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

[puzzleworldplanet]

I know very little about anyone's specific actions in the days immediately after Josh's disappearance excepot what has been stated basically in MSM, but I would really like to know. When you have time (or inclination) could you say what he did do/didn't do that seem off?

heres my thoughts. ive manipulated the post below to include the timeline. specifically read the 8.30 pm part on nov 9th

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. On netflix doc, nick says he said to josh "have fun we'll see you later" - i do question whether this took place. nick and josh had just been arguing. it seems like nick is trying to downplay the argument, the same way he downplays his desire for 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 and heads back to metten ct. He gets in possibly via a wedged open door, so there's no keycard trace. He begins playing music

November 10, 2002

Nick’s Time Line

1:00 - 1.30 am - Katie says nick has left her place

*** nick is unaccounted for, between 1 hour 12 minutes ~ 2 hours 42 minutes ***

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.

nick claims he went upstairs and noticed josh wasnt in his room. yet nick makes no mention of the music playing or tv being on (surely that would be out of the ordinary?)

nick does not mention the argument the night before, in fact, he denies it happened

in the netflix doc, nick says he left katies around 2.00 am. yet he told sheriffs he left at 2.30am. if he left at 2 am, the car journey back is 10 mins. he should have been keycarding in around 2.10-2.15 am

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 and look like a concerned friend

Time unknown - Katie speaks to people from the Poker party and they tell her Josh was fine and acting normal

At some point during the weekend, Nick placed a note in Josh's room (attached to post)

nick accepts the sheriffs request for a polygraph, then feels the need to reach out to his mock trial coach, who in turn reaches out to a hotshot lawyer who advises nick not to do the polygraph. the mock trial coach even stated "dont make their job easier" (their as in, sheriffs job). is that not bizarre? your best friend goes missing, so you seek legal advice and the mock trial coach who coached both nick and josh says dont make the sheriffs job easier? plus, why lawyer up and seek legal advice if theres nothing youve got to hide? why even worry about a "false positive" in the first place?

nick then posts some messages on the findjoshua message board. joshs parents asked if nick was coming to one of the events for josh, nick says he cannot make it (does it mean anything, who knows, but its there)

we know nick had a car. we know nick was familiar with computers. we know nick was a seemingly smart guy. we know nick spoken to alex and greg the next day "because he [josh] was with alex and greg" the night before

it seems like every action nick took was to cover his *advertiser censored*. leaving notes, checking up with friends. it looks like hes playing the part of a concerned friend

someone will need to help tidy this up and present it better. but these are my initial thoughts.

 

[Ciriii57]

someone will need to help tidy this up and present it better. but these are my initial thoughts.

Not at all, it's fine.
I don't find the 8.30 conversation too troubling. Even if they had an argument they might have remained civil in front of company. Except that Alex Jude should have been able to confirm if this exchange took place. If not then we only have Nick’s word for it. Twisting the facts does seem like a theme with him.

the mock trial coach even stated "dont make their job easier" (their as in, sheriffs job). is that not bizarre? your best friend goes missing, so you seek legal advice and the mock trial coach who coached both nick and josh says dont make the sheriffs job easier? plus, why lawyer up and seek legal advice if theres nothing youve got to hide? why even worry about a "false positive" in the first place?

That seems like such a weird thing for anyone to say, let alone a legal person. I mean, wouldn't you want to help make the police's job easier if your friends missing.
Nick stated he wasn't aware he'd ever been a person of interest. I would question this, I think he knew very well he was gonna be THE POI which is why he lawyered up. I think having to deal with an aggressive lawyer is what made LE lose focus on Nick and miss an opportunity to properly interrogate him and apply some pressure about the discrepancies in his story.
It is my belief (correct me if I'm wrong) that the polygraph in fact is not 100% and not totally reliable and that nowadays LE use it as a tool to sniff out guilty behaviour ie: if you refuse a polygraph, there is a question as to why if you're innocent and LE might focus in more on you. This is exactly what Nick did.

He is an assistant county attorney today. I wonder how much weight he places on polygraphs, and indeed, how he views those who refuse.....?

