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

[puzzleworldplanet]

I am curious if it is possible to do a reverse image search on the profile pictures released by the SCSO. Is that possible for us to do or do you need the original image? If someone with more technical skills than me could attempt to answer this question I would appreciate it!

a couple of us attempted that,results linkd here MN - MN - Joshua Guimond, 20, Collegeville, 9 Nov 2002 - #2

any image works,doesnt need to be originall....but as ciriii said,we are dealing with 20+ year oldd photos so they are difficult to work with for many reasons age being one of them

also apologies for not posting fora while,ive had surgery and expecting at least 1 more surgery (im not in a good way unfortunately!!)

 

[pokahboy21]

a couple of us attempted that,results linkd here MN - MN - Joshua Guimond, 20, Collegeville, 9 Nov 2002 - #2

any image works,doesnt need to be originall....but as ciriii said,we are dealing with 20+ year oldd photos so they are difficult to work with for many reasons age being one of them

also apologies for not posting fora while,ive had surgery and expecting at least 1 more surgery (im not in a good way unfortunately!!)

So, one would need to "age up" the photos, then do a reverse image search with those photos, and look for any connections to the SJU area? Yikes!

Hope you feel better!

 

[Ciriii57]

So, one would need to "age up" the photos, then do a reverse image search with those photos, and look for any connections to the SJU area? Yikes!

Hope you feel better!

Strange because I was just discussing doing this with someone else lol
Although it would be possible to use AI to "age up" the photos there'd be some inherent problems which would affect how reliable they'd be
*since we don't know the people's ages, we don't know to what age to advance them
*changes in hair style, loss of hair, weight gain/ loss can't be predicted

It is definitely possible to do, but it would be a rough guide only and so the image lookup probably wouldn't work. Which is a shame.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

I think it comes downn to what we hope too achieve! do we want to spend countless hours,weeks,months years trying to identify everyone on photos? we can do that...but have to be realistic?? How many online dates end in murder?

in the UK in 2011, 140 crimes were recorded. bear in mind that now 1 in 3 people meet a date online. in 2002 both stats would be considerably lower,even in USA

so as far as I can tell, with that in mind plus other circumstantial evidence,the chances of an online date being behind the disappearance aree slim....not impossible....but slim!

which brings us back to the profile... someone who knew the campus extremely well.someone who knew there were no cameras or street lighting etc this hints the person(s) involved may have been living on campus

unfortunately I'm in too much pain to continue typing so I'll try too folllow this up when I can

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

so ive continued to think sbout the case and keep wondering why josh left the party. i wonder why id leave a party after being there for such a short time.....logic tells me that something was playing on his mind...ive weighed up the options and main things that springn to mind are;

• felt ill
• wanted to go back to dorm room
• prearranged meetup elsewhere
• spontaneously wanted t o go elsewhere

my reasoning:

• feeling ill...no one said josh seemed ill. moving to least likely
• back to dorm room? .....possible but no keycard of josh returning to his dorm...still not impossible,but....somewhat less likely
• unlikely....he had been invited to the poker party much earlier,so i doubt he would double-book himself...so i am crossing this off the list
• this...to me....seems like the one. let me expxlain why below

if we go to Disappearance of Joshua Guimond - Wikipedia , we see the following: "The other students at the party said he got up and left the apartment around 11:45 p.m., without saying anything. However, he had implied beforehand that he had somewhere else to be" and "He was last seen wearing blue jeans and a gray Saint John's sweatshirt, which was not appropriate clothing for spending a long amount of time in the snow".

reading between the lines and using some basic logic...this tells me josh was going somewhere fairly spontaneously, that he hadnt fully planned outin advance and he was planning on being indoors (hence he thought his clothing was appropriate for wherever he was going).

 

[Ciriii57]

I think this makes total sense and agree with your evaluation wholeheartedly.
All I would add is that because his friends say he implied he had somewhere to be that he did indicate he was leaving but wasn't particularly detailed about where to and therfore he hadnt planned it decisively. Or they took no notice.
I can think of many reasons for someone deciding to leave a party spontaneously and perhaps just mumbling a non descript good bye, I've done it myself in younger years when I was having a panic attack or felt uncomfortable for no apparent reason or had a lot of stress.

