Anonymous wrote:What are they getting rid of him for? no charges, no time in jail, hmmm yet sidwell is smearing him all over the place.. potential law suit/ Lawyers line up to the left.

Anonymous wrote:What are they getting rid of him for? no charges, no time in jail, hmmm yet sidwell is smearing him all over the place.. potential law suit/ Lawyers line up to the left.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.

Prosecutors decline to bring charges for many reasons, not all of which would support the conclusion that no crime occurred.

I get that. They also decline to bring charges because no crime occurred. So we really can't draw conclusions one way or the other, can we?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the article - "They also said in the statement that a former Sidwell administrator, who left the school in 2003, knew that Henderson had left his previous school because of allegations of inappropriate conduct but 'had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand.'”

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he got hired at Sidwell 14 years ago by saying simply that an unfounded student accusation caused him to leave some prior school, and that the lack to police action was proof it was baseless. But then when the former student called Sidwell last week, she described a more serious relationship, and then the teacher admitted it when questioned by Sidwell. If something like that is what happened, then it sounds like Sidwell took the right action by immediately suspending him.

My question is, why did said victim wait 14 years to call Sidwell and report this? The letter to Sidwell parents clearly says that they received the call "last week."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.

Anonymous wrote:From the article - "They also said in the statement that a former Sidwell administrator, who left the school in 2003, knew that Henderson had left his previous school because of allegations of inappropriate conduct but 'had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand.'”

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he got hired at Sidwell 14 years ago by saying simply that an unfounded student accusation caused him to leave some prior school, and that the lack to police action was proof it was baseless. But then when the former student called Sidwell last week, she described a more serious relationship, and then the teacher admitted it when questioned by Sidwell. If something like that is what happened, then it sounds like Sidwell took the right action by immediately suspending him.

Anonymous wrote:From the article - "They also said in the statement that a former Sidwell administrator, who left the school in 2003, knew that Henderson had left his previous school because of allegations of inappropriate conduct but 'had no knowledge of the severity of the allegations as they now stand.'”

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me like he got hired at Sidwell 14 years ago by saying simply that an unfounded student accusation caused him to leave some prior school, and that the lack to police action was proof it was baseless. But then when the former student called Sidwell last week, she described a more serious relationship, and then the teacher admitted it when questioned by Sidwell. If something like that is what happened, then it sounds like Sidwell took the right action by immediately suspending him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.

Prosecutors decline to bring charges for many reasons, not all of which would support the conclusion that no crime occurred.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I'll be the first one to point out that no charges were filed, the man proclaimed innocence and it's effectively his word against hers. And inappropriate touching can mean anything and especially lends itself to misunderstandings that may have had nothing to do with inappropriate touching.

In other words I am not jumping on the bandwagon of shouting abuse and proclaiming him an enemy who must be hunted down because, after all, THINK OF THE CHILDREN, just because of one girl said, without knowing anything else.

For the girl's sake and even his sake, I genuinely hope there was indeed inappropriate touching for there is nothing worse than an innocent man's life destroyed through spurious gossip and political correctness.

According to Sidwell's letter, the teacher admitted, when questioned by Sidwell, to "inappropriate touching" at the previous school. (But, correct, despite a report to local authorities no charges were filed).

Question in my mind is whether a teacher who so far as we know has been an upstanding school citizen for 20 years should be fired for what was (in the judgment of a local prosecutor) a non-criminal act that occurred 20+ years ago at a different school. I'm not sure the answer is obvious . . . although I suspect to insurance companies there is only one answer.