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

[Bit of hope]

The "pokerparty" was not a one of a kind thing, they had them on a regular basis. Maybe that makes any difference at how you look at it. Josh and Nick were both invited by Katie for that evening. Josh declined. As far as I know, there was no party at Katie's, just the three, minus Josh, the two of them. Maybe the alleged fight was about Nick going and Josh expecting his "best" friend not to go, messing with his ex-girlfriend. In my group of friends that would be an absolute "no go". You simply don't hook up with somebody's ex.

 

[Ciriii57]

If my ex partner was with my friend for 7 hours i would be displeased and thats an understatement

In my group of friends that would be an absolute "no go". You simply don't hook up with somebody's ex

I'm gonna have to bow to the majority here and not allow my own personality to affect my judgement as I must be abnormal haha I wouldn't care, honestly! If I haven't wanted someone for 2 months why should I care who they date? And at least if they date my best friend I know they're in good hands!
So then, from what you guys say Nick is breaking all the rules of friendship? Is Katie also behaving unreasonably? That would definitely cause a reason for a confrontation. But for murder....? I'm not so sure.

Josh and Nick were both invited by Katie for that evening. Josh declined. As far as I know, there was no party at Katie's, just the three, minus Josh, the two of them.

This is crucial. If both were invited then clearly Katie and Nick weren't planning to get it on. Though they may still have done.

Just gonna throw this out there, based on my own experiences, I was also a student in 2002. Nick and Katie are at hers. My other friends are at the poker evening. No disturbances. Josh isn't really feeling it for the party and heads back to his room for some "me" time, maybe some webcam chats, maybe arranges a meet with someone.
I've done exactly this as a student.

I know it's not a widely held theory, but my own personal thoughts still can't see Nick or the monks as being guilty (I know, call me crazy!) I believe there was an as yet unknown person that Josh brought into his life who caused his demise.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

I'm gonna have to bow to the majority here and not allow my own personality to affect my judgement as I must be abnormal haha I wouldn't care, honestly! If I haven't wanted someone for 2 months why should I care who they date? And at least if they date my best friend I know they're in good hands!
So then, from what you guys say Nick is breaking all the rules of friendship? Is Katie also behaving unreasonably? That would definitely cause a reason for a confrontation. But for murder....? I'm not so sure.


This is crucial. If both were invited then clearly Katie and Nick weren't planning to get it on. Though they may still have done.

Just gonna throw this out there, based on my own experiences, I was also a student in 2002. Nick and Katie are at hers. My other friends are at the poker evening. No disturbances. Josh isn't really feeling it for the party and heads back to his room for some "me" time, maybe some webcam chats, maybe arranges a meet with someone.
I've done exactly this as a student.

I know it's not a widely held theory, but my own personal thoughts still can't see Nick or the monks as being guilty (I know, call me crazy!) I believe there was an as yet unknown person that Josh brought into his life who caused his demise.

i think this is the thing.some guys (like yourself) are mature enough not to care. some guys would get mad (me) and some guys would be angry enough to fight over a woman and be possessive (not sure possessive is the right word!!) to kill. i have known men in my area fight, go to jail and even kill for a woman.unfortunately its a common occurrence.

someone posted a theory online here

i dont agree with all of it but i think this could be (oh god i hate to use this phrase) a case of 'occams razor' and this was simply a love triangle filled with jealousy and rage.sometimes the signs arent showed outwardly and remain in someones head until they snap

because i do think youre right.the monkss might be innocent here and although theres a stack of things pointing to them,as you correctly say,it doesnt fit their pattern or their MO and thats the only thing that throws me off

The "pokerparty" was not a one of a kind thing, they had them on a regular basis. Maybe that makes any difference at how you look at it. Josh and Nick were both invited by Katie for that evening. Josh declined. As far as I know, there was no party at Katie's, just the three, minus Josh, the two of them. Maybe the alleged fight was about Nick going and Josh expecting his "best" friend not to go, messing with his ex-girlfriend. In my group of friends that would be an absolute "no go". You simply don't hook up with somebody's ex.

agree with all of this. but nick himself at 6mins into the netflix documentary said "we got an invitation from katie to say do you want to come and hang out with me and my room mates tonight"

josh saying no makes me think he was uncomfortable hanging around with his ex and his best friend who liked each other.i know i couldnt stomach the fact my ex saw my friend in any romantic way.i can completely understand him thinking i dont want to be around you guys

and this makes me think josh was at the poker party and suddenly felt sick thinking that his "best friend" as nick describes it and his ex who he loved for 5 years might be getting it on.so he went to confront them. maybe the 'he had somewhere to be' was going to confront nick about the relationship with katie taking place?