"The other students at the party said he got up and left the apartment around 11:45 p.m., without saying anything. However, he had implied beforehand that he had somewhere else to be
BBM
This statement has always bothered me, who did he indicate it to. Was it when he first arrived at the party or did he say something to Alex and Greg earlier that day?
Because if he said it at the party then it doesn't make sense that they tried to call him later worried when they noticed he'd disappeared because...well apparently he'd already told them he intended to leave. So which is it; either they knew or they didn't know!

Hope that makes sense lol

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

"The other students at the party said he got up and left the apartment around 11:45 p.m., without saying anything. However, he had implied beforehand that he had somewhere else to be
BBM
This statement has always bothered me, who did he indicate it to. Was it when he first arrived at the party or did he say something to Alex and Greg earlier that day?

if im not mistaken,it was during the party when josh implied to someone that he hadsomewhere else to be. that person then presumably reported it to the sheriffs or sju staff

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

"The other students at the party said he got up and left the apartment around 11:45 p.m., without saying anything. However, he had implied beforehand that he had somewhere else to be
BBM
This statement has always bothered me, who did he indicate it to. Was it when he first arrived at the party or did he say something to Alex and Greg earlier that day?
Because if he said it at the party then it doesn't make sense that they tried to call him later worried when they noticed he'd disappeared because...well apparently he'd already told them he intended to leave. So which is it; either they knew or they didn't know!

Hope that makes sense lol

ok, I found it!

"he does specifically recall Josh implying that he had somewhere to be. The way that Eric described it is that there was something about the way that Josh said he needed to go that it strongly suggested he had somewhere to be. That's all we know. And that perception could have been wrong. That perception could have been dead on. Right? We just don't know." BBM

text lifted from Simply Vanished | S1 E1 Music in the Night

disclaimer: now... some people may not like what i am about to do. and to that, i say; think outside the box. that's my speciality (if i have one!). thinking "inside" the box is not going to solve this, we need to make some (sensible) leaps of logic in order to figure out what happened

so that being said,...effectively...Josh said something along the lines of "I need to go" (don't quote this, I am summising from Eric's statement above!!!). its probably important not to read into it too much....but you guessed it,i am about to... because it could be critical

choice of words is important and the meaning behind them is fundamentally different. i "want" to go, is very different than i "would like" to go, which is different to i "am looking forward to going" to .... etc. you get the point.

to me (BBM), the word "need" implies that it has to be done...it's something that cannot wait for a long period of time, and must be attended to. I'd use that word when something is pretty damn necessary, for example; "i need to post that letter!"

the dictionary definition of the word "need" is "circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity."

so reading between the lines, summising and using some basic logical leaps of faith, with that statement Eric heard (and assuming i am understanding it correctly....), Josh likely felt like it was necessary for him to be somewhere. the statement tells me that it likely was not planned (as i say in #965).If it was a planned "date", the wording would have been more likely "im going to" or "i am meeting" etc etc

now, where would josh "need" to be. what would be (in his mind) necessary for him to do around midnight?

1) go to sleep? unlikely, bed doesnt seem important enough to give a vague description to your friends
2) get more beers? unlikely too, the netflix episode suggestedd that josh went back in to maur house to get more beers
3) to see a monk? fairly unlikely, but not impossible... i read monks bedtimes were not usually this late into the night (how true that is, i dont know, but the chances seem a little slim)
4) to go to katies place? - josh did have an invite earlier that evening. plus his best friend was over there. this seems plausible
5) for a midnight date - i dont give this idea much credence,i dont get the impression that josh was the kind of guy to have late night rendezvous,plus this would involve some planning rather than spontaneity
6) late night drive - netflix episode says joshs car didnt move during the night
7) return to maur house for any other reasons apart from sleep/beers? what else can you do at maur house? besides, greg and alex are already at the poker party...so they arent there. katie is at her place, josh best friend/room mate is out. going back to maur house seems fruitless, there wouldnt be too much "need" to be there

that is my thoughts on the statement Eric said on the podcast!

 

[Ciriii57]

ok, I found it!

