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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I've watched the netflix episode again for what must be at least the 50th time and think I've found something that changes the landscape a little bit.

When the documentary starts talking about Nick getting back to campus and the time issues with Nick and Katie's stories, the sheriff specifically says, and I quote: "when the drive is roughly 7-10 minutes" (between campuses). It sounds like Nick drove. Does that make a difference? I think it does. I'll get thinking again.

I think this case is solvable as long as we don't give up
 
Last edited:
Very different technology. A fake driver’s license was just printing one out. Mag strip or faking a computer monitored door card is quite different.
Thanks, I thought so too. As an aside: odd that it is so simple to fool people with a fake (copied) driver's license. So, my understanding is that there is no hypothetical connection between "if you can make a fake license, you also are savvy enough to make a fake entrance card".

But the question stays: could somebody have used a "mother key-card", fake card, did Josh leave his door open by mistake? Could registration data been altered by someone? In all the outlets the registration of Josh's card is used as hard fact/evidence of this movements, but are they?

This is about the problems with key cards on dorms and the need to replace them with Biometric AI vision for access control. Dorm Security Standards Are Too Low, Keycards Are at the Heart of the Problem
 
Then there is an unidentified witness, who according to publications, knows Josh well, that states they saw Josh walking at 11.57 on a path between Metten Court en Maur House. How was this exact time established as it is presented as a known fact and not an approx. Is there a visual clock hanging somewhere? Would you, walking on campus, constantly know the time of every event by the minute. Would you look at your watch every time you see somebody walking? I don't think so. So how come? This is a very, very important witness. Why is her/his identity never made public? Were there ever some tests done if the person from a certain location, considering lights on campus, etc. could actually see Josh walking?
 
Then there is an unidentified witness, who according to publications, knows Josh well, that states they saw Josh walking at 11.57 on a path between Metten Court en Maur House. How was this exact time established as it is presented as a known fact and not an approx. Is there a visual clock hanging somewhere? Would you, walking on campus, constantly know the time of every event by the minute. Would you look at your watch every time you see somebody walking? I don't think so. So how come? This is a very, very important witness. Why is her/his identity never made public? Were there ever some tests done if the person from a certain location, considering lights on campus, etc. could actually see Josh walking?

Agree 100%.

I've been thinking a little bit more about Nick driving (as posted above, the documentary alludes to the drive being roughly 7-10 minutes from Katie's to Nick's dorm). Katie's job at mock trial is a timekeeper. If anyone knows time - she does. She says Nick left at 1am. That means that by 1:10am, Nick should have been back at the dorm.

And here's something I really, really cannot understand no matter how hard I try. After watching the documentary again last night, I noticed how Katie says how she spoke to people from the party and they said Josh was "laughing and joking and having a good time". So we're supposed to believe that a bunch of people are looking at Josh, taking notice of how good/bad his evening is, then suddenly they all stop looking at him and insomnia kicks in and they all don't really notice him leave? That doesn't make any sense at all.

And this is where the problems all start. For me, the main issue is the "friends" losing sight of Josh at the poker party. And Nick keycarding in late, and then Greg signing in after Nick (although this is the 2nd room mate Greg? There's 2 Gregs?)

Let's think about this logically. Party with 12 people.

We've got:

  • Josh
  • Greg
  • Alex
  • Dusty
  • Eric
  • Nate

Well, I've just gone back to our very own DarkJodo's newspaper clippings for a refresh on anything I didn't catch the first time around.

Things that stuck out:

1) There were 8 people at the poker party (so we're only missing approx 2-3 from my list above)
2) Josh did take his contacts
3) Greg Worden's comment, "I want him to be found. I want someone to find him," Worden said quietly, "but not necessarily me." - that's almost word for word what Katie said during the Netflix documentary. Weird.
4) Katie standing behind Nick on the bridge photo, with Nick smiling (link) - I just don't like Nick's smile and Katie's body language in this one, personally.
 

Attachments

  • St__Cloud_Times_2002_11_17_Page_1.jpg
    St__Cloud_Times_2002_11_17_Page_1.jpg
    252.8 KB · Views: 20
  • St__Cloud_Times_2002_11_17_Page_6.jpg
    St__Cloud_Times_2002_11_17_Page_6.jpg
    338.1 KB · Views: 22
When you compare the reports here and here, one says Josh was carrying his wallet and the other says investigators found his wallet [in his room]. I'll let people share their thoughts!
 