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 and look like a concerned friend

Hmm I think Nick may have made a mistake here. Why did he call Katie? Why not call Alex or Greg or anyone else at the poker night? That's logical because that's the last place you know Josh was, not with Katie. You'd call the last ones to see him. Unless you know they're not the last ones to see Josh and you unconsciously *advertiser censored*ck up. Calling Katie to show to her and the world how worried and caring you are.
"I wonder where Josh is...the last people he was with were at the party at Metten Court...so I'll call Katie instead" it doesn't make sense to me.

Thank you for sharing the note. Nick’s handwriting is atrocious!
Who is Sarah Matthews? Sexton is where the student hub and coffee shop and shops were located, right? What are the notes at the bottom "Bank, Visa/Lisa, Calling all weekend". Was he telling Josh that his bank or Lisa (?) had been calling him all weekend? They can't have been calling him ALL weekend because Josh was in all day Saturday and I doubt banks make calls on Sundays?
Am I totally misinterpreting what's written?

I'd be interested to know if Nick and Josh habitually left notes for eachother to let each know where the other was. Or was it the very first time. Had Josh ever stayed out all night before without Nick being aware of his whereabouts?
If I'd written a note to any of my male college roomies wondering where they were they'd think I'd gone crazy! But Nick and Josh might have been different.
Though, if this was the very first note he'd written then it looks more like he's overcompensating to publicly acknowledge how concerned he is. Unless...Josh had never been gone for so long and he was just worried....lol sorry whole thiught processs just kind of spilled out!

Hope that all made sense!

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

i will answer your post in a second, but first feel the need to add this:

Olga Zenteno: Yeah. I seem to recall a phone call and Nick was like, "They want me to take a polygraph."
Josh Newville: This is to you?
Olga Zenteno: Yeah. I'm downtown at the courthouse and I had one friend who was an attorney, did family law, but she had been a public defender. So I called her up.
Josh Newville: So Nick calls you up. You're working as a law clerk at the courthouse for a judge. He asks for your opinion on the polygraph.
Olga Zenteno: Yeah. And I said I don't know enough because I'm a lowly law clerk, but let me call my friend.
Josh Newville: Who's a criminal defense attorney?
Olga Zenteno: Had been a public defender, who was a practicing trial-
Josh Newville: Got it.
Olga Zenteno: ... court family law attorney at that time and now,-
Josh Newville: And she says what?
Olga Zenteno: She said, "Olga, I've always thought," she said, "even when I was public defender, why help the police do their..." She viewed it as that. Why do that?
Josh Newville: So you pass this information along to Nick?
Olga Zenteno: Passed it on to Nick. My concern for Nick, having known Nick and Josh, I just mentioned the drive and pressure that they put on themselves. I admired the drive and I felt like Nick was high-strung and so I worried for him with a group of policemen who had completely the wrong idea of him. So I just passed that information on to Nick and I'm sure he consulted with other people.

BBM (above) - The above conversation was taken from the simplyvanished podcast transcript here: Simply Vanished | S1 E8: 20 Years

its interesting to say the least!!

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

That seems like such a weird thing for anyone to say, let alone a legal person. I mean, wouldn't you want to help make the police's job easier if your friends missing.
Nick stated he wasn't aware he'd ever been a person of interest. I would question this, I think he knew very well he was gonna be THE POI which is why he lawyered up. I think having to deal with an aggressive lawyer is what made LE lose focus on Nick and miss an opportunity to properly interrogate him and apply some pressure about the discrepancies in his story.
It is my belief (correct me if I'm wrong) that the polygraph in fact is not 100% and not totally reliable and that nowadays LE use it as a tool to sniff out guilty behaviour ie: if you refuse a polygraph, there is a question as to why if you're innocent and LE might focus in more on you. This is exactly what Nick did.

posted above and clarified this situation, but yes, nick reached out for legal advice and seemed to speak to multiple people before arriving at the decision to now reject the polygraph

Hmm I think Nick may have made a mistake here. Why did he call Katie? Why not call Alex or Greg or anyone else at the poker night? That's logical because that's the last place you know Josh was, not with Katie. You'd call the last ones to see him. Unless you know they're not the last ones to see Josh and you unconsciously *advertiser censored*ck up. Calling Katie to show to her and the world how worried and caring you are.
"I wonder where Josh is...the last people he was with were at the party at Metten Court...so I'll call Katie instead" it doesn't make sense to me.

in the netflix doc, nick does say he spoke to greg and alex "but they didnt know where he was". Katie then says nick called her between 2-3pm the next day... this does make me think hes over compensating? seems like leaving a note saying "i'm not sure where you are" followed by speaking two 3 different people could be seen as a bit much considering the timeframe

