Ashton acquitted.

[Fancy]

Ashton said the perjury charges are related to exhibits at her trial.

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews ... 52b874814d

[Merry]

It'll be interesting to see how the perjury trial turns out. But regardless of whether she's found guilty or innocent of perjury, it doesn't alter the fact that there was no evidence to prove she was guilty of having sex with a minor.

Even an innocent person might be tempted to lie about something they think might make them look guilty. Foolish, but true. And as we already know this person is given to making foolish decisions sometimes, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turned out she had perjured herself. But that does not mean she did what that young man accused her of. That particular trial is over and she was found NOT GUILTY.

[Fancy]

Of course there wasn't enough evidence but you keep repeating there was none. What about the exhibits?

[Merry]

Of course there wasn't enough evidence but you keep repeating there was none. What about the exhibits?

None of the evidence presented proved that Ms. Ashton had sex with the accused.

The fact she had a relationship that went beyond the bounds of just teacher or coach was well established, and everyone agrees that was both unprofessional and foolish of her. But it was not proven that she actually had sex with the kid. And that was what the trial was all about.

The young man did not help his credibility with his faulty recollections and the inconsistencies in testimony between the first trial and the second. And seriously, how can anyone remember the exact number of times they had sex with someone? Add to that the fact that, despite claiming to have had sex in her suburban hundred of times, he couldn't recall much detail about any of the incidents.

When I was 14 I was sexually assaulted, and trust me when I say I can remember almost every single detail in vivid technicolour. So his lack of recall is amazing to me, and definitely makes me suspicious of his testimony.

[gardengirl]

It seems that you are projecting your own experience on to this one.
It is easier to remember one specific traumatic event than a series of ongoing encounters.
In a case like that, things do become more difficult to remember. It makes sense that the boy in question would be vague about things or even contradict himself.

For example: Can you give exact, specific details about what you did every Monday for six months in 2002?
Who did you talk to? Where did you go? What amount of time did you spend on each activity? Can anyone support your recollections?

[Merry]

It seems that you are projecting your own experience on to this one.
It is easier to remember one specific traumatic event than a series of ongoing encounters.
In a case like that, things do become more difficult to remember. It makes sense that the boy in question would be vague about things or even contradict himself.

For example: Can you give exact, specific details about what you did every Monday for six months in 2002?
Who did you talk to? Where did you go? What amount of time did you spend on each activity? Can anyone support your recollections?

No, I couldn't give exact details about every day events, but I definitely can about things that had a big impact on me, or truamatized me in some way. And if I'd had sex in a suburban as often as he claims to have done, I'd have a pretty good idea whether or not we were in the front or back seat at the time on at least SOME of the occasions. I can remember sexual encounters in vehicles that took place over 40 years ago and, while I don't remember every detail, I can tell you EXACTLY which seat we were in.

[LANDM]

And seriously, how can anyone remember the exact number of times they had sex with someone?

Maybe he was cutting notches in his belt to keep track? Don't some guys do that?
Maybe, as a 12 year old, he was fixated on his female teacher wanting to do the horizontal mambo with him and he actually counted. Who knows?

Regardless, you keep saying that there was "no evidence" that she had sex with the kid. It seems very odd that the crown would pursue two trials with no evidence.
Correctly, (and you have been corrected on this already) there was not enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that she did it. Just out of curiosity, were you at the trial? I certainly wasn't so I don't know the details, but I do know what the judge was quoted as saying and I do know how other trials go.......However, maybe this was one where the crown recommended charges tried her twice, but did not give any evidence at all during either of the trials.

[Merry]

Maybe he was cutting notches in his belt to keep track? Don't some guys do that?
Maybe, as a 12 year old, he was fixated on his female teacher wanting to do the horizontal mambo with him and he actually counted. Who knows?

If he was cutting notches in his belt he'd have excellent recall of the events, and exactly where they took place. Most young men remember their first sexual experiences in lurid detail.

Regardless, you keep saying that there was "no evidence" that she had sex with the kid. It seems very odd that the crown would pursue two trials with no evidence.

Not odd at all. Crown attorneys lose trials all the time.

Correctly, (and you have been corrected on this already) there was not enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that she did it.