 

[Ciriii57]

. i have known men in my area fight, go to jail and even kill for a woman.unfortunately its a common occurrence.

Wow that's crazy!

A love triangle over Katie does make some sense of the circumstances I agree, and I can see Josh confronting Nick about it.
But I do struggle to make the connection between arguing over someone and then murdering them and then disposing of their body and all evidence that anything happened. I can't seem to imagine Nick, at that young age, was capable of this or even had the opportunity.

I dunno, I just feel like Josh was transported off campus by someone. Either before or just after something happened.
Did Nick have a car btw? And time to use it that night unseen?

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

Wow that's crazy!

A love triangle over Katie does make some sense of the circumstances I agree, and I can see Josh confronting Nick about it.
But I do struggle to make the connection between arguing over someone and then murdering them and then disposing of their body and all evidence that anything happened. I can't seem to imagine Nick, at that young age, was capable of this or even had the opportunity.

I dunno, I just feel like Josh was transported off campus by someone. Either before or just after something happened.
Did Nick have a car btw? And time to use it that night unseen?

so ive thought about this angle and honestly,in my head,it makes 10x more logical sense than the monks. we know josh and nick argued the night before josh vanished. we know from one of the maur house dorm friends that the argument was about katie. then josh goes to a party where he knows nick and katie arent there.

but it eats away at him that his ex and nick might be hooking up. so he leaves the party early to go and confront them. we are led to believe witnesses see josh leave and see him walking towards the bridge (this sentence is just my opinion)

this article: Who Killed Josh Guimond? seems to suggest nick did drive and had a car on the night. (from the above article: ''But from the quote given above, we know Nick drove to Katie’s. He had a vehicle on campus. It is unlikely Josh’s car was used to dispose of his own body since people seemed to think it had not been moved'')

my belief is nick must have owned a car based on that reasoning.the sheriffs said the drive is a 7-10 minute drive,so nick leaving katies at 1-1.30am is even more suspicious because nick would have been home around 1.10-1.40am.

what you said in the last line, i made bold because it has given me an idea. nick driving back to campus. josh walking back to maur house. what happens if nick and josh met up and drove off campus. the argument continues and escalated to the point of no return and nick did something,then drove back to campus and key carded in (again,just my logical thought)

and then when nick says joshs car hadnt moved....well thats because it hadnt....but nicks had.nick had plausable deniability because he had moved his car.....to visit katies. which now begs the question, was nicks car ever searched? did any cctv cameras (off campus) see nicks car? i think the sheriffs were so focused on the damn lakes they forgot to do basic police work and didnt even remove joshs computer from the dorm room. this is just my own personal thoughts but i feel like this scenario is much more likely than monks and would explain nicks timeline being off

if nick did leave at 1am then thats 1 hour 42 minutes unaccounted for. and for anyone who thinks that isnt enough time to murder someone,look at this

(if anyone is extremely sensitive to seeing someone in a choke hold for demonstration dont watch).its approx 10 secs to choke someone unconscious. 1 hour 42 is more than enough to strangle/dispose of a body in the middle of the night (my objective opinion)

 

[Ciriii57]

so ive thought about this angle and honestly,in my head,it makes 10x more logical sense than the monks. we know josh and nick argued the night before josh vanished. we know from one of the maur house dorm friends that the argument was about katie. then josh goes to a party where he knows nick and katie arent there.

but it eats away at him that his ex and nick might be hooking up. so he leaves the party early to go and confront them. we are led to believe witnesses see josh leave and see him walking towards the bridge (this sentence is just my opinion)

this article: Who Killed Josh Guimond? seems to suggest nick did drive and had a car on the night. (from the above article: ''But from the quote given above, we know Nick drove to Katie’s. He had a vehicle on campus. It is unlikely Josh’s car was used to dispose of his own body since people seemed to think it had not been moved'')

my belief is nick must have owned a car based on that reasoning.the sheriffs said the drive is a 7-10 minute drive,so nick leaving katies at 1-1.30am is even more suspicious because nick would have been home around 1.10-1.40am.

