ESD Trial, Day 13 UPDATED

For starters, happy first day of school to ESD. I just finished updating yesterday’s post with the after lunch testimony, so read up. I was totally off on my witness guesses on the last post, so I’ll hold my tongue today.

In case you haven’t seen the last addition to the Day 12 post, I’ll recreate it here, as I have a feeling many of you will be interested in it. This testimony was presented outside the presence of the jury and Judge D’Metria Benson ruled it would not be admitted. However, it is part of the open court record.

Monday 5:05 p.m.

ESD asks to present an offer of proof on why certain parts of John Doe’s video deposition should be admitted into evidence.

Aldous says that they can simply have the video deposition admitted as evidence for that same purpose, but Chrysta Castaneda, lead counsel for ESD takes issue with that idea.

“The Court of Appeals looks for testimony to be written into the court record,” Castaneda says.

The judge allows it. And thus begins a 30 minute clip of testimony in which nothing terribly exciting happens. Except for this.

John Doe says his daughter had a midnight curfew on weekends and a 10 p.m. curfew on weeknights. He says he did not monitor her cell phone usage until after the Nov. 29, 2009 incident with the Farmers Branch Police.

An unidentified ESD attorney then asked the question many on the blog are posing:

“Inappropriate acts occurred at your home, and you didn’t discover them, did you?” the attorney asks.

“No,” Doe says.

“But you are suing the school and the diocese for not discovering inappropriate behavior?” he asks.

“Yes,” the father says, adding, “It’s my opinion that the school has an equal responsibility, perhaps more, in protecting my child.”

UPDATE 1:30 p.m.

I’ve been busy writing up this week’s Preston Hollow People print story, and now the lunch recess is over so I can’t add updates at this time. Sorry! I will tell you that the victim’s mother, Jane Doe, took the stand this morning. If there’s a long enough recess in the afternoon, I’ll fill you in with all the details then. If not, wait for the after 5 p.m. post.

UPDATE 1:50 p.m.

Unexpectedly, the judge is meeting in chambers and so proceedinds haven’t begun. I’m going to add my notes from this monrning for as long as u can. But be merciful as I’m typing all this up on my phone, which isn’t letting me see the scren as I type. Curses.

10:05 a.m.

Jane Doe, the victim’s mother,takes the stand. Cyndy Goosen is leading the questioning for the plaintiffs.

10:15 a.m.

Doe says she was “very surprised” to learn ESD was not part of the Episcopal diocese.

10:20 a.m.

Doe says her daughter was “nervous, frantic, and scared,” when she explained she had been confronted by the Farmers Branch Police when meeting with Campbell.

Doe and her husband felt “numb” upon hearing this news.

“We couldn’t discuss it too much that night,” she said.

10:25 a.m.

Doe says she remembers Rebecca Royall being “very reassuring” to her daughter in the initial meeting after the police incident.

“She said Jane wouldn’t be punished,” Doe says on the stand. “Rebecca told her they had no intention of making her leave.”

10:30 a.m.

Doe says that she did request the school protect her daughter’s identity and the fanily’s privacy, but she never suggested how ESD should handle the situation with the school community.

10:45 a.m.

Doe says she initiated a therapy reccomendaton from ESD, not the other way around.

10:50 a.m.

“Were you ever contacted by ESD about your daughter failing to thrive?” Goosen asks.

No, Doe says.

10:55 a.m.

Regarding her daughter’s expulsion, Doe says she was “completely stunned.”

“In my mind, there was no reason for this,” she says. “It was so wrong on so many levels —what they were doing, how they were doing it.”

Doe says when she got on the phone with Royall, she was told that the situation was “a firestorm” and that “everyone in the whole ESD community” knew about her daughter’s involvement with Campbell.

11 a.m.

Doe says when she and her husband told Jane that she couldn’t go back to ESD, her daughter’s response was “Everything [Campbell] said was going to happen to me has happened!”

Goosen asks if Doe felt like ESD showed her family compassion or caring.

“I felt like Jane was a problem for them and instead of trying to help this damaged child, and this family in crisis, they felt like it was easier to just get rid of us,” Doe says.

Pass witness.