Thank you for sharing the note. Nick’s handwriting is atrocious!
Who is Sarah Matthews? Sexton is where the student hub and coffee shop and shops were located, right? What are the notes at the bottom "Bank, Visa/Lisa, Calling all weekend". Was he telling Josh that his bank or Lisa (?) had been calling him all weekend? They can't have been calling him ALL weekend because Josh was in all day Saturday and I doubt banks make calls on Sundays?
Am I totally misinterpreting what's written?

it does look like the name "lisa" which is josh's mom but it could say visa since it says bank. hard to know. netflix published that file publicly, i dont know what they blanked out, maybe a telephone number for lisa or the bank? but yes its a strange note. unless it means lisa was calling josh all weekend about something bank related? no idea

I'd be interested to know if Nick and Josh habitually left notes for eachother to let each know where the other was. Or was it the very first time. Had Josh ever stayed out all night before without Nick being aware of his whereabouts?
If I'd written a note to any of my male college roomies wondering where they were they'd think I'd gone crazy! But Nick and Josh might have been different.
Though, if this was the very first note he'd written then it looks more like he's overcompensating to publicly acknowledge how concerned he is. Unless...Josh had never been gone for so long and he was just worried....lol sorry whole thiught processs just kind of spilled out!

Hope that all made sense!

makes perfect sense. unfortunately josh isnt around to let us know if they left notes for each other. the "i dont know where you are" bit seems out of the ordinary for me.why write that?

 

[cenazoic]

Eh. I would never agree to a polygraph, regardless of guilt or innocence.

A - they don’t ‘detect lies’, just (theoretically) stress responses, and they don’t do that particularly well. They’re junk science that can put you in jail for the rest of your life.

B - they’re primarily a psychological tool which allow the police to apply additional pressure on the interviewee. (“Why wouldn’t you take it if you’ve got nothing to hide?” And of course the popular view of people refusing polygraphs as proof of guilt/suspicious reinforces this psychological trap.)

C - a polygraph can only harm you legally. That is, even if you ‘pass’, it doesn’t preclude you from being arrested/charged later. If you’re actually innocent, it can actively harm you if your results are ‘failing’ or ‘inconclusive.’

Tldr: there are both legal and rational reasons to reject a polygraph. They're not designed to help “prove your innocence” - they're designed to give police another tool to get confessions and make arrests.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

Eh. I would never agree to a polygraph, regardless of guilt or innocence.

A - they don’t ‘detect lies’, just (theoretically) stress responses, and they don’t do that particularly well. They’re junk science that can put you in jail for the rest of your life.

B - they’re primarily a psychological tool which allow the police to apply additional pressure on the interviewee. (“Why wouldn’t you take it if you’ve got nothing to hide?” And of course the popular view of people refusing polygraphs as proof of guilt/suspicious reinforces this psychological trap.)

C - a polygraph can only harm you legally. That is, even if you ‘pass’, it doesn’t preclude you from being arrested/charged later. If you’re actually innocent, it can actively harm you if your results are ‘failing’ or ‘inconclusive.’

Tldr: there are both legal and rational reasons to reject a polygraph. They're not designed to help “prove your innocence” - they're designed to give police another tool to get confessions and make arrests.

i don't disagree with any of that, but thats not the point we're making.the point your best friend is missing,the sheriffs ask you to do something, so you say yes, then you must be worried, well, he admitted he was worried about a "false positive", and went to seek help from someone, who referred him onto someone else who said why help the police do their job? umm, because your best friend is missing. on its own,this may not mean too much, but when you have time discrepancies youve told the sheriffs, youve denied an argument that your flatmate told sheriffs they overheard, it all begins to start looking suspicious when you ball it up altogether

 

[cenazoic]

I got the point you were making. I’m not sure you got the one I’m making - N was prelaw/mock trial. He’s likely more acutely aware of issues like the above than the average person, surely average college student.

Again, his not taking a polygraph isn’t indicative of anything other than a more sophisticated knowledge of the legal system/police procedure. His taking it would NOT further any inquiry into Josh’s disappearance, and certainly would not ‘prove his innocence’ or even prove that he ‘truly cared about Josh’ by doing so.