what you said in the last line, i made bold because it has given me an idea. nick driving back to campus. josh walking back to maur house. what happens if nick and josh met up and drove off campus. the argument continues and escalated to the point of no return and nick did something,then drove back to campus and key carded in (again,just my logical thought)

and then when nick says joshs car hadnt moved....well thats because it hadnt....but nicks had.nick had plausable deniability because he had moved his car.....to visit katies. which now begs the question, was nicks car ever searched? did any cctv cameras (off campus) see nicks car? i think the sheriffs were so focused on the damn lakes they forgot to do basic police work and didnt even remove joshs computer from the dorm room. this is just my own personal thoughts but i feel like this scenario is much more likely than monks and would explain nicks timeline being off

if nick did leave at 1am then thats 1 hour 42 minutes unaccounted for. and for anyone who thinks that isnt enough time to murder someone,look at this

(if anyone is extremely sensitive to seeing someone in a choke hold for demonstration dont watch).its approx 10 secs to choke someone unconscious. 1 hour 42 is more than enough to strangle/dispose of a body in the middle of the night (my objective opinion)

YES!
Reading this made the hairs stand up on my neck! I find this one of the most believable theories i have read!

If Nick had a car then it doesn't take much to start connecting the dots. He has a possible motive and now he has a means!

I am interested in narrowing down Nick's movements and timeline. Depending on whether he left Katie's at 2.30 or 1-1.30 (Nick may have had a reason to lie about the time to provide himself an alibi and LE noted there was unaccounted for time in his testimony, but didnt follow it up. I get the impression they believed Katie's version of events). And then to know when was the next time Nick was seen after he left Katie's? Was it the next morning?

And of course, he might not even have had to see Josh walking home, he could have gone to his room or wherever he was. We don't know if Nick persuaded Josh to get in the car with him for some errand or something?

And finally, whereabouts could Nick have driven to and back in the time he had available?

Yes, I believe Josh was certainly transported off campus. Either alive or not I don't know.

 

[Ciriii57]

Certain elements of the timeline still really bother me. It's the party specifically. And it's why I'm of the opinion that Josh disappeared from his room as opposed to walking back.

11.52 music starts playing on Josh's computer.
11.55 Josh leaves the party.
11.57 Eric sees Josh walking

How confident can we be about this? I would point out that on the one hand the party goers barely noticed Josh leaving and only 1 remembered him saying he had something to do. So how they can know it was 11.55 as opposed to say 11.45.
Eric who apparently saw Josh at exactly 11.57. This is weirdly specific,in fact suspiciously so. Is it possible this person guessed this time after being told he'd left the party at 11.55?

The 11.52 time that the computer started playing music and someone was skipping songs is to me the only one we can trust as it was recorded by a computer.
It makes so much more sense to me that Josh left the party earlier, say about 11.45 and it was him in his room playing music at 11.52. I think the party goers guessed the approximate time and this has caused problems ever since. Because basically if they'd have said 11.45 everyone would have assumed right from the beginning that it was Josh in his room playing music. It's only really their timeline that refutes this.

I'm aware that Josh wasn't recorded badging back into his room. But the technical guy who looked at his computer seemed pretty nonchalant that this could be an error, I got the impression he thought it was Josh back in the room. Or maybe the door was already open. I have no idea how accurate these things are so that's my only stumbling block with this idea.

Was Josh in his room, waiting for Nick to get back from Katie's, getting angrier and angrier? Possibly. Was someone else involved, also possibly.

 

[Ciriii57]

Oh and also 11.55 to 11.57 ...if this is accurate it seems to have taken Josh 2 minutes to walk only a few metres when he should have been almost back to Maur House. Hmmm...I don't think it can be accurate which raised all sorts of questions.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

Certain elements of the timeline still really bother me. It's the party specifically. And it's why I'm of the opinion that Josh disappeared from his room as opposed to walking back.

11.52 music starts playing on Josh's computer.
11.55 Josh leaves the party.
11.57 Eric sees Josh walking

How confident can we be about this? I would point out that on the one hand the party goers barely noticed Josh leaving and only 1 remembered him saying he had something to do. So how they can know it was 11.55 as opposed to say 11.45.
Eric who apparently saw Josh at exactly 11.57. This is weirdly specific,in fact suspiciously so. Is it possible this person guessed this time after being told he'd left the party at 11.55?

do you have a link to where it says it was eric that saw josh walking? im not sure that was eric. i believe that was a female witness.i havent got the link which says its a female witness,but formerpolice posted it a while back in this thread

also about that 11.57pm sighting, 'A witness - who knows Josh well - describes seeing him walking a path from Metten Court to Maur House, presumably on his way back to his dorm. The trip back would be estimated to take less than 5 minutes on foot. Josh passes behind some old dormitory buildings, which in later years have since been replaced. This is the last known sighting of Joshua Guimond.'
text from Missing: Joshua Guimond | St. Joseph, MN | Uncovered

i find the 11.57 pm time oddly specific too. but if josh was heading to confront nick and katie then it would check out

