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

I believe there was a large size pair of high heels with the clothing as well, found on a woman’s property nearby. I think I found this info in the Simply Vanished podcast transcript but will find the link to it. I’m an observer of this thread and finally decided to post today after creating an account a couple days ago. This is the only group of people I’ve found who sounds like they’re willing to actually look at all possibilities and isn’t stuck on one or two concepts. I am nearly finished reading the 39 pages of posts from this group. I have researched whatever possible online and recently been having conversations with a relative. I reached out to a friend who is a licensed private investigator - he is getting caught up on reading about the case and plans to help as well. My main goal in researching this case is to bring justice to Josh’s family. I am from MN and lived in the St Cloud area at the time of his disappearance (college, we are about the same age). Thanks for letting me participate in your discussion!
Hi there and welcome! :)
I really look forward to hearing your input, both as a local and someone with an interest. I can't wait to hear what your PI friend thinks too, do let us know.

I also like that all possibilities get discussed here, I think it's so important not to get tunnelvision with 1 theory. I won't pretend I have read everything about Josh's case like others here, but my own personal belief is that the priests were not involved in this (for a few reasons) ....yet everytime a new fact is posted about them, like the one you just posted above about Wollmering, it does seem more damning towards them I admit.

Looking forward to your posts and any new perspectives!
 
I believe there was a large size pair of high heels with the clothing as well, found on a woman’s property nearby. I think I found this info in the Simply Vanished podcast transcript but will find the link to it. I’m an observer of this thread and finally decided to post today after creating an account a couple days ago. This is the only group of people I’ve found who sounds like they’re willing to actually look at all possibilities and isn’t stuck on one or two concepts. I am nearly finished reading the 39 pages of posts from this group. I have researched whatever possible online and recently been having conversations with a relative. I reached out to a friend who is a licensed private investigator - he is getting caught up on reading about the case and plans to help as well. My main goal in researching this case is to bring justice to Josh’s family. I am from MN and lived in the St Cloud area at the time of his disappearance (college, we are about the same age). Thanks for letting me participate in your discussion!
Hi and welcome. I'm very interested in your thoughts. I don't like it that people push a theory upon me either. After all this time, I still didn't make up my mind what happened to Josh. I really would love to know what was on Wolmering's computer.
 
i am feeling positiv we have a small group to keep on this case. let 2024 be the year we solve it

In addition, which I know has been mentioned in previous posts - Wollmering left campus for a few days following Josh’s disappearance, and I believe in the 270 plus page court documents (regarding Wollmering/abuse/removal from previous positions) it stated he was staying at OSB’s Swenson Lake cabin in the Bemidji area. Then when he comes back to campus after treatment in Ontario - he is put in charge of the cemetery and forestry?? Just so mind blowing.

i like where you are going witht this. and i think we should start giving links and page numbers to sources of this information because there is so much out there its hard to keep track and find this info again

because you have set off alarm bells in my head. i recall a witness saying a grave was being dug around the time of the disappearance. if you can find out what page numbers it mentions 1) cemetery and forestry and i will look at 2) finding the witness statement about a grave being dug.

is it confirmed that wollmering left campus for a few days after the disappearance? can we verify this??

to get us started, i can only find mention of Swenson Lake cabin on page 83 of 287 page docs but that says 2005 not 2002. did i miss it?

on page 139 bruce wollmering sent an email to the senior monk council saying monks seem to be owning dogs and its making it difficult for life safety officers to enforce the no dog policy.it seems very interesting that the monk that we are interested in raised a poiint about dogs on campus when in 2002 the monks didnt let the bloodhound in the abbey
 
ok so i did my research but it turns out what i was looking for is no longer on the web.so i screenshot a description of it from a reddit user. it says:

'On the last anniversary of his disappearance in November of 2021, the Stearns County sheriff posted about Josh's case. In the comments there was a man who claimed that he went hunting on St John's property a couple weeks after he went missing. He said that he has tried multiple times to report what looks like a freshly dug grave on the north side of highway 94 on property that St John's University owned, but that each time he tried to report it he was ignored by the sheriff's office. I will forever regret not screenshotting his comment thread, because when I went back a couple days later to refresh my memory on what exactly he said, the comments had been deleted. Whether it was by the sheriff's office themselves or the man who posted it is unknown to me.'