11:05 a.m.

Shonn Brown opens cross-examination for ESD by asking Doe if she noticed any changes in her daughter’s behavior during the time period of the relationship with Campbell.

“That’s a hard question to answer,” Doe says. “She was entering her junior year. That’s a very stressful time because of a lot of college decisions … There were a lot of stressors on her. I didn’t think it was abnormal because I had been through it with the other three children.”

11:15 a.m.

Brown asks if Doe noticed an increase in the amount of time that Jane spent away from home.

Doe says that she didn’t.

Brown shows evidence that Jane spent the night in a hotel with Campbell on two consecutive Friday nights in October.

11:40 a.m.

“After Nathan Campbell left, did you believe ESD was a safe place for your daughter?” Brown asks.

“I did,” Doe says.

11:45 a.m.

Brown shows notes from Jane’s therapist that expressed concern about the effect of the rumors on Jane. Brown asks Doe if the presence of rumors and the fact that Jane’s name was included in them was “protecting her privacy.”

Doe says no.

“Would it be concerning if the rumors continued?” Brown asks.

“Yes, it would be concerning,” Doe says.

Brown shows more therapy notes from the following week indicating the rumors had continued and included Jane’s name as well as the names of other female students.

“Do you think it’s healthy for a school environment to have rumors floating around about girls having sexual relations with a teacher?” Brown asks.

“No, I do not,” Doe says.

In my opinion, this is ESD’s best cross-examination yet.

11:50 a.m.

Brown shows evidence that the therapist for Jane and John Doe had recommended the couple consider the possibility of removing their daughter from ESD.

Brown asks Doe if her main motivation for keeping Jane at ESD was because that’s what her daughter wanted.

“At that time we had no indication from Jane that she wasn’t doing well at the school,” Doe says. “It never entered our mind at that time to withdraw her.”


Brown shows a draft of the withdrawal document for Jane with spaces for signatures of both her parents. The family’s attorneys have repeatedly asserted that not enough emphasis was given on both parents attending the Jan. 27 meeting.

“This was prepared in anticipation for both parents to be there,” Brown says.

The letter that was eventually signed only had a space for the father.

At the time of the meeting, Doe testifies she was at home packing for a college trip with her daughter. The Doe’s home was located a few minutes from ESD’s campus.

“Why didn’t you just go five minutes down the road?” Brown asks.

Doe says she was “in such a state of shock” that the she didn’t even think about having that option.

Lunch recess until 1:30 p.m.

2:10 p.m.

Brown opens with a clarification about Doe’s earlier testimony that she had been the one to initiate contact with ESD’s psychologist Dr. Andy McGarrahan.

“Rebecca Royall first suggested to you that you contact Dr. McGarrahan about a referral for Jane, didn’t he?” Brown asks.

Does says yes, she believes Royall did suggest the idea.

2:15 p.m.

Brown tries to show several personal emails between Doe and her daughter’s therapist, Dr. Laura McCracken, but Goosen objects and the judge won’t allow it.

2:20 p.m.

Brown finally wins one and shows an email from May 2010 where Doe discussed dealing with the media. In it, Doe wrote to McCracken, “We’re waiting until Monday so the newspaper will have ‘scoop.’”

“You weren’t happy about the article that was written about the lawsuit, were you?” Brown asks.

“There were some aspects I wasn’t happy with, some words that were used,” Doe says.

2:25 p.m.

Brown asks Doe is she has “any personal knowledge” about whether or not her daughter shared with students that she’d had sex with Campbell.

Doe says she doesn’t have any personal knowledge about that.

“You basis for not believing that Jane was spreading rumors was Jane, correct?” Brown asks.

“Yes, it was,” Doe answers.

“And we’ve already established that Jane hasn’t always been truthful with you, has she?” Brown asks.

“No, she has not,” Doe says.

2:30 p.m.

Brown shows evidence that the Doe family at one point considered suing Campbell civilly.

2:35 p.m.

Doe says she told her daughter not to see or talk to Campbell after the events of Nov. 29, 2009.

Brown reads from a supplemental Farmers Branch Police report, which was taken after an officer had spoken with Jane’s mother on Nov. 30. The report said that the mother was “OK” with her daughter being with a teacher in a parking lot, and that she had been aware that Campbell was counseling her daughter.