 

[Ciriii57]

My concern for Nick, having known Nick and Josh, I just mentioned the drive and pressure that they put on themselves. I admired the drive and I felt like Nick was high-strung and so I worried for him with a group of policemen who had completely the wrong idea of him. So I just passed that information on to Nick and I'm sure he consulted with other people.

It's a very interesting transcript thank you. I've italicised my main takeaway. She's unwittingly told us that Nick was stressed and high strung at that time. Sounds like Nick was under some pressure.
I really dislike her words actually. People should be put under pressure when interviewed by police whether they're a little high strung or not. If you're innocent then you talk the truth and it's over. An intelligent guy like Nick, studying law no less, shouldn't have had a problem with this unless he thought he would have a problem with this for some reason...

they’re primarily a psychological tool which allow the police to apply additional pressure on the interviewee.

They're not designed to help “prove your innocence” - they're designed to give police another tool to get confessions and make arrests.

Oh definitely everything you say is true and that was my point. The lie detector itself is useless and rarely, if ever, is anyone prosecuted based solely on failing one. But psychologically it's a fantastic tool for law enforcement. It puts pressure on a guilty person who may then start making mistakes. It gives LE a focus on who might be guilty if there are a number of potential suspects. It can help them weed out the likely guilty from the likely innocent.
Nick will have known better than most that although unreliable in prosecuting someone in court a jury would view the refusal to take a lie detector as a possible sign of guilt. That's why I can't understand him refusing one. If he passed, great. If he failed then his lawyers could have arranged another and probably poo pooed the whole thing as unreliable science.
And yet he refused, after initially agreeing. On it's own I wouldn't think much of it, but taken together with the fact that Nicks stories don't match what others said then it sounds like he was lying and scared of being found out. The polygraph has done its work without a test even being administered!

Also, for "Nick feared a false positive"...I read "Nick feared being caught lying"

 

[Squeelz]

maybe darkjodo can give us his 2 cents but i read nothing into that stuff. the "tried to kiss a male friend" thing....dudes sometimes get so drunk they do something stupid and regret it. if there was a string of guys this happened to, then id look into it deeper, but if someone is gay or bisexual, there wouldnt be one event, there would be multiple signs and i just dont get that feeling. as far as dana saying about 'secrets',i think everyone has some secrets.if darkjodo looked at the computer and found evidence of any secrets im sure he would share it. im not dismissing it,its possible, but i cant look past what we've discovered. i think if we continue connecting the dots with timestamps as our backup,i think we get this solved

In your last posts you refer to something you guys have discovered. Is this something listed here, or something that isn’t out in the open yet? I know I’m newer on this site and am not asking you to tell me if it needs to remain kept off of here - just wondering if I missed something. I also agree that it’s likely the songs aren’t important. I just thought it could be if they were songs Josh would not have listened to (indicating someone else at the computer etc). Thanks!

 

[Squeelz]

no i think its a good suggestion,it would be interesting to know the music,but i know women who listened to 'emo' music and they were happy and they just loved that genre.i think the fact someone has been using the computer means josh or someone else was in st maur house and i think it gives a good indicator of what time the crime took place,although i think its prior to 2.42 am.i wish we know if josh got home because in the beginning,i didnt think he did....but now....i am changing my mind and think him getting home is likely.as we said...i just cant figure out the keycard situation.the door must have been pinned open. i cant think of any other way

Or it could’ve been left ajar when he went back in at 11:06? Unlikely but possible. It’d be nice to see a pic of the door type.

 

[Squeelz]

Can you remind me; if Josh got home at around midnight (ish) that night, was anyone else at Maur House, or was he totally alone in the place? I was thinking maybe someone was out having a cigarette and was holding open the door. Of course this doesn't work if there was no one at all home.

Also Regarding smoking-do we know if Josh was a smoker (besided celebratory cigars). I was wondering if he had also gone out for a quick smoke, which he is why he took nothing with him, and was taken by someone waiting in the car park who saw him or something?

Of course, that all deoends on whether the college had a no smoking rule in the dorms and that is somethingh I don't know at all.

I have wondered this too / if someone was leaving as he was coming in. But it’d be really strange for them to not share that info with LE unless there was wrongdoing by the individual. I am pretty sure I read that one roommate was home and I think I may know which one by a process of elimination but I’m not supposed to use names here for that kind of comment correct?

