coming. So I did it to find out what he had to say, and I did not really come after him on cross with prior inconsistent statements , like I will, I assume, with Matt.
Chayce said that he was coming to this hearing. But at the last minute he takes a trip out of the country and suddenly is unavailable.
In fact, on p 20, the attorney calls him the "fleeing Chayce".
p 43. Mr. Connors: As I said in our hearing last week, I only took his deposition because it was represented to me that he was coming. And so when I questioned him, the focus was to find out exactly what he was saying about Ms Ogletree. I did very little cross-examination. I did not impeach him with prior inconsistent statements, as I would have if he had come live in the same manner I plan to cross-examine Matt. So I ask that you take that into consideration.
p 365-Mr. Ogletree cross-examined by TEA attorney
Q. Did you ever speak to Chayce about the allegations he brought against your wife?
A. On two occasions. The morning of October 2nd...Chayce came into my room. ... And he said, Mr. Ogletree, I just want you to know all of this stuff that's being said, I'm not saying any of it. And I said, okay, Chayce. but the people who are in this particular case, they need to realize that they are affecting a person's life here, their career. This is something serious. And he said, well, I just want you to know I'm not saying anything. . And I said, well, okay. Then if you know who these guys are that are actually saying this stuff, then you know, tell them how serious this matter is. And that was pretty much the end of it. Unbeknownst to me, 30 minutes later he was going to sit up there with the school administration and the school resource officer, and start alleging the stuff that began... well, one of his many stories that he's told.
p 366 Mr Ogletree on the 2nd time Chayce came in the classroom.
Chayce came up to me and said, Mr. Ogletree, I just want you to know that I'm sorry for all that's gone on and I just don't want there to be any hard feelings. I sat back in my chair. And then, finally, I stood up. And I said... I said, we're not talking about this right here. You and I are going to the office and you are repeating everything you just said to me. .....
Q. Yesterday Matt testified that Chayce and him came to you in October of 2002 and you told them that if any more stuff comes out, I'm getting the *F* out of here. How do you respond to the allegations?
A. Twofold. Guaranteed, one, that just adds to the fact of here's Matt making another lie. Okay. And second, I don't use that kind of language at school, not to say that I haven't. But I'm saying at school as a professional, I don't use that kind of language and definitely not in front of the students.
Q. So you never met with those two and you never said that.
A. The only person that ever came in my room was Chayce.
Ogletree says on p 390 that the only thing he and his wife knew on October 2nd were rumors.
p 391. Mr Ogletree-
As we learned, he wrote a statement on October 1st alleging that, you know, nothing had happened, and French was stupid ultimately. And then on the 2nd after he, I guess, had some time to concoct a story added a little bit more. And then, months later, chose to go onto a video and add a whole lot more.
Ogletree goes on to say that the boys had opportunity to conspire together.
p 559. Even the TEA attorney, who is the one who was against Ms Ogletree, says that the boys were caught lying and that he knew that before he filed the case.
When Chayce W was on Dr Phil's show, he said something to the effect that the whole case boiled down to *He said/She said*, as if the facts weren't clearly out there and decisive. But more than that, for him to say that is more than disingenuous, because he wasn't a bystander looking on. He was supposed to show up, twice, to testify about his allegations against Ogletree, both in criminal court and at the ALJ hearing in Austin. What happened? In fhe first case, a mistrial was declared before he ever testified. Ogletree had the RIGHT to have Wilson examined and his statements held up to daylight by her attorney in a court of law, but a chance for him to face Ogletree didn't happen then. How about on the second occasion? He told Ogletree's attorney, who had taken his deposition, that he was going to come to Austin. But then, what happened? He chose, knowing the date, and after saying he would be there... to leave the country. Let's just say in the first instance that somehow, despite knowing the court date and knowing he was a prime witness against Ogletree, that he really couldn't get out of the archeological trip he took with Dr Criswell that was going to suddenly take him out of the country (that assumes that he had made the arrangements first, but if so, why wouldn't he have mentioned it to the deposer? He told him he was coming and then ... didn't... even though this was a hugely serious allegation). So, that was the SECOND instance in which he could have made the situation more than a *he said/she said".
One might say, oh, but he was deposed before the ALJ Hearing. Depositions are not the same as facing your accuser and being cross-examined in a court.
Neither was going on the Dr Phil show, in which not only did he try, vainly, to remain semi-anonymous, NOT face Ogletree but only consented to take a polygraph test, which he failed. Seems he wanted to re-tell his side of the story but not have to defend it, as he would have had he shown up to the latter ALJ hearing. That's why it's a little disgusting for him to claim that the case remains a he said-she said. If that is true, it's only so for those who are too lazy to actually follow what happened, and instead rely, just like those nebulous emails that roam the internet, on half-baked truths that fall apart on inspection.