A teacher charged with sexually exploiting seven of his former students went through an intensive cross-examination by Crown counsel Juan Wolffe in Supreme Court yesterday.

Before Mr. Wolffe began his cross-examination, however, defence counsel Elizabeth Christopher finished questioning the 53-year old Pembroke man about the incidents which allegedly occurred at a school where the defendant was working between 1997 and 1999.

"I'm innocent, it never occurred," the defendant said over and over throughout his testimony.

He also spoke about what Ms Christopher termed "The Jerry Springer Affair".

That, he said, was a time when he discovered students enacting the famous television show. The students were subsequently put on a time-out. After, he said, he noticed that some of the girls, including one now alleging he molested her, began to hang around the boys' bathroom.

He also described one student as badly behaved, even cursing on one occasion.

When Ms Christopher finished Mr. Wolffe leapt up without a second's hesitation and began firing questions at the defendant so rapidly that Assistant Justice Charles-Etta Simmons had to ask him to slow down so that she could transcribe properly.

"You stated these allegations never happened," he said. "Are you saying all seven of those girls have come to this court and not told the truth?"

"Regarding the allegations, yes", replied the defendant.

Later, Mr. Wolffe questioned the defendant about testimony in which he told the court a student was "talking excessively", so he tapped her once on the stomach to be quiet.

"Why not just tap her on her arm?" asked Mr. Wolffe, later listing several other parts of the body the defendant might have tapped. "It was a reflex action," said the defendant.

"When you sent her the note that said 'I love you', was that a reflex action too?" asked Mr. Wolffe. "You... actually wrote a note to an eight-year old that said 'I love you'?"

The defendant repeated earlier testimony to the court, where he stated he wrote the note after a group activity which the student's group lost. "She started crying, saying I loved the other group more than her group," he said.

"So why didn't you write 'I love your group?'" asked Mr. Wolffe. "Because of all the members in her group she behaved in this manner," said the defendant.

"Why didn't you just go over and explain it to her, why did it necessitate writing her a note?" asked Mr. Wolffe.

"I believe she needed the verification," said the defendant. "I believe the note had a good effect on her behaviour."

The teacher had previously admitted writing another note to one of the students involved which, as Mr. Wolffe read it to the court, said: "Don't make promises you can't keep. Today is Thursday. You know what I mean. Stay sweet, like when I first met you."

Mr. Wolffe asked him to explain that note also. "I wrote what I did because I knew what I meant," said the teacher, telling the court the note was in reference to a weekly activity the student was in danger of missing because of her bad behaviour.

"So as an eight-year old you expected her to decipher what that meant?" asked Mr. Wolffe. "She knew exactly what I was talking about," said the defendant. When asked how he knew that, he replied: "Because her behaviour changed."

Though Mr. Wolffe's cross-examination started off fiery it did slow down at points. At least one juror fought a valiant touch-and-go battle against sleep as, while Mr. Wolffe took the defendant through all the allegations made against him by the seven girls, the defendant repeated over and over: "Never happened... never occurred... incorrect... I never did such."

The allegations included taking one child to a deserted boatyard and, over her protests, putting his hand up her skirt. They also included kissing, touching, and attempting to touch the various girls inappropriately.

The defendant steadily denied them all.

Referring to testimony about the child's bad behaviour, Mr. Wolffe said: "The only reason you are saying that is to put her into a bad light."

"That is not true," replied the defendant. "If I was doing that I'd say some bad things about her, but I'm not."

And, regarding the students involved in the 'Jerry Springer Affair', Mr. Wolffe suggested again that the defendant was deliberately painting the students in a bad light.

The teacher denied this, saying: "We all know the connotations from Jerry Springer."

Finally Mr. Wolffe named each girl once more, saying: "(All these girls) came to this court and told the truth about what you did to them. And it's you who is not telling the truth about what took place between 1997 and 1999."

"That is incorrect," replied the defendant.

The day ended with the defendant's wife, the last witness for the defence, taking the stand.

Much of her testimony cannot be published however, for fear of revealing the identity of the defendant and his alleged victims.

Mr. Wolffe is expected to cross-examine the defendant's wife today. Legal counsel will then make their closing arguments and Ms Simmons is expected to deliver her address to the jury on Friday morning.