Attachments

  • wallet2.PNG
    wallet2.PNG
    86.8 KB · Views: 9
  • wallet.PNG
    wallet.PNG
    45.9 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
When you compare the reports here and here, one says Josh was carrying his wallet and the other says investigators found his wallet [in his room]. I'll let people share their thoughts!
i think it must have been a mistake by the newspaper to say his wallet was with him at the time.but who knows??

something i have been thinking about nick for a while.. i know it sounds so simple but i am now thinking did police interview nick and katie separately and they they ask what times nick left?

because in order to stop nick being a suspect katie probably said 1am....but nick said 2 30am because he knew he didnt get back until 2 42am and that explains the difference in time

i have always felt nick left even earlier than 1am and katie was trying to stop him from being a suspect. that time difference is probably key to solving the case but it has never been looked at deep enough from what i have seen
 
Excellent points. This begs the question - why would you leave a party that you've been at for 30 mins

1) You don't feel well
2) You aren't enjoying it
3) You've arranged a friend to pick you up because you just don't want to be there
4) You've had an argument with someone there
5) You don't like someone there

Those are my top 4 reasons why you'd leave a party early (within 30 mins of arriving at it).
 
this brings me to my next point... remember in the documentary nick said he told josh 'we'll see you later' ?? nick left to go to katies place at 6.30-7pm right ???

and the episode suggests nick drove to katies... what happens if nick had said to josh i'll pick you up at midnight? because 7pm - 00:00am is 5 hours that's enough partying for anyone....

so josh walks outside and meets nick by the bridge or even the car park by saint maur house is there but they go off campus and the argument they had about katie earlier in the night sparks again and results in foul play off campus

this would explain why nick got back at 2 42am and why josh wasnt found in the lakes on campus but he was never in the lakes on campus
 
this brings me to my next point... remember in the documentary nick said he told josh 'we'll see you later' ?? nick left to go to katies place at 6.30-7pm right ???

and the episode suggests nick drove to katies... what happens if nick had said to josh i'll pick you up at midnight? because 7pm - 00:00am is 5 hours that's enough partying for anyone....

so josh walks outside and meets nick by the bridge or even the car park by saint maur house is there but they go off campus and the argument they had about katie earlier in the night sparks again and results in foul play off campus

this would explain why nick got back at 2 42am and why josh wasnt found in the lakes on campus but he was never in the lakes on campus

This is extremely plausible. And you make a good point. Do we really think Nick went to Katie's from 6:30pm until 2:43am in the morning the next day!? That's 8 hours 13 minutes!

Nick was quick to say how Josh's car hadn't moved, but the question is, had his car moved?
 
One thing that stands out for me is how no one seems to talk about how drunk everyone else was at the party. I know they say Josh wasn’t that drunk, but if everyone else around him was — it could explain why he would just slip out without saying anything to anyone (or why no one remembers him saying goodbye)…
 
Agree 100%.

I've been thinking a little bit more about Nick driving (as posted above, the documentary alludes to the drive being roughly 7-10 minutes from Katie's to Nick's dorm). Katie's job at mock trial is a timekeeper. If anyone knows time - she does. She says Nick left at 1am. That means that by 1:10am, Nick should have been back at the dorm.

And here's something I really, really cannot understand no matter how hard I try. After watching the documentary again last night, I noticed how Katie says how she spoke to people from the party and they said Josh was "laughing and joking and having a good time". So we're supposed to believe that a bunch of people are looking at Josh, taking notice of how good/bad his evening is, then suddenly they all stop looking at him and insomnia kicks in and they all don't really notice him leave? That doesn't make any sense at all.

And this is where the problems all start. For me, the main issue is the "friends" losing sight of Josh at the poker party. And Nick keycarding in late, and then Greg signing in after Nick (although this is the 2nd room mate Greg? There's 2 Gregs?)

Let's think about this logically. Party with 12 people.

We've got:

  • Josh
  • Greg
  • Alex
  • Dusty
  • Eric
  • Nate

Well, I've just gone back to our very own DarkJodo's newspaper clippings for a refresh on anything I didn't catch the first time around.