The 11.52 time that the computer started playing music and someone was skipping songs is to me the only one we can trust as it was recorded by a computer.
It makes so much more sense to me that Josh left the party earlier, say about 11.45 and it was him in his room playing music at 11.52. I think the party goers guessed the approximate time and this has caused problems ever since. Because basically if they'd have said 11.45 everyone would have assumed right from the beginning that it was Josh in his room playing music. It's only really their timeline that refutes this.

this music seems like it could be a vital clue

from simplyvanished: '11:52 p.m., and continued playing and skipping songs until 12:32 a.m.; most likely, this would have required someone to be at the computer pushing buttons throughout that time window. '
was that it? 40 minutes of music and it just stops? does this mean what happened to Josh took place at 12.32 am? i need to factor this into my theory because i agree the timeline is confusing if we consider the music

I'm aware that Josh wasn't recorded badging back into his room. But the technical guy who looked at his computer seemed pretty nonchalant that this could be an error, I got the impression he thought it was Josh back in the room. Or maybe the door was already open. I have no idea how accurate these things are so that's my only stumbling block with this idea.

Was Josh in his room, waiting for Nick to get back from Katie's, getting angrier and angrier? Possibly. Was someone else involved, also possibly.

just made your last sentence bold because thats a very interesting angle. i need to think about this some more.


also i have made a discovery which i didnt know about until recently and connected some dots (BBM)

firstly, nick had told the sheriffs during the interview that he leftat 2:30am different time to katie. katie is person #1 that nick is giving sheriffs different information from

but heres the rub. on the netflix documentary around 27 mins 40 secs, Struffert, the lead investigator says: "during our investigation, one of Josh's room mates told us that he'd heard an argument between Nick and Josh earlier that night before Josh went missing. And the argument involved Katie."

but here 11 mins onwards (click play and it'll play from 11 mins):

the video says that "nick denies that argument occured". this unnamed roommate is now the #2nd person that is giving different information to sheriffs than nick... theres one common denominator here....

i have my doubts that a roommate would conjure up a story about nick and josh arguing about katie.and i have my doubts that katie would give an incorrect time for nick leaving.nick seems to have told the sheriffs two things that dont add up..

nick has to tell the sheriffs that he left katies place at 2.30 am because he knows he clocked back in at around 2.42 am. the more time i spend on this case the more i lean towards katies timeframe

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

One thing I haven't covered too much, but I think we need to re-evaluate is Nick. I've read pretty much every single comment relating to this case on youtube, and the things that keep popping up are:

• Nick/Katie's time discrepancy
• Nick's acceptance to do the polygraph then refusal do to the polygraph claiming he didn't want a false positive
• Nick liked Katie (they both admit it, plus photos of them together almost exclude Josh in every photo)
• Nick and Josh had an argument (about Katie) the same night Josh went missing
• Nick shared the top floor of the dorm with Josh - easy access to his computer - and from what I understand, Nick did indeed have a profile on the computer
• Nick smiling on the bridge as they're looking for Josh in the Netflix documentary just stands out as being very strange (Pic: Nick-Smile hosted at ImgBB)
• Nick claiming Josh's door was shut several times in the Netflix documentary, as if to infer he didn't go into the room
• Nick claiming he was Josh's best friend several times in the Netflix documentary, as if to convince us/himself
• Nick's mannerisms in the Netflix documentary seem off
• Katie wasn't with Josh's mom in the Netflix documentary - but Dana was - I think that speaks volumes
• There was a rumour that Katie left Josh to be with Nick (which might explain the point above)
• Nick/Katie just so happened to be hanging out together on the night Josh goes missing*
• The FBI profile had a line that said "When he is finally apprehended, many will be shocked, asserting that this was the last person they would have suspected of being capable of such a heinous crime." **
• Nick points out (randomly) that Josh's car was in the same place he'd last parked it ***

Forget the monk(s), overdose and orange pontiac theory for a second and lets go back to the very, very basics.

* There's definitely a love-triangle going on here. Josh and Nick had an argument about Katie that night. Katie and Josh were romantically involved for 4 and a half years, so it's understandable why he'd not be comfortable with his best friend dating her. That's a no-go-zone for most people - but not Nick. Then what bothers me is this: the fact that Katie had asked Nick and Josh the very night Josh went missing to go to her place; the one night she'd asked both guys to go to her place - the one who didn't go to her place ends up missing? - and that missing person just so happens to be her ex, and the "best friend" of the guy she has kissed twice. That strikes me as odd.

this is looking more and more like where my mind is add. add the fact that nick has now told the sheriff two pieces of information that are different to #1 katie and #2 roommate.

