Home | Message Board Home

View Page: [<<] ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... [>>]

4/9/04 Anonymous Message #1879   ''"Carl Weschcke is president of Llewellyn Worldwide Ltd, one of the largest publishers of occult and New Age books in the world. He is also a Magician, a Tantric practitioner, a Pagan and a former Wiccan High Priest who played a leading role in the rise and spread of Wicca and Neo-Paganism in America during the 1960’s and 70’s. ... Weschcke was born into a Roman Catholic family on the 10th of September 1930 in St Paul, Minnesota.'' ... "

4/9/04 Justice4Joshua Message #1878   Tom? Thank you. I have to do some research -- a lot of research, actually. Thank you again, with gratitude....Justice

4/9/04 Justice4Joshua Message #1877   http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/120802_schiavone_entire. Interesting article about the Southdown treatment center ... sigh ...

4/9/04 Tom Message #1876   So the inter faith sexual trauma institute is on the college campus? Do you mean that the predators have been placed in the middle of a college campus?

4/9/04 Tom Message #1875   Hello Justice, Whenever I have been stopped or confused in any endeavor, I have found that it is extremely important to go back to the scene of the crime. Has anyone studied the relationships between the lawyers and the suspects by examining their scholastic history? Do the monks have motor vehicles? What are the plate numbers?

4/9/04 Justice4Joshua Message #1874   "Religious rehab ... At a private facility near Toronto, some of North America's most notorious sexual offenders -- members of the Catholic clergy -- have sought treatment ... ... ... ... "

4/9/04 Justice4Josh Message #1873   "Interfaith Sexual Trauma Institute ... Saint John's Abbey and University ... Collegeville, Minnesota 56321 USA ... "

4/9/04 Justice4Joshua Message #1872   Tom, I can answer many of the questions, not all

4/9/04 Tom Message #1871   Don't know, what do you know about the Southdown place.

4/9/04 Anonymous Message #1870   Tom, I'm sorry -- I just realized in re-reading your post that you were giving us ideas to investigate. My apologies. Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate your post.

4/9/04 Tom Message #1869   Why don't you choose a name so I can refer to you? Can you answer any of the questions? I am aware of how to do research...I am interested in what you know, not where I can go to find information...Thanks

4/9/04 Anonymous Message #1868   Tom, how does the Southdown Treatment Center in Aurora, Ontario, Canada relate to this case?

4/9/04 Anonymous Message #1867   Tom, if you haven't already, go to the beginning of this message board and read all the posts -- hopefully most of the posts are still there. You will learn the answers to several of your questions. Next, click on the "Web Resources" on the menu to the right, and read the articles. Finally, I recommend you do an internet search on Joshua Guimond, and you will find several articles which cover the case.

4/9/04 Tom Message #1866   Who is the policeman who tried to enter the Abbey to search?Who is the(monk)who denied the police entry to the building?That does not sound good.Was a subpoena duces tecum exercised at the Southdown outfit in Canada?What are the Reker Murders?What is the Trident Foundation?Who is Bruce Wemmerling?Who is the attorney for the college?What is the name of the monks attorney? Has anyone compiled a list of all the attorneys involved including any prosecutors?Who is David E. Fredrickson?Has anyone examined any possible relationships between the attorneys and the monks?Who pays for the monks to live and eat?Identify the name of the law firm who represents the monks?What is the Southdown Institute?Has anyone spoken with an international attorney about a subpoena duces tecum for Southdown?Who is Carl Weschcke?Who is the judge who signed the order preventing the father from going onto the campus? Where did this judge go to law school? Thanks

4/9/04 Anonymous Message #1865   In this season of miracles, may Jesus Christ our Lord give us the miracle of finding Joshua. God bless you, Joshua, Happy Easter

4/8/04 .. Message #1864   "I would just like to add another layer onto the webmaster's concern. Posting blatant accusations with little or no evidence or facts to support that is libel. I'm sure none of you want to have Josh's family deal with a lawsuit because of whata's posted here ontop of everything else." Of course not -- no more than St. John's University would want to face a class action suit from private citizens -- I imagine SJU & the monastery wouldn't be thrilled about opening up all those confidential records again

4/8/04 anon Message #1863   I would just like to add another layer onto the webmaster's concern. Posting blatant accusations with little or no evidence or facts to support that is libel. I'm sure none of you want to have Josh's family deal with a lawsuit because of whata's posted here ontop of everything else.