Things that stuck out:

1) There were 8 people at the poker party (so we're only missing approx 2-3 from my list above)
2) Josh did take his contacts
3) Greg Worden's comment, "I want him to be found. I want someone to find him," Worden said quietly, "but not necessarily me." - that's almost word for word what Katie said during the Netflix documentary. Weird.
4) Katie standing behind Nick on the bridge photo, with Nick smiling (link) - I just don't like Nick's smile and Katie's body language in this one, personally.
Nick, allegedly, came back to the dorm at approx. 2:45 according to himself did publicly say that Josh wasn't there when he arrived.

Mr. Guimond was writing a paper for his history class on the day he vanished, said his roommate, Nick Hydukovich, and when he stepped out to play cards that Saturday night, he did not bother to take a coat or a case for his contact lenses.

“I came home late,” Mr. Hydukovich recalled. “He wasn’t back. I thought he was at someone else’s place.”


How would he know that, I wonder. They lived on the same top floor, but everybody had their own room. Was Josh's door open and he peaked in? Did he knock on his door and nobody answered? Coming home that late, wouldn't you think somebody is just sleeping and you do not disturb them?

But: from another source. After he arrived home at around 2:45am, he noticed Josh was not in his room. His computer was still on, and his schoolwork was left on his desk. Nick figured Josh was still at the party.

I can only conclude the door was open.

The contacts.....still very confusing. Why would you need a contact case when you are going to a party, the contacts are in your eyes. In an earlier post I thought I remembered they only found the contacts case in his room and suggested he changed his glasses for contacts when he shortly returned to his room before going to the party and left his room door open.

If his door was open, Nick could have peaked in, somebody could have gone in his room playing music, no registration of maybe Josh himself coming home and leaving again.

I don't know about reading body language looking at pictures. It's just a moment in time. Nick might have been smirking, being nervous or opens his mouth because he said something or whatever.

Maur house, Josh's "block" housed 6? students. Trying to get this straight. Who had access to the building block?
- Josh (junior) and Nick Hydukowitch (senior, friend, roommate, co-captain with Josh in Mock Trial), separate rooms, top floor,
- Adam McDonald (roommate, used washer on Josh's computer)
- Adam Streater (friend, roommate)
- Greg?? Confusing. Greg Worden was a friend and former roommate, so this is another one?

Greg ? gets back from the card party at around 3:00 am Sunday morning. He doesn't live on the same floor as Josh and Nick, so he isn't sure whether Josh was there or not. One of the other roommates had been gone for the entire weekend, and it is unclear whether the remaining two <??? who are the remaining two meant here? Adam didn't attent the party for all we know, Nick was with Katy, Roommate Greg? was at the party, was Greg Worden too? > were on campus or not during that time period.
- Unidentified person, who was not there the whole weekend

Where was the monk living?

Named as friends
Katie Benson (knew Josh from childhood, junior St. Benedict Uni, ex-girlfriend, lived on St. Benedict campus, took f.i. biology classes with Josh and Greg Worden at St. Johns, involved with Nick)
Justin Goodale (named as friend under picture in paperclipping)
Dana Michalicek (friend, knew Josh from highschool, became close)

Poker party (9 persons, including Josh 10 persons)
Josh
Nate Slinkard (junior, friend, host poker party Metten Court)
Greg Worden (friend, former roommate)??
Alex Jude (friend)
Dusty?
Eric? (friend/acquaintance, recalls Josh "had somewhere to be")
Greg ? (roommate?)
?
?
?

Week of Dec 2: The Stearns County Sheriff’s Dept. had contacted and questioned eight of the nine students present at the party the night Joshua disappeared, but stated that they were unable to contact the remaining student.

Fellow members of the College of St.Benedict/Saint John's Uni Wind ensemble? Did we look into this?

Fellows in the Mock Trial?
 
Katie's job at mock trial is a timekeeper. If anyone knows time - she does. She says Nick left at 1am. That means that by 1:10am, Nick should have been back at the dorm

Katie’s role as timekeeper, IMO, is wholly irrelevant and certainly not indicative of anything other than an ability to stop and start a stopwatch. Because that’s what the timekeeper does, and lets the team know how much time they have left in a given portion of the mock trial. Source: 8 years of high school and college debate and mock trial, where I also occasionally served as timekeeper. I’m otherwise notoriously bad at being late, or really, even knowing what time it is.

