General Law/Politics

Robert (CCT) has a very nice post on Josh here. If you didn't read his entry last year, make sure you do. The link is in the post I've linked to here.

Folks, there is a potentially HUGE development in Josh's disappearance, though it relates most directly to another student who mysteriously disappeared in Minneapolis, only days before Josh. The circumstances are eerily similar. One story is here.

The death of a University of Minnesota student who disappeared on Halloween 2002 and was later found dead in the Mississippi River has been reclassified as a homicide, police said today.

Christopher Jenkins' death had been listed as having an undetermined manner of death, such as homicide or accident, but the Hennepin County medical examiner's office had ruled he apparently drowned.

Lt. Greg Reinhardt, a police spokesman, said police would probably release more information on Monday, but confirmed that the death is now listed as a homicide.

Jenkins' body was found Feb. 27, 2003, in the Mississippi River near the Horseshoe Dam south of the 3rd Av. Bridge. He had taken a date Oct. 31, 2002, to the Lone Tree Bar in downtown Minneapolis but left the bar alone and wasn't seen again.

His parents have long believed their son died under suspicious circumstances.

At a news conference in March 2003, after Chris Jenkins' body was found, the parents said they suspect foul play because they do not believe their son was depressed or would have ever considered suicide.

"He was so far from depressed you wouldn't believe it," Jan Jenkins said. "Read the comments on his Web site. One of them was, `Chris cheered me up, and he hardly knew me.' That's the kind of kid he was."

Jan cited the list she found in her son's room after his disappearance: names of companies such as Cargill that Jenkins - enrolled in the Carlson School of Management - planned to interview with.

"This was a kid who had it together," she said. "He had a zest for life."

The Jenkins family, who moved back to Minnesota from Wisconsin after Chris' death, has worked with a private investigator and other experts to examine the death.

There has long been a theory among many folks who have studied these cases (which have not, at least to this point, been shared by law enforcement) that a serial killer may have been at work in these and perhaps other disappearances/deaths. I eagerly await more details, which unfortunately may not come before Monday.

Among the more eerie similarities of Josh's and Chris' disappearances is their physical appearance.

Josh:

Chris:

EDITED to put in a better picture of Chris.

I remember watching the news of the Jenkins death when it happened and it always seemed like the two cases were too similar. Weirder things have happened, but still, I hope something more comes of this.

It's been far too long since this thread has been active, but I finally have something of substance to post.

Those many perjurers who have joined in the past 18 months or so haven't seen any updates. I strongly urge you to read this entire thread. Yes, it's long, but it's a mysterious, frustrating, and tragic story about an outstanding mocker (and my best friend) who suddenly went missing on November 9, 2002 without a trace.

KSTP, the Twin Cities ABC affiliate, has an in-depth story of a new theory behind the disappearance of Josh and many other missing young men. To be sure, in Josh's case, this story has flaws. The biggest is that, about five and a half years after his disappearance, Josh's body has not yet been found. The bodies of the other young men, to my knowledge, have been.

This story focuses largely on Chris Jenkins, though Josh is mentioned on multiple occasions. Chris was a student at the University of Minnesota who disappeared in 2003. Chris' body was later found in the Mississippi River. Like in virtually every similar case, the police quickly determined that Chris was intoxicated when he was last seen leaving a bar in Minneapolis, and that he either fell or jumped off a bridge into the river. Later, however, new evidence came to light, and the manner of Chris' death was later reclassified as a probable homicide, though there were no suspects. Two retired detectives from New York, however, have gone around the country, looking at the sites where young college-aged men have disappeared, and have some significant evidence linking them.

Again, this doesn't necessarily explain Josh's disappearance, though I hope to soon speak to the detectives to gain more knowledge of what they learned from their investigation. As I said, Josh's body hasn't been found. Moreover, I'm not aware of any "smiley face" evidence being found (watch the video I linked to for an explanation of that). I hope this will resurrect this thread.

The theory sounds like something out of the movies, but at the same time, it's got such a disturbing aura of plausibility about it.  *shudder*

Wow. I've never been an emotional person. Reading what you, FunCepts (I assume from the reference to Josh as co-captain) wrote about your experience with Josh made me bawl. I can't possibly imagine what it must've been like to experience all of that. Josh seems like an amazing individual. I am deeply sorry.

I am also sorry.  Maybe with increased knowledge we can figure this thing out.

The story was posted on MSNBC today and was also talked about on the Today Show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24366804/

Sounds very similar to the Jesse Ross case from UMKC. He was a Model UN competitor who has been missing since around Thanksgiving of 2006. I was travelling with our MT team at the SLU tournament while our head coach was with the UN program in Chicago. In reading about his disappearance, I came across the same (or a very similar) theory.

Personally, I don't buy the theory these two detectives have for a number of reasons. I could see an individual or even partners, preying on drunken or otherwise vulnerable college-aged students. But to assert that there's a nationwide group of them? There's a lot of problems with such a theory that I'd be curious to hear those detectives explain.

