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

[puzzleworldplanet]

Ok. So now I'm feeling confident my theory is rock solid, I'm going to look at mainstream/popular theories and try to cross them off the list if I can.

1) Lake theory - total nonsense in my opinion. See attached images. Look at the thickness of the wall. You'd struggle to stumble over it if you were trying to. Even by some freak miracle you did, you'd land either on top of it, or in the bushes on the other side. This just isn't a viable thing in my humble opinion. Besides that, the lakes were dragged. I feel safe ruling this out.
2) A random person, not affiliated with the campus coming from the motorway/interstate - so unlikely that it's at the bottom of my list. They wouldn't know what time Josh was coming out of the party, wouldn't necessarily know if there's cameras pointing at them. It's not a theory I think works very well.
3) Monk involvement - Not impossible, but for the most part, the monks tended to groom young adults, not necessarily kidnap/kill them. I feel safe to cross this one off, but not ruling it out 100%.
4) Random hook up theory - no. No evidence ever really suggested this, and besides, how many random hookups end up in murder - not saying it's impossible, but this is so far down my list I think it's almost ridiculous

Which brings me back to the theory I proposed in the posts above. It's the only one that makes sense of the times Josh left the party, the lack of body being found in the water, the key card times, the time discrepancies, the wallet etc.

 

[ELOCsoul]

Ok. So now I'm feeling confident my theory is rock solid, I'm going to look at mainstream/popular theories and try to cross them off the list if I can.

1) Lake theory - total nonsense in my opinion. See attached images. Look at the thickness of the wall. You'd struggle to stumble over it if you were trying to. Even by some freak miracle you did, you'd land either on top of it, or in the bushes on the other side. This just isn't a viable thing in my humble opinion. Besides that, the lakes were dragged. I feel safe ruling this out.
2) A random person, not affiliated with the campus coming from the motorway/interstate - so unlikely that it's at the bottom of my list. They wouldn't know what time Josh was coming out of the party, wouldn't necessarily know if there's cameras pointing at them. It's not a theory I think works very well.
3) Monk involvement - Not impossible, but for the most part, the monks tended to groom young adults, not necessarily kidnap/kill them. I feel safe to cross this one off, but not ruling it out 100%.
4) Random hook up theory - no. No evidence ever really suggested this, and besides, how many random hookups end up in murder - not saying it's impossible, but this is so far down my list I think it's almost ridiculous

Which brings me back to the theory I proposed in the posts above. It's the only one that makes sense of the times Josh left the party, the lack of body being found in the water, the key card times, the time discrepancies, the wallet etc.

How certain is it that Josh’s friend was accurate in say Josh had taken his wallet to the party? My understanding is the wallet was found at Josh’s apartment, but are we absolutely certain of that either?

Again it seems to me that if both aspects are correct that would have been a huge red flag indicating foul play. Law enforcement stuck with the drowning theory for a long time.

How do we explain the opposing forces at work here?

 

[puzzleworldplanet]

How certain is it that Josh’s friend was accurate in say Josh had taken his wallet to the party? My understanding is the wallet was found at Josh’s apartment, but are we absolutely certain of that either?

I can only take the two pieces of information as factual - Josh's friend said one thing and the sheriffs said another. It is only when you read them side by side that it stands out

Again it seems to me that if both aspects are correct that would have been a huge red flag indicating foul play. Law enforcement stuck with the drowning theory for a long time.

How do we explain the opposing forces at work here?

Stearns county are a small force and dont exactly have the best track record as you'll know better than anyone RE: Wetterling case. In their defence, this is/was a complex case with so many possible angles and theories but the one I propose is the only one that makes sense of everything including the argument, why Josh left the party early, why no body was recovered from the lakes, the roommates time discrepancy, kate not knowing until the next day, the wallet etc etc for me, its the only theory that allows for all the other events to have taken place. All other theories fall down or have been debunked, including the door wedge theory I debunked a few posts ago.

Question is, how can we move forward? This has to get solved. Something has to give.

 

[ELOCsoul]

I can only take the two pieces of information as factual - Josh's friend said one thing and the sheriffs said another. It is only when you read them side by side that it stands out


Stearns county are a small force and dont exactly have the best track record as you'll know better than anyone RE: Wetterling case.

Well you got me there, lol.

However, I would say the malfeasance with that case lies more on the office of the District Attorney than it does on the Sheriff’s department investigation. Law enforcement had Heinrich for the Paynesville incidents and Jared’s kidnapping months and years before Jacob was taken. As a former BCA agent once told me with regard to DA Roger Van Heel… “you can’t lose a case you don’t try.”