4/8/04 Anonymous Message #1862   "If someone had monitored SJU for a few weeks, they would notice that peopel accept rides from Flynntown to the upper campus. Maybe they just asked him if he wanted a ride, and then he got in, and they drove off with him? Who knows. " No one knows -- yet -- except the person -- the "someone" -- who did this. That's why we're here -- we want to find out who did it. It's not okay this case is unsolved. It's not okay that the university no longer supports the Guimond family the way it should. It's not okay that the sheriff's dept. has taken the path of least resistence and stands by the notion that Josh is in a campus lake. As time goes on, Josh's plight will recieve less notice -- unless people who care keep talking and keep asking questions. I care, that's why I'm here. I don't have any agenda except to find the truth

4/8/04 Anonymous Message #1861   The idea that a professor or monk on campus may have been involved in Josh's disappearance is an uncomfortable notion. But in my mind, it has more possibility than (a) a stranger who suddenly came onto the campus (b) a fellow student with a grudge (c) Josh falling into a lake (d) Josh suddenly deciding to walk away from his friends and family (e) Josh deciding to end his life (f) Josh getting disoriented and wandering into the woods. Open communication causes people to think -- in the thinking process, memories might emerge -- information that might be helpful in getting to the truth. Once the open dialogue stops, the chances of receiving helpful information are reduced. To the person who asked the question: "why does someone have to have answers?" Because someone does, the person who did this does, and people close to the person more than likely have suspicions. That is, unless you believe Josh's fate was one of the theories listed above

4/8/04 webmaster Message #1860   Actually, I think the open discussion of ideas is a good thing. Even a little activisim to get interest peaked in this case is also great. Please take my comments as a caution to keep accusations that could be taken personally off this space. Also a reminder that anyone that truely has information should submit that via other more appropriate methods.

4/8/04 Anonymous Message #1859   Webmaster, I hear you. Allow me to say, though, that in the course of open dialogue, some *answers* may eventually appear. The truth is, some people may be fearful of saying what they know, and I don't blame them! I know that many read this board -- which is why I remain "anonymous." Of course I recognize that making accusations for the mere pleasure of it is reckless and inappropriate. However, there may be truth contained in some of the controversial comments. If you do not want this case discussed in detail -- i.e. -- if you prefer that only happy messages appear here -- just say so -- and I will discontinue my communication here. I am only searching for the truth, and looking for answers. I do not want the Guimond family to feel they are alone in their efforts; but if they are upset by the discussions occurring here, then I will refrain from adding my thoughts

4/8/04 webmaster Message #1858   Everyone also needs to remember (especially if you are trying to really help Joshua and his family) that making statements and accusations about individuals or organizations in this public space may only end up hurting Joshua's family and the volunteers who do their best to maintain this site. Everyone must remember that we are all innocent until proven guilty. We as visitors to this web site do not have the authority to prove anyone guilty by statements left here. Our comments should reflect that! If we have information helful to this investigation, it is our duty to report it to proper authorities.

4/8/04 webmaster Message #1857   Ok Folks... It's time to take a step back from the keyboard, take 10 deep breaths, then start in again. The accusations and speculation may only end up hurting innocent individuals! A public message board is not the place to discuss the details of what very well could be a crime scene. Unless you have firm evidence, mentioning anything like what has been recently said on this board is only hurtful and painful to what is most probably innocent individuals. If you really have evidence of a crime or useful information about Josh’s disappearance, you need to report it via the methods on the contact us page. These are the only methods that will maintain the integrity of the information and the investigation.

4/8/04 Grieving for Josh Message #1856   You enabler! Stop covering for perverts!! Enough already!!! "Maybe Josh just left? I've heard he was an intelligent kid, so he could have devised a way to leave unnoticed." I beg your pardon?! How would you like it if someone kidnapped and subjected YOU to the worst hell imaginable, only to have others desecrate and defile your memory by accusing YOU of breaking your parents' heart? Show some pity for Josh and respect for his family. "Or, maybe it was some deranged local person. It is rare but not unprecedented to have a random kidnapping." Come again?! Just like some deranged locals randomly violated all those other clergy abuse victims? May God forgive us all.