Counter - “Nick should have been home by 1:10” - according to who? Maybe he stopped for gas, met a friend, took a drive, whatever. There are multitudes of reasonable and non-suspicious reasons for him to have not driven straight home.

because in order to stop nick being a suspect katie probably said 1am....but nick said 2 30am because he knew he didnt get back until 2 42am and that explains the difference in time

Counter: maybe Katie was looking at a clock with the wrong time (daylight savings had just kicked in a week or so prior).

In re: the Maur House layout, it may be helpful to see this page if you haven’t already, showing Maur House exterior and interior layouts.

Each apartment is one of the colored (gray or beige/white) blocks, going up 3 stories. Each person had a private bedroom and bathroom on the 2nd/3rd floors (US convention is that the ground floor is the 1st floor - just noting because I know at least @Bit of hope isn’t in the States), with the rest of the space being common areas.

 
Counter - “Nick should have been home by 1:10” - according to who? Maybe he stopped for gas, met a friend, took a drive, whatever. There are multitudes of reasonable and non-suspicious reasons for him to have not driven straight home.



Counter: maybe Katie was looking at a clock with the wrong time (daylight savings had just kicked in a week or so prior).

In re: the Maur House layout, it may be helpful to see this page if you haven’t already, showing Maur House exterior and interior layouts.

Each apartment is one of the colored (gray or beige/white) blocks, going up 3 stories. Each person had a private bedroom and bathroom on the 2nd/3rd floors (US convention is that the ground floor is the 1st floor - just noting because I know at least @Bit of hope isn’t in the States), with the rest of the space being common areas.

I disagree. Katie's ability as a timekeeper is relevant and if you've ever been to court and testified, you'd know for a fact that would be used either by the defence or the prosecutor depending on the given circumstances. Now, I will grant you, it doesn't automatically mean she's right - we can agree on that, but I've also attended mock trials and college debates and been involved in legal proceedings - generally, the timekeeping was always given to someone who is associated with good timekeeping...hence making them the "time keeper".

As for Nick being home at 1:10am - he told the sheriffs he left Katie's place and went right back to his dorm. So to answer your question, the answer is: "according to Nick".
 
Last edited:
Nick, allegedly, came back to the dorm at approx. 2:45 according to himself did publicly say that Josh wasn't there when he arrived.

Mr. Guimond was writing a paper for his history class on the day he vanished, said his roommate, Nick Hydukovich, and when he stepped out to play cards that Saturday night, he did not bother to take a coat or a case for his contact lenses.

“I came home late,” Mr. Hydukovich recalled. “He wasn’t back. I thought he was at someone else’s place.”


How would he know that, I wonder. They lived on the same top floor, but everybody had their own room. Was Josh's door open and he peaked in? Did he knock on his door and nobody answered? Coming home that late, wouldn't you think somebody is just sleeping and you do not disturb them?

But: from another source. After he arrived home at around 2:45am, he noticed Josh was not in his room. His computer was still on, and his schoolwork was left on his desk. Nick figured Josh was still at the party.

I can only conclude the door was open.

The contacts.....still very confusing. Why would you need a contact case when you are going to a party, the contacts are in your eyes. In an earlier post I thought I remembered they only found the contacts case in his room and suggested he changed his glasses for contacts when he shortly returned to his room before going to the party and left his room door open.

If his door was open, Nick could have peaked in, somebody could have gone in his room playing music, no registration of maybe Josh himself coming home and leaving again.

I don't know about reading body language looking at pictures. It's just a moment in time. Nick might have been smirking, being nervous or opens his mouth because he said something or whatever.

Maur house, Josh's "block" housed 6? students. Trying to get this straight. Who had access to the building block?
- Josh (junior) and Nick Hydukowitch (senior, friend, roommate, co-captain with Josh in Mock Trial), separate rooms, top floor,
- Adam McDonald (roommate, used washer on Josh's computer)
- Adam Streater (friend, roommate)
- Greg?? Confusing. Greg Worden was a friend and former roommate, so this is another one?

Greg ? gets back from the card party at around 3:00 am Sunday morning. He doesn't live on the same floor as Josh and Nick, so he isn't sure whether Josh was there or not. One of the other roommates had been gone for the entire weekend, and it is unclear whether the remaining two <??? who are the remaining two meant here? Adam didn't attent the party for all we know, Nick was with Katy, Roommate Greg? was at the party, was Greg Worden too? > were on campus or not during that time period.
- Unidentified person, who was not there the whole weekend

Where was the monk living?