 

[infohuntah]

from an old thread:

"His computer showed that he signed off at 11:29 pm. This proves he went missing from his apartment and NOT walking home."

and

"Josh’s thesis was missing from his computer. He was working on a paper regarding the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The family stated that Josh was upset about two priests accused of sex abuse being transferred to the church in the Bahamas. He felt they should have been prosecuted by the law instead of SJSU handling the situation themselves. The thesis was saved on St John’s computer server which can be accessed by anyone in the IT department at the school. SOMEONE DIDN’T WANT JOSH’S THESIS PAPER ABOUT PRIEST SEX ABUSE TO BECOME PUBLIC. Police failed to interview the head of the tech server."

link to original statements: MN - MN - Joshua Guimond, 20, Collegeville, 9 Nov 2002

surely if Josh left at 11:29pm that means a 5 minute walk to Metten Ct, Josh got to Metten Ct around 11:34pm,so he didn't go missing from his apartment?

Who were the two priests Josh was upset about?

Is there any truth to Josh saving the thesis on St John's computer servers?

 

[ThePhantom]

How certain is it that Josh’s friend was accurate in say Josh had taken his wallet to the party? My understanding is the wallet was found at Josh’s apartment, but are we absolutely certain of that either?

Again it seems to me that if both aspects are correct that would have been a huge red flag indicating foul play. Law enforcement stuck with the drowning theory for a long time.

How do we explain the opposing forces at work here?

Hello ELOCsoul, I'm going to assume you listened to the (relatively) recent podcast about Josh's case? Please forgive me, I don't have the energy at the moment to go back through all the previous threads to see if you discussed it. I heard info in that podcast that I had never heard before. Would love to know your take on it.

 

[infohuntah]

Hello ELOCsoul, I'm going to assume you listened to the (relatively) recent podcast about Josh's case? Please forgive me, I don't have the energy at the moment to go back through all the previous threads to see if you discussed it. I heard info in that podcast that I had never heard before. Would love to know your take on it.

I know your question wasn't for me but are you talking about the simplyvanished podcast? if you are then I think it was good publicity. I don't know when the last episode aired but I was looking forward to seeing updates but last time I looked at the site (2-3 months ago) it looked like it had been abandoned or at least not regularly updated. I joined up to the forums over there and several members were asking for updates in December 2023 but nothing ever came of it unfortunately.

 

[ELOCsoul]

Hello ELOCsoul, I'm going to assume you listened to the (relatively) recent podcast about Josh's case? Please forgive me, I don't have the energy at the moment to go back through all the previous threads to see if you discussed it. I heard info in that podcast that I had never heard before. Would love to know your take on it.

Yes! I have been keeping up with the podcast and have been in touch with them. They are doing a great job finding and revealing new information about Josh’s disappearance. I had forgotten that the local papers had published information about Josh participating in online chats, etc. Another poster noted that one of Josh’s friends stated back in the day that Josh had his wallet. I’m skeptical because that’s obviously contradictory to what had been reported otherwise, and if his wallet was indeed found at Josh’s apartment AND Josh took it with him to the party—well that’s a game changer and if true would have been a huge red flag suggesting foul play. It didn’t, so I’m skeptical.

 

[infohuntah]

Yes! I have been keeping up with the podcast and have been in touch with them. They are doing a great job finding and revealing new information about Josh’s disappearance. I had forgotten that the local papers had published information about Josh participating in online chats, etc. Another poster noted that one of Josh’s friends stated back in the day that Josh had his wallet. I’m skeptical because that’s obviously contradictory to what had been reported otherwise, and if his wallet was indeed found at Josh’s apartment AND Josh took it with him to the party—well that’s a game changer and if true would have been a huge red flag suggesting foul play. It didn’t, so I’m skeptical.

You'd think that the sheriffs would be able to interview the friends to confirm this sort of information. From memory of the podcast, didn't it take something like 10 days before friends were interviewed? And something like 7-8 years before people from the poker party were interviewed?

 

[Fabled Automatic]

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.

Your theory is compelling, but what is to be made of the fact that Josh was using singles chats to talk with strangers, potentially for hookups?

I mean, if Josh was partaking in behavior he didn't want others to know about, it could completely explain his exit from the party.

You said yourself the most likely scenario is that he suddenly had somewhere else to be, but that he wouldn't have agreed to go to the party if he had doubled booked himself. What if he had plans to meet with a man he'd met online and, not wanting anyone else to know about it, never told anyone? This could explain why he left suddenly and said he "needed to leave". It would also explain why he went to the party, he didn't want others to know he had plans to meet someone.

