Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

must be nice to live in your fantasy world where no institutions ever swept abuse under the rug.

How lost are you? Are you even an adult having an adult type conversation? It’s not fantasy to know that parents wouldn’t cover up for someone hurting there very own child. It wouldn’t happen anywhere if parents knew.

Missing/ignoring red flags is all too common. That's not the same thing as covering up, but it can be just as harmful.

Can you please elaborate and spell it out to me, what red flags you are talking about? I keep seeing posts about “red flags being missed” but no one is able to give examples.

Google the LAMB lawsuit and articles and Beauvoir too. Nobody is saying that’s what happened here, but until investigations are done, nobody knows. Also, as anyone who has worked in compliance and ethics knows (and I’m sure this being DCUM there are more than a few), in addition to addressing red flags, the organization has to have a healthy compliance culture.

Do you know anything at all about NCRC's compliance culture? No? Then stop trying to be the know-it-all about what an organization "has to have" when you have no knowledge of what was missing (other than the obvious of Carroll's mental health).

Anonymous wrote:People have given examples but they’ve been deleted.

No one has given examples. They keep making what ifs -- like "How do you know someone didn't bring up a concern with a board member that was then ignored?"

That might, maybe, possibly be a relevant question IF we learn that something happened at one of the schools. But we know nothing of the sort now.

The idea that staff or boards at Beauvoir, Concord Hill, or NCRC were negligent for not knowing about Carroll's online activities is wacko. How do you know that the HOS or principal of *any* school isn't doing something depraved or illegal online? You don't!

Then the 'red flag' poster(s) goes on about "school computers" like we should all be outraged. Yes, it is errant if NCRC didn't have better network security, but is a failure effecting a small group of adults on *work* computers. These are not "school computers" that students have, like you would have in middle school or high school. There are many measures critical to keeping children safe in a preschool environment; the network firewall is not top of the list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

must be nice to live in your fantasy world where no institutions ever swept abuse under the rug.

How lost are you? Are you even an adult having an adult type conversation? It’s not fantasy to know that parents wouldn’t cover up for someone hurting there very own child. It wouldn’t happen anywhere if parents knew.

Missing/ignoring red flags is all too common. That's not the same thing as covering up, but it can be just as harmful.

Can you please elaborate and spell it out to me, what red flags you are talking about? I keep seeing posts about “red flags being missed” but no one is able to give examples.

Google the LAMB lawsuit and articles and Beauvoir too. Nobody is saying that’s what happened here, but until investigations are done, nobody knows. Also, as anyone who has worked in compliance and ethics knows (and I’m sure this being DCUM there are more than a few), in addition to addressing red flags, the organization has to have a healthy compliance culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

must be nice to live in your fantasy world where no institutions ever swept abuse under the rug.

How lost are you? Are you even an adult having an adult type conversation? It’s not fantasy to know that parents wouldn’t cover up for someone hurting there very own child. It wouldn’t happen anywhere if parents knew.

Missing/ignoring red flags is all too common. That's not the same thing as covering up, but it can be just as harmful.

Can you please elaborate and spell it out to me, what red flags you are talking about? I keep seeing posts about “red flags being missed” but no one is able to give examples.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a conspiracy to wonder if a person who views and distributes child porn (not to mention encourages child abuse in an online forum) has abused children under his care over the decades he has worked at schools.

+ 1,000,000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read the thread, low info poster.

The landlord wants to re-possess and occupy the property. The action is NOT for non-payment.

Public defenders are common in these cases, see Eleanor Hoppe thread. They are also very experienced.

Public defenders are not common for these cases unless the defendant is living in poverty which JC is obviously not. There’s an entire cottage industry of attorneys in the DC area that represent accused pedophiles with little notice on far lighter charges than these.

You are absolutely incorrect. Court appointed counsel (FPD or CJA) are common in these cases and you do not have to be living in poverty. Just need to show you cannot afford an experienced attorney.

You are incorrect. I have testified in support of child victims in preliminary hearings in which the pedo was represented by a billboard attorney. This was his professional focus. How many child victims have you stood up for in court?

I'll leave it at this: I have lots of experience in the DC federal court. From what you've said, it appears you may be a social worker, medical professional, or perhaps a guardian ad litem. Maybe even law enforcement based upon your use of "pedo." My guess is your testimony was before a local county or municipal court.

I have a feeling you are not from the DC area as the phrase "billboard attorney" is not really used here. We don't really have billboards in DC, NOVA or the MD suburbs near DC, so no lawyers advertising on billboards (thankfully). From what I have seen elsewhere, most of the lawyers in other areas that do advertise on billboards practice PI or DUI. While I am sure there are attorneys that focus their practice on representing pedophiles, they have to be few and far between. Apparently, you know one. For the most part, the lawyers representing defendants such as Carroll before the federal court in DC do not have these types of cases as their main professional focus.

