Following on from my previous post above, back in January of 2003, a former FBI profiler released the following:
The Likely Profile of Joshua Guimond’s Abductor | BehindThePineCurtain.com
I read it 1000x over. And I felt like it was too specific and led you down the path of the monks - specifically Wollmering; I think this discounts other possibilities. I'm not a trained profiler, but I am very much aware of profiling and think it can be useful. According to some sources, profiling can be 60-80% accurate.
I didn't like the focus on the offender being older, a lone person or the sexual motive. I thought it was too specific. So, I decided to change "he" for "they" - I am going to make an assumption that there wasn't just one person involved in Josh's disappearance - it's too messy. Too complex. Too unusual to be the work of one person (in my opinion). Below, is my reworked profile - (
all I have done, is change he for they in places, and removed the older part / sexual motive part). I feel like this has left me with an incredible profile, which I will discuss at the bottom of this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here's what we're left with:
Those responsible for Joshua Guimond’s disappearance, if foul play is involved, would have the following personal characteristics: above average intelligence; socially competent, with good interpersonal skills; likely to be employed in a skilled occupation; a childhood history of inconsistent discipline; a reliable means of transportation, most likely a late-model car in good condition; and a precipitating situational stress prior to the victim’s disappearance. They would be very familiar with the college campus from which the victim disappeared; it would be part of their territory, their comfort zone. They likely would be familiar with the schedules of campus buses and security officers and would know whether the campus has surveillance cameras and where they are located.
The offenders would have conducted extensive pre-surveillance of campus activity around midnight on weekends, which suggests they easily blend in and do not arouse the suspicions of students or security officers when out and about late at night on campus. They would be comfortable in outdoor locations.
The offenders would be highly skilled in presenting the image of a loving and sincere individual and adept at charming others and gaining their confidence and trust. However, beneath this veneer of civility and trustworthiness, they would be selfish, cunning, manipulative, and driven by a need for power, domination, and control.
The decision maker of the group would be a fussy, meticulous, impeccably groomed individual preoccupied with details, lists, organization, and schedules. He would act kindly toward those who submit to his authority but cold, critical, or vindictive toward those who do not. He would have few if any genuine, reciprocal, give-and-take friendships.
After the victim’s disappearance, the offenders would have closely followed the investigation in the news media; likely increased their alcohol consumption, showed signs of stress, and/or experienced weight loss; and may have changed jobs or left the area until the dust settled enough for them to feel it was safe enough to return.
When they are finally apprehended, many will be shocked, asserting that this was the last person(s) accountable for the disappearance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe this has left me with a much wider scope, but has still allowed for a specific person/bunch of people.
I will post up my theory within the next few days. I honestly believe that I am getting very, very close with this one.