a few weeks after josh goes missing a grave on the north side i94 on st johns university property has been dug?? this sounds like it warrants invesitgation but the sheriffs ignored it according to the posst

@Squeelz did you find the dates bw was put in charge of the cemetery and forestry?

i am keeping on open mind.however i dont see why the monks would be so angry at josh they would kidnap/murder him.so hes writing a paper on the monks....according to reports,so were a few students.

who was angry enough at josh to do something like this?i canthelp but feel whoever is responsible was angry with josh for something.i dont think this was a random crime.i think whoever made josh disappear was angry at him in some way.we should still continue the monk theory but also look at people who hadreason to b e angry at josh....i believe thats what led to this
 

Attachments

  • graveDug.png
    graveDug.png
    319.7 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
who was angry enough at josh to do something like this?i canthelp but feel whoever is responsible was angry with josh for something
...and we do know of one person who was angry at him, the same person who had a loud argument with him...AKA Nick.
However, I am not sure if he would have committed murder?

Does anyone what Nick's major was in btw?
 
...and we do know of one person who was angry at him, the same person who had a loud argument with him...AKA Nick.
However, I am not sure if he would have committed murder?

Does anyone what Nick's major was in btw?
nick was senior political science major.hes actually mentioned here:

i am not discounting anyone from doing this,no matter if they say they are best friends or lovers or anything.in my eyes everyone is a suspect until proven innocent.like you say,i am 50/50 on the monks at this point,leaning towards it may not be them but they have some very suspect things that point their way i have to admit

the content of joshs argument with nick??did we ever find out what words were said? "words are weapons" as they say...
 
the content of joshs argument with nick??did we ever find out what words were said? "words are weapons" as they say...
I have never seen it specifically stated anywhere. I've read that it was about Katie, but I'm not sure if that is 100%. Maybe it was about something else that has never been revealed and could be the key to this. Nick and Katie both claim they considered having a relationship, but decided against it. I always found something a bit odd in that statement, but I'm not sure what exactly.
There are some suspicious actions by Nick, not least of which is his "missing time" on that night. He claims he left Katie's at 2.30 while she said 1 to 1.30. That means Nick has 1 to 1 and a half hours unaccounted for IF Katie is correct. And I am of the opinion that Josh was already back in his room at this time. Also his refusal to take a polygraph.

Apparently Nick is an assistant County attorney in Minnesota.
 
I have never seen it specifically stated anywhere. I've read that it was about Katie, but I'm not sure if that is 100%. Maybe it was about something else that has never been revealed and could be the key to this. Nick and Katie both claim they considered having a relationship, but decided against it. I always found something a bit odd in that statement, but I'm not sure what exactly.
There are some suspicious actions by Nick, not least of which is his "missing time" on that night. He claims he left Katie's at 2.30 while she said 1 to 1.30. That means Nick has 1 to 1 and a half hours unaccounted for IF Katie is correct. And I am of the opinion that Josh was already back in his room at this time. Also his refusal to take a polygraph.

Apparently Nick is an assistant County attorney in Minnesota.
i think netflix said the argument was about katie and it makes sense if you factor in josh didnt go to the party with nick and katie which could mean josh and nick had not settled their argument and josh did not want to be around nick. i found nicks statement a little odd that he said to josh 'we'll see you later'. was nick planning to meet josh later with katie? the 'we'll' suggests two people. unless it was a turn of phrase. considering they had an arguement, it sure does sound strange to say we'll see you later and act as if everything is cool

and now you mention it....the polygraph.... nick first accepted it then declined it.theres two things in this....1) why change your mind and 2) why did nick deem it necessary to seek advice after the fact he had already said yes he will do the polygraph

it explains on simply vanished podcast that nick went to his and joshs mock trial coach who sought out a hot shot lawyer type....it seems odd to me why you would lawyer up when your 'best friend' is missing.if my best friend is missing,i am trying to locatehim, ill do whatever. the last thing ill do is laywer up especially as nick says he "wasnt told i was a suspect" in the documentary.
 