4/8/04 Save Our Students Message #1855   "Assertion: ''I doubt a monk did it. There are 130 of them or so up there, and I think that one of those 130 would have noticed something odd, becuase I doubt you can live ni close quarters with 130 other people, and still commit a crime unnoticed. Another monk would have come forward and said something.'' ... Fact: According to the Sept. 29, 2002 Star Tribune, there are ''reports of a sexual subculture that flourished there for decades.'' Their investigation suggests that sexual misconduct came to light mainly as the result of complaints by former students and parishioners -- not because other monks came forward to report sexual misconduct. ... Source: Decades of Abuse and Secrecy at St. John's Abbey ... http://www.startribune.com/stories/1697/3331139.html ... (I don’t believe any of the 13 named monks had any involvement in Josh’s disappearance. They have been cleared of the Wetterling abduction and Reker murders. Surely investigators would have taken another look after Josh’s disappearance.)"

4/8/04 Save Our Students Message #1854   "Assertion: ''I've heard from reliable sources that there are only 4 monks at the monastery who have been accused of a sexual offense.'' ... Fact: On Sept. 26, 2002 the Start Tribune reported, ''Currently 11 monks are on restriction because of credible evidence of sexual misconduct. Two others ... would be on restriction had they not taken leaves of absence.'' ... Assertion: ''Maybe Josh just left? I've heard he was an intelligent kid, so he could have devised a way to leave unnoticed.'' ... Fact: Intelligent students typically complete their studies and go on to become productive members of society; they don’t devise ways to leave unnoticed. What possible motive could Josh have to stage his disappearance? ... "

4/7/04 SJU student IV Message #1853   "I think some "suspects" should be asked to take a lie detector test with regard to this case ... for surely "someone" on that campus knows something." First of all, lie detectors are basically worthless, and are only about 70% accurate. So that's pointless. Second, why is it so definite that "someone" konws something? (O by the way, why put that in quotations?? I'm not sure what you are suggesting.) Maybe Josh just left? I've heard he was an intelligent kid, so he could have devised a way to leave unnoticed. Or, maybe it was some deranged local person. It is rare but not unprecedented to have a random kidnapping. If someone had monitored SJU for a few weeks, they would notice that peopel accept rides from Flynntown to the upper campus. Maybe they just asked him if he wanted a ride, and then he got in, and they drove off with him? Who knows.

4/7/04 SJU student part III Message #1852   Third, quit criticizing the monks. People seem to think that every monk is a child molester. That's just not true. I've heard from reliable sources that there are only 4 monks at the monastery who have been accused of a sexual offense. That's not many, and probably similar to the percentage of the general population that is a sex offender. Besides, I doubt a monk did it. There are 130 of them or so up there, and I think that one of those 130 would have noticed something odd, becuase I doubt you can live ni close quarters with 130 other people, and still commit a crime unnoticed. Another monk would have come forward and said something. The monks in general are good people. Yeah, they live a life that is odd by our standards, but that does not mean thye are evil pederasts.

4/7/04 SJU student part II Message #1851   Second, a lot of people mention some evil professors. I'm a junior at SJU, and I have never heard any rumors what so ever about a stalker professor. I think that if this person really was a dangerous stalker type, students would at least know something about him, and rumors would get around. Plus, there is nothing odd about him being on sabatical at the time. That is quite common, and I've had many professors who have taken a sabatical at one point in their career or another.

4/7/04 SJU student Message #1850   "I think a lot of the comments posted previously are misguided. First of all, peopel seem to think that the investigation was shorter than normal investigations. That's just not true. They searched every inch of the campus, including the lakes and buildings. They even sent divers down into the lakes. So basically, if Josh is in one of the lakes, he is unfortunately very well hidden, as he has not surfaced in the last year and a half. The search took an extremely long time, and I even remembered seeing the police searching campus last summer. Basically, the search was more than adequate. This does not mean he is not still on campus somewhere, it just means that if he is, he is extremely well hidden (whether that was intentional or not). Many agencies were involved in the search and investigation, including the police, sheriff's office, national gaurd, FBI, etc. It wa sa good search. ... "

4/7/04 Anonymous Message #1849   I think some "suspects" should be asked to take a lie detector test with regard to this case ... for surely "someone" on that campus knows something