Doe says the officer’s report is inaccurate.

“They got a lot of information wrong,” Doe says.

The police report from Nov. 29 said that Jane Doe was a student at Parish Episcopal. Brown offers that this was information given to the police by Jane.

2:45 p.m.

Brown asks Doe is she was upset on the evening of Nov. 29.

“Was I upset?” Doe asks incredulously. “I had just found out that my daughter was in a car with a teacher, which in itself was inappropriate. Yes, I was upset.”

2:50 p.m.

Brown shows that one of Doe’s older daughters sent her an email on Nov. 30 at 10:30 p.m. in which she said, “I know the things I saw about Nathan Campbell.” She went on to say that she had seen emails between her sister and Campbell to Campbell’s ESD account. One email in particular had pictures of her sister.

Doe wrote back on Dec. 1, “Put your detective skills to rest,” adding “The Nathan Campbell matter is closed.”

3 p.m.

Doe says that she had mixed feelings after the first couple of meetings with Royall and Mayo.

“I came away from those two meetings definitely feeling like Rebecca Royall had Jane’s best interest at heart,” Doe says, adding that she didn’t know Mayo very well at the time.

“I felt like I was in an interrogation [with Mayo],” Doe says. “I felt she was more concerned with information than with Jane.”

3:10 p.m.

Brown asks Doe is she shared the information that her other daughter had given her regarding emails between Campbell and Jane.

Doe says she did not.

Brown passes witness.

3:20 p.m.

Goosen asks Doe if her daughter getting expelled betrayed her privacy and identity as the victim of Nathan Campbell.

“Absolutely,” Doe says. “In fact, I think I said to Rebecca Royall, ‘You have just validated all the rumors.’”

Witness is excused.

3:25 p.m.

There’s all sorts of hullabaloo surrounding the next witness, Chris Burrow. The attorneys go into Judge Benson’s chambers.

4:45 p.m.

The attorneys emerge and say they’ve decided the former ESD CFO will be called tomorrow morning.

The jury is sent home, but the fun’s not over yet. Brown calls the victim’s mother up for a live offer of proof.

4:50 p.m.

Doe says the only thing she checked on her daughter’s (or any family member’s) cell phone bill was if there was an overage on minutes or texts.

Brown shows that Doe’s cell phone was used to make phone calls to Nathan Campbell at the same time that her daughter’s cell phone was texting him on the evening of Nov. 5.

Doe has no explanation for this other than the fact that her daughter sometimes borrowed her phone.

Cell phone records show that Jane Doe II sent 15 texts to Campbell from 9:35 to 10:06 p.m., the same time that her mother’s cell was engaged in phone calls to Campbell.

5 p.m.

Brown says Doe II’s best friend has testified that Doe confronted her daughter in the summer of 2009 about sending texts to Nathan Campbell.

Doe says she has no memory of that ever occurring,

5:15 p.m.

In her testimony, Doe II said she saw Campbell “every other day” during the summer. Brown asks Doe where her daughter said she was going all those times and if she followed up to see if her daughter had been telling the truth.

“I was not in the habit of investigating every place my daughter told me she was going,  no,” Doe says.

Brown asks that this line of testimony be allowed in front of the jury.

“Denied,” Benson says.

