MN MN - Joshua Guimond, 20, Collegeville, 9 Nov 2002 - #2

[formerpolicestaff]

Thank you! Very interesting. Let's say there was an abductor/abductors. Now I wonder "why Joshua?" What made Joshua stand out to the abductor(s)? Why was he the right victim? Or was this a crime of opportunity? The abductor(s) looking out for just any student they could lay their hands on?

I'm just about to make a giant post which I *think* should explain everything. Look out for it in a minute or two and let me know your thoughts.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

Here is the final part of my in depth theory. To get to this point, I've read/watched absolutely everything there is on the web about the Josh Guimond case. I've gone back to 2002 and read articles, watched countless videos, statements by people involved etc etc. I can't express how much time I've invested into this case. The following is a timeline and my beliefs about what happened to Josh Guimond.

Saturday November 9, 2002 (Day of Disappearance)

Timeline

10:30am-12:30pm, Josh spent much of his time on his computer, working on a research paper about Alexander Hamilton for his history class. He was also active on AOL instant messenger (speculation on a podcast with Newville suggests Josh was talking to Katie at this time)

12:30pm-12:57pm - Josh goes to library to get books for his paper and returns to his dorm

2:30pm – Checks email and looks for a seasonal job

3:46pm – Josh checks college movie station website to look at the schedule for that day

3:57pm – He enters his dorm room using his keycard

4:00pm – Josh prepared a document for the pre-law society budget meeting that he was to attend the following day

4:40-5:00pm – Search for movie “Brewster’s Millions”

5:00-6:00pm – Josh had dinner with friends

6:00-7:00pm – Josh and Alex Jude hang out in Josh’s room, listen to music, drink beer,

and analysis of his computer showed beer-related searches were made

8:30pm – Josh invites Alex Jude and Nick Hydukovich to smoke outside. Nick declines cigar and goes to hang out with Katie.

10:00pm – Josh and Alex’s friend Greg Worden comes over to hang out in Josh’s roommate

11pm - They (Josh, Alex Jude and Greg Worden) left Josh’s dorm room to go to a party at Nate Slinkard's apartment at 75 Metten Court, which was about a five-minute walk away.

11:06pm - Josh's key card was used to access his apartment

11:15 and 11:30pm – Josh showed up with Alex Jude and Greg Worden. Josh had a few drinks and played cards

11:45pm (November 9) -12:00am (November 10) – Josh leaves the party we’re told. But I suspect Josh had an overdose and passed away in the dorm’s bathroom

12:00am – Josh was discovered in the bathroom

This is where we have to make “best guess” at what would have happened, as we will only ever know if people open up and admit the truth

11:45-12:00 - Josh overdoses either by himself or someone slipping a pill into his drink thinking it'll be funny and it'll make them have a better time. They didn’t mean for him to OD but the drug & drink combination was lethal (Josh had been drinking through the day too)


November 10, 2002

Nick’s Time Discrepancy

12:00-1:00am - Nick gets a call/text/communication around 1am telling him there’s a problem at the poker party and get there immediately. Nick is involved now. He’s conflicted because he was Josh’s friend, but they had recently argued about Katie.

1:00am - Once Nick gets there, group panic sets in and they have an extremely high stress situation to deal with. They know they’ll get in major trouble for the drug business, plus they also know that that Josh’s death could land them in jail. They make a decision on what to do with Josh’s body.

*** This part is open for debate, but a group of young people, many of whom likely on some form of drug during the party, likely intoxicated, in extreme levels of panic had to make a decision. Nick would be the more level headed one...I believe they place Josh’s body in the dumpster outside Metten Court and make a pact that no one says anything for the rest of their lives because the drug business they had going on and death of Josh will put them in prison and ruin their future careers ***

2:42am – Nick key cards back into his dorm, later than planned, due to the events that had taken place. The mock trial was taking place at 2:30pm that day.

*** From this point on. Nick has to now be seen acting as normal and appearing as though he doesn’t know what has happened. ***

2-3pm – Nick calls calls Katie and asks if she knows where Josh is. <<<< I suspect this was to gauge if she knows anything about last night’s events.

Time unknown - Katie speaks to people from the Poker party and they tell her Josh was fine and acting normal. They cannot admit to her what she knows, as they think she will tell others. Katie didn’t (and still doesn’t) know Josh OD’d.

At some point during the weekend, Nick placed a note in Josh's room. The language is somewhat interesting (attached to post). "stop down if you get back". "If" is a very interesting choice of words. Surely you'd say: "stop down when you're back".

Examining the Netflix Documentary From This Angle

Out of every person in the entire documentary, Dana strikes me as the only one telling the full, whole, entire truth. Therefore, when she said:

“I can’t remember any time that he [Josh] had done that previously where he would have just left without saying goodbye” – Dana <<<< THIS STATEMENT TELLS ME THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM STARTED. RIGHT THERE. IN THE POKER PARTY. Josh DID NOT make it out of the poker party alive. Even Katie agreed that this was NOT like Josh.

The sighting of Josh on the bridge most likely wasn’t right. Sightings are often unreliable and misleading – just like the so-called sighting of Josh in Vegas.

On the Netflix documentary, Dana said it wasn’t the Josh she knew who would leave the party. If you listen carefully, Dana and Katie’s version of Josh seem wildly different to who the version of Josh that the poker group describes – so much so, I wholeheartedly believe the poker group are lying. I believe Josh didn’t say “bye” when he stood up to go to the bathroom because he thought he’d be coming back – he didn’t expect he was going to die in the bathroom.

“One person stated that they believed he was going to the bathroom” - Detective Andrew Struffert (Netflix).

“A couple of people at the party had noticed a male get up and leave but they weren’t quite sure it was Josh” – Detective Andrew Struffert (Netflix). I suggest they “weren’t quite sure” because it was a lie.

Next day, Josh’s “friends” said he was in a good mood, joking around etc to Katie – they wanted (and needed) to keep Katie out of it. Same with Dana. Dana and Katie would alert people. This had to stay private between Nick and those at poker. This explains Nick’s facial expressions in the Netflix documentary. He seemed incredibly remorseful. He agreed to take the polygraph because he thought he could take it and pass it because he didn’t kill Josh (I truly believe he didn’t) – but he knows what happened, and that’s likely why he then changed his mind about taking it.

Nate's Comment

Nate Slinkard, the host of the gathering, would recall to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune the seemingly insignificant moment around midnight when Josh got up. “I was standing there looking right at him,” Slinkard said.

Strange how Nate says he was looking at Josh - but doesn't say he saw him walk out the door. Just that he was standing there looking (which you'd be doing if you saw him [Josh] dead.

What Happened To Josh?

Only the people at poker truly know what happened to Josh’s body. We can only speculate. However, searching the lakes was likely going to be fruitless - it's not as if the poker group can get out to the middle of the lake and drop Josh's body in it. Plus they're panicking, drunk and/or on drugs (aside from Nick). I would hazard a guess that the dumpster was used to dispose the body and the next day it was taken to the incinerator on campus and the monks unknowingly ran the incinerator. Rumours do say that the incinerator was ran on an off day (the day after Josh’s disappearance), so that would also explain why Josh was never found.


Locard’s Exchange Principle


One thing I learned in my career, is locards exchange principle. There is ALWAYS a trace. There is always something that gives the game away. It can be physical objects coming into contact, or it can be stories that don’t match up. In this case, it’s stories that don’t match up: Katie/Dana’s description of Josh vs Poker party description of Josh, and Katie vs Nick’s timeline.


I strongly believe Katie hadn’t been told by the poker group secret for fears that she would tell police/Josh’s dad – hence why her time that Nick left was different to Nick’s. Katie was on record with the police saying Nick left between 1-1:30am.

But because none of the group had told Katie the group secret, that’s why she gave that time. That’s why Nick’s time is different – because Nick needed to give a time closer to the time he got back to his dorm.

This time discrepancy is the time it took for some/all of the poker group to decide what to do with the body and make the pact to avoid getting in trouble with law enforcement.


Digital Evidence


Additionally – Nick said that the paper Josh was working on regarding abuse at the monastery – it was never found by digital forensics teams (Stearn County OR a private investigator). I’m inclined to believe Nick said this only to throw people off the scent. As a former digital forensic investigator – there’s no possible way on planet earth that if that document was written, it’s not being found – or some trace isn’t being found – especially if the hard drive was wiped with a basic “internet washer”.