Named as friends
Katie Benson (knew Josh from childhood, junior St. Benedict Uni, ex-girlfriend, lived on St. Benedict campus, took f.i. biology classes with Josh and Greg Worden at St. Johns, involved with Nick)
Justin Goodale (named as friend under picture in paperclipping)
Dana Michalicek (friend, knew Josh from highschool, became close)

Poker party (9 persons, including Josh 10 persons)
Josh
Nate Slinkard (junior, friend, host poker party Metten Court)
Greg Worden (friend, former roommate)??
Alex Jude (friend)
Dusty?
Eric? (friend/acquaintance, recalls Josh "had somewhere to be")
Greg ? (roommate?)
?
?
?

Week of Dec 2: The Stearns County Sheriff’s Dept. had contacted and questioned eight of the nine students present at the party the night Joshua disappeared, but stated that they were unable to contact the remaining student.

Fellow members of the College of St.Benedict/Saint John's Uni Wind ensemble? Did we look into this?

Fellows in the Mock Trial?

Really great post and I think this is EXACTLY where we need to be focusing if we're going to uncover the mystery. Yes, there are two Greg's. The Josh Newville podcast says and I quote:

"Josh Newville: One of the things on the Unsolved Mysteries episode, there is a comment and I was really surprised to hear law enforcement tell the television show this, because as far as I'm aware, as far as Justin's aware, as far as Josh's parents are aware, no one's ever heard this before, but apparently, one of Josh's roommates told law enforcement that the night before Josh's disappearance, so this would be Friday night, November 8, that Josh and Nick had a fight about Katie that they overheard.

Olga Zenteno: I also have never, ever, ever during this whole entire time heard anything like that. I don't know who that roommate is. That just-

Josh Newville: 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
" (Source: here)

So there's two Adam's and two Greg's. One of the Greg's didn't go to the party, so we can probably exclude him for now. The Greg who went to the party was Worden, you're correct. So the question is: did both Adam's go to the poker party?

Josh Newville says he spoke to a "John". I've not heard a "John" be mentioned anywhere before.

Newville also says: "There were some roommates, including the roommate that people, for a long time, thought deleted stuff from Josh's computer because he was the one that gave his login information, username and password to Josh's dad and uncle to get on the computer while they were in the dorm. For a long while, people thought that he was the one because it was his username that had created the network account in which subsequently, someone then took an Internet Washer to the computer. A lot of people thought it was him and law enforcement didn't even interview him, it sounds like, until 2010."

Which would mean I was wrong by thinking Adam used the washer, and it sounds like in 2010 Adam was cleared of using the wahsher.
 
Counter - “Nick should have been home by 1:10” - according to who? Maybe he stopped for gas, met a friend, took a drive, whatever. There are multitudes of reasonable and non-suspicious reasons for him to have not driven straight home.
nick clearly stated to the sherriffs he left katies at 2 30am and straight back to his dorm. formerpolicestaff is right on that count

the sheriff said it does not take more than 7 to 10 mins at that time of night so if katie is correct and nick left at 1 to 1 30am that is 1 hour 42 minutes or at best 1 hour 12 mins of unaccounted time)
 
Which would mean I was wrong by thinking Adam used the washer, and it sounds like in 2010 Adam was cleared of using the wahsher.
i think you are almost there but you have listened to the podcast i can see that you are very well read up on the topic. the podcast suggests joshs uncle was using the computer at a similar timeframe to deleting data

Simply Vanished | S1 E3 Terms of Service joshs uncle says it wasnt him but maybe something happened there but i dont think its critical anyway do you agree? i think the critical part is why did josh leave the party? what made him leave after being there for around 30min
 
i think you are almost there but you have listened to the podcast i can see that you are very well read up on the topic. the podcast suggests joshs uncle was using the computer at a similar timeframe to deleting data

Simply Vanished | S1 E3 Terms of Service joshs uncle says it wasnt him but maybe something happened there but i dont think its critical anyway do you agree? i think the critical part is why did josh leave the party? what made him leave after being there for around 30min

Yep, I just read/listened to that part of the podcast and you seem right. It sounds like Adam didn't do the wash if there was one, but it sounds like Brian and his Uncle weren't capable of doing that and had limited computer knowledge at the time. But either way, I think the computer is a red herring. As far as I can tell, the police did their job, searched it and found nothing.