Court is in recess until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

33 thoughts on “ESD Trial, Day 13 UPDATED

  • August 23, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Claire, you are doing a superb job, and I know that the community at large appreciates your hard work. Thank you.
    @amanda…I read your posts from yesterday and today, and I appreciate your take on this situation. I am having a hard time reading the posts from adults who are attacking the actions of a child.
    I, also, believe (after reading the update) that the parents of JDII were not paying attention. Surely, this girls’ behavior changed when the relationship began. Predators seek out children who are vulnerable and easy targets. Predators are inherently lazy in their “hunting” strategies, and if the “prey” is not easy to manipulate, then they move on.
    JDII may have needed to move on from the school due to problems fitting in, but it seems that some of the problems with her were due to the atmosphere at the school after the situation was discovered. JDII’s THERAPIST said it was VERY BAD TIMING with regard to JDII leaving school. That is a pretty damning piece of testimony against the school.
    I am, also, REALLY not understanding who was asleep at the wheel in administration with regard to texting, credit card use, vehicle use, etc. Not paying attention to that is a recipe for disaster from a soley fiscal standpoint (embezzling, funds mismanagement, anyone?), not to mention this current debacle.
    As far as the “circus,” I will admit that I brought that one up yesterday. Several posters noted that ESD opted not to settle, and that is the reason it has gone to trial. I am aware of that, but maybe the silver-lining is that ESD will serve as a warning to other schools and districts. I am glad to see that some change will happen because NO school in Big D will want to be dragged through something like this.
    I have heard a similar quote from a doctor about lawsuits with regard to the fact that doctors who listen and give their patients a sense of compassion and closure when there are problems, very rarely get sued. It is the lack of empathy and compassion that drives humans to want to be heard.
    JDII’s parents have definite culpability in this, and they will have to live with the knowledge of that for the rest of their lives. JDII will live with the scars this ordeal has left on her emotional life forever, and no amount of money will be able to heal her. However, if a predator like Nathan Campbell was allowed to flourish in ESD’s halls, then the school may need to be dealt a significant financial blow in order to change its policies. Long rant and many apologies, but let’s not forget that the real villain in this is Nathan Campbell, and I, for one, hope that man rots in jail.

  • August 23, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    Regardless of how this trial ends, it is clear ESD needs to make several personnel changes beginning at the top.

    Chris Burrow former CFO has left – wonder what lead to his leaving?

    It is time for the ESD Board Chair to make some bold leadership moves in getting Steve Swann to “retire” and replace Rebecca Royall. The leadership has been grossly dysfunctional for way too long and, this lawsuit brings that point to the surface ever so clearly!

  • August 23, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    @ IO above…I guess what I’m hearing you say is that you, like me, are seeing some black/white in all of this, but a lot of grey, too.

    One thing you said that really rings true, “…if a predator like Nathan Campbell was allowed to flourish in ESD’s halls…” (cont…) I would add that yes, perhaps a punitive award is appropriate (although I’m not sure, and reserve my opinion until such time as ESD can put on a full defense), and this: it’s REALITY CHECK time for ALL of the schools. One of the comments (ad nauseum) is “Well, if this was your school, you’d be ‘x’ too.” Let’s be really honest. Campbell was cunning, furtive, and deliberate in his acts. No school, no family should assume everything is hunky-dorey because you pay tuition, or your school has a “great” reputation.

    In the last thread, someone mentioned Kanakuk. Yeah. My child used to go there, and for anyone who reads this blog or PCP…I’m the mom, even though I KNEW BETTER didn’t call the police when my child reported seeing Pete Newman touching little boys. I say I knew better b/c in my own family and circle of friends, I know adults who were molested as children. And, I knew one boy who was a victim of a priest, here in Dallas, and he didn’t survive the aftermath (suicide.) Although I stepped up AFTER and gave a statement, the reality is that my assuming that the camp would do the right thing with my report instead of contacting the police may have caused there to be additional victims. That’s, in a nutshell, why I don’t buy that the faculty members and Campbell’s wife could have been oblivious, especially given yesterday’s testimony. Everyone needs to be educated, aware, and vigilant against the Peter Newman’s and Nathan Campbell’s of this world. Oh, I’ve been assured by multiple attorneys, the DA in Missouri, law enforcement, ministers, and the parents of victims that even if I’d called the abuse hotline, nothing would have been done, because I had no “proof.” But still, it’s a bitter pill to swallow. I would prefer to live with knowing I did all I could. I can’t honestly say that.

    Given my own regrets over the Kanakuk thing, I can say with a high degree of certainty that if it was my child’s school, I wouldn’t let it slide. I would raise holy HELL. I’m very curious about the CFO’s testimony…can someone clarify if he’s the one that has faced allegations that he coached Campbell on how to testify to benefit the school? See, that’s what I’m talking about. I realize we all love our children’s schools (public or private) for varying reasons (just like I loved Kanakuk,) but at some point, we MUST be honest and accountable.

