Ashton acquitted.

[Fritzthecat]

wow really
if having sex with a 12 year old kid in doing nothing wrong
then i guess she did nothing wrong

Wow I guess I got the wrong verdict. I heard she was CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES.

[gardengirl]

You seem to keep conveniently forgetting this part:

While delivering her decision, BC Supreme Court Justice Alison Beames stated she did believe there was evidence of a relationship between the complainant[[b]/b] and Ashton, however, she believed there was reasonable doubt in the complainant's story, particularly dealing with a tattoo on Ashton's lower abdomen that he claimed he never saw.

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.

The first trial, in 2011, ended in a hung jury.

Ashton still faces two counts of perjury resulting from that initial trial, however, it's not clear what will become of those charges now that she has been acquitted in the second trial.

[LANDM]

It's important to remember that an accusation alone does not mean the accused actually did the crime. Maybe they did, but then again maybe they did not. That's why we have a court system; to try to determine which party is telling the truth. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we've got, and we ought to respect it.

In this particular case there was no evidence to prove that the accuser spoke the truth, therefore, under our system of justice, we have to presume the lady was innocent.

no, actually it is important to realize that the Crown did not prove guilt within a reasonable doubt. Therefore she was found not guilty of those charges. The judge did go on to say that (and now I am paraphrasing) she felt that wrongdoings did exist on the part of ms Ashton's activities. This lady was the architect of her own demise.....this is not about how we all felt as youngsters about our camp outs 40 or 50 years ago. This is about some pretty weird happenings!

And also, this is not triggered by the kid's accusations. Someone else sent the anonymous letter that brought the 2nd trial. And this was not an exercise in determining whether the accuser spoke the truth. There was not determination on that other than that there were inconsistencies.

[Merry]

In reality it does not come down to evidence.Its who the judge beleived more in the way I saw things!! that,s the part you dont seem to understand same as old OJ.Your Opinion is the judge ruled correctly.Mine is she had a better lawyer and the kid told a few fibs but he was still banging her way back when

No, it DOES come down to evidence. That is why, even though the judge said she DID believe there MAY have been an inappropriate relationship, she still had to find Ms Ashton not guilty on all counts.

In our legal system it is not up to an accused to prove innocence, it is up to the Crown to prove guilt. And in this case the Crown failed to produce any evidence to prove that guilt. So, in the absence of such evidence, we must presume innocence. Remember, we are ALL innocent until PROVEN guilty. That's the way our system works. If you have a suggestion for a better way of doing things, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise we have to accept the system the way it is.

[Merry]

no, actually it is important to realize that the Crown did not prove guilt within a reasonable doubt. Therefore she was found not guilty of those charges. The judge did go on to say that (and now I am paraphrasing) she felt that wrongdoings did exist on the part of ms Ashton's activities. This lady was the architect of her own demise.....this is not about how we all felt as youngsters about our camp outs 40 or 50 years ago. This is about some pretty weird happenings!

And also, this is not triggered by the kid's accusations. Someone else sent the anonymous letter that brought the 2nd trial. And this was not an exercise in determining whether the accuser spoke the truth. There was not determination on that other than that there were inconsistencies.

If we accept that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, the fact that the Crown was unable to prove guilt within a reasonable doubt should be enough for us to accept the verdict. But unfortunately, whenever an accusation of this nature is made, there will always be those who refuse to accept that the accusation just might be false.

If I truly believed someone was behaving in this manner I wouldn't hide behind an anonymous letter. I would have the courage of my convictions and make a formal complaint. It is unfortunate that someone with a grudge, or who just plain doesn't like you, can throw this kind of mud, ruin your life, and yet still remain anonymous even though you may not be guilty of the crime. It's a thought that haunts public figures all the time. How easy it is to ruin a life with absolutely no consequences to yourself.

[Fancy]

The person who wrote the letter stepped forward so it was established it wasn't the ex-husband that wrote it.

[kyrasmommy]

From the SODA page on Facebook:

SODA update March 30, 2012

Not guilty is the verdict and the Ashton family rejoices.

Judge Beames’ address to the court was fundamentally a summing of both Defense and Crown cases. Her early conclusions found largely that Deborah did have a relationship that went beyond teacher-student or beyond, in her opinion coach-student. She even went as far as to conclude that it was inappropriate.

Crown’s case was wrought with ‘frailties’ and fundamentally Judge Beames could not come to terms with the number of intercourse claims-sex every other day for three years-in light of the large floral tattoo on Deborah’s lower abdomen. This tattoo extends from above her navel and below her bikini line. The judge also felt that the accuser claimed most of the intercourse occurred in the Suburban yet he could not, in any way, describe any of the incidents.

Defense’s choice not to have Deborah take the stand in this retrial has also been questioned. It was clear during Beames’ summation that a few of the faults with defense’s case could have been covered off in the testimony of Deborah and those able to corroborate her testimony. These points include claims of sleeping under covers with the accuser or an extraordinary generosity of time and money.