Hi there and welcome! :)
I really look forward to hearing your input, both as a local and someone with an interest. I can't wait to hear what your PI friend thinks too, do let us know.

I also like that all possibilities get discussed here, I think it's so important not to get tunnelvision with 1 theory. I won't pretend I have read everything about Josh's case like others here, but my own personal belief is that the priests were not involved in this (for a few reasons) ....yet everytime a new fact is posted about them, like the one you just posted above about Wollmering, it does seem more damning towards them I admit.

Looking forward to your posts and any new perspectives!
I’ve found that frustrating too because I always thought “nah, no way the priests could really be involved”. The more I read, the wilder it gets. I’m not stuck on one theory and am trying to keep an open mind.
 
Hi and welcome. I'm very interested in your thoughts. I don't like it that people push a theory upon me either. After all this time, I still didn't make up my mind what happened to Josh. I really would love to know what was on Wolmering's
No kidding - from reading about him I get the impression he may have been flippant and considered himself immune to consequences for his behavior, or without remorse. I can’t even imagine what crazy stuff could be on his computer.
Hi and welcome. I'm very interested in your thoughts. I don't like it that people push a theory upon me either. After all this time, I still didn't make up my mind what happened to Josh. I really would love to know what was on Wolmering's computer.
 
i think netflix said the argument was about katie and it makes sense if you factor in josh didnt go to the party with nick and katie which could mean josh and nick had not settled their argument and josh did not want to be around nick. i found nicks statement a little odd that he said to josh 'we'll see you later'. was nick planning to meet josh later with katie? the 'we'll' suggests two people. unless it was a turn of phrase. considering they had an arguement, it sure does sound strange to say we'll see you later and act as if everything is cool

and now you mention it....the polygraph.... nick first accepted it then declined it.theres two things in this....1) why change your mind and 2) why did nick deem it necessary to seek advice after the fact he had already said yes he will do the polygraph

it explains on simply vanished podcast that nick went to his and joshs mock trial coach who sought out a hot shot lawyer type....it seems odd to me why you would lawyer up when your 'best friend' is missing.if my best friend is missing,i am trying to locatehim, ill do whatever. the last thing ill do is laywer up especially as nick says he "wasnt told i was a suspect" in the documentary.
I agree with much of what you’ve stated here, it makes NO sense to me that his closest friends don’t seem to share if they’re actively looking and asking for help. And at least a few are in very successful careers to have the resources or financial support available to help at least a little. I’m not saying they aren’t actively looking, but if they are it’s not transparent. One note - in being from MN, “we’ll see you later” is a common goodbye phrase from us weirdos, even when it’s one person saying goodbye to another. Not to say he didn’t mean something else by it, but, I hear it almost daily.
 
i am feeling positiv we have a small group to keep on this case. let 2024 be the year we solve it



i like where you are going witht this. and i think we should start giving links and page numbers to sources of this information because there is so much out there its hard to keep track and find this info again

because you have set off alarm bells in my head. i recall a witness saying a grave was being dug around the time of the disappearance. if you can find out what page numbers it mentions 1) cemetery and forestry and i will look at 2) finding the witness statement about a grave being dug.

is it confirmed that wollmering left campus for a few days after the disappearance? can we verify this??

to get us started, i can only find mention of Swenson Lake cabin on page 83 of 287 page docs but that says 2005 not 2002. did i miss it?

on page 139 bruce wollmering sent an email to the senior monk council saying monks seem to be owning dogs and its making it difficult for life safety officers to enforce the no dog policy.it seems very interesting that the monk that we are interested in raised a poiint about dogs on campus when in 2002 the monks didnt let the bloodhound in the abbey
Sorry it took me long to reply, I didn’t see this until now, getting used to the websleuth format/response. I will find the page numbers and links this weekend, I likely have screenshots. From my understanding there was a note on FBW’s door the day after Josh’s disappearance that he would be gone for a few days, and stated somewhere that he was at the Swenson Lake property. I’ll find it.
 
