Beauvoir Scandal?

[Anonymous]

I'm actually a little confused about the camera - the facts we "know" is that is was simply school owned and in the accused teacher's possession at the time of the disturbing discovery, correct?

Seems rather like circumstantial evidence.

Yes, the images on the camera are very disturbing and I don't condone them one bit (in fact, I hope the child, if it indeed is a child's, is ok mentally and physically), but what if the camera was borrowed by someone else, or perhaps the pics. were already on the camera when it was signed off to the teacher, or a kid thought it would be a great practical joke?

Just trying to offer the benefit of the doubt to a situation that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A teacher was found to have a camera containing inappropriate images of a child. At that point, Beauvoir had already decided not to renew the teacher's contract for the fall. Parents were notified last week.

Even this post right here makes it sound like the teacher is guilty because the school didn't renew his contract..well that is because the teacher resigned before the incident and is going elsewhere. So, duh, the school isn't renewing the contract, but it isn't because of the specific incident.

[Anonymous]

So the teacher resigned before he accepted a position elsewhere. I don't know why that detail, nor much else of what has been posted here, is of importance. I understand every parent's concern, but I don't understand why this thread has been reduced to some sort of fight between parents about whether he is guilty or innocent. I don't understand why in this particular case we don't think the authorities are qualified to investigate this. Surely whatever important information on this board (by a few parents) has been furnished to the police already, and they'll take it into account in their complete investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the brother of the criminal in question:
If your brother was not guilty of such a thing as child molestation then why would he flee D.C? What reason would he have to leave if he had done nothing wrong? And how would pictures of young male genitalia suddenly appear on a camera that this teacher was given by the school? These are questions that I, surely among others, would like answered.

I am not the brother of the teacher in question but here are the facts:

#1 Maybe he did not "flee the area" the school session was over and lots of people leave on regular vacations. Second part of this is the posters on this board have created a dangerous lynch mob mentality. I would leave the area too with all these people out for blood when they dont know the facts.
#2 There arent charges filed against the teacher as of yet. Its been damn near a month since the incident. Dont think there would have been charges filed by now?
#3 This teacher is a super intellegent man. Do you really think that he would be stupid enough to have images like this on a SCHOOL OWEND camera DAYS before it would be turned in to the school?
#4 Would Beauvoir issue an "whoops we screwed up and acussed someone one who wasnt guilty" statement? COME ON!
#5 The teacher put in his resignation way before the incident...not to go teach at Potomac...but to pursue other ventures
#6 Accusations like this killed his career...true or false, these will stay with him forever. His career is dead.
#7 MANY teachers and parents are coming to his defense.
#8 There are TWO teachers in every class...I would be looking at the other teacher as the source of these alleged photos.
#9 Do to think Beauvoir is trying to cover up something?


Know your facts...think from a place other than emotionally. I am the first to say that those who abuse children in ANY form (physically, mentally, etc.) should be strung up but SOMETHING just doesnt add up here. Something is not right.

You have given NO FACTS whatsoever. You have simply provided your opinion on the situation. And for the record he definitely did resign from Beauvoir to go to Potomac. Please refrain from posting as facts what is merely your view.

I know the teacher in question and he was not going to Potomac so know what you are talking about before your decide to post.

Thanks.

He is NO LONGER going to Potomac but he most definitely was before this whole thing broke out.

[Anonymous]

He was a math specialty teacher. He was not a "classroom teacher." Thus, he would not be working with another teacher.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that at least part or all of #2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are facts. Then on some there is just a quick anecdote. Even #3 could be considered a fact depending on any kind of IQ or other test that the teacher has taken.

#3 is absolutely a fact!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He was a math specialty teacher. He was not a "classroom teacher." Thus, he would not be working with another teacher.

This is simply not accurate.

[Anonymous]

The problem with this anonymous forum is that it spreads rumors blindly, rumors which take on validity simply based on the lack of anyone to counter the claims. It has positioned itself as qualified to be the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Even for those with certain details of his life, does anyone really have the full information set? Can we not all reach into our lives and pull out the details which would make us look horrible?

