Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

I could sleep just a little better if I knew that he was only active online but didn’t actually abuse children in person.

Trading in child exploitation is child abuse. So but you can sleep better knowing it wasn't your children. Sick PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

I could sleep just a little better if I knew that he was only active online but didn’t actually abuse children in person.

Trading in child exploitation is child abuse. So but you can sleep better knowing it wasn't your children. Sick PP.

Thank you!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

I could sleep just a little better if I knew that he was only active online but didn’t actually abuse children in person.

Trading in child exploitation is child abuse. So but you can sleep better knowing it wasn't your children. Sick PP.

Thank you!!!

Wow. Why so cruel. My children were alone with this man. Am I wrong in hoping he didn’t touch them. I know what he did is awful and that doesn’t change things. I hope for all children’s sakes that his activity was limited to online fetish and he never touched a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beauvoir did send an email this evening, to current families. I don’t know how they would gather all emails over families who interacted with him over the years, not really a fair expectation.

What! They send emails all the time to donate money.

And you really want your email!

I don't know if this is some misplaced anger toward former parents. If your child's teacher was arrested/is serving time for child pornography/child sexual abuse, you might have a little sympathy for why we are alarmed that we haven't received any communication from the school.

What do you want them to say about your child’s former teacher?

We are sorry! We want to reassure families that we will absolutely cooperate with law enforcement…
That is a minimum when you pay $40k and even more for their fundraising

What does the $40k have to do with this?

Meaning you are not just money to us but people we respect. For that amount of money, you expect respect and goodcommunication.

So FA families wouldn’t get the same respect? Wouldn’t get an email? Respect has to be paid for? For families no longer at these schools and no longer paying, why would they get an email?

Wake up. Full-pay families definitely expect service and communication. It’s what you pay for. And they are paying for the non-full pay students so I guess the way the world works is prioritizing pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

I could sleep just a little better if I knew that he was only active online but didn’t actually abuse children in person.

Trading in child exploitation is child abuse. So but you can sleep better knowing it wasn't your children. Sick PP.

Thank you!!!

Wow. Why so cruel. My children were alone with this man. Am I wrong in hoping he didn’t touch them. I know what he did is awful and that doesn’t change things. I hope for all children’s sakes that his activity was limited to online fetish and he never touched a child.

Imagine characterizing the imagery of perverse sexual violence and torture against children as only an "online fetish."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

I could sleep just a little better if I knew that he was only active online but didn’t actually abuse children in person.

Trading in child exploitation is child abuse. So but you can sleep better knowing it wasn't your children. Sick PP.

Thank you!!!

Wow. Why so cruel. My children were alone with this man. Am I wrong in hoping he didn’t touch them. I know what he did is awful and that doesn’t change things. I hope for all children’s sakes that his activity was limited to online fetish and he never touched a child.

Imagine characterizing the imagery of perverse sexual violence and torture against children as only an "online fetish."

Thank you!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

I could sleep just a little better if I knew that he was only active online but didn’t actually abuse children in person.

Trading in child exploitation is child abuse. So but you can sleep better knowing it wasn't your children. Sick PP.

Thank you!!!

Wow. Why so cruel. My children were alone with this man. Am I wrong in hoping he didn’t touch them. I know what he did is awful and that doesn’t change things. I hope for all children’s sakes that his activity was limited to online fetish and he never touched a child.

I don't think you understand how child exploitation works. Trading in it is just as harmful as touching a child in person. There are real life children being abused in the images.

[Anonymous]

While I understand everyone’s perspective, let’s move past the “is it better if it wasn’t at NCRC” discussion.”

Of course no one wants this to impact their kids. Of course no one wants this to impact any kids.

Surely we agree on that.

Let’s not name call and insinuate here…in either direction.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/11/19/carroll-ncrc-child-sex-abuse/

Washington Post with new details. very disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Holy shit I've known his wife for years. How horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Beauvoir did send an email this evening, to current families. I don’t know how they would gather all emails over families who interacted with him over the years, not really a fair expectation.

What! They send emails all the time to donate money.

And you really want your email!

I don't know if this is some misplaced anger toward former parents. If your child's teacher was arrested/is serving time for child pornography/child sexual abuse, you might have a little sympathy for why we are alarmed that we haven't received any communication from the school.

What do you want them to say about your child’s former teacher?

dp. what do YOU think? come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

You'd sleep better knowing he encouraged someone else to violently abuse a child and make him cry?

You think not touching a child directly absolves him from a modicum of guilt? I really don't think so. For me, his statement that he gets more pleasure out of it when the child is hurt puts him in the worst of the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

You'd sleep better knowing he encouraged someone else to violently abuse a child and make him cry?

You think not touching a child directly absolves him from a modicum of guilt? I really don't think so. For me, his statement that he gets more pleasure out of it when the child is hurt puts him in the worst of the worst.

PP I think we all agree with you. But the other PP is specifically trying to rule out her child. I think you’re over-interpreting this.

[Anonymous]

Not defending anything, but what the PP is saying is that they’d sleep better knowing it’s not THEIR kid. It’s a genuine human emotion and doesn’t make them evil.

If someone were harmed, the truth is, you’d rather it not be your family member.

Just be honest. We’d all agree with that. Don’t read more into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question: not that it makes any difference really but could it be possible that while all of this stuff is disgusting, vile and repulsive - is there any relief in thinking that maybe he was obsessed with these ideas images acts whatever you want to call them as pornography and fetishes etc etc but he never actually touched a child?!?! I’m praying this is the case as my children were his students. I’m just looking for some reassurance so my mind doesn’t keep going to awful places.

You'd sleep better knowing he encouraged someone else to violently abuse a child and make him cry?

You think not touching a child directly absolves him from a modicum of guilt? I really don't think so. For me, his statement that he gets more pleasure out of it when the child is hurt puts him in the worst of the worst.

PP I think we all agree with you. But the other PP is specifically trying to rule out her child. I think you’re over-interpreting this.

It came off as horribly insensitive to the actual victims of sexual abuse, who are real children, not AI. I understand every parent feels relieved it's not their kid... but maybe that's not a thought that should ever be written or said out loud. Best kept in your head.