4/7/04 Anonymous Message #1848   "TENS OF THOUSANDS of students must have lived on that campus in the nearly 150 years that the abbey and university have been in existence. I’m not aware of anyone ever having fallen into a lake on campus without simply crawling out again" I know, you're right ... and ... in the case of the other two college students who did drown, they were extremely intoxicated, I believe. I never thought Joshua just somehow fell into the lake, it seemed to me that the sheriff's dept. just decided to take the easy way out ... and point to the lake, rather than elsewhere. The fact that Trident foundation told the sheriff's dept. they thought other avenues should be taken in this case says alot -- and the fact that the sheriff's dept. refused to further examine those other avenues also says alot

4/7/04 Anonymous Message #1847   Question: what's in it for the sheriff's dept. to have walked around the elephant in the room, so to speak --when it's very clear to many others what might have actually happened

4/7/04 Anonymous Message #1846   "However, it is more likely that a possible abductor was trolling for a victim and that Josh happened to be a good-enough match for the alleged perpetrator’s preferred victim profile" Do you think it might have been one of the priests or professors at SJU, rather than a student?

4/7/04 Anonymous Message #1845   "Even if Josh had not resisted, what do you do? Frog march someone at gunpoint down the busiest road on campus?" I was thinking maybe this person walked with Joshua to the monastery garage -- in which Joshua would have been familiar with the abductor ... and ... no gun or threat would have been necessary ... care to share more specifics on what you think may have actually happened -- I can see you've given this extensive thought, and actually, everything you've stated makes good sense

4/7/04 Anonymous Message #1844   "It strikes me that this coincidence would not have escaped a potential offender, creating a compelling window of opportunity to pull a fast one and get away with it." You have a point. I'm playing "devil's advocate" just for a moment -- could it be possible that on the way back to his dorm Josh got sick, lost his balance and landed in the water? I know, it's a stretch, and I don't really think that's what happened. You know that a tracking dog or dogs stopped at the lake. Then again, another search dog (the one Penny Bell used) allegedly tracked Josh's scent to other points on campus. I wish the people in the monastery had just let the police in the night Josh was missing -- apparently they didn't allow the cops in until the next day, I believe

4/7/04 Anonymous Message #1843   "However, it is more likely that a possible abductor was trolling for a victim and that Josh happened to be a good-enough match for the alleged perpetrator’s preferred victim profile. In that sense, Josh was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Surely Josh would be willing to help someone requesting his assistance, whether he casually knew the person or not." I appreciate the detailed outline of your logic, thank you, it is very helpful. So you are thinking Josh's abductor was someone he knew in passing -- someone he would willingly go somewhere with, right? You're right, it would have been very risky to get into a scuffle with him and chance getting caught. Is Joshua the kind of person who would agree to go somewhere with someone he didn't know well? Also, this would have to be someone who "belonged" on the campus -- someone who would not have seemed out of place to Josh. I'm getting the creeps, because I think I am discerning the basis of this line of thought ...

4/7/04 Anonymous . . . . . . . . Message #1842   "Correction on 4/6/2004 9:25:39 PM post: ... Q. ''Does anyone believe that Joshua fell into one of the lakes on campus?'' A. TENS OF THOUSANDS of students must have lived on that campus in the nearly 150 years that the abbey and university have been in existence. I’m not aware of anyone ever having fallen into a lake on campus without simply crawling out again. ..."

4/6/04 Anonymous . . . . . . . . Message #1840   "Q. ''Okay ... well ... is it logical to begin with the premise that Joshua may have known the individual who possibly abducted him? ...'' ... A. I would strongly question the logic that Josh would have been well acquainted with a possible abductor, or that there would be a clear link between them. However, it is possible that Josh may have encountered this individual casually (e.g., in the video store where he worked) and therefore trusted him. It’s even possible that Josh may have been stalked. However, it is more likely that a possible abductor was trolling for a victim and that Josh happened to be a good-enough match for the alleged perpetrator’s preferred victim profile. In that sense, Josh was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Surely Josh would be willing to help someone requesting his assistance, whether he casually knew the person or not."