"he does specifically recall Josh implying that he had somewhere to be. The way that Eric described it is that there was something about the way that Josh said he needed to go that it strongly suggested he had somewhere to be. That's all we know. And that perception could have been wrong. That perception could have been dead on. Right? We just don't know." BBM

text lifted from Simply Vanished | S1 E1 Music in the Night

disclaimer: now... some people may not like what i am about to do. and to that, i say; think outside the box. that's my speciality (if i have one!). thinking "inside" the box is not going to solve this, we need to make some (sensible) leaps of logic in order to figure out what happened

so that being said,...effectively...Josh said something along the lines of "I need to go" (don't quote this, I am summising from Eric's statement above!!!). its probably important not to read into it too much....but you guessed it,i am about to... because it could be critical

choice of words is important and the meaning behind them is fundamentally different. i "want" to go, is very different than i "would like" to go, which is different to i "am looking forward to going" to .... etc. you get the point.

to me (BBM), the word "need" implies that it has to be done...it's something that cannot wait for a long period of time, and must be attended to. I'd use that word when something is pretty damn necessary, for example; "i need to post that letter!"

the dictionary definition of the word "need" is "circumstances in which something is necessary, or that require some course of action; necessity."

so reading between the lines, summising and using some basic logical leaps of faith, with that statement Eric heard (and assuming i am understanding it correctly....), Josh likely felt like it was necessary for him to be somewhere. the statement tells me that it likely was not planned (as i say in #965).If it was a planned "date", the wording would have been more likely "im going to" or "i am meeting" etc etc

now, where would josh "need" to be. what would be (in his mind) necessary for him to do around midnight?

1) go to sleep? unlikely, bed doesnt seem important enough to give a vague description to your friends
2) get more beers? unlikely too, the netflix episode suggestedd that josh went back in to maur house to get more beers
3) to see a monk? fairly unlikely, but not impossible... i read monks bedtimes were not usually this late into the night (how true that is, i dont know, but the chances seem a little slim)
4) to go to katies place? - josh did have an invite earlier that evening. plus his best friend was over there. this seems plausible
5) for a midnight date - i dont give this idea much credence,i dont get the impression that josh was the kind of guy to have late night rendezvous,plus this would involve some planning rather than spontaneity
6) late night drive - netflix episode says joshs car didnt move during the night
7) return to maur house for any other reasons apart from sleep/beers? what else can you do at maur house? besides, greg and alex are already at the poker party...so they arent there. katie is at her place, josh best friend/room mate is out. going back to maur house seems fruitless, there wouldnt be too much "need" to be there

that is my thoughts on the statement Eric said on the podcast!

Absolutely flawless logic as far as I can see. I have nothing worthwhile to add.
As far as I can tell, if Erik's statement is accurate, then it sounds like there was somewhat a sense of urgency about it, he "needs" to either go somewhere else, or he "needs" to leave the party. It was something that HAD to be done right then.

The only other interpretation doesn't hold up either. Needing to go could imply a bathroom break, however thats almost certainy not where Josh went!

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

i wonder.. after speakingg to a catholic couple i know,the guy i know was complaining to me about how he had to go and do "pastor street duty" aka "street pastor" work. when i asked what this was,he told me how churches around the world appoint church goers to work night shifts, usually 10pm - 4am offering support to people who are drunk or suspected of being drunk... whilst on duty, they assist the drunk person home, offer a ride etc etc you get the idea

i wonder...did st johns have anyone like this on campus who would volunteer weekend shifts to help students return safely to their dorms ?

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

I have been re-reading the thread(s)/notes and re-watching every single youtube video there is on the case. I keep coming back to: why. What was the motive? Accident? Or intentional?

There are only a small number of people (as far as we know) who knew Josh's whereabouts on that night.

Befofe we can answer that. The fact is, Josh left said party. The question is, where was he going? And why? I think this ought to be the focus.

I will get back to the drawing board, figuratively and literally and try to piece this together. This must get solved.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

my working theory after 100's and 100's of hours reading up on this case: Josh had an argument with Nick that night, allegedly about Katie, according to a flatmate. Now, as we have discussed on the board.... flatmates were on different floors, with Nick and Josh being on the top floor. The argument must have been loud/serious enough for a flatmate to hear, as the flatmate heard it was about Katie.

Josh going to the poker party makes sense, as he definitely wouldn't want to be around Nick after an argument, so it makes sense (to me) that Josh didn't go over to Katie's with Nick.

All accounts say Josh made it to the poker party, albeit, he didnt stay for long. To answer my own previous post? where was Josh headed?

I firmly believe Josh would have wanted to head over to Katie's. Why?

1. Because I think Josh was potentially still angry/upset about the earlier argument and it had been playing on his mind
2. Angry that his "best friend" was at his ex girlfriend's place
3. There was no keycard entry for Josh returning to his own room (of course, that doesn't rule it out)
4. At least one person, identified only as "Eric", recalls that Josh implied he had somewhere to be - and I believe that somewhere was Katie's place

Josh left the poker between 11.45am-11:57am (based on witnesses). I do not believe for one second Josh was simply heading back to his dorm. Nor do I believe Josh was meeting anyone from a dating site etc. Question is: how does Josh get over to Katie's? And did he ever make it there?

