Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree with you. However, the evidence in this case is strikingly similar to another case’s evidence. The winning argument was that “In America, the FBI is not supposed to create *sic* criminals so that the FBI can arrest them.”

JC will be earning 500k or more as a HOS somewhere in the US in less than five years. That’s how he got as far in private education as he did.

Unless the FBI has more evidence than has been reported, but I’m not expecting that. Hopefully.

What? He won’t get a job with kids because this is on his record now? He didn’t have a criminal record before when his background checks were checked.

A record would be a conviction. He has not been convicted yet, just arrested.

You are missing the point. People keep talking about background checks, etc. Nothing would of shown up before on his background check, now this arrest would and no, you don’t need a conviction for it to show up that he was arrested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree with you. However, the evidence in this case is strikingly similar to another case’s evidence. The winning argument was that “In America, the FBI is not supposed to create *sic* criminals so that the FBI can arrest them.”

JC will be earning 500k or more as a HOS somewhere in the US in less than five years. That’s how he got as far in private education as he did.

Unless the FBI has more evidence than has been reported, but I’m not expecting that. Hopefully.

What? He won’t get a job with kids because this is on his record now? He didn’t have a criminal record before when his background checks were checked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Soooo, basically what you’re saying is there were red flags that a child molester was working there? Um, no. No red flags like that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Imagine being so naive as to not realize just because a HOS hasn't been arrested yet, that they won't be next week. How do you know that your school, or any other school, has a head or principal that is engaging in criminal online activity? Without these assurances, who would send their child to any school?

Point being, NCRC 2 weeks ago looked no different than any other school. You can keep trying to assail the school, or all private schools, for some cultural flaw or compliance negligence, but the fact is that you can never be sure that no "red flags" are being missed or dismissed at any other school. Unless you are God and have perfect knowledge....

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Anonymous wrote:Yes—exactly. Imagine being so naive that you think just because YOU aren’t aware of any red flags, that none could possibly exist. Do you think parents deserve as much assurance as possible that their children weren’t abused (e.g. an investigation)? Do you think current and future parents deserve assurance that the school follows up on problems? (Again, an investigation) Without these assurances, who would send their child there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree with you. However, the evidence in this case is strikingly similar to another case’s evidence. The winning argument was that “In America, the FBI is not supposed to create *sic* criminals so that the FBI can arrest them.”

JC will be earning 500k or more as a HOS somewhere in the US in less than five years. That’s how he got as far in private education as he did.

Unless the FBI has more evidence than has been reported, but I’m not expecting that. Hopefully.

What? He won’t get a job with kids because this is on his record now? He didn’t have a criminal record before when his background checks were checked.

A record would be a conviction. He has not been convicted yet, just arrested.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree with you. However, the evidence in this case is strikingly similar to another case’s evidence. The winning argument was that “In America, the FBI is not supposed to create *sic* criminals so that the FBI can arrest them.”

JC will be earning 500k or more as a HOS somewhere in the US in less than five years. That’s how he got as far in private education as he did.

Unless the FBI has more evidence than has been reported, but I’m not expecting that. Hopefully.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree with you. However, the evidence in this case is strikingly similar to another case’s evidence. The winning argument was that “In America, the FBI is not supposed to create *sic* criminals so that the FBI can arrest them.”

JC will be earning 500k or more as a HOS somewhere in the US in less than five years. That’s how he got as far in private education as he did.

Unless the FBI has more evidence than has been reported, but I’m not expecting that. Hopefully.

What? He won’t get a job with kids because this is on his record now? He didn’t have a criminal record before when his background checks were checked.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I agree with you. However, the evidence in this case is strikingly similar to another case’s evidence. The winning argument was that “In America, the FBI is not supposed to create *sic* criminals so that the FBI can arrest them.”

JC will be earning 500k or more as a HOS somewhere in the US in less than five years. That’s how he got as far in private education as he did.

Unless the FBI has more evidence than has been reported, but I’m not expecting that. Hopefully.

Anonymous wrote:

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