Furthermore: I don’t think Josh was actually that far along into his research on the monastery abuse scandal. Digital Forensics results showed that Josh had performed a search on October 3, 2002 for “st. john's abbey statute of limitations conspiracy”. That’s not the search of someone who is very far into a scandal – rather, someone who is at the very beginning of the paper – aka – someone who is going to write about it, but hasn’t put pen to paper yet.

Regarding the internet washer, as I explained in my first post, let me remind you:

KMSP found that a student of St John’s University named Adam McDonald logged on to Josh’s computer from 11:48 pm on 11/11/02 until 12:40 am on 11/12/02. Josh went missing around 11 pm on 11/09/02. Adam did a search and went to a internet washer website which allows you to remove any websites that were accessed on the computer. It is available in stealth mode. KMSP tried to interview Adam for the story, but he declined.

Adam was the one who performed the internet washer – his lack of computing knowledge probably thought he was erasing all of their narcotics and phony ID data. It wasn’t. And this is one of their many mistakes.

Additionally, a letter addressed to Mike Hatch, State Attorney General, sent by the private investigator that Brian hired, Jim Rothstein:

“March 10, 2004 at Kays Kitchen in St. Joseph Mn., the following students and friends of Josh, Greg Worden, Alex Jude, Nate Slinkard, Katie Benson(Josh girl friend) and one other female, came to confront Brian Guimond. I (Jim Rothstein) was with Brian. During this confrontation (meeting) they became very subdued when they were informed that we had cracked Josh computer (see item c) and found the phony drivers license operation. Jude stated "we erased all that information". Then questioned about the narcotics business they had going on, they had nothing to say. It is apparent that they knew what i was talking about.”

Alex Jude stated “we erased all that information”. The group became “subdued” and “they had nothing to say”. This makes me think the group thought that PI Jim Rothstein had figured out that Josh had overdosed during the party and the poker group had been dealing in narcotics, hence them being subdued and having nothing to say.



Why it wasn’t monks, Pontiac, random killer

The monks are terrible sexual abusers, the worst of the worst - there’s no question about that, it’s a fact. But they’ve not killed their victims and they don’t tend to abuse 20 year olds, especially not during a 3 minute walk on campus, they tended to go for younger victims who they’ve groomed over time. There was never one report of a monk abusing Josh. In fact, Josh was friends with many monks, especially Brother Willie. I do not believe the monks killed Josh.

Pontiac theory – I believe the orange pontiac was dropping off drugs to campus. The fact it was seen a few times tells me it was delivering to clients not taking victims. Police did locate and question the driver. Car crushed when the police began questioning it – likely to avoid being convicted of supplying drugs.

A random serial killer theory - driving 1-2 miles off the freeway, entering campus, waiting for Josh to emerge on a 3 minute walk home then getting out of the car, grabbing him without a scream/fight/someone noticing seems exceptionally unlikely – almost impossible. You’d have to be the most unlucky person ever for this to happen within that timeframe. I am not ruling it out completely, but I think the chances are exceptionally slim.


Results of My Research


I believe Josh’s mom was right about what she said in the Netflix documentary. The people at that poker game know something. In my opinion – they know everything. Dana and Katie didn’t know at the time and still don’t know – but I fully believe Josh overdosed that night and the people at the poker party disposed of Josh’s body out of sheer panic. The overdose that Josh had was not intentional – no one tried to kill him – it was an accident.

But in order to cover their narcotics business, the fact they were doing / selling drugs, and the fact their best friend just died of drugs in their dorm, they disposed of the body and took a pact not to say to anyone what had happened.

If you look at my updated FBI profile (a few posts above), in which I simply removed the sexual abuse angle, changed “he” to “they”, the profile fits the people at the poker party almost perfectly.

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 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.


Next steps

Stearns County Sheriff's Dept needs to haul back in the people from the poker party and put them under some serious questioning and even strike a deal with them in order to get the truth out of them. There’s no way Josh left that party alive. It was most likely an accidental death. Josh’s parents deserve the truth and they have suffered for too long. It’s time to stop worrying about careers and give Josh’s parents the truth.

 

[Marzipan]

Here is the final part of my in depth theory. To get to this point, I've read/watched absolutely everything there is on the web about the Josh Guimond case. I've gone back to 2002 and read articles, watched countless videos, statements by people involved etc etc. I can't express how much time I've invested into this case. The following is a timeline and my beliefs about what happened to Josh Guimond.

Saturday November 9, 2002 (Day of Disappearance)

Timeline

10:30am-12:30pm, Josh spent much of his time on his computer, working on a research paper about Alexander Hamilton for his history class. He was also active on AOL instant messenger (speculation on a podcast with Newville suggests Josh was talking to Katie at this time)

12:30pm-12:57pm - Josh goes to library to get books for his paper and returns to his dorm

2:30pm – Checks email and looks for a seasonal job

3:46pm – Josh checks college movie station website to look at the schedule for that day

3:57pm – He enters his dorm room using his keycard

4:00pm – Josh prepared a document for the pre-law society budget meeting that he was to attend the following day

4:40-5:00pm – Search for movie “Brewster’s Millions”

5:00-6:00pm – Josh had dinner with friends

6:00-7:00pm – Josh and Alex Jude hang out in Josh’s room, listen to music, drink beer,

and analysis of his computer showed beer-related searches were made

8:30pm – Josh invites Alex Jude and Nick Hydukovich to smoke outside. Nick declines cigar and goes to hang out with Katie.

10:00pm – Josh and Alex’s friend Greg Worden comes over to hang out in Josh’s roommate

11pm - They (Josh, Alex Jude and Greg Worden) left Josh’s dorm room to go to a party at Nate Slinkard's apartment at 75 Metten Court, which was about a five-minute walk away.

11:06pm - Josh's key card was used to access his apartment

11:15 and 11:30pm – Josh showed up with Alex Jude and Greg Worden. Josh had a few drinks and played cards

11:45pm (November 9) -12:00am (November 10) – Josh leaves the party we’re told. But I suspect Josh had an overdose and passed away in the dorm’s bathroom

12:00am – Josh was discovered in the bathroom

This is where we have to make “best guess” at what would have happened, as we will only ever know if people open up and admit the truth

11:45-12:00 - Josh overdoses either by himself or someone slipping a pill into his drink thinking it'll be funny and it'll make them have a better time. They didn’t mean for him to OD but the drug & drink combination was lethal (Josh had been drinking through the day too)


November 10, 2002

Nick’s Time Discrepancy

12:00-1:00am - Nick gets a call/text/communication around 1am telling him there’s a problem at the poker party and get there immediately. Nick is involved now. He’s conflicted because he was Josh’s friend, but they had recently argued about Katie.

1:00am - Once Nick gets there, group panic sets in and they have an extremely high stress situation to deal with. They know they’ll get in major trouble for the drug business, plus they also know that that Josh’s death could land them in jail. They make a decision on what to do with Josh’s body.

*** This part is open for debate, but a group of young people, many of whom likely on some form of drug during the party, likely intoxicated, in extreme levels of panic had to make a decision. Nick would be the more level headed one...I believe they place Josh’s body in the dumpster outside Metten Court and make a pact that no one says anything for the rest of their lives because the drug business they had going on and death of Josh will put them in prison and ruin their future careers ***

2:42am – Nick key cards back into his dorm, later than planned, due to the events that had taken place. The mock trial was taking place at 2:30pm that day.

*** From this point on. Nick has to now be seen acting as normal and appearing as though he doesn’t know what has happened. ***

2-3pm – Nick calls calls Katie and asks if she knows where Josh is. <<<< I suspect this was to gauge if she knows anything about last night’s events.

Time unknown - Katie speaks to people from the Poker party and they tell her Josh was fine and acting normal. They cannot admit to her what she knows, as they think she will tell others. Katie didn’t (and still doesn’t) know Josh OD’d.

At some point during the weekend, Nick placed a note in Josh's room. The language is somewhat interesting (attached to post). "stop down if you get back". "If" is a very interesting choice of words. Surely you'd say: "stop down when you're back".

Examining the Netflix Documentary From This Angle

Out of every person in the entire documentary, Dana strikes me as the only one telling the full, whole, entire truth. Therefore, when she said:

“I can’t remember any time that he [Josh] had done that previously where he would have just left without saying goodbye” – Dana <<<< THIS STATEMENT TELLS ME THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM STARTED. RIGHT THERE. IN THE POKER PARTY. Josh DID NOT make it out of the poker party alive. Even Katie agreed that this was NOT like Josh.

