Let’s be clear. You don’t know that there weren’t red flags. And you also don’t know if parents had raised issues to the board that were ignored. Of course, this could have completely blindsided everyone, but for those of us who are waiting to find out if our children were victims of James Carroll, we don’t want to be naive.

I meant there were no flags based on our interactions with him. Obviously, I am not involved in the on-site investigation. But thanks for that oh so constructive comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To think there is a not-low-chance that a pedo who worked exclusively at schools physically abused students is not crazy thinking. It’s crazy to assume the best.

Understand. We are all concerned about what an investigation could uncover.

At that same time, it is crazy to keep assailing the school and staff--as one poster keeps doing--for being negligent in not seeing the imagined "red flags" when we don't have zero information that there was anything to see.

That poster's "demand acccountability" campaign is obnoxious and vapid when it is not clear what anyone is supposed to hold schools accountable for. So far, that be holding staff accountable for letting a colleague commit online crimes.

* when we have zero info...

Anonymous wrote:To think there is a not-low-chance that a pedo who worked exclusively at schools physically abused students is not crazy thinking. It’s crazy to assume the best.

Understand. We are all concerned about what an investigation could uncover.

At that same time, it is crazy to keep assailing the school and staff--as one poster keeps doing--for being negligent in not seeing the imagined "red flags" when we don't have zero information that there was anything to see.

That poster's "demand acccountability" campaign is obnoxious and vapid when it is not clear what anyone is supposed to hold schools accountable for. So far, that be holding staff accountable for letting a colleague commit online crimes.

To think there is a not-low-chance that a pedo who worked exclusively at schools physically abused students is not crazy thinking. It’s crazy to assume the best.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I sent my daughter to NCRC and met with James many times for purposes of outplacement . There were absolutely no red flags, which is what makes this situation so jarring. Every day he'd be out front at school, greeting the children and parents.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomic status or politics. This was a perverted, sick individual who breached the trust of many and put himself around children while fantasizing about abusing them. Anyone seeking to use this issue to espouse some political agenda should be ashamed of themselves and simply take this as a sad reminder that you never really know a person, and to remain extra vigilant with your children. [/quote]

How do you know there were no red flags? You don’t until there is a full investigation. [/quote]

How do you know that there weren't--and aren't--missed red flags of onsite physical child abuse at every other school at which we haven't yet heard about the physical child abuse? You won't know until there is a full investigation.

(Pro tip: We have no information that onsite physical child abuse occured at NCRC, Beauvoir, or Concord Hill; we only have information that JC committed online crimes.)

[quote=Anonymous]I sent my daughter to NCRC and met with James many times for purposes of outplacement . There were absolutely no red flags, which is what makes this situation so jarring. Every day he'd be out front at school, greeting the children and parents.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomic status or politics. This was a perverted, sick individual who breached the trust of many and put himself around children while fantasizing about abusing them. Anyone seeking to use this issue to espouse some political agenda should be ashamed of themselves and simply take this as a sad reminder that you never really know a person, and to remain extra vigilant with your children. [/quote]

How do you know there were no red flags? You don’t until there is a full investigation.

Anonymous wrote:I sent my daughter to NCRC and met with James many times for purposes of outplacement . There were absolutely no red flags, which is what makes this situation so jarring. Every day he'd be out front at school, greeting the children and parents.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomic status or politics. This was a perverted, sick individual who breached the trust of many and put himself around children while fantasizing about abusing them. Anyone seeking to use this issue to espouse some political agenda should be ashamed of themselves and simply take this as a sad reminder that you never really know a person, and to remain extra vigilant with your children.

Do we know his immigration status?

I sent my daughter to NCRC and met with James many times for purposes of outplacement . There were absolutely no red flags, which is what makes this situation so jarring. Every day he'd be out front at school, greeting the children and parents.

This situation has absolutely nothing to do with socioeconomic status or politics. This was a perverted, sick individual who breached the trust of many and put himself around children while fantasizing about abusing them. Anyone seeking to use this issue to espouse some political agenda should be ashamed of themselves and simply take this as a sad reminder that you never really know a person, and to remain extra vigilant with your children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a lawyer, but I hope that the fact that he had close access to children of the wealthy and powerful, translates into a longer sentence for him like life in prison. That’s what he deserves.

Ummm why? Why would access to wealthy children = longer sentence?

I think PP just means to say that hopefully privilege works on the side of justice in this case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will not go to trial if they have the goods on him. There is no point. He will get sentenced. He is falling under the eo13818. Forwarding imagery of naked minors is a Federal offense. He needs to plea and do what he can to avoid harming his family. Asset seizure is something on the table. Draining family resources to pay a lawyer to fight this is not helping his situation.

Sounds like there may not be many assets there since they were being kicked out of a rental and he's using a public defender.

They weren’t being kicked out because they weren’t paying the rent, the owner wanted to take back the property, claiming they wanted to live there again, but it’s suspected that they just wanted to sell it. Nothing to do with lack of payments from their end.

It's pretty entitled of renters to stay in a house that they don't own when they know the owners want them out. Regardless of the reason.

Tenants have a lot of rights in DC. There is nothing unusual about Carroll family actions in this instance. Perv yes.

he has a family???? I assumed he was a single gay man. does he have children???

Nice. You realize how obnoxious that is to make that assumption and then to actually write it?

I thought the same thing. She’s basically equating gay people with child molestors. Horrible.

Or she could be going by the username he made and used in his conversations w/ the under cover agent

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a lawyer, but I hope that the fact that he had close access to children of the wealthy and powerful, translates into a longer sentence for him like life in prison. That’s what he deserves.

Ummm why? Why would access to wealthy children = longer sentence?

Anonymous wrote:Why should the punishment be more be severe because the victims were wealthy and powerful?! That makes no sense. Unless you just mean that the wealthy and powerful will be able to make sure he gets the maximum sentence ?

I was confused by this, as well.

Why should the punishment be more be severe because the victims were wealthy and powerful?! That makes no sense. Unless you just mean that the wealthy and powerful will be able to make sure he gets the maximum sentence ?

Are you insane?