 

[Ciriii57]

I have wondered this too / if someone was leaving as he was coming in. But it’d be really strange for them to not share that info with LE unless there was wrongdoing by the individual. I am pretty sure I read that one roommate was home and I think I may know which one by a process of elimination but I’m not supposed to use names here for that kind of comment correct?

You are absolutely correct. Although names have been consistently used in this thread and the full names are out there in MSM I would suggest that to be on the safe side we use initials, at least for NH due to the way we are discussing him.
I for one would be extremely grateful if you would share who else was in Maur House that night. You can use initials -though that probably won't help me much as I can't keep everyone's names straight haha

 

[Ciriii57]

In your last posts you refer to something you guys have discovered. Is this something listed here, or something that isn’t out in the open yet? I know I’m newer on this site and am not asking you to tell me if it needs to remain kept off of here - just wondering if I missed something. I also agree that it’s likely the songs aren’t important. I just thought it could be if they were songs Josh would not have listened to (indicating someone else at the computer etc). Thanks!

I don't think you have missed anything There's no hidden discovery (that I am aware of) and all ideas are still very much open. I know everyone has their own view as to what occurred that night and they're all equally valid.
Me and @puzzleworldplanet (hope they don't mind me speaking for them!) originally came at this from quite different viewpoints but after thrashing out all the different scenarios, timelines, people and facts we both arrived at the same likely conclusion (one that is different from both of our original views). Put simply that: Josh did indeed make it back to Maur House that night. At some point after 12.32 he left or was persuaded to leave his room, for what he assumed would be a short time period. After that he was taken/forced off campus in a vehicle and whatever happened, happened.
That's the basic framework based on the facts and logic.
No matter who we try to put in the frame for this we always come up with 1 person only that had motive, means and opportunity. That is NH.
However, we haven't really yet discussed the other person who was in Maur House at the time as we never knew who it was. Right now they can't be excluded I guess.

The stumbling block: The Door. We can speculate and theorise all day long but right now there is no way to definitively explain why Josh wasn't registered using his key card to enter Maur House. It's not a major stumbling block as there are multiple possibilities, but I would feel better if we could say one way or the other.

 

[Ciriii57]

Or it could’ve been left ajar when he went back in at 11:06? Unlikely but possible. It’d be nice to see a pic of the door type.

This is from the architectural company that designed Maur House:

Saint John's University | St. Maur & St. Placid Rowhouses | Collegeville, MN - Architecture Advantage

architectureadvantage.com

There are some photos which I assume would be from when it was built in 2001 and in fact they look quite old and some descriptions of the layout. I have zoomed in the photo below to show one of the doors:

It looks identical to the one at my college in that it would automatically close with a magnetic lock and would HAVE to be propped open, it wouldn't just stay open if you didn't close it.
I wasn't aware there was also a basement and a mechanical room.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

ok lets go back to basics. what are we trying to prove: josh made it back to maur house between 11.52 pm to 12.32 am

this makes sense because if josh left poker around 11.45 pm (and there were several witnesses who claim they saw josh around this time), this would mean he would arrive and be in his room by 11.52 (approx 5 min walk. by the time he gets to his room and begins playing music, 11.52 checks out)

ive attached a (poorly made) visual of the route josh would have walked.....the red line from metten ct heading down towards maur house and the blue line an alternate route that leads too the same place anyway

ways josh could have got into the st maur house without swiping his card...it could be

• monk let him in
• the one remaining student let him in
• door wedged open
• alternate entrance e.g back door, basement, some form of entry that doesnt require a card

these are just some ways of getting in without swiping.if anyone else has ideas, feel free to add them

 

[Ciriii57]

ok lets go back to basics. what are we trying to prove: josh made it back to maur house between 11.52 pm to 12.32 am

this makes sense because if josh left poker around 11.45 pm (and there were several witnesses who claim they saw josh around this time), this would mean he would arrive and be in his room by 11.52 (approx 5 min walk. by the time he gets to his room and begins playing music, 11.52 checks out)

ive attached a (poorly made) visual of the route josh would have walked.....the red line from metten ct heading down towards maur house and the blue line an alternate route that leads too the same place anyway

ways josh could have got into the st maur house without swiping his card...it could be

• monk let him in
• the one remaining student let him in
• door wedged open
• alternate entrance e.g back door, basement, some form of entry that doesnt require a card

these are just some ways of getting in without swiping.if anyone else has ideas, feel free to add them

Yep, I'm with you all the way here.
Although I think I already know, I just wanted to doubly make sure; The footbridge across the lake-it did NOT exist at the point right?
I think the red route makes more sense and is quicker, but it could have been the other I guess.