The sighting of Josh on the bridge most likely wasn’t right. Sightings are often unreliable and misleading – just like the so-called sighting of Josh in Vegas.

On the Netflix documentary, Dana said it wasn’t the Josh she knew who would leave the party. If you listen carefully, Dana and Katie’s version of Josh seem wildly different to who the version of Josh that the poker group describes – so much so, I wholeheartedly believe the poker group are lying. I believe Josh didn’t say “bye” when he stood up to go to the bathroom because he thought he’d be coming back – he didn’t expect he was going to die in the bathroom.

“One person stated that they believed he was going to the bathroom” - Detective Andrew Struffert (Netflix).

“A couple of people at the party had noticed a male get up and leave but they weren’t quite sure it was Josh” – Detective Andrew Struffert (Netflix). I suggest they “weren’t quite sure” because it was a lie.

Next day, Josh’s “friends” said he was in a good mood, joking around etc to Katie – they wanted (and needed) to keep Katie out of it. Same with Dana. Dana and Katie would alert people. This had to stay private between Nick and those at poker. This explains Nick’s facial expressions in the Netflix documentary. He seemed incredibly remorseful. He agreed to take the polygraph because he thought he could take it and pass it because he didn’t kill Josh (I truly believe he didn’t) – but he knows what happened, and that’s likely why he then changed his mind about taking it.

Nate's Comment

Nate Slinkard, the host of the gathering, would recall to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune the seemingly insignificant moment around midnight when Josh got up. “I was standing there looking right at him,” Slinkard said.

Strange how Nate says he was looking at Josh - but doesn't say he saw him walk out the door. Just that he was standing there looking (which you'd be doing if you saw him [Josh] dead.

What Happened To Josh?

Only the people at poker truly know what happened to Josh’s body. We can only speculate. However, searching the lakes was likely going to be fruitless - it's not as if the poker group can get out to the middle of the lake and drop Josh's body in it. Plus they're panicking, drunk and/or on drugs (aside from Nick). I would hazard a guess that the dumpster was used to dispose the body and the next day it was taken to the incinerator on campus and the monks unknowingly ran the incinerator. Rumours do say that the incinerator was ran on an off day (the day after Josh’s disappearance), so that would also explain why Josh was never found.


Locard’s Exchange Principle


One thing I learned in my career, is locards exchange principle. There is ALWAYS a trace. There is always something that gives the game away. It can be physical objects coming into contact, or it can be stories that don’t match up. In this case, it’s stories that don’t match up: Katie/Dana’s description of Josh vs Poker party description of Josh, and Katie vs Nick’s timeline.


I strongly believe Katie hadn’t been told by the poker group secret for fears that she would tell police/Josh’s dad – hence why her time that Nick left was different to Nick’s. Katie was on record with the police saying Nick left between 1-1:30am.

But because none of the group had told Katie the group secret, that’s why she gave that time. That’s why Nick’s time is different – because Nick needed to give a time closer to the time he got back to his dorm.

This time discrepancy is the time it took for some/all of the poker group to decide what to do with the body and make the pact to avoid getting in trouble with law enforcement.


Digital Evidence


Additionally – Nick said that the paper Josh was working on regarding abuse at the monastery – it was never found by digital forensics teams (Stearn County OR a private investigator). I’m inclined to believe Nick said this only to throw people off the scent. As a former digital forensic investigator – there’s no possible way on planet earth that if that document was written, it’s not being found – or some trace isn’t being found – especially if the hard drive was wiped with a basic “internet washer”.

Furthermore: I don’t think Josh was actually that far along into his research on the monastery abuse scandal. Digital Forensics results showed that Josh had performed a search on October 3, 2002 for “st. john's abbey statute of limitations conspiracy”. That’s not the search of someone who is very far into a scandal – rather, someone who is at the very beginning of the paper – aka – someone who is going to write about it, but hasn’t put pen to paper yet.

Regarding the internet washer, as I explained in my first post, let me remind you:

KMSP found that a student of St John’s University named Adam McDonald logged on to Josh’s computer from 11:48 pm on 11/11/02 until 12:40 am on 11/12/02. Josh went missing around 11 pm on 11/09/02. Adam did a search and went to a internet washer website which allows you to remove any websites that were accessed on the computer. It is available in stealth mode. KMSP tried to interview Adam for the story, but he declined.

Adam was the one who performed the internet washer – his lack of computing knowledge probably thought he was erasing all of their narcotics and phony ID data. It wasn’t. And this is one of their many mistakes.

Additionally, a letter addressed to Mike Hatch, State Attorney General, sent by the private investigator that Brian hired, Jim Rothstein:

“March 10, 2004 at Kays Kitchen in St. Joseph Mn., the following students and friends of Josh, Greg Worden, Alex Jude, Nate Slinkard, Katie Benson(Josh girl friend) and one other female, came to confront Brian Guimond. I (Jim Rothstein) was with Brian. During this confrontation (meeting) they became very subdued when they were informed that we had cracked Josh computer (see item c) and found the phony drivers license operation. Jude stated "we erased all that information". Then questioned about the narcotics business they had going on, they had nothing to say. It is apparent that they knew what i was talking about.”

Alex Jude stated “we erased all that information”. The group became “subdued” and “they had nothing to say”. This makes me think the group thought that PI Jim Rothstein had figured out that Josh had overdosed during the party and the poker group had been dealing in narcotics, hence them being subdued and having nothing to say.



Why it wasn’t monks, Pontiac, random killer

The monks are terrible sexual abusers, the worst of the worst - there’s no question about that, it’s a fact. But they’ve not killed their victims and they don’t tend to abuse 20 year olds, especially not during a 3 minute walk on campus, they tended to go for younger victims who they’ve groomed over time. There was never one report of a monk abusing Josh. In fact, Josh was friends with many monks, especially Brother Willie. I do not believe the monks killed Josh.

Pontiac theory – I believe the orange pontiac was dropping off drugs to campus. The fact it was seen a few times tells me it was delivering to clients not taking victims. Police did locate and question the driver. Car crushed when the police began questioning it – likely to avoid being convicted of supplying drugs.

A random serial killer theory - driving 1-2 miles off the freeway, entering campus, waiting for Josh to emerge on a 3 minute walk home then getting out of the car, grabbing him without a scream/fight/someone noticing seems exceptionally unlikely – almost impossible. You’d have to be the most unlucky person ever for this to happen within that timeframe. I am not ruling it out completely, but I think the chances are exceptionally slim.


Results of My Research


I believe Josh’s mom was right about what she said in the Netflix documentary. The people at that poker game know something. In my opinion – they know everything. Dana and Katie didn’t know at the time and still don’t know – but I fully believe Josh overdosed that night and the people at the poker party disposed of Josh’s body out of sheer panic. The overdose that Josh had was not intentional – no one tried to kill him – it was an accident.

But in order to cover their narcotics business, the fact they were doing / selling drugs, and the fact their best friend just died of drugs in their dorm, they disposed of the body and took a pact not to say to anyone what had happened.

If you look at my updated FBI profile (a few posts above), in which I simply removed the sexual abuse angle, changed “he” to “they”, the profile fits the people at the poker party almost perfectly.

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 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.


Next steps

Stearns County Sheriff's Dept needs to haul back in the people from the poker party and put them under some serious questioning and even strike a deal with them in order to get the truth out of them. There’s no way Josh left that party alive. It was most likely an accidental death. Josh’s parents deserve the truth and they have suffered for too long. It’s time to stop worrying about careers and give Josh’s parents the truth.

I’m guessing that if you don’t get a lot of responses to this post right away it’s because people are digesting it and maybe rewatching the documentary. Similar ideas have been out there, but didn’t reflect my thoughts on what happened. Thanks for the thorough explanation of your work, with timeline, which helps me reconsider. You’ve provided a lot of information and used good reasoning and I’m grateful for that.
Too many young men have gone missing here in Minnesota and we know that alcohol and bodies of water are a bad combination, and the male dating profiles along with orange car seen on campus are also compelling. But your theory is definitely one to think about. I’ll rewatch the documentary this weekend.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

I’m guessing that if you don’t get a lot of responses to this post right away it’s because people are digesting it and maybe rewatching the documentary. Similar ideas have been out there, but didn’t reflect my thoughts on what happened. Thanks for the thorough explanation of your work, with timeline, which helps me reconsider. You’ve provided a lot of information and used good reasoning and I’m grateful for that.
Too many young men have gone missing here in Minnesota and we know that alcohol and bodies of water are a bad combination, and the male dating profiles along with orange car seen on campus are also compelling. But your theory is definitely one to think about. I’ll rewatch the documentary this weekend.

