So many things that happened at St Johns are sexual in nature,the abuse,the scandal,decades of cover ups. I am simply letting the evidence guide me and the connection between what Josh was searching/involved with on his computer and the new information from the Podcast 6 interview with Patrick Marker really sheds light on how bad it was and still is to this day
I feel as if we are going to find the truth we have to decide if the evidence points to a sexually motivated crime?And if sexually motivated where would that most likely happen?I think it would be fair to say on campus with all of the predators correct?Or off campus but still involving someone from the campus? I know we can’t say for sure,but just based on evidence so far it seems more likely then random abduction to me. I also cannot believe that some of the same credibly accused monks that were around when Josh disappeared are still allowed to be on campus(at least the ones that haven’t been sent away or hidden)
I am at 1 percent on the drowning theory.
I am curious to hear everyones opinion now that we have heard episode 6
The computer evidence is rock solid and in my personal opinion a real bombshell piece of actual forensic evidence that ties a bow around the sexual component that we now know are proven facts and cannot be ignored. I sure wish we knew who Josh was talking with for 27 minutes and I hope every angle is being exhausted to find out
i simply cannot say that a smileyface/abductor type theory holds as much weight as an active sex abuse scandal
The more I hear about this secret society (above the law) type behavior the more the stars align for me that this place that is supposed to be so beautiful is based on lust and lies.
Could it be that Josh Guimond with all of his knowledge and political aspirations.A person highly skilled with his experience in mock trial and a strong sense of always wanting to do right was silenced?
My last question is how much circumstantial evidence is needed in order for a missing persons case to be viewed as an abduction,and would that classification change the tune of this investigation?
I was never on board with the drowning theory.
As I sit here today I wonder how I ever agreed to send my youngest child to SJU (2018 grad). Yet Josh's disappearance was a distant memory by that time. And we were mostly interested in visiting SJU for comparisons sake. It was as if a spell were cast over us that day. The place is somehow enchanted despite all the background noise re: monks and abuse. My son and I both fell in love with the campuses, and the people. I did not get a sense of danger. I assumed any of the accused monks were deceased, elderly, and/or infirm (harmless). The choice was easy. The decision to tell my son Josh's story was not as easy. I eventually did. In all my time on campus over the next four years I can only remember seeing a (younger) monk once. I figured after Josh's disappearance things changed dramatically for the monks at SJU as far as their ability to be out and about. The monastery is very secluded with fencing and hedges hiding everything besides the small entrance from public view. There is a sign posted to remind the public the monastery is off-limits and to go away. That felt a little creepy.
Anyway, episode 6 certainly presented another very real direction for investigators. I still think the information disclosed early in this podcast re: Josh's online activity immediately before his disappearance needs further review.
In any case it baffled me then and it baffles me now how anyone abducts a grown man. I know it's not impossible but certainly not easy. There would be a struggle, noise, etc. There were always people moving about on campus day or night whose attention would have been gotten. Perhaps he went willingly with whomever? It's hard to believe he went willingly OFF campus w/o his glasses or outerwear. That leaves the possibility of someone intercepting him on his walk back to his dorm and perhaps asking for "help" in an attempt to lure him to where they wouldn't be seen. Personally that's my best case scenario but I'm just an "armchair quarterback".