The offender 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; employed in a skilled occupation; high birth order status (e.g., first-born son); a poor relationship with his father, who humiliated him in childhood; 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. More… The offender would be considerably older than traditional-age college students. He would be very familiar with the college campus from which the victim disappeared; it would be part of his territory, his comfort zone. He 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 offender would have conducted extensive pre-surveillance of campus activity around midnight on weekends, which suggests he easily blends in and does not arouse the suspicions of students or security officers when out and about late at night on campus. He would be comfortable in outdoor locations.
The offender 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, he would be selfish, cunning, manipulative, and driven by a need for power, domination, and control.
The offender would have chosen for himself an occupation or avocation that allows him to act as an authority figure and places him in a position where he can easily identify and gain the trust of vulnerable college-age men (e.g., youth counselor or coach); however, he will not have distinguished himself in his chosen occupation.
The offender may previously have come to the attention of authorities as a result of allegations of inappropriate relationships with younger men or minor violations such as trespassing, peeping, soliciting, or numerous driving offenses.
The offender 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. He would essentially be a loner whose primary relationships are with younger men in a subservient, compliant role.
The offender likely would have rehearsed his abduction plan. This means that in the months prior to his victim’s disappearance, he used a con or ruse (e.g., asking for assistance or directions, feigning a fall, accident, or injury) to lure a student late at night into a vehicle, to an isolated area concealed from public view, or to an indoor location over which he had a great deal of control (e.g., a basement, garage, or office area).
The likely offender would have a longstanding interest in sexual bondage and discipline, and over the years may have sought out opportunities to discuss this topic with younger men (possibly in a counseling situation, or perhaps in a joking or offhand fashion in more informal interactions). He would have an extensive collection of bondage pornography, though this would likely be a closely guarded secret.
After the victim’s disappearance, the offender would have closely followed the investigation in the news media; likely increased his 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 him to feel it was safe enough to return.
When he is finally apprehended, many will be shocked, asserting that this was the last person they would have suspected of being capable of such a heinous crime.
Al from Sartell
Posted: Jul 29, 2006 at 9:59 PM
The Likely Profile of Joshua Guimond’s Abductor