Thanks, I totally understand. Like I say, the reason I'm feeling so very confident in my theory is because after reading everything there is on the monks - I just don't think it's the monks - they've not killed anyone (to my knowledge). I'm not defending them - they're filth and deserve prison for life (or worse) - but I don't think the monks are likely to kill a 20-21 year old man.

The orange pontiac - the reason I don't think this is a vehicle to kidnap people - the story that was given was that campus security approached it and then a student hopped out and ran off. That stinks (no pun intended) of a drug deal. Someone in need of campus security would have run over to campus security. I just struggle to believe a car that returns to known hookup spots (aka the kind of place you'd do drug deals) is a serial killer/kidnapper etc.

I believe the answer has been staring at us right under our noses.

It all adds up (in my view). My theory explains why Nick's time was off - because he was helping out the mess at the poker party. And it explains why Katie's time was different to Nicks.

If Nick and Katie were working together, then their alibi would be absolutely water-tight. And this is yet another huge point that I think we've all been missing. Katie's time difference is most likely the real time Nick left - and it's precisely the time Nick and the people at the party needed to dispose of Josh's body, make a pact and a plan - then keycard back into his dorm, and never utter the truth to anyone again. 1 hour 42 minute discrepancy. That's huge. Absolutely huge - and would tie in with the panic/trouble of having to dispose of a body which none of them have ever done before - so immediately, they think: dumpster.

And it just so happens, the contents of the dumpsters get incinerated on-site - and also just so happens that there was a rumour of the incinerator being used on an off day - so almost immediately after the body was placed in a dumpster, the remains (including all clothing) would be gone - which also explains why there was never any evidence of clothing, bones or any remains in the lakes - the body never went to the lake.

For me, the very biggest giveaway that something went terribly wrong in the poker party is Dana's statement about Josh NEVER leaving without saying bye. The fact that Josh got up and headed to the bathroom without saying bye leads me to believe he thought he was coming back - he had no clue he was going into cardiac arrest etc Katie says too that it wasn't the Josh she knows who would leave like that.

And then you've got to look at the sheer amount of effort Nick goes to. Let's break down what Nick says he did:

• Nick says he headed to Katie's at 7-8pm
• Nick says he left Katie's at 2:30am
• Nick says how he checked Josh's bedroom when he got back to the apartment
• Nick says he checked Josh's bedroom in the morning
• Nick says he spoken to Alex and Greg "because he [Josh] was with them last night"
• Nick says he spoken to Katie and asked "where is Josh?"
• Nick pointed towards the monks being responsible due to the paper Josh was allegedly writing
• Nick says lie detector test because he was scared of a false positive showing up and pivoting the investigation in the wrong direction
• Nick left a note in Josh's room saying "stop down if you get back" (very interesting phrasing, specifically the word "if" you get back

Nick is clearly distancing himself from the investigation. As the police mentioned in the episode: "these kids have futures to protect" - and my goodness, is Nick protecting his. I find the amount of effort and storytelling just simply abnormal. He pushes the direction of investigation away from him by mentioning other people / declining the polygraph - and the police seem to have just said: "Oh ok then buddy, it can't be you!". It's unbelievable how the police haven't really, really honed in on him and the poker party group. Have I missed anything that Nick said he did?

To me, this seems like an abnormal amount of alibi / story - trying to cover his every step. And it seems like an abnormal amount of pushing the investigation away from him. I believe he pushed the investigation away from him by:

• Refusing the polygraph
• Mentioning the monks
• Mentioning Josh was last with Alex/Greg
• Saying "he" [Nick] didn't touch the computer

When you re-watch the documentary, re-watch it with the following lens over your eyes:

1) The group has a narcotics business
2) Look at how many times Nick diverts attention from himself during the investigation
3) Look at how much thought/effort Nick is going to, to try and create an alibi for himself
4) Nick's facial expressions - I know some people think it's pseudo-science, but facial expressions can reveal a lot - I see remorse, guilt - I see a man who knows more than he's letting on - because I believe he knows what happened to Josh

At this point, I'm utterly convinced. I'm just going to wait for other people to review all of my theory and then I think we need to get the Stearn's County Sheriff Dept working on it.

I just simply don't believe Josh ever left that party. The fact the poker party group has never done public interviews, declined interviews, Alex deleted data etc None of the poker party appear to have gone to any major trouble hunting for Josh - to me, proves my theory has some weight.

Apologies for my long posts - but one more thing - Nick has been caught in 2-3 lies, I'm willing to bet the poker party group are lying too. Nick is lying to save his career. The poker party group are lying to save their careers. The answer lies within Nick/Poker party group. I guarantee it.

 

[Bit of hope]

Thanks, I totally understand. Like I say, the reason I'm feeling so very confident in my theory is because after reading everything there is on the monks - I just don't think it's the monks - they've not killed anyone (to my knowledge). I'm not defending them - they're filth and deserve prison for life (or worse) - but I don't think the monks are likely to kill a 20-21 year old man.

The orange pontiac - the reason I don't think this is a vehicle to kidnap people - the story that was given was that campus security approached it and then a student hopped out and ran off. That stinks (no pun intended) of a drug deal. Someone in need of campus security would have run over to campus security. I just struggle to believe a car that returns to known hookup spots (aka the kind of place you'd do drug deals) is a serial killer/kidnapper etc.

I believe the answer has been staring at us right under our noses.

It all adds up (in my view). My theory explains why Nick's time was off - because he was helping out the mess at the poker party. And it explains why Katie's time was different to Nicks.

If Nick and Katie were working together, then their alibi would be absolutely water-tight. And this is yet another huge point that I think we've all been missing. Katie's time difference is most likely the real time Nick left - and it's precisely the time Nick and the people at the party needed to dispose of Josh's body, make a pact and a plan - then keycard back into his dorm, and never utter the truth to anyone again. 1 hour 42 minute discrepancy. That's huge. Absolutely huge - and would tie in with the panic/trouble of having to dispose of a body which none of them have ever done before - so immediately, they think: dumpster.

And it just so happens, the contents of the dumpsters get incinerated on-site - and also just so happens that there was a rumour of the incinerator being used on an off day - so almost immediately after the body was placed in a dumpster, the remains (including all clothing) would be gone - which also explains why there was never any evidence of clothing, bones or any remains in the lakes - the body never went to the lake.

For me, the very biggest giveaway that something went terribly wrong in the poker party is Dana's statement about Josh NEVER leaving without saying bye. The fact that Josh got up and headed to the bathroom without saying bye leads me to believe he thought he was coming back - he had no clue he was going into cardiac arrest etc Katie says too that it wasn't the Josh she knows who would leave like that.

And then you've got to look at the sheer amount of effort Nick goes to. Let's break down what Nick says he did:

• Nick says he headed to Katie's at 7-8pm
• Nick says he left Katie's at 2:30am
• Nick says how he checked Josh's bedroom when he got back to the apartment
• Nick says he checked Josh's bedroom in the morning
• Nick says he spoken to Alex and Greg "because he [Josh] was with them last night"
• Nick says he spoken to Katie and asked "where is Josh?"
• Nick pointed towards the monks being responsible due to the paper Josh was allegedly writing
• Nick says lie detector test because he was scared of a false positive showing up and pivoting the investigation in the wrong direction
• Nick left a note in Josh's room saying "stop down if you get back" (very interesting phrasing, specifically the word "if" you get back

Nick is clearly distancing himself from the investigation. As the police mentioned in the episode: "these kids have futures to protect" - and my goodness, is Nick protecting his. I find the amount of effort and storytelling just simply abnormal. He pushes the direction of investigation away from him by mentioning other people / declining the polygraph - and the police seem to have just said: "Oh ok then buddy, it can't be you!". It's unbelievable how the police haven't really, really honed in on him and the poker party group. Have I missed anything that Nick said he did?

