Sasquatch321
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,919
- Reaction score
- 548
6 or so names is a good amount of investigative work to do, will the SCSO do it?
I would add Andert as well, but where is the source that he was closest to the party?
"(October 25, 2002) Father Tom Andert was a faculty resident at Metten Court, campus housing at Saint John’s University."
Andert Will Attend Reunion This Weekend, His Victim Will Not | BehindThePineCurtain.com
Monks, monks, and more monks. But after 17 years not one spill of the beans for this case. How has one or more of them been able to pull this off? Someone knows, but I'm not hearing anything. The truth is we are simply blaming them just because and that is all it is and has been. We need something better soon.
Maybe it will simply turn out to be somebody Joshua's age who is jealous of him and competitive?Monks, monks, and more monks. But after 17 years not one spill of the beans for this case. How has one or more of them been able to pull this off? Someone knows, but I'm not hearing anything. The truth is we are simply blaming them just because and that is all it is and has been. We need something better soon.
Monks, monks, and more monks. But after 17 years not one spill of the beans for this case. How has one or more of them been able to pull this off? Someone knows, but I'm not hearing anything. The truth is we are simply blaming them just because and that is all it is and has been. We need something better soon.
There's plenty of factual reasons to be focused on the monks. Bona fide pedophiles and rapists residing within a stones thrown of where a person disappears with zero "0" evidence or information to suggest some random person was cruising through campus. I believe the focus is in the right direction.
I do like your new found investigative tactics though, I commend you for that! You come a long way since your days of statements of clear defamation per se, and allegations with absolutely no foundation. Have you ever called the "obviously innocent man in the farmhouse" yet to profusely apologize for your words? I'm going to guess you haven't...
But it's sincerely a great change to see Sas.... Keep on this mindset!
Your continued beef with that comment falls on the decisions of John Sanner and his administrations idea to publicly name DR a person of interest. I took that as far as I could until DR was cleared or convicted, and I stand by that comment still today. I will continue to grind on any information that has come to light in this investigation.
Keep grinding on that
Keep grinding on new information, that's great. But let me give you some advice, or what I call common sense...
"Person of Interest", has no meaning as a term used in law. It means nothing in court. It's a cheap tactic used by frustrated law enforcement. The FBI suggests that the term not be used at all. It doesn't even amount to "suspect". And it certainly doesn't mean the person is guilty of anything, physically or mentally abused by their father, molested by their mother, that they're not normal, that they committed arson, or that they committed any damage or harm to anyone at all. So quit justifying your actions by passing the buck to the SCSO because I never heard them say one of those ridiculously false and defamatory statements you made. Use you head!
You got a freebie on that one, I wouldn't press your luck again. I know I would've sued the f¥(k out of you. Just think a little, and you'll make the world just a little bit better! Have yourself a wonderful and warm day!
I can't believe this -- going on 18 years now with no forward movement (that I can see) in this case. It is heartbreaking. Josh's Grandpa Bob died without ever getting any answers in spite of his relentness pursuit of the truth. He did everything he possibly could to find out what happened. I know there are others who have also spent many years examining Josh's case. It's like a puzzle with one big piece missing, and I think the answers contained in that missing piece can be found in the exact location from which Josh disappeared. I still maintain that, given the lengthy history of sexual abuse at St. John's, the sheriff should have immediately began questioning the monks' alibis for that night/morning. And of course the Abbot should have been as forthcoming, honest and truthful as possible. Was he?
I think it would have to be someone in an "official" capacity to ask those questions. And for all I know, maybe some of the monks have been questioned. But it just seems like -- that ship has sailed -- and quite possibly the perpetrator is now gone. Sometimes I wonder if perhaps a monk confessed to doing something awful (i.e criminal), the Abbot would state that the perpetrator's sin is forgiven and that's that. What would the Abbot do under oath? Probably claim some kind of religious immunity from having to reveal anything.
The monks unfortunately weren't vetted properly the first week he went missing. But it's really not too late to figure out who was there and what they were doing.
The monks unfortunately weren't vetted properly the first week he went missing. But it's really not too late to figure out who was there and what they were doing.
"You got a freebie on that one, I wouldn't press your luck again. I know I would've sued the f¥(k out of you."
Well you wouldn't have won, LE provided the ammo and I fired upon it. Also I might offer to tread more lightly on naming monks in public where there is no solid evidence tying them to Joshua whatsoever.