Spot on take. Someone started using the term "billboard attorney" in this thread, and it's not a term used in the DC area, nor does it denote an actual top tier attorney.

Re: public defenders being common in these cases. I live in Baltimore, and Christopher Bendann was represented by Kobie Flowers, definitely not a public defender. I’ve seen child sex abuse charges listed as areas of practice on other defense attorneys’ websites as well. If you have the money, at least up here in Baltimore, you don’t take your chances with a public defender.

Case is in federal court

Bendann’s case was also in federal court.

All child porn cases will be in federal court, and federal defenders are extremely good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read the thread, low info poster.

The landlord wants to re-possess and occupy the property. The action is NOT for non-payment.

Public defenders are common in these cases, see Eleanor Hoppe thread. They are also very experienced.

Public defenders are not common for these cases unless the defendant is living in poverty which JC is obviously not. There’s an entire cottage industry of attorneys in the DC area that represent accused pedophiles with little notice on far lighter charges than these.

You are absolutely incorrect. Court appointed counsel (FPD or CJA) are common in these cases and you do not have to be living in poverty. Just need to show you cannot afford an experienced attorney.

You are incorrect. I have testified in support of child victims in preliminary hearings in which the pedo was represented by a billboard attorney. This was his professional focus. How many child victims have you stood up for in court?

I'll leave it at this: I have lots of experience in the DC federal court. From what you've said, it appears you may be a social worker, medical professional, or perhaps a guardian ad litem. Maybe even law enforcement based upon your use of "pedo." My guess is your testimony was before a local county or municipal court.

I have a feeling you are not from the DC area as the phrase "billboard attorney" is not really used here. We don't really have billboards in DC, NOVA or the MD suburbs near DC, so no lawyers advertising on billboards (thankfully). From what I have seen elsewhere, most of the lawyers in other areas that do advertise on billboards practice PI or DUI. While I am sure there are attorneys that focus their practice on representing pedophiles, they have to be few and far between. Apparently, you know one. For the most part, the lawyers representing defendants such as Carroll before the federal court in DC do not have these types of cases as their main professional focus.

Spot on take. Someone started using the term "billboard attorney" in this thread, and it's not a term used in the DC area, nor does it denote an actual top tier attorney.

Re: public defenders being common in these cases. I live in Baltimore, and Christopher Bendann was represented by Kobie Flowers, definitely not a public defender. I’ve seen child sex abuse charges listed as areas of practice on other defense attorneys’ websites as well. If you have the money, at least up here in Baltimore, you don’t take your chances with a public defender.

Case is in federal court

Bendann’s case was also in federal court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

must be nice to live in your fantasy world where no institutions ever swept abuse under the rug.

How lost are you? Are you even an adult having an adult type conversation? It’s not fantasy to know that parents wouldn’t cover up for someone hurting there very own child. It wouldn’t happen anywhere if parents knew.

Missing/ignoring red flags is all too common. That's not the same thing as covering up, but it can be just as harmful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

must be nice to live in your fantasy world where no institutions ever swept abuse under the rug.

How lost are you? Are you even an adult having an adult type conversation? It’s not fantasy to know that parents wouldn’t cover up for someone hurting there very own child. It wouldn’t happen anywhere if parents knew.

Look I’m not going to go back and forth. You can choose to believe what you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

must be nice to live in your fantasy world where no institutions ever swept abuse under the rug.

How lost are you? Are you even an adult having an adult type conversation? It’s not fantasy to know that parents wouldn’t cover up for someone hurting there very own child. It wouldn’t happen anywhere if parents knew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

must be nice to live in your fantasy world where no institutions ever swept abuse under the rug.

Absolutely no one is covering for him. The school is conducting a third party investigation. They have been completely transparent —hosting town halls, offering counseling, and setting up more resources. Staff are just as horrified as parents. To suggest otherwise is unkind. This is a difficult time for ncrc parents but spreading conspiracy theories on the internet is not helpful.

Anonymous wrote:It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Would you have covered up for the HoS when you were there, knowing what he was up too? I’m assuming you wouldn’t have and parents at the school would fall into that category.

It’s also not a conspiracy theory to want verification that no one at the school or on the board ignored behavior (or god forbid aided behavior) I assume the FBI will be interviewing all parties involved and will work to find out just this info. Are they conspiracy theorists? We are an NCRC alum family —one who adores the school—but I am challenging all assumptions I had about the school. The end goal is making sure children at the school are safe.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not a conspiracy to wonder if a person who views and distributes child porn (not to mention encourages child abuse in an online forum) has abused children under his care over the decades he has worked at schools.

Um, that’s not the conspiracy theory I’m alluding too. Nobody is disputing the guy is a bad guy but one main poster is saying the school or possibly the board covered up for him. No way did that happen as the board has children there and wouldn’t risk their own kids to cover up for the HOS. What would be in it for them? That’s rhetorical. The answer is nothing.