Nick has approximately 1 hour 43 minutes (103 minutes) of unaccounted time if we believe Katie's 1am story. Then I take into consideration Nick mentions Josh's car - no one asked him about Josh's car, but he mentioned it. So let's work with that.

We know that distance = speed / time. Let's assume "someone" used Josh's car to take him away from university (as Josh's keys were freely available on his desk and Josh's DNA would be in his car, so it wouldn't matter too much if police did check his car and found his DNA). Let's say they travelled 40 minutes each way, and were travelling at 40 mph - that's a 26 mile radius. And that journey could be done with 23 minutes to spare... and you could keycard back by 2:43am. The radius would look like this:

View attachment 458213

just a few posts above we have found that nick drove from katies.so nick had the ability to use his own car in the night without touching joshs car. i think if we shrink the radius to account for the 'as the crow flies' aspect ratio,josh will likely be within it

 

[Ciriii57]

do you have a link to where it says it was eric that saw josh walking? im not sure that was eric.

No, you're right. Please excuse the mistake! It was Eric who recollected why he left the party. I don't know if the person who saw him at 11.57 was ever revealed except they were someone who knew him well.

I find the 11.57 pm time oddly specific too. but if josh was heading to confront nick and katie then it would check out

It would check out. But I find it too specific. I've rarely heard such a specific time, as opposed to "about midnight". I'd really like to now how this person was able to be so specific. Of course, they may have just happened to check the clock after seeing him pass by...hell of a coincidence.

also i have made a discovery which i didnt know about until recently and connected some dots (BBM)

That's some amazing sleuthing! So basically either 2 people lied about Nick, or Nick lied. So Nick...why would you be lying about significant events and times. Even if Nick is innocent of any wrongdoing, it suggests that he has some knowledge of something that he was hiding.

music seems like it could be a vital clue

from simplyvanished: '11:52 p.m., and continued playing and skipping songs until 12:32 a.m.; most likely, this would have required someone to be at the computer pushing buttons throughout that time window. '
was that it? 40 minutes of music and it just stops? does this mean what happened to Josh took place at 12.32 am? i need to factor this into my theory because i agree the timeline is confusing if we consider the music

I honestly believe it's crucial. I really do believe this places Josh in his room from 11.52 to at leaast 12.32. Flicking through songs for some reason. I'm convinced that we can trust the time log on the computer and that the people at the party just estimated. I don't think it was on purpose, but I think unknowingly they confused things. I don't believe they could be accurate about timing and yet also not really remember him leaving. Those two things exclude eachother. "Oh I don't really remember him leaving but it was definitely at 11.55" hmmmm

12.32 is when the music stopped. I suppose that doesn't mean that something happened to Josh then. He may have just stopped listening and watched TV, read a book or gone to sleep instead?

If we believe Katie then Nick leaves hers sometime between 1 and 1.30. His next confirmed location is 2.42 when he keys back into is room. That means Nick has at least 1 hour and 40 mins to do something. At this point I'd really like to hear from a local who can tell me: if you left campus with intent to commit a crime or hide a body, taking into account the drive to the location and back again, where is your most likely destination?
Has LE ever conducted any searches of areas off campus? I reckon Josh will be found somewhere within about a 30 min drive, off campus. But I'd need to hear local knowledge as to where it woukd be most possible to access.

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

It would check out. But I find it too specific. I've rarely heard such a specific time, as opposed to "about midnight". I'd really like to now how this person was able to be so specific. Of course, they may have just happened to check the clock after seeing him pass by...hell of a coincidence.

i agree on all counts

That's some amazing sleuthing! So basically either 2 people lied about Nick, or Nick lied. So Nick...why would you be lying about significant events and times. Even if Nick is innocent of any wrongdoing, it suggests that he has some knowledge of something that he was hiding.

well this is where things start to go south for me. the common denominator continues to be nick

I honestly believe it's crucial. I really do believe this places Josh in his room from 11.52 to at leaast 12.32. Flicking through songs for some reason. I'm convinced that we can trust the time log on the computer and that the people at the party just estimated. I don't think it was on purpose, but I think unknowingly they confused things. I don't believe they could be accurate about timing and yet also not really remember him leaving. Those two things exclude eachother. "Oh I don't really remember him leaving but it was definitely at 11.55" hmmmm

12.32 is when the music stopped. I suppose that doesn't mean that something happened to Josh then. He may have just stopped listening and watched TV, read a book or gone to sleep instead?