To me, this seems like an abnormal amount of alibi / story - trying to cover his every step. And it seems like an abnormal amount of pushing the investigation away from him. I believe he pushed the investigation away from him by:

• Refusing the polygraph
• Mentioning the monks
• Mentioning Josh was last with Alex/Greg
• Saying "he" [Nick] didn't touch the computer

When you re-watch the documentary, re-watch it with the following lens over your eyes:

1) The group has a narcotics business
2) Look at how many times Nick diverts attention from himself during the investigation
3) Look at how much thought/effort Nick is going to, to try and create an alibi for himself
4) Nick's facial expressions - I know some people think it's pseudo-science, but facial expressions can reveal a lot - I see remorse, guilt - I see a man who knows more than he's letting on - because I believe he knows what happened to Josh

At this point, I'm utterly convinced. I'm just going to wait for other people to review all of my theory and then I think we need to get the Stearn's County Sheriff Dept working on it.

I just simply don't believe Josh ever left that party. The fact the poker party group has never done public interviews, declined interviews, Alex deleted data etc None of the poker party appear to have gone to any major trouble hunting for Josh - to me, proves my theory has some weight.

Apologies for my long posts - but one more thing - Nick has been caught in 2-3 lies, I'm willing to bet the poker party group are lying too. Nick is lying to save his career. The poker party group are lying to save their careers. The answer lies within Nick/Poker party group. I guarantee it.

A short reaction for now.

Monks; I don't think so. Like I said abusing children doesn't automatically mean abusing or let alone kill a 20 year old student.

Poker party; I have always thought it was weird that so little is known about the party. It's especially about what is NOT said about it, that makes it suspicious to me. We don't even know he was playing or just hung out f.i.

Thinking about the overdose scenario. I wonder what kind of drugs business this group was into (pot, pills, f.i. other?) and what was common to use among this group of people. I noticed there was mentioning of smoking a cigar outside. This sounds innocent, but there are a lot of people who smoke drugs wrapped in a cigar. Just some snippet from this research.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9072528_The_cigar_as_a_drug_delivery_device_Youth_use_of_blunts

It is well-documented that users of cigarillos and other mass market cigars often empty the products' tobacco and replace the contents with marijuana; the result is colloquially called a "blunt". Importantly, although most of the loose tobacco is removed during the process of blunt-making the outer wrap still contains nicotine, which has been demonstrated to increase heart rate and carbon monoxide levels among blunt smokers.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

A short reaction for now.

Monks; I don't think so. Like I said abusing children doesn't automatically mean abusing or let alone kill a 20 year old student.

Poker party; I have always thought it was weird that so little is known about the party. It's especially about what is NOT said about it, that makes it suspicious to me. We don't even know he was playing or just hung out f.i.

Thinking about the overdose scenario. I wonder what kind of drugs business this group was into (pot, pills, f.i. other?) and what was common to use among this group of people. I noticed there was mentioning of smoking a cigar outside. This sounds innocent, but there are a lot of people who smoke drugs wrapped in a cigar. Just some snippet from this research.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/9072528_The_cigar_as_a_drug_delivery_device_Youth_use_of_blunts

It is well-documented that users of cigarillos and other mass market cigars often empty the products' tobacco and replace the contents with marijuana; the result is colloquially called a "blunt". Importantly, although most of the loose tobacco is removed during the process of blunt-making the outer wrap still contains nicotine, which has been demonstrated to increase heart rate and carbon monoxide levels among blunt smokers.

I agree 100%. Regarding narcotics - my partner smokes weed and is American (I'm British). She's familiar with the drug-culture in the USA. She knows I'm heavily researching this case. I asked her: "narcotics, what do you think?" She immediately said: "pills. When you say narcotics, it's usually pills, harder stuff than weed". And when I looked at the report with Josh's Dad and it said the group had a narcotics business / fake ID business, it all just came together. I think the pills mixed with the amount of alcohol Josh had drank that day caused a cardiac arrest, which caused a huge panic and in the panic, they got rid of the body they only way they knew how. Which explains why there was no remains / clothing found etc.

Also worth nothing - Metten Ct has been knocked down now.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

*noting I meant. My mistake. Unable to edit previous post. Regarding the cigar smoked outside - Nick declined the offer to smoke. Whether or not it was weed, I'm not sure. But this tells me Nick wasn't likely taking any drugs/smoking on that night, which again, lends into my theory of the poker group contacting Nick as A) he's Josh's best friend and B) he wasn't high/drunk so he was in a position to make more decisions about how to handle it.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

Also, just found this article from 2002: "Other Maple Lake friends that have played a big part in the effort to find Joshua are Jason Neu, Corey Paulson, Ryan Yager, Dana Michalicek, and Joshua’s long-time girlfriend, Katie Benson."
Source: Joshua is remembered at Christmastime in Maple Lake

Extremely interesting how Nick / people from the poker party didn't "play a big part" in the effort to find Josh. Honestly, I think my theory is closer than close..

 

[formerpolicestaff]

I apologise if it looks like I'm spamming the board with all of this stuff. But I have spent a large portion of today going over the only thing I've not yet looked at (in detail) regarding this case. And that's the message board on the findjoshua website.
Katie and Nick were prolific posters and something Katie said caught my eye and got me thinking. Add that to what Dana said, Josh would NEVER leave without saying bye... Josh just never left that apartment.

If you read what Katie says (attached screenshot) I stand by what I said in my earlier theory - I strongly suspect someone slipped a pill in Josh's drink, or he tried one himself (I suspect the former). I am 100% convinced Josh passed away in the bathroom of Nate's dorm at Metten Court during the poker party.

At first, I thought Nick was called to assist them upon discovering Josh in the bathroom, but the more I read from Katie/Nick, the more I believe some of the people at the poker party covered this up. Remember: this was an illegal poker party (illegal to drink at their age in the USA and illegal drugs), plus the fact they had a narcotics business going on. Poker group disposed of Josh's body, Adam then wiped the hard drive using the washer software.

As poster "Bit of Hope" said - the fact there's very little info about the party, and no sighting of Josh actually ever leaving the poker party, just vague descriptions of him heading to the bathroom/entrance (which were right next to each other);

Very interesting findings from tonight's research (below)

From the Josh Newville podcast: "Josh had five roommates. I've talked to both of the Adams. I've talked to John. The only roommate I haven't talked to is Greg and this is not the Greg that he went to the party with that night, a different Greg."

Interesting... There's only one Greg that Josh Newville hasn't spoken to. If I was Stearns county, I'd get the following into an interview room immediately:

• Greg - The one Josh Newville refers to. He hasn't done any interviews from what I've seen
• Nate Slinkard - One interview saying "I was staring right at him [Josh]*" (likely after he saw him in the bathroom)
• Adam McDonald - Deleted files as part of the coverup. Declined interview to news station when asked

Additionally, Nick, other Greg, Alex, Katie and Dana all commented on findjoshua.com.

Greg, Nate and Adam never made any comments on findjoshua - all 3 have declined interviews or in Nate's case, made a very odd statement regarding Josh (above*) Combine all of this info and it's these 3 who know what happened to Josh.

Those are our guys. I believe they know what happened.

P.S - Apologies to Nick - I think Nick is innocent.

 

[cenazoic]

How do you explain the fact that he was seen by others on at least 2 occasions after leaving the party?

https://www.behindthepinecurtain.com/wordpress/joshua-guimond’s-final-journey/

You keep mentioning his ‘narcotics business’ but I’m unaware of what you mean by this. Can you provide a link to LE/MSM which discusses this?

Please note that Websleuths does not allow naming people as POI/suspects when they have not been named as such by law enforcement.

Finally, I dunno. Aside from anything else, I find it very hard to believe 10+ drunkish college students all conspired to dispose of a body without anyone cracking (or outside witnesses noticing anything) in the intervening years. There seems to be lots of speculation, assumption of motives, and leaps of logic here, so I don’t find this theory very compelling.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

How do you explain the fact that he was seen by others on at least 2 occasions after leaving the party?

https://www.behindthepinecurtain.com/wordpress/joshua-guimond’s-final-journey/

You keep mentioning his ‘narcotics business’ but I’m unaware of what you mean by this. Can you provide a link to LE/MSM which discusses this?

Please note that Websleuths does not allow naming people as POI/suspects when they have not been named as such by law enforcement.