...and we do know of one person who was angry at him, the same person who had a loud argument with him...AKA Nick.
However, I am not sure if he would have committed murder?

Does anyone what Nick's major was in btw?
Not sure of his major but guessing poli sci or pre law/liberal arts since he is a county attorney
 
...and we do know of one person who was angry at him, the same person who had a loud argument with him...AKA Nick.
However, I am not sure if he would have committed murder?

Does anyone what Nick's major was in btw?
Not sure of his major but guessing poli sci or pre law/liberal arts since he is a county attorney
ok so i did my research but it turns out what i was looking for is no longer on the web.so i screenshot a description of it from a reddit user. it says:

'On the last anniversary of his disappearance in November of 2021, the Stearns County sheriff posted about Josh's case. In the comments there was a man who claimed that he went hunting on St John's property a couple weeks after he went missing. He said that he has tried multiple times to report what looks like a freshly dug grave on the north side of highway 94 on property that St John's University owned, but that each time he tried to report it he was ignored by the sheriff's office. I will forever regret not screenshotting his comment thread, because when I went back a couple days later to refresh my memory on what exactly he said, the comments had been deleted. Whether it was by the sheriff's office themselves or the man who posted it is unknown to me.'

a few weeks after josh goes missing a grave on the north side i94 on st johns university property has been dug?? this sounds like it warrants invesitgation but the sheriffs ignored it according to the posst

@Squeelz did you find the dates bw was put in charge of the cemetery and forestry?

i am keeping on open mind.however i dont see why the monks would be so angry at josh they would kidnap/murder him.so hes writing a paper on the monks....according to reports,so were a few students.

who was angry enough at josh to do something like this?i canthelp but feel whoever is responsible was angry with josh for something.i dont think this was a random crime.i think whoever made josh disappear was angry at him in some way.we should still continue the monk theory but also look at people who hadreason to b e angry at josh....i believe thats what led to this
He was on the arboretum advisory council starting in 2002. I also find his work with the bluebird boxes and gardens suddenly during that time to be interesting, along with the fact he was likely grieving that his parents died tragically the summer beforehand (auto accident):
Father Bruce Wollmering, OSB — Saint John's Abbey

Here’s an outline of his time with OSB, interesting about the garden shed and elevator pump room being searched, I didn’t recall seeing this: https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Bruce-Wollmering-Timeline.pdf

List of key documents regarding FBW’s behavior/allegations (it mentions the gambling addiction as well and history of buying drinks for minors at bars. This interests me, reading about him I could easily see him asking Josh to grab a drink/etc): http://www.behindthepinecurtain.com...e/201511_File_Release_Wollmering_Key_Docs.pdf

Obituary excerpt shown on The Immelman blog. He started having a heightened interest in the forestry, arboretum, and cemetery maintenance it appears from 2002-2008 after his “retirement”:
After his retirement from the university, Father Bruce was free to pursue many other interests. He worked with Father Paul Schwietz OSB in the establishment of the Saint John’s Arboretum that began with the successful restoration of the prairie, wild flowers, oak savannah and marsh lands. He served two terms on the Arboretum Advisory Council from 2002 to 2008. He was very active as the chair of the Abbey Forest and Lands Committee. Father Bruce was an engaged and dedicated ornithologist. He identified 39 species of birds that visited campus. His favorite was the Eastern Bluebird. Around a six-mile perimeter of the outer campus, he built more than 70 nesting boxes to encourage the re-population of the bluebird during the past 15 years. He kept annual records of the nesting success which was usually very good. Father Bruce also built and maintained loon platforms at Saint John’s that were responsible for successful hatches every year.

Few enjoyed and remembered a good meal as well as Father Bruce. Beginning in 2005, he worked with six monks to increase the amount and variety of food grown and served at Saint John’s. During the summer the team enriched the monastery’s salad table with numerous boxes of lettuce, radishes, peppers, and tomatoes. Father Bruce renovated the root cellar for the eco-friendly storage of squash and other vegetables over the winter. The “hoop house” constructed in the garden a few years ago allows the early and prolonged growth of vegetables — much to the delight of the monks.