If we believe Katie then Nick leaves hers sometime between 1 and 1.30. His next confirmed location is 2.42 when he keys back into is room. That means Nick has at least 1 hour and 40 mins to do something. At this point I'd really like to hear from a local who can tell me: if you left campus with intent to commit a crime or hide a body, taking into account the drive to the location and back again, where is your most likely destination?
Has LE ever conducted any searches of areas off campus? I reckon Josh will be found somewhere within about a 30 min drive, off campus. But I'd need to hear local knowledge as to where it woukd be most possible to access.

i will need to go back to the podcast and re-listen and see who the tech guy was who looked at joshs computer but my question would be, is there more inforrmation he has got? is the podcast coming back? (i recall it was a different person who did the podcast. the tech guy was not the podcast guy). it seems like the tech guy did a better job than just about anyone else over the past decade or two

i agree the music seems crucial and the times do too. so we have 4 sets of times here

11.45 pm - josh reportedly left poker party and returns to maur house (estimated based on various sources)
11.52 - 12.32 - music playing on joshs computer (times from simply vanished podcast)
1 - 1 30am nick leaving katie (katies times from netflix doc)
2.42 am nick keys back into room (nicks time from netflix doc)

when you said you got goosebumps reading my comments,thats how i feel now reading yours. but theres one issue, if josh made it back to maur house, how did he get back into his room without using his card to swipe in?

 

[Ciriii57]

when you said you got goosebumps reading my comments,thats how i feel now reading yours. but theres one issue, if josh made it back to maur house, how did he get back into his room without using his card to swipe in?

That is the downfall of the whole theory and I don't know enough about the key card system to be accurate. My university also had key cards, and it was also 2002 so maybe similar technology. Quite often we propped the doors open so people could come and go or go out for a cigarette without needing the key card etc Earlier in the day Josh had gone outside to smoke a celebratory cigar...does that mean the on campus residences were non-smoking? Might the door have sometimes been propped open? And of course, if someone else was entering or leaving at the same time your card wouldn't be recorded anyway as you didn't need to use it.
The tech guy said it could have been an error as well.

Now the tech guy; if I recall he was just a local guy with a huge interest in Josh’s case who taught himself what to do. I think he reached out to Josh’s Dad and offerrred his services. Does that sound about right?
Honestly I think he did an amazing job, hats off to him!

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

That is the downfall of the whole theory and I don't know enough about the key card system to be accurate. My university also had key cards, and it was also 2002 so maybe similar technology. Quite often we propped the doors open so people could come and go or go out for a cigarette without needing the key card etc Earlier in the day Josh had gone outside to smoke a celebratory cigar...does that mean the on campus residences were non-smoking? Might the door have sometimes been propped open? And of course, if someone else was entering or leaving at the same time your card wouldn't be recorded anyway as you didn't need to use it.
The tech guy said it could have been an error as well.

Now the tech guy; if I recall he was just a local guy with a huge interest in Josh’s case who taught himself what to do. I think he reached out to Josh’s Dad and offerrred his services. Does that sound about right?
Honestly I think he did an amazing job, hats off to him!

the question i have is: was joshs keycard in his wallet? the wallet along with joshs keys,glasses and empty contact lens case was found in his room. also his tv was left on.we know josh returned to the room at 11.06 pm which proves josh was in possession of his keycard. josh left the dorm again and headed to the poker party and left at approx 11.45 pm.

if the keycard was in joshs wallet that implies 1 of 2 things....1) josh made it back into the dorm or 2) someone placed joshs keycard in the room

and yes that sounds familiar! kudos to him for such a great job and anyone else who helps along the way

 

[Squeelz]

Certain elements of the timeline still really bother me. It's the party specifically. And it's why I'm of the opinion that Josh disappeared from his room as opposed to walking back.

11.52 music starts playing on Josh's computer.
11.55 Josh leaves the party.
11.57 Eric sees Josh walking

How confident can we be about this? I would point out that on the one hand the party goers barely noticed Josh leaving and only 1 remembered him saying he had something to do. So how they can know it was 11.55 as opposed to say 11.45.
Eric who apparently saw Josh at exactly 11.57. This is weirdly specific,in fact suspiciously so. Is it possible this person guessed this time after being told he'd left the party at 11.55?