According to Nick, Josh's car didn't move, so if we are to believe this, we know Josh didn't get in his own vehicle.

Now, let's take Katie's timeline which I happen to believe is right as Katie has stuck to this since day dot: Nick left her place between 1am - 1:30am. Nick says he left at 2.30am and keycard records show he got in at 2.42am. So at best, there's a 1 hour 12 minute gap here, and at worst there's a 1 hour 42 minute gap.

St Johns (Josh's residence) to Katie's place (College St Benedict) is approx a 10 minute journey via car.

When Nick gets back at 2.42am, Nick says Josh was not home. As obvious as it sounds, something happened between 1am - 2.42am to Josh.

I need to do some more thinking RE: timeline(s). But I believe this makes sense and the dating sites/photos released by police/sightings in Las Vegas are all complete red herrings.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

Ok so I just got done watching the episode on netflix (again, lost count how many times I've watched it). The final sighting of what was believed to be Josh was between 12.15-12.30am crossing the bridge, which ties in with my thoughts.

The following is my own personal opinion based on countless hours of research:

I believe Josh probably did make it over to St. Benedicts and was going there to confront Nick. In my mind, that was what Josh had hinted to Eric by "implying he had somewhere to be". By my calculations, Josh would have got there just before 1am. Katie said Nick left at 1am, so I suspect Josh potentially saw Nick leaving Katie's. It would not surprise me if the argument continued and escalated. Note: I'm not accusing anyone of anything, however, I think the argument earlier that day/night continued and contributed indirectly/directly to Josh's disappearance.

I'll go a step further: Josh was said to go missing without his coat, wallet, glasses, or car keys. Who goes to play poker without their wallet (especially in 2002 before apple/google pay)? Therefore, I believe some/all of these things were planted back in Josh's dorm room by someone who had access. Music playing in the night? TV left on? This reeks to me of a staged crime scene, designed to throw police off the scent (which it did, because it had sheriffs looking in the water for a long time).

I think people have wrongly thought for years that "oh...he mustn't have gone far from the dorm! he didn't take his wallet or coat!" - when I think we should have all been thinking: "who put Josh's belongings back in his room?"

Now here is the important part, so pay attention: When Josh went back into the dorm at 11.06pm to grab beers (according to the netflix doc), he went in alone (according to friends Greg and Alex). This confirms (to me) that Josh was almost certainly carrying his wallet/ID card to swipe back in - the keycard logging system registered the swipe - this tells me that the doors WERE closed shut (they had to be, they were heavy doors that would close themselves if they weren't wedged). It would make zero sense to wedge them open now. To further confirm this: Nick key carded back in at 2.42am - ALSO confirming the doors were not wedged open and were fully shut, so in my view, this debunks the "door wedge" theory. Therefore, I conclude: Josh did NOT go back into his dorm room that night.

So the fact the wallet/ID card got back into his room WITHOUT Josh swiping back in......that right there tells me it was highly likely placed/staged by someone who had a connection with Josh going missing.

I think this is extremely solvable and there is enough evidence if you look close enough.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

Finally, I would like to drop a bombshell. If you read the article attached to the post, it states: "Guimond, who was carrying his wallet, probably had about 10 beers during the course of six hours, Jude said."

I concluded in my previous post that Josh didn't make it home...so how...?

...Wait a minute....

9 mins 20 sec into the doc, it says Josh's wallet was found in his [Josh's] room (along with glasses, contact lens case and coat).

Sheriff says (10 mins into doc) "so with the contact lens case being open with no contact lenses in it, we just figured he didn't come home and that he was still somewhere on campus."

Now, with Jude's statement in mind, now we know not only did Josh not go back into the building (post above), but now we can safely say that Josh's wallet was planted in his room to sabotage a police investigation. And sadly, it seems like the sheriffs bought it hook, line and sinker.

But, who?

Whoever it was would have needed access to Josh's room - and needed access to Josh's room without being caught placing items back in the room. And it needed to be done FAST - because soon, people will notice Josh is missing and police will search. Therefore, I believe the items would have had to be placed in Josh's bedroom that very night.

One thing we do know, is that the roommate who got home late, checked Josh's room after he key carded in at 2.42am, only to find Josh wasn't there. The roommate recalls "I remember his keys were there". Very helpful of the roommate to check and make a mental note of which items were in Josh's room.

