Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not show it to (or share the details with) my 18-year old Whitman grad. Partly because it’s too close to home - she knew him well - and partly because it would encourage too much “who was it” gossip. Those details don’t need to be shared.

I’d be shocked if your grad didn’t know everything about this case, unless she has no phone and never texts? You probably should consider whether you want to open up a conversation to help her understand your perspective and vice versa.

We have discussed it at length, as well as her own experiences with this teacher. I still don’t think the graphic details of someone else’s experience need to be shared. My kid wasn’t on the crew team and doesn’t know the girl involved (who is three years older).

I think in depth psych-evals on all new teachers should be a given. Does this happen at any stage in their teacher training or pre-employment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"MCPS hasn't yet begun hiring psychics to do background checks."

What are you taking about? How about following up on reports from students? How about reporting inappropriate behavior between students? Other school staff must have had suspicions. I do not believe that nobody knew, its more that nobody did anything.

I hope you mean psychologists assessing teachers. Your sarcastic comment is not helpful. We are talking about child sexual predators; you should take it seriously.

All MCPS staff already have a legal duty to report suspicions of sexual abuse.

And it has been well documented that they don't report.

I have reported. It was taken very seriously by MCPS. I felt that CPS did not take it as seriously.

Anonymous wrote:Age of consent in both DC and Maryland is 16, so it's not statutory rape. I'd bet a fair amount he was well aware of the age and waited until girls were at least 16 to do anything physical.

It looks like if he'd done the same thing in Maryland,actions toward FS-1 would NOT be a crime because the Maryland law seems to only apply to minors. She was 18. https://codes.findlaw.com/md/criminal-law/md-code-crim-law-sect-3-308.html (I'd be really glad to learn I'm wrong, so feel free to correct me if I am.)

If he was "only" the coach for one girl, he'll probably argue the statute doesn't apply since officially crew wasn't sponsored by the school.

He'll probably also argue that the DC statute doesn't apply because the school wasn't in DC.

I suspect that at least some teachers and staff at the school knew or suspected what was going on, but didn't think anything could be done about it since she was 18.

Have you read the documents? It is obvious that he is corrupting these girls, he talks like a coach, about control and letting go of it, I have to say it made me feel physically sick. And the uncertainty of one of the girls, she was reeled in but seems so vulnerable to his authority. The text messages show it wasn't just a consensual romance, this is a very creepy, younger woman focused sex pest. Its all about sex, everything. And making up lies to the parents so she can be dropped near his home. I wish I could un-read all that because it makes me sad for her. More though, it shows him for what he is, without any doubt.

Age of consent in both DC and Maryland is 16, so it's not statutory rape. I'd bet a fair amount he was well aware of the age and waited until girls were at least 16 to do anything physical.

It looks like if he'd done the same thing in Maryland,actions toward FS-1 would NOT be a crime because the Maryland law seems to only apply to minors. She was 18. https://codes.findlaw.com/md/criminal-law/md-code-crim-law-sect-3-308.html (I'd be really glad to learn I'm wrong, so feel free to correct me if I am.)

If he was "only" the coach for one girl, he'll probably argue the statute doesn't apply since officially crew wasn't sponsored by the school.

He'll probably also argue that the DC statute doesn't apply because the school wasn't in DC.

I suspect that at least some teachers and staff at the school knew or suspected what was going on, but didn't think anything could be done about it since she was 18.

Anonymous wrote:Two different infractions, so far as I can tell.

[1] Teacher and student having sexual activity while student is under 20 (and, obviously, still a student). [This is a DC statute, and it pertains to the 2018 victim]

[2] Statutory rape. [This pertains to 2013 victim who had graduated but was under 18]

I don't think he was charged with [2] as I read the charging documents. Age of consent in DC is 16.

The charging documents focused a lot on how he was a teacher or coach to victims at the time, like in one case the sports season had ended but the victim hadn't graduated yet. I think [1] is what they are able to go after him for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"MCPS hasn't yet begun hiring psychics to do background checks."

What are you taking about? How about following up on reports from students? How about reporting inappropriate behavior between students? Other school staff must have had suspicions. I do not believe that nobody knew, its more that nobody did anything.

I hope you mean psychologists assessing teachers. Your sarcastic comment is not helpful. We are talking about child sexual predators; you should take it seriously.