The 11.52 time that the computer started playing music and someone was skipping songs is to me the only one we can trust as it was recorded by a computer.
It makes so much more sense to me that Josh left the party earlier, say about 11.45 and it was him in his room playing music at 11.52. I think the party goers guessed the approximate time and this has caused problems ever since. Because basically if they'd have said 11.45 everyone would have assumed right from the beginning that it was Josh in his room playing music. It's only really their timeline that refutes this.

I'm aware that Josh wasn't recorded badging back into his room. But the technical guy who looked at his computer seemed pretty nonchalant that this could be an error, I got the impression he thought it was Josh back in the room. Or maybe the door was already open. I have no idea how accurate these things are so that's my only stumbling block with this idea.

Was Josh in his room, waiting for Nick to get back from Katie's, getting angrier and angrier? Possibly. Was someone else involved, also possibly.

Can you tell me where to read about Eric seeing Josh at 11:57? I don’t recall seeing that and want to read about it if possible.

Another thing to consider - we don’t know why Josh and Katie broke up in the first place, something about pics gives me the impression that he just wasn’t that into her anymore. I know that’s super far fetched, but the pics of them from high school vs college just hit different for some reason. Anyone else get that vibe? If so, it doesn’t mean Josh couldn’t still be upset by Nick’s attraction to Katie. Katie and Josh supposedly still chatted regularly, even that day, so - maybe Josh was just annoyed that Nick was going over there, maybe he wanted some space from her. I’d be really interested to know that true dynamic.

 

[Ciriii57]

the question i have is: was joshs keycard in his wallet? the wallet along with joshs keys,glasses and empty contact lens case was found in his room. also his tv was left on.we know josh returned to the room at 11.06 pm which proves josh was in possession of his keycard. josh left the dorm again and headed to the poker party and left at approx 11.45 pm.

if the keycard was in joshs wallet that implies 1 of 2 things....1) josh made it back into the dorm or 2) someone placed joshs keycard in the room

and yes that sounds familiar! kudos to him for such a great job and anyone else who helps along the way

Hey, Can you let me know if you know the below info?
Was the keycard
1) used only to access the main entrance to Maur House and then individual dorms and rooms still had keys (this is how my own worked) or
2) was the key card used to gain access to all internal rooms also?

If 2, then he likely kept it in his wallet, and as you said above, was it still in there?
If 1, then it is much more likely it was attached to his keyring with his other keys. (Mine had a hole in one corner and slid on the keyring) as it makes sense you'd need them both at the same time)
Which brings me to the next question: were the keys just his car keys, or were they a bunch of other keys too?
If the keycard and (potential room keys) were in his room, then it likely means he also made it back to his room? But surely, surely LE and others would have also come to this conclusion at the time if that was the case?

We know Josh was wearing contact lenses that night, as the lens case was empty. So leaving his glasses makes perfect sense.
I don't know whether Josh was a habitual wallet carrier, or whether he just stuffed money in his pockets, but I was always interested in the fact that he didn't take his wallet to a poker evening.

The wallet and keys being found in his room could suggest that he did make it back to his room. But without knowing the details of the keys/wallets contents it's not conclusive enough to say either way if he had them when he left.

The TV being left on might suggest that he turned off the music at 12.32 and watched TV instead until whatever happened. It would seem strange to me to have the TV and music playing at the same time and therefore I am not convinced that the TV was left on since he left for the party and remained on while someone was listening to music and then all night. I think more likely it was turned off after someone (Josh) had stopped listening to music.

 

[Bit of hope]

Wow that's crazy!

A love triangle over Katie does make some sense of the circumstances I agree, and I can see Josh confronting Nick about it.
But I do struggle to make the connection between arguing over someone and then murdering them and then disposing of their body and all evidence that anything happened. I can't seem to imagine Nick, at that young age, was capable of this or even had the opportunity.

I dunno, I just feel like Josh was transported off campus by someone. Either before or just after something happened.
Did Nick have a car btw? And time to use it that night unseen?

Yes, Nick had a car and drove with it to Katie's dorm and back.

 

[Bit of hope]

Can you tell me where to read about Eric seeing Josh at 11:57? I don’t recall seeing that and want to read about it if possible.

Another thing to consider - we don’t know why Josh and Katie broke up in the first place, something about pics gives me the impression that he just wasn’t that into her anymore. I know that’s super far fetched, but the pics of them from high school vs college just hit different for some reason. Anyone else get that vibe? If so, it doesn’t mean Josh couldn’t still be upset by Nick’s attraction to Katie. Katie and Josh supposedly still chatted regularly, even that day, so - maybe Josh was just annoyed that Nick was going over there, maybe he wanted some space from her. I’d be really interested to know that true dynamic.