 

[ELOCsoul]

As a fellow true crime sleuth I very much admire your thought process. Regarding the article and the statement that Josh had his wallet, isn’t it possible this was miss-reported? Why would they report that he had taken his wallet unless it turned up missing?

 

[ELOCsoul]

Finally, I would like to drop a bombshell. If you read the article attached to the post, it states: "Guimond, who was carrying his wallet, probably had about 10 beers during the course of six hours, Jude said."

I concluded in my previous post that Josh didn't make it home...so how...?

...Wait a minute....

9 mins 20 sec into the doc, it says Josh's wallet was found in his [Josh's] room (along with glasses, contact lens case and coat).

Sheriff says (10 mins into doc) "so with the contact lens case being open with no contact lenses in it, we just figured he didn't come home and that he was still somewhere on campus."

Now, with Jude's statement in mind, now we know not only did Josh not go back into the building (post above), but now we can safely say that Josh's wallet was planted in his room to sabotage a police investigation. And sadly, it seems like the sheriffs bought it hook, line and sinker.

But, who?

Whoever it was would have needed access to Josh's room - and needed access to Josh's room without being caught placing items back in the room. And it needed to be done FAST - because soon, people will notice Josh is missing and police will search. Therefore, I believe the items would have had to be placed in Josh's bedroom that very night.

One thing we do know, is that the roommate who got home late, checked Josh's room after he key carded in at 2.42am, only to find Josh wasn't there. The roommate recalls "I remember his keys were there". Very helpful of the roommate to check and make a mental note of which items were in Josh's room.

As a fellow true crime sleuth I very much admire your thought process. Regarding the article and the statement that Josh had his wallet, isn’t it possible this was miss-reported? Why would they report that he had taken his wallet unless it turned up missing?

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

As a fellow true crime sleuth I very much admire your thought process. Regarding the article and the statement that Josh had his wallet, isn’t it possible this was miss-reported? Why would they report that he had taken his wallet unless it turned up missing?

Firstly - thanks for the post - I was really hoping to get some questions/constructive criticism so I can try to defend my position and see if this is water-tight.

I personally don't think the information is mis-reported. If it were.... then we have to now say that the whole article could be mis-reported which would present an even bigger issue. However, seeing as the article has been backed up by numerous other articles (information can be cross-correlated), I'm inclined to think it's correct.

I think the reason Jude mentioned the wallet is because Josh left the party so soon, it begs the question, "did he even play poker? or intend to?" - because poker usually involves money/gambling and you'd have to take your wallet, so I think that's why Jude confirmed it.

Additionally - as I mentioned, at 11.06pm, Josh went back to his dorm and was registered as key carding back in, so by Jude's statement and Josh's key card records, it's confirming that Josh was traveling with his A) wallet and B) key card - which would make total sense, right? because he is going to play poker, and likely needs money, and he needs to get back into his dorm room, so he has his swipe card with him.

This changes the whole dynamic and could help us move forward. If Josh was carrying his wallet and it ended up back in his room, then it narrows down the suspect pool considerably. If you look at the timestamps on my previous posts, everything adds up staggeringly well and as of right now, this is by far my #1 theory....and I mean, my #1 theory by a country mile.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

So I got thinking some more about this and decided to go one step further. Bear with me, because you need to follow my rationale and trail of thought.

Let's say you go and kidnap or kill a random person in the street (trying to illustrate my point). You will not know who it is or where they live. If you look at their wallet or purse, then it is highly unlikely it will tell you what room or dorm they live in. Of course not impossible but extremely unlikely. Now if you consider that even if we did know who the wallet belonged to and we knew where they lived, we would have to get that wallet into their home, and this creates yet another problem. We wouldn't know when it's safe to plant evidence or if its even possible, meaning, we might simply not attempt it.

In short , what I am saying is that there are multiple problems with this being a random killer / attacker / kidnapper who is unknown to Josh. The problems are described above, but TL;DR: 1) who does wallet belong to? (A random person wouldn't necessarily know) 2) access to dorm 3) time (to stage the scene) 4) disposing of the body, which is interlinked with time 5) the location of Josh going missing narrows down the suspect list

Allow me to elaborate. 1) if we (person(s) responsible) do not know who the wallet belongs to, we simply can not return it to the owner's home.