I’m not claiming this teacher is innocent of a crime. I am claiming that I can’t possibly know. And I don’t think any of us can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this anonymous forum is that it spreads rumors blindly, rumors which take on validity simply based on the lack of anyone to counter the claims. It has positioned itself as qualified to be the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Even for those with certain details of his life, does anyone really have the full information set? Can we not all reach into our lives and pull out the details which would make us look horrible?

I’m not claiming this teacher is innocent of a crime. I am claiming that I can’t possibly know. And I don’t think any of us can.

Thank you to this poster, as well as the others who have taken a rational approach to this. WE DONT KNOW EVERYTHING...plain and simple. Just give it time...


And to the original poster...you didnt know that a simple question would start all of this. And if you didnt post...someone else would have. So dont be sorry you posted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this anonymous forum is that it spreads rumors blindly, rumors which take on validity simply based on the lack of anyone to counter the claims. It has positioned itself as qualified to be the judge, jury, and executioner in this case. Even for those with certain details of his life, does anyone really have the full information set? Can we not all reach into our lives and pull out the details which would make us look horrible?

I’m not claiming this teacher is innocent of a crime. I am claiming that I can’t possibly know. And I don’t think any of us can.

Thank you to this poster, as well as the others who have taken a rational approach to this. WE DONT KNOW EVERYTHING...plain and simple. Just give it time...


And to the original poster...you didnt know that a simple question would start all of this. And if you didnt post...someone else would have. So dont be sorry you posted.

This raises an interesting question. Had there been no post on this, would this "scandal" have spread like the wildfire it was/is? Probably not. But even the old fashioned grapevine would have spread and churned something like this. What happened here is simply a sign of the times, for better or worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This raises an interesting question. Had there been no post on this, would this "scandal" have spread like the wildfire it was/is? Probably not. But even the old fashioned grapevine would have spread and churned something like this. What happened here is simply a sign of the times, for better or worse.

If your point about this being a "sign of the times" has to do with the impact of technology on how news and opinions can spread virally, then I agree in part. But I think even a casual reader of this thread would have to come to the conclusion that there is something very mean-spirited, indeed almost vicious, in many of the postings. If this can be explained by the fact that the medium allows one to make anonymous allegations that one would hesitate to make in public, or the fact that modern technology has contributed to a degree of alienation in society that manifests itself in the type of gleeful nastiness reflected in many posts in this web, then perhaps this, too, is a sign of the times. But I hope not.

[Anonymous]

Anybody just see the NBC4 news broadcast on the scandal? They stated pretty definitively that the teacher was on the run, that at least 3 boys were involved and that at least 1 was a student. Also reported that it was a multi-jurisdictional investigation that included the FBI and police from Fairfax and Mo Counties and DC.

I think people can start assuming the worst...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody just see the NBC4 news broadcast on the scandal? They stated pretty definitively that the teacher was on the run, that at least 3 boys were involved and that at least 1 was a student. Also reported that it was a multi-jurisdictional investigation that included the FBI and police from Fairfax and Mo Counties and DC.

I think people can start assuming the worst...

http://video.nbc4.com/player/?id=273236

[Anonymous]

Those sources cited on the broadcast sound like sources from this forum. Could they possibly be citing anonymous sources?

And they ripped the headline straight from here.

Slow news day? There is no new information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those sources cited on the broadcast sound like sources from this forum. Could they possibly be citing anonymous sources?

And they ripped the headline straight from here.

Slow news day? There is no new information.

Just to clarify, it was already known that at least one photo was of a Beauvoir child...not however a pornographic image of a Beauvoir child, just a photo on the same camera. And it was already known that there were "inappropriate photos", of a child/children who cannot be identified (or haven't been). However, from the broadcast, it makes it seem like there are inappropriate photos of a Beauvoir child, which is not the case.