All MCPS staff already have a legal duty to report suspicions of sexual abuse.

And it has been well documented that they don't report.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it okay to let your 17 year old read the court documents?

Personally - and I'm very lenient - I wouldn't. Read it for yourself and decide.

I would, even though it’s uncomfortable. The students WERE 17, so it’s not like 17 year olds don’t talk about this stuff. Reading the messages can help them understand how this can happen and recognize it.

Anonymous wrote:Two different infractions, so far as I can tell.

[1] Teacher and student having sexual activity while student is under 20 (and, obviously, still a student). [This is a DC statute, and it pertains to the 2018 victim]

[2] Statutory rape. [This pertains to 2013 victim who had graduated but was under 18]

If MOCO were smart they’d get outside counsel now and do an open intake like the DC Privates all did a few years ago . Likely this creep has done this to dozens of girls . MOCO has a narrow window before they are viewed liable for a cover up.

If several victims are found, hopefully he gets 10-20 years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The text messages seem to imply it was a consensual relationship.

What does that have to do with anything? Sex with a minor is illegal. Sex with a student is gross.

She was not a minor at the time of the relationship though still a student. And yes from the text messages it seems consensual. Wonder what happened that caused her to file charges against him

Of course she was groomed and of course he is a disgusting creep who should lose his teaching license, but is it child sexual abuse if she was 18 ?

I understand that that’s the route to go if the parents want to crucify him and I don’t blame them , but a you not an adult at age 18 ?

Two different infractions, so far as I can tell.

[1] Teacher and student having sexual activity while student is under 20 (and, obviously, still a student). [This is a DC statute, and it pertains to the 2018 victim]

[2] Statutory rape. [This pertains to 2013 victim who had graduated but was under 18]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently and sadly this was not shocking news to any of the girls involved with crew in the past 5 years or so.

Yikes - and apparently no one did anything about it.

PP - I just meant many rowers knew about this apparently. I doubt any adults knew. Sorry if that was the implication.

Still if the girls knew their friend was being raped they should have told somebody… police, counselor, parent.

Is this a case of statutory rape because of the age difference and teacher’s role or was this assault and rape ?

Anonymous wrote:Amongst the kids, the identity of the super-brave, awesome 2018 grad is well-known.

I'm glad she is regarded as brave and apparently, from what you imply, getting positive support from her peers. It has got to be quite the experience of her 'coming out' to reveal her past vulnerability in such a public, spare-no-details way.

Hoping that the support she's been getting helps her move forward with strength; perhaps it will even motivate other victims (of this man, or other assaulters) to come forward.

In relation to what a different PP above said to the effect of "not wanting to encourage too much guessing of the "Former Student"'s identity", I figured, isn't there already so much talk and discussion among the students...and perhaps at least one FS is already known? I mean, there are only so many people on a crew team each year. I'm not in the Whitman community so the identify of the young woman isn't something I'd seek to find out, but I just figured those in the crew community would be concerned enough to want to know who had been victimized in order to offer support.

Anonymous wrote:I would not show it to (or share the details with) my 18-year old Whitman grad. Partly because it’s too close to home - she knew him well - and partly because it would encourage too much “who was it” gossip. Those details don’t need to be shared.

I’d be shocked if your grad didn’t know everything about this case, unless she has no phone and never texts? You probably should consider whether you want to open up a conversation to help her understand your perspective and vice versa.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS continues to hire predators. Think it is time to start a program of continuous monitoring - not just one background check. Certain MCEA would fight it - but again they put their ‘members’ ahead of students nearly every day. (Eg COVID response). Why do we allow unions to dominate our kids again?

Unfortunately, this has been true for years. My job puts me in contact with people from the MoCo Police Department and they have known that MCPS has system wide issues with sexual predators.

MCPS continues to hire predators that pass background checks. MCPS hasn't yet begun hiring psychics to do background checks.

What would "continuous monitoring" look like?

Random on the spot phone checks.

I think access to all devises and email would need to cover it. Phones only tell so much. But then there's privacy issues.

All school related electronic communications are subject to public record requests regardless of the device or account.

I wasn't referring to school related electronics - but private ones, at his home.

Even private electronics and accounts, if used for school communications, are subject to MCPS records rules.