4/6/04 Anonymous . . . . . . . . Message #1839   "Q. ''I've always felt that Joshua knew the person who abducted him ... // I don't think he was just overtaken by a stranger ... well, unless the stranger pulled a gun on him.'' ... A. Let’s forget about a gun. It might work with a child but would be way too risky with a college-age male who might run or struggle for possession of the weapon. Assuming an abduction, for argument's sake, who would be desperate and stupid enough to put themselves in a position where they might face the choice of either using the gun within earshot of hundreds of witnesses or else aborting the abduction after having been identified by Josh. Even if Josh had not resisted, what do you do? Frog march someone at gunpoint down the busiest road on campus? Sounds more like a guarantee of apprehension than an abduction plan to me. If a crime occurred and the MO included a firearm, it would have been better to lie in wait for an unsuspecting motorist at the Avon rest stop on I-94 just five minutes away."

4/6/04 Anonymous . . . . . . . . Message #1838   "Q. ''Does anyone believe that Joshua fell into one of the lakes on campus?'' ... A. Tens of student must have lived on that campus for well over a hundred years. I’m not aware of anyone ever having fallen into a lake without simply crawling out again. Has any student ever drowned on campus, especially when simply walking from point A to point B along a footpath? People were ready to assume it was a drowning because Chris Jenkins in Minneapolis and Michael Noll in Eau Claire had disappeared near bodies of water in the 10 days prior to Josh’s disappearance and were deemed to have been drowning victims. These cases received substantial media coverage. It strikes me that this coincidence would not have escaped a potential offender, creating a compelling window of opportunity to pull a fast one and get away with it. ... "

4/6/04 Anonymous Message #1837   Does anyone believe that Joshua fell into one of the lakes on campus?

4/6/04 Anonymous Message #1836   I've always felt that Joshua knew the person who abducted him ... because, Joshua is physically large enough in stature that I don't think he was just overtaken by a stranger ... well, unless the stranger pulled a gun on him

4/6/04 Anonymous Message #1835   "That said, if the person discussed here is who I think he is, I believe going after him would send investigators on yet another wild goose chase" What is it about the professor in question that causes people to point suspicion at him? Perhaps he is just disliked?

4/6/04 .. Message #1834   Okay ... well ... is it logical to begin with the premise that Joshua may have known the individual who possbily abducted him? That notion seems more probable than a complete stranger arbitrarily wandering onto the campus of SJU to snatch a student. The campus seems remote and not a place that a stranger from off campus suddenly decides to target

4/6/04 Anonymous . . . . . . . . . . Message #1833   What's the big deal about knowing a suspect. Would someone smart enough to make his victim vanish from the face of the earth without a trace of evidence be dumb enough to target an acquaintance? These investigations always start close to the victim and proceed outward. I'm sure Josh's father has been grilled, his faculty resident interviewed, and his friends, professors, and acquaintances questioned. Meanwhile, the perpetrator smugly observes from a comfortable distance, hiding behind a mask of normalcy. Not knowing Josh isn't exculpatory; rather, it tends to be incriminating. That said, if the person discussed here is who I think he is, I believe going after him would send investigators on yet another wild goose chase. Of course, this doesn't mean law enforcement shouldn't look closely at all names that come up in the investigation. Eliminating someone can be useful to help focus the search. It can also restore some honor to those who may have been falsely implicated.

4/6/04 Anonymous Message #1832   It appears, then, that Joshua did not have direct contact with this professor. All the questions asked are good ones -- now -- does anyone reading this board know any of the answers? If you do, would you help out? Thanks!

4/6/04 Katie Message #1831   Josh never mentioned this professor to me in any capacity. He never had a class with him, and to my knowledge, he didn't know who this professor was beyond hearing other students discuss him.

4/6/04 Anonymous Message #1830   "The term ''stalked'' has been used on more than one occasion on this board to describe the behavior of this particular individual. I'm wondering, what specifically was this person observed doing that could be characterized by such a strong word? Was he observed surreptitiously watching students from a hidden location? Did he follow students around campus? Did he make unwelcome phone calls to students or leave risque telephone messages? Was he observed socializing or ''hanging out'' with students to a degree that could be deemed inappropriate? Did he have any ''special friends'' from among the student population? Did he afford special treatment to favored students who stroked his ego? Did he make a habit of meeting students for lunch? How, specifically -- if, indeed, at all -- did he cross the line that separates mentorship from boundary violation? What, specifically, did he do, if anything, that should justly arouse legitimate concern or suspicion? ... "

4/6/04 .. Message #1829   Joshua we can't find you if no one is willing to come forward with whatever information they might know ...

View Page: [<<] ... 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ... [>>]

Contact Us