Closing arguments take place in Raymond teacher sexual exploitation, luring trial

First to present his arguments was Defense Lawyer Steve Eichler, who took aim at the 19-year-old complainant’s testimony and credibility.

He told the court that his client denied any late-night drives as the alleged victim described, and denied there was any kissing as the teen had described previously. Two ‘side hugs’ given to the teen, he said, had no sexual purpose. He also said his client never gave any pills to the student or smoked marijuana in her presence and never asked her about her sexual history.

His interaction with the girl, he claimed, was as a confidante because she had been alienated from friends, could not or would not speak to her parents, and was the subject of bullying on and offline.

He pointed out that several times during her testimony, the alleged victim admitted she didn’t tell the truth or could not recall certain details and that Salmon’s wife also testified she was up at various points during the night because the couple had a baby. At no time did she recall her husband not being in their bed.

During the summer and early fall of 2016 when the teen was 17, Eichler told the court Salmon became aware that the student likely had feelings for him, but that he was embarrassed about it.

The judge interjected, wondering why Salmon may have been embarrassed about a student having feelings for him if he did nothing wrong. He asked Eichler, “I don’t understand the concept of being embarrassed for somebody else.”

Eichler summed up his arguments by telling the court that Salmon shared information about the times he met with the student, that his testimony was consistent, that his wife knew about the meetings, and that simply communicating with someone underage by means of text or phone was not a criminal offence.

Crown lawyer Dawn Janecke countered those arguments by telling the court that the 19-year-old gave credible testimony about the innocent start to the relationship, the continuous contact on Snapchat some time later, and that her testimony also demonstrated a grooming process occurring over a period of time.

Janecke explained to the court that many people had become suspicious of the relationship the teenager had with Salmon, including a teacher, the girl’s parents, and students at her high school – and said that Salmon admitted to the court while he knew the principle told coaches not to meet with students alone off school property – he continued to do so anyway. She added that when the accused spoke of getting her help with an alleged controlled substance issue, or the bullying, when given an opportunity to do so, he did not.

She added that the young woman’s testimony should be considered truthful and that she didn’t exaggerate or minimize her behaviour. She explained some inconsistencies in the teenager’s testimony as those that were minor in nature and attributable to the passage of time.

Janecke then told the court that the accused’s evidence was improbable and absurd in some instances, and asked that his testimony be rejected, asking at one point, “Why is a basketball coach the only confidante of a 17-year-old?”

A verdict in the case is expected tomorrow (March 28).

by Lara Fominoff @LaraFominoff on Twitter

Closing arguments take place in Raymond teacher sexual exploitation, luring trial

What's Happening