Also, the bit of information we do have doesn't seem to be solidified or agreed upon in any aspect. For instance in more than several reports (and small articles covering it on 'people who vanished' lists) i have read it says that Michael Negrete left his room in the dorm to congratulate the video game opponent and went back INTO his room never to be seen again. Yet on long threads such as this discussing it, pretty much everyone seems to be working from the angle that he left the dorm room completely and never went back inside. So which is it?
Unfortunately this is one of those minute details that I don't think people would remember correctly. I am guessing the guy in the other room vouched that he congratulated him, left his room and then they had computer activity show that he returned to his own room before then leaving again and disappearing.
It's an important detail because if he returned to his own room, and someone contacted him to meet at that instant, it would have to be someone familiar or somewhat known to him. It seems like that is what happened. If he didn't go back to his own room and left the building, something motivated him to leave on his own... to go to another dorm, as nothing else fits. The other conclusion is that the student he "congratulated" was involved.
If he left his dorm ROOM, congratulated his opponent and then turned around and went back into the room only to disappear then surely his dorm/room mate would know more?
This was at 4am-ish. His roommate was most likely fast asleep. He reportedly woke up at 9am and Michael wasn't there. I do find a lot of things strange with this case, but I do think it is possible that the roommate didn't hear anything, especially if he had gotten used to Mike staying up late.
Why would he just suddenly be going to buy drugs at 4am after a long night of playing video games? Doesn't make sense. Why didn't he go to bed at that time of the morning when he was tired? It had to have been some kind of 'lure' that got him to leave the dorm building at that time when he most likely was about to go to bed. I wonder have any of the 'authority figures' of the UCLA ever been questioned? Professors, lecturers, teachers etc? To me it seems there would only be a few possibilities that would get you to leave the dorm at that time, even briefly, such as an authority figure, or a girl/love interest.
You're assuming he would use the drugs immediately. If he was trying to hide the purchase, 4am would be a perfect time especially if he is usually up at the time. It could have also been the plan for foul play the entire time, sort of a crime of opportunity. Love interest, particularly with another man, has come up, and I think it's a real possibility. He wouldn't be hiding a girl. Faculty/authority is tough. It could be, but any case of wrongdoing would be built on he said/she said since there wouldn't likely be proof. While it is not really professional for faculty to date students in most cases, it really isn't something of consequence unless there was harassment, or the faculty member was his TA or professor.
I think too much emphasis is placed on him not taking his keys. He could have just been tired/stressed/weary and forgotten his keys, but then again the fact he didn't take proper shoes, or anything really, suggests he was only planning a short stop anyway. I don't really put much into the construction accident thing either. I mean if he forgot the keys i can't see him being the type of person that would attempt to dangerously climb some construction site in the dark in the middle of the night. How many people do that unless they are stupidly drunk/intoxicated? He couldn't have been that drunk from partying if he was able to concentrate on video game battles for hours. There would have been a way he could back in without the keys even if it meant disturbing another student/security or something. I just see that as a much more likely thing for him to attempt than climbing all over heavy construction to get through a window back in or something.
I think most everyone agrees that he wasn't planning on being gone long. I have to discard the notion of Michael not being a risk taker though, because of his supposed experimentation with drugs, and the fact that he left the dorm at 4am. That's not something most people do alone. I've always envisioned the construction site being a hole for the foundation of DeNeve Plaza rather than scaffolding etc. I was always told that if you forget your keys, you ain't getting in, even if the staff knows you... but one would also believe that he would at least try and someone should have noted that. He could have tried to go through a site to access a side door that he knew might be unlocked because it was difficult to access. When I worked at the pools at UCLA, people hopped fences all the time. One night was particularly tragic. A guy was drunk, fell into the pool underneath the pool cover and drowned. He was too drunk to get out and his friends were too drunk to help.
But thinking about this theory, it's weird that he would have to go through all that trouble to get in... when some strange man was able to just waltz into the building without a problem. Of course, in the past year or so I have started believing that the strange man doesn't exist.
Imo, there has to have been another student possibly in another building involved or someone that messaged him before he turned off the computer, beeped him on a pager etc to quickly come and do/get something for/from them that he viewed as being too important to wait until the morning, and something happened either on his way there or once he got there (he was introduced to someone in a car etc)
If not the construction theory, this is what I am thinking. The police used strange wording in the Daily Bruin about Mike leaving. They said that they are positive they have *several* witnesses that saw Michael walking out of the building by himself. It was worded such that it was clear that they knew that was the case, not just "there must be someone who saw him", they know have people that saw him. I believe that someone in the dorms knows what happened... whether it's Dykstra or one of the others I don't know. If it's not construction, I am thinking it must have been some crime of opportunity, or an accident and then a disposal of the body. This would be truly sociopathic though. I wonder if police have run criminal background checks of everyone that lived on the Hill at the time *since* 1999. I'd think if it was homicide, it would happen again.
Back to construction. I am alumni now, so it's a bit harder to use the library, but I still intend to do research on the state of the construction. It is a theory I've had as I know there was construction right outside Dykstra Hall, but I don't know what state it was at. Looking through old Schedule of Classes books that contain campus maps in 1999 show the old Dykstra configuration. UCLA maps sometimes show construction zones so people know what is being built. In 2000, they showed the modern configuration... no "in between." I am hoping to find pictures, maps, or something that shows what state construction was at in December 1999 to rule it out. It's one of those things that doesn't make sense (dogs didn't hit), but also seems to be the only basic thing that makes sense (forgot key and tried to get inside a different way).