Just because it seems unlikely he would have met someone for a date at midnight doesn't rule it out. Josh obviously had somewhat of a secret life, and something he may have wanted to keep a secret.

As a side note, it could be the case that Nick deleted files from Josh's computer before LE got ahold of it so as to spare Josh/his family some embarrassment.

 

[Same Old Stella]

I'm in the middle of learning more about this case but one thing that keeps bothering me is these men in cars, preying on students at St. John's University back then in the middle of the night. And it's not just one group but at least two; the 4 student age guys and another car with 2 men in their late 30's or early 40's. Have any of these guys ever been caught or identified? At first, I thought it might be some fraternity prank but now I'm dismissing that altogether.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

Just started looking into the well-known JG MP case, and started things off by finally seeing the UM Netflix episode, What happened to Josh? (2022). Compelling episode & sad case. I have not done a deep-dive on the case yet, though I've read up on this somewhat re: these threads & online. Some thoughts/observations/comments:

I find it odd that his wallet/keys/etc. were found in his dorm room. Typically, the first thing most people will do when they leave their residence to go anywhere is take these things with them - unless they're just walking outside to take out the trash and/or get the mail, etc. Yes, I know that he left them behind when he went to the poker game.

Based on what I've read so far, it hasn't been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did definitively go back to his dorm room after the poker game & before he vanished for good. I.e., it appears he did re: the door being opened with his key card?! However, without CCTV camera footage (I don't think there was any), I don't know how this can be proven - since someone else could have used his card.

I'm not going over new ground here, but just have two possible theories. However, I don't have any strong ideas/opinions regarding either one.

1) The most popular seems to be that, due to his very probable intoxication that night - he somehow ended up in one of the bodies of water on campus & drowned/froze to death. However, if that's what occurred - why was his body never found?! I could see it temporarily being under the water/ice in the winter (when he vanished) & hard to locate because of this. But, as was said on the UM episode, if this did happen you would think he would have turned up the following Spring - when the ice thawed/melted.

2) Foul play. It's possible it was connected to something on his computer/his computer usage. Or, maybe not.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

To add to my last post, some more thoughts/opinions/musings. Note this is all IMHO only:

-In the UM episode, it was mentioned by several people that it was unusual that JG left the poker party (the last night he was seen) without telling anyone that he was leaving and/or where he was going. Well, I don't agree that this was unusual/strange. I.e., when I was in school back in the day it was not at all odd/strange for someone attending a late-night party to just leave & not say anything: Maybe they were drunk & were going home to sleep it off; maybe they were tired; maybe they had plans & didn't want to take the time to say goodbye to others; maybe they didn't think it was important to say anything; maybe they were hooking up; etc.

In this case, it's also possible that JG did mention that he was leaving to someone and the other party-goer(s) were too intoxicated/tired to notice much; etc. In any case, I feel this is a non-issue & that more attention was paid to this than was necessary. Going along with this, in general I remember college students being less formal & more casual (in social situations like this) than older adults.

-Re: the couple who allegedly saw JG walking past them on the bridge late that night - was it proven definitively that they actually saw him & not someone else?

-I don't find it at all odd or suspicious that JG's room-mate did not want to take a lie detector test. These tests are notoriously unreliable & are inadmissible in court. So, whether innocent or guilty, I can see why many people wouldn't want to take one of these tests.

 

[infohuntah]

Your theory is compelling, but what is to be made of the fact that Josh was using singles chats to talk with strangers, potentially for hookups?

but where is the evidence Josh talked to singles online? have any of the conversations came to light? the sheriffs didn't specifically mention any of these conversations. Surely they would look at each conversation and be able to figure out who Josh was talking to if this theory holds any weight? (I'm playing devils advocate. I have no idea)

To add to my last post, some more thoughts/opinions/musings. Note this is all IMHO only:

-In the UM episode, it was mentioned by several people that it was unusual that JG left the poker party (the last night he was seen) without telling anyone that he was leaving and/or where he was going. Well, I don't agree that this was unusual/strange. I.e., when I was in school back in the day it was not at all odd/strange for someone attending a late-night party to just leave & not say anything: Maybe they were drunk & were going home to sleep it off; maybe they were tired; maybe they had plans & didn't want to take the time to say goodbye to others; maybe they didn't think it was important to say anything; maybe they were hooking up; etc.

In this case, it's also possible that JG did mention that he was leaving to someone and the other party-goer(s) were too intoxicated/tired to notice much; etc. In any case, I feel this is a non-issue & that more attention was paid to this than was necessary. Going along with this, in general I remember college students being less formal & more casual (in social situations like this) than older adults.