However, what I do find strange, is that police didn't find the paper that Nick said Josh was writing on the computer.

@Bit of hope was on the right tracks. The key to solving this is:

1) Getting a list of everyone at the poker party
2) Figuring out why Katie said 1am and why Nick said 2:30pm, that's a huge, huge difference. It's suspiciously different and needs to be fully explored
3) Finding out if anyone at the poker party had any motive or immediate ties to anyone "bad" whatsoever
4) Finding out why Josh left after just approx 30 minutes of being at the poker party
5) Understanding the "relationship" between Nick and Katie. Dana says in the documentary that after Josh disappeared, there was a rumour that Nick and Katie were dating after Josh disappeared

The following points are not mine, but found from forums, youtube, social media etc we should at least check them out:

1) Many people report Katie didn't seem at all upset on her first ever interview
2) Many people (and I mean, quite a few, 50+) commented that Katie didn't seem to be crying in the netflix doc, but seemed to be trying to force tears out
3) Some people accuse Katie of not having strong feelings for Josh
 
The following points are not mine, but found from forums, youtube, social media etc we should at least check them out:

1) Many people report Katie didn't seem at all upset on her first ever interview
2) Many people (and I mean, quite a few, 50+) commented that Katie didn't seem to be crying in the netflix doc, but seemed to be trying to force tears out
3) Some people accuse Katie of not having strong feelings for Josh

Where do you wanna go with this? I heard this far to often when it comes to showing or not showing or overly showing emotions or what not. It's perception spiked with people's own expectations of what is an appropriate reaction in certain situations. People react different in a stressful situation or on trauma. IMO there is no right or wrong. If they would have asked me for an interview about my missing friend and there was a risk it would end up to be a sobbing vale of tears I would have said no, until I was ready, in the sense I had some control over my emotions.

I did see the Netflix doc, but I can't recall.

I can't say anything about Katie not having strong feelings for Josh. Should she have? Do they mean in the past, when they were still together? Maybe she had once, but they split up with consent, so no I don't think she had such strong feelings for Josh anymore and was open for a new relation with Nick, at least that's how I see it.
 
Where do you wanna go with this? I heard this far to often when it comes to showing or not showing or overly showing emotions or what not. It's perception spiked with people's own expectations of what is an appropriate reaction in certain situations. People react different in a stressful situation or on trauma. IMO there is no right or wrong. If they would have asked me for an interview about my missing friend and there was a risk it would end up to be a sobbing vale of tears I would have said no, until I was ready, in the sense I had some control over my emotions.

I did see the Netflix doc, but I can't recall.

I can't say anything about Katie not having strong feelings for Josh. Should she have? Do they mean in the past, when they were still together? Maybe she had once, but they split up with consent, so no I don't think she had such strong feelings for Josh anymore and was open for a new relation with Nick, at least that's how I see it.
I think I see it similar to yourself. The problem with the "breakup" story that we're led to believe, is that Josh isn't here to corroborate Katie's story. I remember Josh's mother saying that she had no idea why Katie and Josh split. The only person who really knows is Katie.

So in my opinion, at this point in time, there's 4 places we can go with the entire case in my view.

1) Nick / Katie, or Nick solo
2) Poker party
3) Monks possibly with help from an insider at the poker party
4) pontiac

I believe one of the above 4 possibilities is the real reason for Josh's disappearance. I do find myself thinking a lot about the pontiac that was crushed. Unfortunately, nothing has ever been released about the driver himself. Was he a student? A monk? etc Unfortunately we're stuck.

I still think we need a full list of people at the poker party, and I believe you have most of them. And then I'd be interested to see if any of them had any affinity with the monks? Maybe they became a monk? Maybe their relative is a monk at St. Johns, you see where I'm going with it?

The problem is, I don't know how we get a full list of people at the poker party that night. I've looked around the web, read newspaper articles and it's never mentioned.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
82
Guests online
2,723
Total visitors
2,805

Forum statistics

Threads
603,889
Messages
18,164,929
Members
231,881
Latest member
lockett
Back
Top