Father Bruce was active and healthy until the sudden medical incident that took his life. He had collapsed in the basement locker room of the monastery. Loss of much blood caused cardiac arrest. Despite being on the scene almost immediately, the emergency medical team was unable to revive him. His younger siblings were shocked and saddened by his unexpected death. Both of their parents also suffered sudden death in an automobile accident, June 2001.


I want to be clear / I’m just trying to share information that has already been provided online that I found while researching. Again, I am not stuck on any one theory, just would be great to have all of the tons of info and possibilities in one place.
 
I want to be clear / I’m just trying to share information that has already been provided online that I found while researching. Again, I am not stuck on any one theory, just would be great to have all of the tons of info and possibilities in one place.
I agree!! it helps so much having links to all these articles and information because its scattered around the web and we are piecing together the pieces one by one

i believe i have read everything there is to read on this case. every forum, every document, everything,but i didnt remember the garden shed and pump room being searched , so thanks for posting that. it is very unusual. the only question i have is why would wollmering want to do harm to josh. im not saying he didnt want to, but im just trying to figure a motive

as i mentioned in a previous post.this has all the markings of a targeted attack/setup. i strongly believe whoever did this knew josh and was angry at him for something.its very likely to be someone already on campus who knew josh was going to the poker party. thats katie,nick,8-10 people at the poker party.the monks were on the doors of the dorms. one was andert and one was tupa.

It was discovered that monks lived close to both the Metten Court Apartments and Saint Maur House. The priest who supervised Mellen Court, Father Tom Andert, had faced multiple sexual misconduct allegations. The resident advisor for Josh's apartment, Father Jerome Tupa, had been accused of "inappropriate behavior". Other priests and monks were alleged to have been targeting students around the time of Josh's disappearance. - Josh Guimond

is there a chance it was someone else and not the monks? yes i think so.

where im going with this....is that someone knew josh was going to be alone and that someone did something when he was in a vulnerable position. the question is who and why. and i go back to my previous thoughts: who was angry enough with josh to want to harm him, and knew he was A) at the poker party and B) leaving the poker party at that time
 
I agree!! it helps so much having links to all these articles and information because its scattered around the web and we are piecing together the pieces one by one

i believe i have read everything there is to read on this case. every forum, every document, everything,but i didnt remember the garden shed and pump room being searched , so thanks for posting that. it is very unusual. the only question i have is why would wollmering want to do harm to josh. im not saying he didnt want to, but im just trying to figure a motive

as i mentioned in a previous post.this has all the markings of a targeted attack/setup. i strongly believe whoever did this knew josh and was angry at him for something.its very likely to be someone already on campus who knew josh was going to the poker party. thats katie,nick,8-10 people at the poker party.the monks were on the doors of the dorms. one was andert and one was tupa.

It was discovered that monks lived close to both the Metten Court Apartments and Saint Maur House. The priest who supervised Mellen Court, Father Tom Andert, had faced multiple sexual misconduct allegations. The resident advisor for Josh's apartment, Father Jerome Tupa, had been accused of "inappropriate behavior". Other priests and monks were alleged to have been targeting students around the time of Josh's disappearance. - Josh Guimond

is there a chance it was someone else and not the monks? yes i think so.

where im going with this....is that someone knew josh was going to be alone and that someone did something when he was in a vulnerable position. the question is who and why. and i go back to my previous thoughts: who was angry enough with josh to want to harm him, and knew he was A) at the poker party and B) leaving the poker party at that time
I have thought about this too, that someone would’ve had to begrudge Josh to hurt him. Then on the other hand I wonder if someone hurt him either out of desperation (to silence him/not be caught etc), accidentally, or some other heat of the moment decision. I used AOL messenger a lot back in this time period, and I remember a real creepy situation. In a chat room someone sent me a PM and it was a pic of a track runner with a number on their racing bib, and a picture of a race car. They asked if I noticed anything about the two pics and I didn’t. They asked again so I looked more closely. The runner’s bib number was my apt building number, and the race car was my apartment number. That scared me so badly, I blocked the person immediately and stopped using chat rooms. Guessing they were a computer whiz and got it from my IP address, but no clue. I even tried to login to my old AOL account recently to see if you could pull up old messages to look for it. Anyways, my point of this story is that someone really could have been messing with Josh online and he did do that yahoo report and turned off his account, but that was weeks before his disappearance - so, I don’t know if it would/could be related. Then we also know he had multiple profiles. Maybe he was catfishing with the intent of setting someone up for exposure, like the priest(s)? So many questions and so many directions you could head. It’d be so good to have it all mapped out to at least try to do a process of elimination, that’s what I’m going to work on next. Can’t give up, definitely want peace for Josh’s family.
 