    My heart hurts for everyone involved. I don’t care if a jury gave the victim’s parents a billion dollars…I doubt if the parents will ever forgive their part of the failings that have gone on. And, I’m willing to guess at least a few faculty members feel the same way.

    And, though I know I’m not supposed to be vengeful, I too wish Campbell receives the maximum sentence a judge can impose. I hope he will never be able to hurt a child or a community (the many ESD families who trusted him) in this way again.

    My child is very close to several ESD students…and seriously parents… What is being said on this blog vs. what some of the kids say in private are two different things. No one thinks ESD is evil…but, if we want to be honest, there is something about the culture of the school allowed this, and possibly more traumatic abuse scenarios to happen. That’s what we need to figure out to STOP it from happening again.

  • August 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Really? “Scars on this girl”? You must be kidding. Wow. Here in one of those cases, where someone/JDII, did something wrong, very wrong. Instead of accepting that and the consequences that go along with it, she and her family instead want to blame and punish someone else/ESD. It actually is a shame that this trial goes on and while difficult, it may be that it is better to settle. No one should be commenting on this without having some real understanding of what went on in this case.
    Sad for all.

  • August 23, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Correction: should read “it may be that it is better THAN to settle”

  • August 23, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    I agree with OInformed observer, I don’t believe ESD should bare the brunt of this. It’s my understanding the girl was 17 and knew quite well what she was doing.

  • August 23, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    “Yes,” the father says, adding, “It’s my opinion that the school has an equal responsibility, perhaps more, in protecting my child.”

    What parent would ever say that a school has more responsibility to protect a child than a parent does?

  • August 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm

    Informed Observer: Your comments reflect so poorly on the school and the ESD families. Seriously. Think before you write. You might consider taking a training on sexual abuse to educate yourself.

  • August 23, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    “the father says, adding, ‘It’s my opinion that the school has an equal responsibility, perhaps more, in protecting my child’.”

    This is the problem. This father thinks the school is supposed to do his job. This is so wrong. These parents have clearly never accepted responsibility for their “child.” My guess is the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree here either.

  • August 23, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    OInformed observer @ August 23, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    You make me sad.

  • August 23, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    The school has equal or more responsibility for protecting a student in their school from a teacher they hired who is using the school’s resources to commit a crime against that student? Doesn’t sound so unreasonable to me.

  • August 23, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    @Nancy, it really depends on the context of the quote. If they are talking about the school being responsible to vet the teachers, properly supervise the teachers, etc., then the school is more responsible. There is no way a parent can vet an entire school full of teachers and admins. If you are talking about what happened in the walls of your own house, then the parent obviously has more responsibility.

  • August 23, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    I agree with Former ESD Parent @ August 23, 2011 at 1:02 pm. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, the Board of Directors needs to step in and clean house, starting with the three individuals mentioned: Swann, Royall, and Burrow (Burrow may be gone already).

    Although Aldous may sling mud, much of it seemed to stick all too easily – Swann, likely lying (or forgetting), Royall likely making fraudulent claims to JD II’s father, Burrow [REDACTED]. Even Mayo, with the remark, “I don’t want this girl haunting the halls with her sad story the rest of the week.”, models a lack of compassion. The teacher Salz, quite combative, also seemed to perjure herself. This seems to be a fiasco for the school that can only be fixed by those empowered to do so, the Board of Directors of the school. Dysfunctional does not appear to be too strong a description.

  • August 23, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    Judge Benson is ridiculously corrupt! Every pro-ESD testimony is denied admission, while the plaintiffs seem to have her under their thumb.
    It’s time the hypocrisy and blame game stops.

  • August 23, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    Doe II said she saw Campbell “every other day” during the summer. ?????

    Wow, I don’t know if Benson is bias but you would have thought that the jury should be able to hear this. These parents were MIA at best and took no responsibility whatsoever.

  • August 23, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    I agree with OInformed observer. As a ESD alumni, and as a woman in my mid 20’s I refuse to deny the role of the 17 year old girl. The number of text messages and phone calls cannot be ignored.

    There is a lot of truth in the statement:

    “Yes,” the father says, adding, “It’s my opinion that the school has an equal responsibility, perhaps more, in protecting my child.”