I respectfully disagree, I don't feel like it's a non-issue, after all, he ended up going missing by doing the polar opposite to what he usually did. Everyone who knew Josh (friends + family) said that he always let people know where he was going. The one time he didn't, he goes missing? It doesn't add up.

I do hear your point and it's fair, but everyone is different and Josh's personality was to tell people where he went, so I do feel a bit suspicious about it.

-Re: the couple who allegedly saw JG walking past them on the bridge late that night - was it proven definitively that they actually saw him & not someone else?

I don't think it was proven...more "assumed" according to the UM episode

-I don't find it at all odd or suspicious that JG's room-mate did not want to take a lie detector test. These tests are notoriously unreliable & are inadmissible in court. So, whether innocent or guilty, I can see why many people wouldn't want to take one of these tests.

I find it suspicious. He agreed to do a lie detector test. Then went off and sought legal advice from those in the know....then came back and refused to do the test citing it could produce a false positive.

Despite a lie detector being unreliable, which I don't think anyone would disagree with, the fact he agreed, then immediately went and asked for advice... that does set some alarm bells off (at least for me). Personally, if I was innocent and had nothing to do with it, even if it meant risking a false positive, I'd take the test no matter what because I don't want to be seen as doing anything to hurt / steer the investigation.

But either way, you're right, there would be more evidence needed to convict anyone of anything.

 

[Sonny Crockett]

I find it suspicious. He agreed to do a lie detector test. Then went off and sought legal advice from those in the know....then came back and refused to do the test citing it could produce a false positive.

Despite a lie detector being unreliable, which I don't think anyone would disagree with, the fact he agreed, then immediately went and asked for advice... that does set some alarm bells off (at least for me). Personally, if I was innocent and had nothing to do with it, even if it meant risking a false positive, I'd take the test no matter what because I don't want to be seen as doing anything to hurt / steer the investigation.

But either way, you're right, there would be more evidence needed to convict anyone of anything.

Hard disagree here. Not agreeing to do a lie detector test wasn't suspicious - it was smart. He probably thought it over (after initially agreeing) and realized it wasn't a good idea. Again, even if he was 100% innocent of any wrong-doing, scoring a false positive on the test would not look good for him. This could almost certainly result in legal issues; issues with future job opportunities; etc.

I have no idea why anyone would think that these tests are accurate & definitive in measuring guilt or innocence. Ridiculous.

Lie detectors: Why they don't work, and why police use them anyway

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

 

[cenazoic]

Keep in mind that Nick was pre-law, so he was probably more acutely aware of the problems associated with lie detectors. ( He’s currently the county attorney for Washington County, MN.)

I don’t understand the logic that both acknowledges lie detectors as legally inadmissible junk science and yet also demands a performative taking of one, because otherwise it ‘seems suspicious’.

In any case, an argument could be made that agreeing to be interviewed by Netflix is evidence of ‘nothing to hide’, without the potential legal, social, and professional ramifications of a failed or inconclusive (and meaningless) lie detector test.

 

[infohuntah]

Hard disagree here. Not agreeing to do a lie detector test wasn't suspicious - it was smart. He probably thought it over (after initially agreeing) and realized it wasn't a good idea. Again, even if he was 100% innocent of any wrong-doing, scoring a false positive on the test would not look good for him. This could almost certainly result in legal issues; issues with future job opportunities; etc.

I have no idea why anyone would think that these tests are accurate & definitive in measuring guilt or innocence. Ridiculous.

Lie detectors: Why they don't work, and why police use them anyway

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

We can agree to disagree, that's fine.

Based on what I've read so far, it hasn't been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did definitively go back to his dorm room after the poker game & before he vanished for good. I.e., it appears he did re: the door being opened with his key card?! However, without CCTV camera footage (I don't think there was any), I don't know how this can be proven - since someone else could have used his card.

Think you've misread or misunderstood what happened here. Josh did not card back to his dorm after the poker game. He carded back to his dorm prior to the poker game.

 

[infohuntah]

Keep in mind that Nick was pre-law, so he was probably more acutely aware of the problems associated with lie detectors. ( He’s currently the county attorney for Washington County, MN.)

I don’t understand the logic that both acknowledges lie detectors as legally inadmissible junk science and yet also demands a performative taking of one, because otherwise it ‘seems suspicious’.

In any case, an argument could be made that agreeing to be interviewed by Netflix is evidence of ‘nothing to hide’, without the potential legal, social, and professional ramifications of a failed or inconclusive (and meaningless) lie detector test.

I get that. But you could argue Netflix did nothing to help his story.

As Sonny said, we are covering old ground. Are there any new developments? Any new statements from sheriff dept? Any updates on the Simply Vanished podcast?