Not sure what you mean by my having been "corrected on this already" because I've been saying all along that there was no evidence to prove her guilty. If there had been sufficient evidence, ANY sufficient evidence, she WOULD have been found guilty. The judge's comments made that perfectly clear. But there was NOT, therefore she was found NOT guilty. The evidence presented was NOT sufficient to find her guilty. It WAS sufficient to suggest an improper relationship, but NOT sufficient to prove a sexual one. There was absolutely NO evidence to prove Ms. Ashton had sex with a minor, but enough inconsistencies in the minor's testimony to make it unreliable.

Just out of curiosity, were you at the trial? I certainly wasn't so I don't know the details, but I do know what the judge was quoted as saying and I do know how other trials go.......However, maybe this was one where the crown recommended charges tried her twice, but did not give any evidence at all during either of the trials.

No I wasn't at the trial. But I followed it very closely through more than one media source. And I know exactly how such trials go. If there is insufficient evidence to prove the Crown's case, the defendant is found NOT GUILTY. Therefore we can safely presume that the evidence the Crown presented was not sufficient to prove their case. Yes there was evidence presented, but there was NO evidence that proved Ms. Ashton commited the crimes she was on trial for.

[LANDM]

If he was cutting notches in his belt he'd have excellent recall of the events, and exactly where they took place. Most young men remember their first sexual experiences in lurid detail.

Probably not after they do it after the first 50 or 100 times maybe he was, after a certain point just thinking to himself "la la la.....let this experience with this old lady be over..."

Not odd at all. Crown attorneys lose trials all the time.
But they do present evidence. Of course they can lose the trial when their evidence does not prove without a reasonable doubt.


No I wasn't at the trial. But I followed it very closely through more than one media source. And I know exactly how such trials go. If there is insufficient evidence to prove the Crown's case, the defendant is found NOT GUILTY. Therefore we can safely presume that the evidence the Crown presented was not sufficient to prove their case. Yes there was evidence presented, but there was NO evidence that proved Ms. Ashton commited the crimes she was on trial for.

Finally you can at least confirm that the crown presented their case and they presented their evidence. Once again see the quote from the presiding judge:
Beames went on to say that she believed that there could have been an inappropriate or sexual relationship between Ashton and the student, but that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think we are going to agree on whatever is the reality here....the reality is there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt without a reasonable doubt. The entirely different reality is that she either did it or she didn't. Neither of us know that reality but we apparently have different gut feelings on it. My gut feeling is that I would never want a child or grandchild of mine around her.

Do your feelings about this relate to how people treated you when you claimed you were sexually assaulted at 14?

[Merry]

Finally you can at least confirm that the crown presented their case and they presented their evidence. Once again see the quote from the presiding judge:[/color]
Beames went on to say that she believed that there could have been an inappropriate or sexual relationship between Ashton and the student, but that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't think we are going to agree on whatever is the reality here....the reality is there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt without a reasonable doubt. The entirely different reality is that she either did it or she didn't. Neither of us know that reality but we apparently have different gut feelings on it. My gut feeling is that I would never want a child or grandchild of mine around her.

Do your feelings about this relate to how people treated you when you claimed you were sexually assaulted at 14?

Of course the Crown presented evidence at the trial, but the point is that NONE of the evidence presented PROVED that Ms Ashton did that of which she was accused. The fact that the evidence DID establish that Ms Ashton had a relationship with the young man that went beyond the normal professional relationship of a teacher and/or coach led the judge to make the surmisations that she did. However, I did say earlier, that in the absence of evidence PROVING Ms Ashton did have sex with the boy, I felt the judge was out of line casting aspersions on her character. And I still feel that way.

If, despite having a trial which found that the evidence presented did not prove the Crown's case, we are still going to treat the defendant as if they are guilty anyway, then why bother with a trial at all? As I said earlier, maybe we should just boil people accused of such crimes in oil and have done with it.

You obviously have your mind made up as to the lady's guilt, and no matter how many trials we have, and how many times she is not found guilty, you will convince yourself that justice was not done. So there's no point our discussing further. Your mind is made up. Whereas I, on the other hand, did try to keep an open mind throughout both trials, and am willing to accept the verdict. Because In my mind, living in a democracy as opposed to a police state, we have no other choice.

The legal system is civilized society's way of protecting its citizens from lynch mobs. People who are accused of heinous crimes are tried and found guilty in the media every day. But that doesn't mean they did the crime. Often, things come out in court that are not reported in the media, which is why the general public are not the best arbitars of such things. We have to rely on our system of justice, imperfect though it may be. It's still the best we have. And using that yard stick I am prepared to accept the verdict of NOT guilty, and give Ms. Ashton the benefit of the doubt.