I suppose if claiming of a Coverup and the evidence is documents but the documents were destroyed as part of the coverup

Then what have you,

Courts won’t accept this type of claim without having evidence that documents were intentionally destroyed.

The Greek text of Mark 14 describes the “Mark 14:51-52” person as:

νεανισκος τις

τις : is a interrogative (question) word, pronoun

The person is unknown. The person is not one of Twelve apostles, nor one of the disciples, nor was present at the Last Supper.

This young boy, possibly a slave, just shows up unexpectedly after Judas and members of the Sanhedrin arrive to arrest Jesus.

There’s not any reason to suspect that νεανισκος τις was a sex slave belonging to Jesus or was even asked to be there at the Garden of Gethsemane.

I have not found one work in the Little Liddell Greek lexicon that could link the Greek spelling of Gethsemane back to semen. So if there’s an intentional pun occurring it’s just a coincidence that occurs after because of Latin and English. I mentioned before that sexual innuendos can be invented out of almost anything, so it’s not surprising.