2) In the event that we DO know the identity of the person who we have kidnapped or killed, we still require access to the dorm that the victim lives in

3) Time (to stage the scene) is critical because we need to get the wallet back into the victim's room ASAP as people will begin to search for the missing person and we need to throw them off the scent, especially since at least 1 person at the poker party knows Josh was carrying his wallet - by altering the area police are likely to search will severely compromise their investigation. It makes it look like Josh returned home that night, which he almost certainly didn't by my reckoning.

4) Disposing of the body is going to take some considerable time. This is going to be a factor. There is no way around this.

5) The same vicinity - It goes without saying but if you are going to attack or kill or kidnap someone you need to be right next to them in the same vicinity (no smart replies such as "what about snipers!" please). So this once again narrows down the suspect pool. If Josh was at St. Johns at 12.15ish, then that means whoever is responsible was out at that time. If Josh was, like i think, over at St. Ben around 12.55am, that means he was within just 5 minutes of Nick leaving Katie's - not pointing fingers, but that would be a fact.

Therefore I conclude and deduce: The person involved in Josh's disappearance had to have known him, knew where he lived, had access to his dorm, likely had time discrepancies (I know, this sounds like an easy target as we know someone fits this, but it is unavoidable to mention and I'm not pointing fingers, just simply saying that disposing of a body isn't going to be quick and simple). The person would have been physically near Josh (sounds obvious I know) at 12.30-1.00am.

Now before we jump to any conclusions. We need to ask ourselves the million dollar question. How many people fit the above criteria?

 

[ELOCsoul]

Firstly - thanks for the post - I was really hoping to get some questions/constructive criticism so I can try to defend my position and see if this is water-tight.

I personally don't think the information is mis-reported. If it were.... then we have to now say that the whole article could be mis-reported which would present an even bigger issue. However, seeing as the article has been backed up by numerous other articles (information can be cross-correlated), I'm inclined to think it's correct.

I think the reason Jude mentioned the wallet is because Josh left the party so soon, it begs the question, "did he even play poker? or intend to?" - because poker usually involves money/gambling and you'd have to take your wallet, so I think that's why Jude confirmed it.

Additionally - as I mentioned, at 11.06pm, Josh went back to his dorm and was registered as key carding back in, so by Jude's statement and Josh's key card records, it's confirming that Josh was traveling with his A) wallet and B) key card - which would make total sense, right? because he is going to play poker, and likely needs money, and he needs to get back into his dorm room, so he has his swipe card with him.

This changes the whole dynamic and could help us move forward. If Josh was carrying his wallet and it ended up back in his room, then it narrows down the suspect pool considerably. If you look at the timestamps on my previous posts, everything adds up staggeringly well and as of right now, this is by far my #1 theory....and I mean, my #1 theory by a country mile.

This is certainly an interesting twist if true, and my mind immediately goes to staging by someone, and then to the hour or so time discrepancy between Katie and Nick as pointed out in the Unsolved Mysteries program.

If your scenario is accurate, and I’m more on board with it than I was previously, it’s puzzling (in fact, troubling) that this didn’t set off alarms for investigators? They might have played it cool for a time, but at some point this should have come out as a key point in the case.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

This is certainly an interesting twist if true, and my mind immediately goes to staging by someone, and then to the hour or so time discrepancy between Katie and Nick as pointed out in the Unsolved Mysteries program.

If your scenario is accurate, and I’m more on board with it than I was previously, it’s puzzling (in fact, troubling) that this didn’t set off alarms for investigators? They might have played it cool for a time, but at some point this should have come out as a key point in the case.

There's few (if any) people aside from Josh's roommate who would have access to Josh's room at that time in the morning - I don't think Katie had access to it - but even if she did, after her statement on the Unsolved Mysteries episode, Katie didn't even find out Josh was missing until the next day when he didn't show up for mock trials and she got the call from Nick - so for me, I can safely exclude Katie from having planted evidence.

I'd also say that this would rule out the "drunken monk in a car" theory that I've seen posted on here. Let's say a monk had knocked down Josh... a monk wouldn't necessarily have access to Josh's room to take the wallet back into - and besides, a monk going into a student's dorm/bedroom would be a huge red flag/risk, never-mind in the early hours! So for me, that theory is ruled out.

The only person(s) who could gain access to Josh's room in the early hours of the morning would have to be someone Josh was living with in Maur House. Anyone else would attract attention/raise suspicion. Back to the UM episode, Nick has never said he saw someone else there, only that when he got home, Josh wasn't in his room. Make of that what you will..