"She Did Not Commit Any Criminal Offences."

These words have been haunting me for the past couple of days since I read them.

Susan Hayhow's lawyer, in speaking on behalf of his client, had this to say about her perspective on the criminal fraud charges that have been laid against her:

"She has consistently maintained she did not commit any criminal offences and she still maintains that position."

Those words play over and over in my head.  I just can't understand how she can say this, and I feel this pressing need to get into Hayhow's head and at least try to understand how she could hold that view.  Given that the money disappeared from Imagine coffers and has never, to my knowledge, been repaid (despite my recollection of her assurances to the trustee in bankruptcy in '09 that she would do so if necessary), where could she possibly say the money has gone?  I have thought of at least a handful of scenarios that might be going through her head:

• Does she deny altogether that the funds were used for the purposes stated?  (in which case I would ask where the money went then?)
• Would she say that she is ignorant of how the funds were used, perhaps that her ex husband, Rick Hayhow, the Chief Financial Officer of Imagine at the time of its bankruptcy, was in charge of all money matters and that she had no idea where the money was coming from to pay for their vacations etc?  (in which case I would say that surely she would be responsible nonetheless because of her position as President)
• Does she acknowledge that yes, she used the money for vacations and horses and cosmetic surgery and home renovations (and on and on) but that it was ok for her to do that because of her position as agency President?  (I can't even speak to how many ways in which this would be wrong) 
• Is she confused about where the money was coming from?  After all, between her salary and her husband's they were apparently raking in an income of at least a few hundred thousand dollars/year.  Maybe it was just too tough to keep the money separate and apart from corporate funds.  (in which case I would say that I can see where that might be confusing...not)
• Or are she and her lawyer using fancy language to dance around the fact that yes, she took the funds and yes, she was wrong to do so but that she doesn't believe (for whatever reason) that she and her ex should be held liable on a criminal basis?  Does she know, deep inside, that she did the things of which she is accused and is simply hoping to evade accountability and win at trial?  (in which case I say, I surely hope you have enough evidence gathered, Mr. Crown Prosecutor) 

Which assertion, or which other one, does she use to justify the position that she has consistently held that she did not commit a criminal offence?  Any way I look at it, I'm struck by the fact that the Hayhows were the key people in that organization and were ultimately responsible for every dime that went into and out of the agency.  I can only conclude that she has utterly deluded herself if she really believes otherwise.

I so hope to get answers to this question some day...though I think that's a real long shot.