    What parent would ever say that a school has more responsibility to protect a child than a parent does?

    ESD is a private institution, and as a school, their primary purpose is to provide the best education possible. I had Nathan Campbell as a teacher when I attended ESD. I have no complaints about his ability to teach and ESD is not responsible that he turned out to be a complete creep. Lets not blame the school for not parenting. Time to look at the real parents. It is virtually impossible to ESD to parent all of its students PreK-12th grade. Thats’s the parents job.

  • August 23, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    I hope the members board of directors are reading these comments and see the call for change at the top..I hope the demands do not fall on deaf ears….

  • August 23, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    Ok, I know that JDII is the victim and all her acting out is normal for a victim of sexual abuse, but that doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate for the school. Is it fair to the other girls accused of having sex with Campbell to let her stay? Literally the whole school, and the whole North Dallas bubble– Ursaline, Hockaday, etc…. all had heard the rumors and associated JDII with the scandal. It would have been ridiculous for ESD to let her stay and prolong the misery.

  • August 23, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    It is not the job of ESD to parent the children, but it is their job to protect the children. They failed clearly by their lack of oversight, training and by showing little to no compassion to a family in crisis.

  • August 23, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    Bravo @ESD alum04. Bravo! It is horrifying to think that a parent would allow a school to raise their child. Schools are responsible for educating children. Parents are responsible for parenting children, even while those children are at school, in college or at camp. This should go on from the moment they are born for the rest of their lives. I am sorry for Jane Doe that her parents gave up on taking the time to protect her even when they saw the signs.

  • August 23, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    I’ve been following your excellent coverage of this case and I can’t believe the school hasn’t settled this thing. The one thing that keeps bothering me about this whole thing is when the victim was expelled and she said
    “Everything [Campbell] said was going to happen to me has happened!”
    So when something like this happens again and the person in authority tells the girl that she’ll be kicked out of school if anyone finds out – she will believe him. Because that is what happened to this girl.
    The next girl to be lured into a relationship with a teacher will keep her mouth shut because she’ll be afraid of the consequences.
    This case isn’t about parenting or how appropriate this teen’s actions were. It’s about victims of sexual abuse. It is about the people who are responsible for doing something about it when it happens on their campus. It’s about how the next student will feel about being able to tell someone.

  • August 23, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    I disagree with OInformed observer. As an ESD alumnus and a man in my mid 20’s I refuse to accept that a 16 year old girl is responsible. The number of text messages and phone calls are symptomatic of grooming and abuse.

    There is some truth in the statement:
    “Yes,” the father says, adding, “It’s my opinion that the school has an equal responsibility, perhaps more, in protecting my child.”

    The Father is accepting that he has responsibility, but he is also acknowledging that ESD as a school has perhaps more responsibility given that he as a parent cannot monitor everything.

    ESD is a private institution, and as a school, their primary purpose is to provide the best education possible and to protect their students. Let’s not blame the school for not parenting. But let’s acknowledge their part in this situation. They failed to train their teachers and administrators. They failed to oversee credit card expenses. They failed to show compassion to a student who desperately needed their help. They failed to properly manage a crisis. They failed to understand grooming. They failed on so many fronts. It is possible for ESD to adequately protect their students. That’s their job as a school.

  • August 23, 2011 at 10:11 pm

    Who is the Editor at Preston Hollow People editing comments on this blog? I find it curious that you allow Swann to be called a “liar” in a previous blog comment yet, my reference by name of John Eagle, the Chairman of the ESD Board of Trustees is edited out? Are you afraid to use his name?

    Anyone else wondering why Steve Swann, as Headmaster of the school, was absent from the meeting between Royall, Mayo and the father where the withdrawal of the student was requested? If this indeed was the first time this happened at ESD, what could be more important to NOT have the CEO/Headmaster present at such a delicate time?? Delegation of the “dirty work”? Not a whole lot of compassion from a member of the clergy at a time when it was most needed…

  • August 23, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    @Elaine: This is what I have been trying to get people to understand. It wasn’t appropriate for the school. Everyone who has to leave any school has issues, whether it’s a bully, thief, etc.
    Her behavior and her relationships with ESD students made it impossible for her to continue to be there!