Finally, I dunno. Aside from anything else, I find it very hard to believe 10+ drunkish college students all conspired to dispose of a body without anyone cracking (or outside witnesses noticing anything) in the intervening years. There seems to be lots of speculation, assumption of motives, and leaps of logic here, so I don’t find this theory very compelling.

Regarding witnesses - different reports state very different things. I have seen the following:

• A witness saw someone who fit the description of Josh walking along the bridge (Netflix)
• A witness - who knows Josh well - describes seeing him walking a path from Metten Court to Maur House (Source: Missing: Joshua Guimond | St. Joseph, MN | Uncovered)
• Josh was observed by group of eyewitnesses crossing culvert in direction of bus stop on exit route to I-94 - (On the link you sent me at Behindthepinecurtain)
• A witness saw Josh walking past the dumpster by Metten Ct (Behindthepinecurtain)

Does that not seem odd to you? There's 3+ witnesses at midnight and Josh vanishes into thin air? There's a couple (2 people) witness Josh on the bridge, 2-3 further witnesses allegedly see him? That's a lot of witnesses on a 3 minute walk. I'm not sure I buy it. I'd be extremely curious to know who the witness was who claimed to know Josh well. I'm honestly not sure I believe any of these sightings were actually Josh.

Regarding the narcotics business, please read: DocumentCloud (section 2e). And then Pg 3, Paragraph 2 of the response to Brian and Jim's letter. Unable to provide a LE or MSM article (MSM is usually trash, I don't always go by MSM, that would be a terrible way to investigate a disappearance / crime in my opinion), I much prefer a document like the one linked above where it's unfiltered and we can read it without censorship of any kind. Hopefully that document suffices? I assume you haven't seen it before?

The best "LE" I can give you, was on the netflix episode when they mentioned: "they have careers to protect" - I'd assume the police are fully aware of the drug angle, but are keeping that one hidden. As you know, LE don't release all the info - heck, they didn't even release info to Josh's family!

Apologies, noted. - I'm unable to edit them out. Perhaps a mod can.

I really don't consider my theory to be a big leap of logic. It's a bigger leap of logic to suggest the abbey's monks were abducting and murdering a student who really had very little information on them, or for the police to say that snapping turtles ate Josh despite the fact there were no remains found, and no evidence he had been in the water.

We don't know enough about the party - but go with my theory for a moment - if Josh did indeed overdose and was in the bathroom, then he was found by someone who was a part of the aforementioned narcotics business e.g Nate, it's Nate's party - he could easily say: "party over" and get (most) people out aside from a very select few of his choice.

You realise that the "official" story is that Alex/Greg left the party at 1am? To me, it's very coincidental that Katie said Nick left at 1am, Alex and Greg left the party at 1am, and Nick swipes in at 2:43am. The timeline fits like a glove. I'm 50/50 on Nick if I'm honest. I want to believe him, but his time is really throwing me off.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

This may be another slightly long post, but 1) I’m in this for the long run, for Josh and 2) what I'm about to say (in my head) really explains why the poker party is where we need to focus. Not the lakes, not the abbey, the poker party. Here goes.

@cenazoic - A genuine thank you for critiquing my theory - that's exactly what I was hoping for from this forum. In order for it to be a credible theory, it needs to stand up to scrutiny. In my opinion, it does - exceptionally well. Let me explain.

For 21 years since Josh’s disappearance, we’ve covered abbey theories, snapping turtle theories, drowning theories etc etc. Look where that has got us. Absolutely nowhere. The drug angle just simply hasn’t been explored in much/any detail and I think it’s absolutely critical we do explore it.

We have got absolutely no choice but to make *some* leaps of faith, think outside of the box and connect the dots. Why? Because we simply don't have all the information that LE likely have, and we certainly don't know the entire story...yet - that said, the leaps of faith we do make need to be grounded in some form of evidence or reality.
Before I really get going, take a look at the following page: FindJoshua.com - Message Board Archive

During my reading on FindJoshua - I read 100+ pages of messages which are all over the archived message board on there. Josh's dad and others were discussing "hallucinogenics" that may have been involved. Others thought Josh may have been a drug's "mule" (that is, someone who is transporting/distributing drugs) (Source: FindJoshua Message Board).
And now, most interestingly, take a look at my attached screenshot where a lady discusses the culture of silence regarding drugs on campus. For reasons I mention in my theory, there is absolutely a culture of silence regarding drugs whether it's weed or LSD etc.
So now, back to my theory.

Sightings - I read your comment again and regarding those “sightings”... I just don’t believe them. They seem off - especially the sighting that says “someone who knew Josh well” - they knew Josh so well they didn’t say hi or stop him??? I’ve been stopped and spoken to by people I barely know to say hi and chat - we’re expected to believe someone who knew Josh so well didn’t stop and have a conversation? On a university campus when no one else is around, but they didn’t stop someone they know so well, nor even say hi or have a conversation??? I doubt that very, very much. Who is this person? Why were they out? Did they happen to be from the poker party? Were they ever investigated? Look at the Madeleine McCann case in the UK - there were more sightings than Josh - every last one of them wasn’t her / and / or was a hoax. The FindJoshua website says Josh was in Amsterdam, Montreal 2x,. Josh was in Vegas etc. Sightings can be made up nonsense and hoaxes by sick individuals or people who thought they had info. Of course, some sightings can be real, but in this case, I’m not buying it.

For me, it boils down to this:

We can account for Josh the entire day with corroborated evidential facts. We know Josh was in his dorm searching for movies, working on his paper etc - timestamps on his computer told us so. We see Josh's movement - swiping back into his dorm, meeting for brunch with Nick etc. All of that is fully accounted for. Where do things start getting very, very sketchy? The poker party.

Very, very little info is known about the poker party, aside from there being underage, illegal drinking going on (not judging, just stating fact). Then we’ve got some very odd statements regarding Josh leaving. The statements are as follows (not exact quotes):

1. Josh headed towards the bathroom
2. Josh headed towards the front door (to exit) / bathroom
3. A male got up and left, not sure if it was Josh (Investigator. Struffert)
4. Sometime before midnight, people start realising Josh isn’t there (Investigator. Stuffert)

No one categorically saw Josh leave the room. No one has said: “I saw Josh leave and exit out of the front door”. In my opinion, we don’t know if Josh ever made it out of the front door. Sure, the “witness” statements make claims, but none of them seem valid, especially the person who “knew Josh well” - yet didn’t talk, say hi, have a chat etc Bizarre.

I stand by my theory and think it holds up to your scrutiny. When people started realising Josh wasn’t there, I don’t think it’s a big leap of faith to say that someone, say Nate (as it’s his party) went to the bathroom. It would explain Nate’s strange commnet:

Nate Slinkard, the host of the gathering, would recall to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune the seemingly insignificant moment around midnight when Josh got up. “I was standing there looking right at him,” Slinkard said.

What Nate Slinkard said in the quote above, was different than what we were told on Netflix.

I think what Dana said is absolutely critical. Dana said: “I can’t remember any time that he [Josh] had done that previously where he would have just left without saying goodbye”. And again - Katie agreed that this was NOT like Josh, and not something Josh did.

Then you factor in, approx 3 days after this event where Josh has just gone missing - Adam McDonald wipes the computer. Come on… I don’t want to jump to assumptions but: guy goes missing (possibly drug related overdose) and friend wipes the computer, declines an interview and then 16 months after Josh’s disappearance, Jude says to Brian: “I thought we erased all that information” (Source: DocumentCloud)

It just so happens, Alex also went to the poker party! It doesn’t take a genius to see what’s going on here.

Katie calls around the following day and they say: Josh was fine! He was his normal self! - Dana disagrees - Josh wasn’t his normal self if he didn’t say bye before leaving.

Everything appears to go wrong/haywire at/after that poker party. I truly believe Josh’s mom is right: the people at the poker know more than they’re letting on.