IIRR Katie was the initiator and wanted to explore the world more, or the like. To me that sounds totally logical. Being that young and into a long relationship from youth on. My mother always said: there are more fishes in the sea There is also somewhere in here that the break up was with mutual consent. Could be.

 

[Ciriii57]

Can you tell me where to read about Eric seeing Josh at 11:57? I don’t recall seeing that and want to read about it if possible.

I'm really sorry, this was a mistake about Eric. I don't know half as much of the minutiae about this case as many of you, and am still catching up, so please excuse any mistakes and feel free to correct me.


Just wanted to say as well; I really don't think we should forget and dismiss the fact that there were a series of attempted abductions and, in one case, sexual assault, on students and young men walking alone at night in the area at this time by a group of men. Added to the fact that Josh was talking to strangers online and LE have speculated Josh was exploring his sexuality, I think this is important to take into account. Despite discrepancies in Nick’s version of events which is very suspicious, surely we must consider these attempted abductions etc as being a very likely explanation?

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

Hey, Can you let me know if you know the below info?
Was the keycard
1) used only to access the main entrance to Maur House and then individual dorms and rooms still had keys (this is how my own worked) or
2) was the key card used to gain access to all internal rooms also?

unfortunately i dont know enough about the keycard systems aside from the fact that when you keycard into a room,it stores the time you keycarded in,and thats how the sheriffs know josh (or someone with his keycard) keyed back in at 11.06 pm. it was most likely to be josh though because after this he went to the poker party

i have spent several years at colleges and universities and the swipe card would usually work on the entrance door and once you are through you no longer require the keycard to get into internal rooms.it sounds like maur house was the same from the very limited info i have read online

If 2, then he likely kept it in his wallet, and as you said above, was it still in there?
If 1, then it is much more likely it was attached to his keyring with his other keys. (Mine had a hole in one corner and slid on the keyring) as it makes sense you'd need them both at the same time)
Which brings me to the next question: were the keys just his car keys, or were they a bunch of other keys too?
If the keycard and (potential room keys) were in his room, then it likely means he also made it back to his room? But surely, surely LE and others would have also come to this conclusion at the time if that was the case?

from what i read online,multiple sources say the keys / carkeys so this leads me to believe it was all attached to one keyring

We know Josh was wearing contact lenses that night, as the lens case was empty. So leaving his glasses makes perfect sense.
I don't know whether Josh was a habitual wallet carrier, or whether he just stuffed money in his pockets, but I was always interested in the fact that he didn't take his wallet to a poker evening.

i think this is a big misconception by the sheriffs.i actually asked 3 different people i know who wear glasses and contact lens and they said its not unusual for them to have an empty contact lens box if they have ran out of contact lenses....and also all 3 of the people i asked said the following which i found interesitng

'i would wear contact lens when i am in public when i dont know people or in a work or college environment. if i am in a place where i am with friends ill feel more confident to wear glasses'. of course this is anecdotal evidence and may or may not apply here,but i think the main point is that just because the contact lens box is empty doesnt mean he was wearing them

which feeds into my previous point.if josh took his wallet,glasses and even keys (or any combination of the above),did someone place them back in his room after they did harm to josh?

The wallet and keys being found in his room could suggest that he did make it back to his room. But without knowing the details of the keys/wallets contents it's not conclusive enough to say either way if he had them when he left.

thats another unfortunate thing! there is no information about these small details and these small details would help a lot

The TV being left on might suggest that he turned off the music at 12.32 and watched TV instead until whatever happened. It would seem strange to me to have the TV and music playing at the same time and therefore I am not convinced that the TV was left on since he left for the party and remained on while someone was listening to music and then all night. I think more likely it was turned off after someone (Josh) had stopped listening to music.

you make a good point and i am definitely drawing a conclusion as to what has happened... in fact....i think i have a pretty damn good idea what has happened. i just need to make sense of all the times because some of them are difficult to work with. like why josh went back at 11.06 pm. you'd think his friends would explain that but they never do. the silence from alex and greg is deafening

as far as the tv. again ive spent several years in colleges and universities and never known any student to leave tvs on whilst they are out. the tech guy who works on joshs computer seemed to think that someone was pressing buttons o n the comptuer playing music... so this means that we can hypothosise that someone was in joshs room by the music alone. the fact his wallet and keys (and maybe glasses) were there hints to the idea of josh either 1) making it home and something happened in the minnutes/hours after the music stopped or 2) someone was trying to throw the sheriffs off the case and distort the scene of the crime