Keep in mind however that defense in our justice system is an exorbitant affair. Deborah has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in her defense. She has lost her savings, her home and her profession all while attempting to defend herself to the claims of one minor. Had Deborah taken the stand, the trial may have run another 3 to 4 days at the minimum. Depending on your lawyer, another 3 days in a Supreme Court trial can run you in excess of $30,000.00. Deborah had already defended herself in the first trial-which remains a sticking point of unfair tribunal-and the Ashton family was faced with losing the home of her parents’ in order to finance yet another defense. Securing transcripts from the first trial alone cost in excess of $15,000.00. It begs the question, how far could your finances take you in our justice system? Now ask yourself how you would accomplish this while unemployed?

Those closer to Deborah’s experiences and those who also attended the first trial are aware of these facts. In the first trial Jack Harris brought in several character witnesses who supported the claim that Deborah devoted an extraordinary effort on behalf of all her students.

Deborah's partner teacher supported her; this teacher was never interviewed by investigating police. In fact, Deborah’s partner principal at that time was also never interviewed. This principal has been interviewed since the first trial and his experiences with the investigating officer are not open for commentary at this time.

It is well known that Deborah also cared for students from her past. It became clear in the first trial that homeless and at risk students who could not secure stable living conditions temporarily resided with Deborah’s family until they could secure improved resources. These are facts that Judge Beames did not have the opportunity to benefit from.

In fact, many gallery attendees who have observed the case from its beginnings feel that Judge Beames found Deborah not guilty despite her lack of knowledge regarding Deborah’s involvement in the community and the degree of her investment with all students.

The professional questions become persistent when all the information is available.

Is it appropriate for a teacher/coach to:

care for or house an at risk individual who is a past student?

fund events for students who might not otherwise benefit from such events?

clothe or feed a student when resources are not otherwise available?

participate in tournaments that are not sponsored by the school district?

tutor a student in the student’s home in an open working space when other family members are at home?

Deborah has responded to sentiments regarding the extent of her professional involvement with teachers and students. She feels it would have been inappropriate for her not to help out or intervene when it seemed necessary.

Deborah addresses the remnant perjury charges culled from the first trial in a preliminary matter next Thursday April 5th. Jack the Hammer Harris returns to court with Deborah.

[gardengirl]

Good works done by someone do not negate the bad. Take a look at the Catholic Church.

[Merry]

Good works done by someone do not negate the bad. Take a look at the Catholic Church.

I'm not sure how the Catholic church got into this discussion, but I understand your point that it is possible for people to do both good and bad things at the same time.

That said, the examples given about Ms. Ashton's "good" behaviour were meant to establish a pattern of caring for students she felt to be disadvantaged in some way, not just the one student who stood as her accuser.

It was her over solicitousness for the well being of this one student which appears to have resulted in him developing some sort of a crush on her, which in turn led to sexual fantasies. None of which is unusual under such circumstance, and which is the reason it is unwise for teachers to "cross the line" and develop anything other than strictly professional relationships with their students.

In this regard I heartily agree that Ms. Ashton made a mistake, and I think she may now feel the same way in view of all that has happened since. However, making mistakes, or acting in an unprofessional manner, is not the same thing as having a sexual relationship with a minor. And while there is plenty of evidence to suggest Ms. Ashton did the former, there is absolutely NO evidence to prove she did the latter. Therefore, under our legal system, we have to presume she was innocent. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with that. Would you really like to have it any other way? What do you suggest?

[Fancy]

I understand your point that it is possible for people to do both good and bad things at the same time.

I think you missed the point gardengirl was making and created a point of your own. Some people do both good and bad things at the same time as you state, however, as gardengirl pointed out, a whole lot of goods things does not wipe out one big bad thing.

[Merry]

And, if you re read my post, I never suggested that they did.

My point was, and is, that in the absence of any EVIDENCE to PROVE Ms. Ashton had a sexual relationship with this young man, we must presume she is innocent.

[Fancy]

Then I don't see why you quoted gardengirl's post but I'll leave her to clarify her point.

As far as

My point was, and is, that in the absence of any EVIDENCE to PROVE Ms. Ashton had a sexual relationship with this young man, we must presume she is innocent.

I wasn't aware there was zero evidence or else why have two trials?

[Merry]

Whenever there is a hung jury (which means not all the jurists agreed one way or the other) the Crown has the right to ask for a second trial. They don't have to ask for one, but they can if they want to. And in this case, they did.

But no-one should assume that just because they did, that implies anything at all about the accused's guilt or innocence. It simply means the Crown believes that if they pursue it further they have a chance of winning. However, in this case they were wrong. Given the judges comments, if there had been any evidence at all to support the allegations, Ms. Ashton would have been convicted. Therefore, it is safe to assume there was no evidence of sexual misconduct on her part. Although I do agree there was plenty of evidence to show she made some very unwise choices, which undoubtedly contributed to her dilemma, foolishness is not a criminal offense.

[Fancy]

I would never presume it is safe to assume in this case. Did she ever take the stand?

[Carmencat]

I thought Ashton took the stand in her first trial which is where the perjury charges she is still facing come from. Does anyone know what she lied about?

Also likely part of the reason her lawyer didn't put her on the stand in the second trial.