 

[Marzipan]

Yep, your theory has definitely risen into a top possibility for me, above the monks and above any online dating hookup.
I can never rule out the water. You saw the documentary. You know it’s a big body of water. The snapping turtle statement to a parent seems terribly cruel, but it’s possible. Whether alcohol or another drug, that and drowning are so common.
I’m reading your theory carefully, reading each post a couple of times. You’ve done the work and it’s worth reading more than once— the timelines, the statements, the dad’s and Rothstein’s letter, and now I see the other forum with dad participating.
But drug use that night is unclear, drug use by Josh unclear, drug use that could result in death —let’s face it, alcohol overdoses are at least as easy as death by most other drugs available then, other than coke— any mention by anyone about coke? And when you say pills, what pills? Ecstasy? Do people die from that very much? I really don’t know the answer to that.
The witnesses and them not stopping to say hi don’t surprise me. It doesn’t say close friend, just knowing well, which could mean someone you knew even in high school but you don’t run in the same crowd.
And again, the water, so much water.
I’ll keep reading. I hope the truth comes out.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

Yep, your theory has definitely risen into a top possibility for me, above the monks and above any online dating hookup.
I can never rule out the water. You saw the documentary. You know it’s a big body of water. The snapping turtle statement to a parent seems terribly cruel, but it’s possible. Whether alcohol or another drug, that and drowning are so common.
I’m reading your theory carefully, reading each post a couple of times. You’ve done the work and it’s worth reading more than once— the timelines, the statements, the dad’s and Rothstein’s letter, and now I see the other forum with dad participating.
But drug use that night is unclear, drug use by Josh unclear, drug use that could result in death —let’s face it, alcohol overdoses are at least as easy as death by most other drugs available then, other than coke— any mention by anyone about coke? And when you say pills, what pills? Ecstasy? Do people die from that very much? I really don’t know the answer to that.
The witnesses and them not stopping to say hi don’t surprise me. It doesn’t say close friend, just knowing well, which could mean someone you knew even in high school but you don’t run in the same crowd.
And again, the water, so much water.
I’ll keep reading. I hope the truth comes out.

Thanks Marzipan. I've spent probably over 200 hours researching it at this point and probably 36 hours awake working on the final touches. I've sent the theory over to Josh's parents, and offered my services free of charge (digital forensics), if they did require someone to perform a completely independent, high quality forensic investigation of Josh's hard drive, and I've let them know I'd keep the results strictly private between just them and I, unless I got express consent and permission to post anything online e.g updated theories based on the analysis.

I agree on the snapping turtle theory - however, I just fail to see how trident wouldn't find a shoe - a part of a shoe - material from clothing etc. For them to find absolutely nothing leads me to believe he probably wasn't in the water - of course, I am keeping an open mind and not ruling it out. Perhaps the water should be searched again, because it's a huge area, but it seems a little bit unlikely I feel.

In the USA, in 2012, 3493 males between ages 15-24 were recorded to have died following an opioid overdose (Source: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/drugoverdoses/data-details/)

Now, if you throw alcohol in the mix: Prescription opiates (e.g., Vicodin, OxyContin, Tylenol 3 with codeine, Percocet) combined with alcohol can result in slowed or arrested breathing, lowered pulse and blood pressure, unconsciousness, coma, and potential death. Source: (The Effects of Combining Alcohol with Other Drugs | University Health Services)

So I'd say yes it definitely happens. An overdose of an opioid plus alcohol seems like a death sentence. It's sad to think that those numbers are real people's deaths, not just numbers on a screen.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

I know there were 2-3 people going to re-watch the Netfix with my theory in mind. For those of you who have had the chance to watch it, do you agree this theory looks very possible?

Main things to look out for in the doc:

• Nick's almost obsessive details of before/after Josh went missing e.g what he did every single step of the way, even mentions Josh's car. It's very detailed to the point of being suspicious (in my opinion)
• Nick's mention of the computer and how he saw it as significant, but claims "I" didn't touch it (which tells me he likely knows who did)
• Dana's statement that she never saw Josh leave without saying bye <<< very important information
• The very hazy/unclear mentions of someone/a male/Josh? heading to the bathroom/door area of the poker party
• The vague, unconfirmed sightings of Josh

My past few days

I have continued over the past few days to really hit my theory hard and scrutinise it - and try to break my theory. But it holds up to everything I throw at it.

I'm still thinking something bad happened to Josh that resulted in him passing away in the bathroom between 11:45pm-1am. Alex/Greg (roommate Greg) were said to have left at 1am - which ties into the timeline - I believe someone (Nate?) at the poker party likely ushered people out of the poker party so they could deal with the problem in the bathroom.

Nick not returning to his dorm til 2:43am. (
Young People Are Missing; Authorities Are Baffled (Published 2002) <<< "I came home late,'' Mr. Hydukovich recalled. ''He wasn't back. I thought he was at someone else's place.'')

Nick admitting he came home late - he had to really, his card showed he did. "thought" he was at someone else's place. You knew he was Nick, you knew he'd gone to play cards.

3 days later, Adam wiping the computer. It just stinks to me that Greg(non-roommate of Josh) / Adam / Nate and Nick have conspired to dispose of the body and wipe the computer. As Nick was Josh's best friend, he was conflicted and needed to keep up the appearance of being the upset friend, yet needs to cover up that he was involved in getting that computer erased (although Nick wasn't the one who pressed the button so to speak - so Nick's statement is true - HE didn't wipe the computer - but we know Adam did).

For me, it's what Nick doesn't say that's key here.

Breaking down Nate's statement

The bit that really gets me is this one: Nate Slinkard, the host of the gathering, would recall to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune the seemingly insignificant moment around midnight when Josh got up. “I was standing there looking right at him,” Slinkard said.

If we break this down, Netflix told us that someone at the poker party said they saw Josh heading towards the bathroom. Then we were told that no one saw Josh leave. Then, Nate's comment above just stands out like a sore thumb.

Nate was "standing" - this implies Nate was standing over someone, with the subject (Josh) below him, not standing
"Looking right at him" - this implies Josh wasn't looking back

^ I am convinced that this statement is Nate's admission (almost) that he was looking over Josh's body.

Going back to the FBI profiler's description:

"The offender would be a fussy, meticulous, impeccably groomed individual preoccupied with details, lists, organization, and schedules." There's one person who seems to be very, very pre-occupied with details.

Conclusion

Every single angle I attack this case, every single theory I come up with - none of them stand up to scrutiny like this one...I keep coming back to the same conclusion.

Would love to hear other people's thoughts.

 

[Kylejay68]

Do we even know everyone who was at the party?

Heres who I know of:

1. Nate Slinkard
2. Alex Jude
3. Greg Worden
4. Amanda ??????

There should be five more people. As far as I can tell, no one at this party has been very vocal in Josh's case. Its been primarily Katie and Nick.

Did anyone ever reply to you and answer the question? I believe Dusty and Eric were there as well. I’ve heard there was 10-12 there. Who else are we missing?

 

[Kylejay68]

I know there were 2-3 people going to re-watch the Netfix with my theory in mind. For those of you who have had the chance to watch it, do you agree this theory looks very possible?

Main things to look out for in the doc:

• Nick's almost obsessive details of before/after Josh went missing e.g what he did every single step of the way, even mentions Josh's car. It's very detailed to the point of being suspicious (in my opinion)
• Nick's mention of the computer and how he saw it as significant, but claims "I" didn't touch it (which tells me he likely knows who did)
• Dana's statement that she never saw Josh leave without saying bye <<< very important information
• The very hazy/unclear mentions of someone/a male/Josh? heading to the bathroom/door area of the poker party
• The vague, unconfirmed sightings of Josh

My past few days

I have continued over the past few days to really hit my theory hard and scrutinise it - and try to break my theory. But it holds up to everything I throw at it.

I'm still thinking something bad happened to Josh that resulted in him passing away in the bathroom between 11:45pm-1am. Alex/Greg (roommate Greg) were said to have left at 1am - which ties into the timeline - I believe someone (Nate?) at the poker party likely ushered people out of the poker party so they could deal with the problem in the bathroom.

Nick not returning to his dorm til 2:43am. (
Young People Are Missing; Authorities Are Baffled (Published 2002) <<< "I came home late,'' Mr. Hydukovich recalled. ''He wasn't back. I thought he was at someone else's place.'')

Nick admitting he came home late - he had to really, his card showed he did. "thought" he was at someone else's place. You knew he was Nick, you knew he'd gone to play cards.

3 days later, Adam wiping the computer. It just stinks to me that Greg(non-roommate of Josh) / Adam / Nate and Nick have conspired to dispose of the body and wipe the computer. As Nick was Josh's best friend, he was conflicted and needed to keep up the appearance of being the upset friend, yet needs to cover up that he was involved in getting that computer erased (although Nick wasn't the one who pressed the button so to speak - so Nick's statement is true - HE didn't wipe the computer - but we know Adam did).

For me, it's what Nick doesn't say that's key here.