My knowledge about Josh's case is like 0.1% compared to you guys and I am so impressed with all the information you have. But there were two observations I wanted to make, mostly based on human beahaviour and logic (I fully admit that murderers may not follow this reasoning):

1) The monks are WAY up there as persons of interest, their behaviour was condemnable, they were abusing their position of authority and subsequent behaviour is suspicious. But murder doesn't seem to fit their pattern of behaviour. It seems like a student disappearing is bound to bring news, parents and LE knocking when that's the last thing you want to able to continue your abusive beahaviour and keep your secrets. The whole scandals relating to the monks seems like it was an open secret, Josh wasn't the first or last to research it and maybe expose it, but none of the other people were murdered. I am not sure whether any of the monks had criminal records or any violent behaviour in their history either, so I am not sure about a propensity to violent behaviour.
I think the monks have alot to answer for but I don't know if "disappearing someone" fits into any of their M.Os? (of course-no one ever said murder had to be logical and this doesn't exclude an unplanned, spur of the moment attack)

I have heard alot about the bad monks. Does anyone know if there were actually any monks that were good and the students had good relationships with, someone for instance, who would have protected them?

2) Nick. He had an argument with Josh prior to whatever happened. He also has some unaccounted for time on the night it happened, right at the crucual time, he wasn't particlularly co-operative with LE and lawyered up pretty quickly. Now I think it has usually been assumed that Nick and Josh had some unresolved issue over Katie. But I am not sure this works at all as a motive just for the very fact that Nick and Katie never actually got together. I doubt Nick would go to the extreme of murdering Josh and then accept to not even get together with Katie!
So if it was Nick, and it wasn't about Katie, then we need to ask ourselves-what the hell was it about? Is there some whole other thing happening that no one has any idea about-perhaps related to the computer being "washed" to get rid of anything incrimating?


Or is there someone else that has never been considered? That car on campus, the weird underwear and cucumbers scattered around in people's gardens, Josh's phonecall and deletion of his yahoo chat and dating profiles pretending to be a woman, the webcam pics of males and photos of lawyers and journalists....

For curiosity's sake I would like you experts to approach this slightly differently for a second. Take Josh's case and remove the monks completely. Now remove Nick. Are you left with anyone else? Does another scenario present itself?

(I am not defending the monks or Nick btw...just wondering if there is another angle)
 
For curiosity's sake I would like you experts to approach this slightly differently for a second. Take Josh's case and remove the monks completely. Now remove Nick. Are you left with anyone else? Does another scenario present itself?

(I am not defending the monks or Nick btw...just wondering if there is another angle)
if i am open and honest....i cannot come up much else that holds up. there is just one aspect of the case that makes no real sense to me.

josh went to the poker party with greg and alex and had spent a good portion of time with them. yet greg and alex didnt see josh leave? that is mind blowning...how can you go as a 3 and not notice 1 of the 2 people youre with, leave? these guys know nothing,gave no real interviews after the fact? it smells fishhy. the poker party bothers me... A LOT.

i liked formerpolice's theory about the drug overdose. but josh left before midnight we're led to believe. could the argument josh had earlier with nick be playing on his mind? one of the people at the poker party implied he had "somewhere to be". was that somewhere going to confront nick for spending the night with his ex? which begs the question, nick left for katies at 7.30pm and says he was there til 2.30am. 7 hours with your "best friends" ex girlfriend? odd by anyones standards.