  • August 23, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    The problem that I have heard with ESD is that they do not consistently apply the same rules. Like male ESD alum said above, “they failed to properly manage a crisis” because everything changes from one moment to the next depending on who is monitoring the situation; and how it reflects on the school at the time. It was never about looking out for the children. Too many higher ups have been there for too long.

  • August 24, 2011 at 12:00 am

    I can’t help but think that if the school had asked her to leave when they first noticed Miss Doe’s odd behavior this would have never even happened. At least not at ESD.

  • August 24, 2011 at 12:10 am

    @ Former ESD Mother @ August 23, 2011 at 5:34 pm
    Maybe you should take your own advice and think before you write as your comments reflect rather poorly on YOU. Everyone has the right to his/her opinions and just because one does not agree with you does not mean he/she needs to seek training on sexual abuse nor should he/she refrain from voicing his/her opinions on this blog. Most following this case agree that Nathan Campbell is despicable and should receive the maximum punishment allowable for his actions. However, he was not a convicted sex offender when vetted by ESD and they had no reason to believe he would become one. ESD was definitely negligent in monitoring their credit card expenses and could have handled JDII’s withdrawal with a bit more compassion but they are certainly not more responsible than her parents. The parents lack of responsible parenting during this time is pathetic and it is dishearting that they are placing all the blame on the school for their failures.

  • August 24, 2011 at 12:13 am

    So a girl who has been the victim of the crime “has issues” and is equal to a bully or a thief? Interesting analysis.

  • August 24, 2011 at 12:40 am

    While I don’t disagree that the parents are responsible for ultimately raising the child, I am curious about one thing: if the parents could not afford a private school and this had been a public school removing the student because of what happened, what other opportunity would this child have? Clearly the public school could not remove the child. I have always assumed that private schools were supposed to rise above the public sector but it seems to me that ESD is saying that there were other options for this student, so no harm no foul. ESD appears to be saying that if your child is harmed by a teacher that we chose you are better off sending your child to DISD or some other public school than ESD. I think I’d prefer a lower standard of education to having my child raped by a teacher and then revictimized by the school. But that’s just me.

  • August 24, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Ok. I understand why it was in ESD’s best interest for JDII to leave. I don’t agree with it, but I understand what you are saying. Now tell me why it was in JDII’s best interest for her to leave, not ESD’s best interest. If literally everyone at Dallas schools had heard the rumors then how could JD have a “fresh start” at any of them? Would the rumors not follow her? Would there not be disruptions at these schools too? Would the teachers and students not gossip about her? Or are you saying that the students and teachers elsewhere might show her more compassion and kindness than those at ESD? If literally everyone knew about this situation I really don’t see how leaving would be helpful to anyone except ESD. Unless you are saying she should have left the city?

  • August 24, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Amazed Observer: Your comment amuses me because you clearly did not read the comment I was referencing. OInformed Observer said “No one should be commenting on this without having some real understanding of what went on in this case.” So, you and I agree. Everyone has the right to express his/her own opinion. I am with you on that! Totally with you! It is OInformed Observer who does not think everyone has that right. Only those with a real understanding should be commenting according to OIO.
    My point is he/she doesn’t appear knowledgeable regarding sexual abuse and therefore, given his/her own standards (not mine), might think before he/she writes.

  • August 24, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Amazing! Really, a parent has the responsibility to protect their child while at a school. So if you pay $25,000/year you should not expect that your kids will be safe and not sexually assualted at the school. This tea bagger crap makes me want to throw up. All you guys care about is that your tuition will rise to cover the costs of losing this trial. This school is half school half cult and would have made a great episode of HBO’s Big Love

  • August 24, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Amazed Observer: I am not completely sure, but I think there may have been some testimony earlier in the trial that the teacher wasn’t fully vetted in that his references were called, but there were not responses from those references. From what I have read, that can be a red flag in the abuse-area. Predators are often required to leave town to avoid prosecution (the family wants privacy, but the predator has to go). Also read that moving cities for vague reasons is a red flag.

Comments are closed.