I can't think of another way to gain access without using a keycard, except a fault on the system that didn't record him. But the chances of a fault occurring only to the person who went missing and recording everyone before and after are infinitessimal.
If someone else let Josh in then they had to already be in the building and were either exiting or standing with the door open in the entrance as only when leaving would you not require a keycard. He couldn't have returned with another roommate who swiped their keycard as obviously their keycard swipe would also be registered and I am assuming none were.

My main reason for believing Josh got back to Maur House is simple logic. Josh left the poker evening and then right about the time he would have arrived back home, someone starts playing music from Josh's downloaded songlist on Josh's computer in Josh's room. Someone also turns on the TV in Josh's room. Also Josh's wallet, glasses and keys are in his room.
I don't think we need to look at anyone else as being there. I think on the basis of probability the person who was using Josh's stuff, listning to Josh's music and in Josh's room was in fact Josh!
I can't understand why LE never picked up on this tbh.

Do we have any idea what time "Brewster's Millions" was on? Maybe, he just decided he'd rather watch that than hang out that night!

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

Yep, I'm with you all the way here.
Although I think I already know, I just wanted to doubly make sure; The footbridge across the lake-it did NOT exist at the point right?
I think the red route makes more sense and is quicker, but it could have been the other I guess.

correct, the footbridge didnt exist at the time. it was completed in 2021 St. John's Completes Bridge Across Stumpf Lake

My main reason for believing Josh got back to Maur House is simple logic. Josh left the poker evening and then right about the time he would have arrived back home, someone starts playing music from Josh's downloaded songlist on Josh's computer in Josh's room. Someone also turns on the TV in Josh's room. Also Josh's wallet, glasses and keys are in his room.
I don't think we need to look at anyone else as being there. I think on the basis of probability the person who was using Josh's stuff, listning to Josh's music and in Josh's room was in fact Josh!
I can't understand why LE never picked up on this tbh.

when josh left with greg and alex, surely they could have confirmed if the tv was on or off when they left? have LE asked these questions?

Do we have any idea what time "Brewster's Millions" was on? Maybe, he just decided he'd rather watch that than hang out that night!

Missing: Joshua Guimond | St. Joseph, MN | Uncovered it says: 4:54 pm: Josh performs yahoo search After wrapping up his work for the day, Josh searches online for information on the movie "Brewster's Millions".

 

[Squeelz]

You are absolutely correct. Although names have been consistently used in this thread and the full names are out there in MSM I would suggest that to be on the safe side we use initials, at least for NH due to the way we are discussing him.
I for one would be extremely grateful if you would share who else was in Maur House that night. You can use initials -though that probably won't help me much as I can't keep everyone's names straight haha

If I have everything straight, I think it would be GB that was home that night. I am assuming J(?) is the one that was gone, but am unsure if AM was gone too.

 

[charminglane]

ok lets go back to basics. what are we trying to prove: josh made it back to maur house between 11.52 pm to 12.32 am

this makes sense because if josh left poker around 11.45 pm (and there were several witnesses who claim they saw josh around this time), this would mean he would arrive and be in his room by 11.52 (approx 5 min walk. by the time he gets to his room and begins playing music, 11.52 checks out)

ive attached a (poorly made) visual of the route josh would have walked.....the red line from metten ct heading down towards maur house and the blue line an alternate route that leads too the same place anyway

ways josh could have got into the st maur house without swiping his card...it could be

• monk let him in
• the one remaining student let him in
• door wedged open
• alternate entrance e.g back door, basement, some form of entry that doesnt require a card

these are just some ways of getting in without swiping.if anyone else has ideas, feel free to add them

Alternate door propped open.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

If I have everything straight, I think it would be GB that was home that night. I am assuming J(?) is the one that was gone, but am unsure if AM was gone too.

did you manage to find a list of people who were at maur house? not sure who you mean by J unless you mean josh? i think his name is one we can definitely use though!

Alternate door propped open.

that does sound likely. i remember when i was at university and the students didnt give a damn about security.no one at that age, especially at a university thinks anything bad will happen,why would you?,so the door being propped open seems very plausible to me, good call