Breaking down Nate's statement

The bit that really gets me is this one: Nate Slinkard, the host of the gathering, would recall to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune the seemingly insignificant moment around midnight when Josh got up. “I was standing there looking right at him,” Slinkard said.

If we break this down, Netflix told us that someone at the poker party said they saw Josh heading towards the bathroom. Then we were told that no one saw Josh leave. Then, Nate's comment above just stands out like a sore thumb.

Nate was "standing" - this implies Nate was standing over someone, with the subject (Josh) below him, not standing
"Looking right at him" - this implies Josh wasn't looking back

^ I am convinced that this statement is Nate's admission (almost) that he was looking over Josh's body.

Going back to the FBI profiler's description:

"The offender would be a fussy, meticulous, impeccably groomed individual preoccupied with details, lists, organization, and schedules." There's one person who seems to be very, very pre-occupied with details.

Conclusion

Every single angle I attack this case, every single theory I come up with - none of them stand up to scrutiny like this one...I keep coming back to the same conclusion.

Would love to hear other people's thoughts.

There was an FBI profile done? Where did this information come from?

 

[formerpolicestaff]

There was an FBI profile done? Where did this information come from?

Yes there was. There was a former FBI profiler who joined saint johns. He did a profile, but a few pages ago I mentioned that I updated the profile. Here is the original from the FBI profiler:

The Likely Profile of Joshua Guimond’s Abductor | BehindThePineCurtain.com

I felt like the profile was way too specific. So I removed the abuse angle, and the older man angle. I replaced he with they, to allow the possibility of multiple people. Then, I read the profile again.

The FBI profiler’s original points to a monk. Without the abuse angle - and updated for “they” e.g multiple people, it actually points to Josh’s friends.

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. Here it is with some very tiny changes, but it makes a big difference:

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.

 

[Marzipan]

Yes there was. There was a former FBI profiler who joined saint johns. He did a profile, but a few pages ago I mentioned that I updated the profile. Here is the original from the FBI profiler:

The Likely Profile of Joshua Guimond’s Abductor | BehindThePineCurtain.com

I felt like the profile was way too specific. So I removed the abuse angle, and the older man angle. I replaced he with they, to allow the possibility of multiple people. Then, I read the profile again.

The FBI profiler’s original points to a monk. Without the abuse angle - and updated for “they” e.g multiple people, it actually points to Josh’s friends.

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. Here it is with some very tiny changes, but it makes a big difference:

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.

After watching again, my thoughts aren’t really unchanged from the past few weeks having read your theory. My thoughts did change from the times(years)I followed since the beginning to the times I’ve read your theory, but mainly in the order of whatI suspect happened.
When I was following earlier, it was in the contexts of the other missing college students, the still somewhat unresolved case of Chris Jenkins, and of course the nearby 1987 disappearance of Jacob Wetterling— and looking at credibly accused monks.
With some distance from all of that I don’t have a lot of suspicions of the criminal monks as far as murder, although one bloodhound casted that way and inside the abbey.
I no longer think a lot about a hookup. But I don’t dismiss it either.
I agree with you that some of the guys were hiding their own illegal behavior, and what you have shown me is all credible and was not in the documentary.
I think his mother and father both think the kids know more, and everyone has to take that seriously because they know the conjunction of Josh and his the best. The dad doesn’t seem to think he’s in the water. I don’t know why his body would have never surfaced either. But they don’t always.
But the dog losing his scent at the bridge, and a pair of witnesses possibly seeing him on the bridge and then looking back and him being gone — that more and more makes me think he went in.
No, it wasn’t in his character. But he was doing other things (male dating profiles) that weren’t in his known character either.
So my order now, with agreement the kids did some things that could be obstruction is:

1. Alcohol and water, drowning intentional or accidental. All out of character, but it happens.

2. Unknown event at party, death and coverup on part of his friends. Bathroom maybe, but imagine others needed to use it too, and I’d have a lot of questions on how it all happened and body moved without others noticing and nobody telling. Was there a tub and someone put him in there until later and others used the bathroom and didn’t see him? And a drug overdose — Ijust need to know more about the “narcotics” evidence. It’s a big jump from someone might have been selling something to Josh using it and dying from it — and we don’t know what “it” is.
I’ll await your corrections/rebuttals and hope you keep working on your theory.

3. Tie for hookup/abduction and abbey monks.

4. Josh killed by a friend.

 

[formerpolicestaff]

After watching again, my thoughts aren’t really unchanged from the past few weeks having read your theory. My thoughts did change from the times(years)I followed since the beginning to the times I’ve read your theory, but mainly in the order of whatI suspect happened.
When I was following earlier, it was in the contexts of the other missing college students, the still somewhat unresolved case of Chris Jenkins, and of course the nearby 1987 disappearance of Jacob Wetterling— and looking at credibly accused monks.
With some distance from all of that I don’t have a lot of suspicions of the criminal monks as far as murder, although one bloodhound casted that way and inside the abbey.
I no longer think a lot about a hookup. But I don’t dismiss it either.
I agree with you that some of the guys were hiding their own illegal behavior, and what you have shown me is all credible and was not in the documentary.
I think his mother and father both think the kids know more, and everyone has to take that seriously because they know the conjunction of Josh and his the best. The dad doesn’t seem to think he’s in the water. I don’t know why his body would have never surfaced either. But they don’t always.
But the dog losing his scent at the bridge, and a pair of witnesses possibly seeing him on the bridge and then looking back and him being gone — that more and more makes me think he went in.
No, it wasn’t in his character. But he was doing other things (male dating profiles) that weren’t in his known character either.
So my order now, with agreement the kids did some things that could be obstruction is:

1. Alcohol and water, drowning intentional or accidental. All out of character, but it happens.

2. Unknown event at party, death and coverup on part of his friends. Bathroom maybe, but imagine others needed to use it too, and I’d have a lot of questions on how it all happened and body moved without others noticing and nobody telling. Was there a tub and someone put him in there until later and others used the bathroom and didn’t see him? And a drug overdose — Ijust need to know more about the “narcotics” evidence. It’s a big jump from someone might have been selling something to Josh using it and dying from it — and we don’t know what “it” is.
I’ll await your corrections/rebuttals and hope you keep working on your theory.

3. Tie for hookup/abduction and abbey monks.

4. Josh killed by a friend.

Thanks for posting back. I’ve got limited time to write this so I’ll try and answer the main points but forgive my brief reply.

1) I don’t believe the sighting was Josh, and even if it was, I don’t believe the person they saw fell into water. The water has to be 6-8ft fall from the bridge? if a human body weighing 170-200lb falls into water, you’d hear it. It would absolutely make a noise, even above two people talking. There would even possibly be a scream as you fell. To hear absolutely nothing really makes me think the water theory doesn’t make a tonne of sense. And again, the sighting was just someone who resembled Josh. It’s just not a reliable witness, and I don’t think it holds too much weight in my theories

2) I don’t think it’s a big jump at all - Josh could have very easily been spiked. In the 2000’s, spiking was a huge, huge deal - it was much more common than people thought. I actually rewatched the episode again and it confirmed some people saw Josh as the studious and serious type, so it wouldn’t be unthinkable for someone to spike his drink, thinking it’ll make for a more fun, less serious version of Josh to come out - without realising it would lead to a bad ending.

3) Abbey monks are abusers of younger kids. They just aren’t interested in anyone over 18, I’ve read almost every monks publicly available credible accusations and in most cases the victims are between 6-15. There’s no mention of anyone 20 or older being abused. Besides, why would the monks kill Josh who has literally no evidence on them. All he has done is search for statute of limitations conspiracy saint johns, which to me sounds like something you’d type if you’re at the very beginning of research, rather than at the end of a 500 page novel detailing historic abuse at the monastery. Add to the fact this so-called paper was never found. I can’t help but feel Nick mentioned it to divert attention.

4) I think that’s most likely, although I do doubt it would be intentionally. I don’t think there’s anyone I’ve heard about who would wish harm on Josh, but I do believe an accidental death is possible, and then covered up as mentioned in my theory.

Regarding narcotics - unless the police, or Josh’s family release more information on the specifics of that, we’ll never know, but the fact the police in the Netflix documentary mention that the kids had lives to protect, and during the meeting with Josh’s dad, when they got confronted about the narcotics business and they all shut up and said nothing, and seemed “subdued” - to me, that speaks volumes.