but again, that theory then brings me once again back to nick. i feel our suspect is someone josh knew/was with/interacted with that very day of his disappearance (prior to the event)

heres an "out there" theory - did someone at the poker party say that 'katie doesnt have a party going on, its just her and nick?' and so josh gets pissed off and leaves to go and confront them?

josh leaving the poker party to confront them and finish the argument that started earlier seems very plausable to me.which begs another question. could katie be covering for nick? this is a case where anything can happen, so i dont think this is beyond the realms of possible
 
Last edited:
i cannot come up much else that holds up. there is just one aspect of the case that makes no real sense to me.
Thank you. I think it's very telling that having tried to come up with anything, you are still left with Nick and the monks. It sort of helps eliminate other scenarios if that makes sense? I wonder if anyone else will suggest something else?
i liked formerpolice's theory about the drug overdose.
MOO but I just can't make this one work for me. I find it highly improbable that someone wouldn't just call an ambulance and that all people present would keep this secret until now. Punishment for someone else dying of an overdose at a party versus punishment for concealing a death and hiding a body...it's a no brainer for me to get help and put it down to a tragic accident.
(Also, I've said this before, I personally believe Josh was back in his room way before the party ended, listening to music and chatting online)

josh went to the poker party with greg and alex and had spent a good portion of time with them. yet greg and alex didnt see josh leave? that is mind blowning...how can you go as a 3 and not notice 1 of the 2 people youre with, leave?
It depends on what they were doing and where they were. Maybe it was just as simple as they weren't in the room when he left. He seems to have told someone he had sonewhere to be. This I find odd, why did he go to the party if he had somewhere to be? Was this something that literally just happened there and then, did he get a text? Did someone beckon him from outside a window?

7 hours with your "best friends" ex girlfriend? odd by anyones standards.
Excellent point! I never noted the time before...yeah 7 hrs is hardly just watching a movie! Although it must be noted that both Nick and Katie admit there was a spark there, but they decided not to pursue it. I assume they'd been messing around, having sex etc to know there was a potential relationship.
Now Josh and Katie were over, had been for what, 2 months. So does this mean Josh didn't want her, but didn't want anyone else to have her? Or maybe he considered Nick unworthy or knew he was just messing her about?
I dunno...if Nick is our suspect I somehow don't think the issue was Katie.
 
It depends on what they were doing and where they were. Maybe it was just as simple as they weren't in the room when he left. He seems to have told someone he had sonewhere to be. This I find odd, why did he go to the party if he had somewhere to be? Was this something that literally just happened there and then, did he get a text? Did someone beckon him from outside a window?
josh didnt have a cell phone according to a few sources online and i think simplyvanished mentioned that too. my gut tells me that josh probably felt sick knowing katie and nick might be hooking up.lets be honest,it would not sit well with most men.i think back to my college days

Excellent point! I never noted the time before...yeah 7 hrs is hardly just watching a movie! Although it must be noted that both Nick and Katie admit there was a spark there, but they decided not to pursue it. I assume they'd been messing around, having sex etc to know there was a potential relationship.
Now Josh and Katie were over, had been for what, 2 months. So does this mean Josh didn't want her, but didn't want anyone else to have her? Or maybe he considered Nick unworthy or knew he was just messing her about?
I dunno...if Nick is our suspect I somehow don't think the issue was Katie.
if my ex partner was with my friend for 7 hours i would be displeased and thats an understatement.the netflix doc suggested the argument was about katie and i watched it again tonight and noticed that it showed a picture of josh and katie embracing. i know the dorm in the documentary is a recreation of the original room but i would imagineyou are right and josh was not over katie and protective over her.

i find it plausible to believe the argument is important to this case but unfortunately after searching the web for months i have never found any reports on what the argument was about.i do find it curious that nick did not mention it in the documentary. i also felt nick and katie downplayed their relationship but that could just be me?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,805
Total visitors
4,001

Forum statistics

Threads
591,381
Messages
17,951,153
Members
228,484
Latest member
odinsgrl
Back
Top