Sounds very similar to the Jesse Ross case from UMKC. He was a Model UN competitor who has been missing since around Thanksgiving of 2006. I was travelling with our MT team at the SLU tournament while our head coach was with the UN program in Chicago. In reading about his disappearance, I came across the same (or a very similar) theory.

Personally, I don't buy the theory these two detectives have for a number of reasons. I could see an individual or even partners, preying on drunken or otherwise vulnerable college-aged students. But to assert that there's a nationwide group of them? There's a lot of problems with such a theory that I'd be curious to hear those detectives explain.

It's hard to deduce the scope of this group from the information they have, but certainly you'd say the presence of the same symbol at each of the sites where the body went into the river indicates they're related, if nothing else?

I'm quite pleased to see this thread get some continuing activity. It's important both because it keeps Josh's name out there and because almost any discussion of the issue has the potential to be quite constructive.

Herb, to respond to your last post, I'm not certain that the smiley face was found at each site, though it was found at some (I don't know how many). The odd thing is that much of the attention surrounding this investigation is with regard to the Chris Jenkins case. Unless I've missed something (always possible, of course), I don't believe there was a smiley face found where the detectives believe Chris was dumped into the Mississippi.

I am not aware of any smiley face graffiti being found on or around the St. John's campus after Josh's disappearance. Perhaps more importantly, it is all but certain that Josh is not in the water on campus. If he is in a body of water, he would have had to have been taken off campus and placed there.

As for the validity of the theory, it's difficult for me to say with certainty. I do find it hard to believe that so many young men would simply manage to find their way into large bodies of water simply because they are intoxicated to some degree. On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more implausible this theory sounds, based in part on the seemingly-sporadic smiley face evidence (again, if I'm missing something, please correct me).

I'm quite pleased to see this thread get some continuing activity. It's important both because it keeps Josh's name out there and because almost any discussion of the issue has the potential to be quite constructive.

Herb, to respond to your last post, I'm not certain that the smiley face was found at each site, though it was found at some (I don't know how many). The odd thing is that much of the attention surrounding this investigation is with regard to the Chris Jenkins case. Unless I've missed something (always possible, of course), I don't believe there was a smiley face found where the detectives believe Chris was dumped into the Mississippi.

I am not aware of any smiley face graffiti being found on or around the St. John's campus after Josh's disappearance. Perhaps more importantly, it is all but certain that Josh is not in the water on campus. If he is in a body of water, he would have had to have been taken off campus and placed there.

As for the validity of the theory, it's difficult for me to say with certainty. I do find it hard to believe that so many young men would simply manage to find their way into large bodies of water simply because they are intoxicated to some degree. On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more implausible this theory sounds, based in part on the seemingly-sporadic smiley face evidence (again, if I'm missing something, please correct me).

Well, that was the implication of the article at least.

This story was on the news today...  no mention of Josh, but another potential smiley face victim in Pennsylvania

http://www.nbc10.com/news/16217089/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

Herb - To answer your questiopn, no -- at least not in the context of the ifnormation we have here.

Here are a few of the more questionable issues in my mind.

1) How are these detectives sure that these locations are where the body went into the water? If they've decided that this "signature" marks the spot, are they looking for similar markings in a broad area ("down by the river") and then marking those spots as the dump locations?

If these cases are as similar as they claim, then no one knows for sure where the bodies went in the water, so they must be "guessing" to a certain extent. Obviously they can look to things like currents to help backtrack, but that only goes so far.

2) How are they defining the "signature"? Is it anything that looks like it might be a smiley? In the picture in that last story, it does look like a smiley but could also be that we expect to see a smiley -- there's a lot of other grafitti there.

Have they analyzed the paint to see if it matches their timeline, at least tenatively? If the paint has been there since before the disappearance (or is fresh), then doesn't that hurt undermine their theory completely? If the smileys are part of otherwise prevalent grafitti, that also undercuts their theory. The smileys appear to have only been found at about a third of the sites.

3) Why is the "signature" different? Compare the two pictures - one is a relatively detailed smiley in red paint on the back of a sign - the other is a barebones smiley in black paint on a wall. How different are all of these other signatures? Are they similar enough to make this plausible? Of all the possible grafitti marks, wouldn't you expect smiley faces to be the most ubiquitous, and thus the most likely to be found "linking" random locations?

If it's a group, why have they all adopted this so-called signature? What brought them together? How have none of them been caught or sighted?

4) What physical evidence is there to support a torture-murder theory? Is the absence of any such evidence really supposed to be evidence that supports their theory? Doesn't the lack of physical evidence just as equally (if not more) support a theory of accidental drownings?

5) I have problems believing that out of one "possible homicide" they were able to conclude that 40 other accidental drownings were, in fact, homicides without any physical evidence. It seems more like a case of someone forcing the facts to fit a theory instead of basing a theory on the facts.

I understand that these families want closure and do not want to believe that their loved one could have died at least partlyu as a result of his own behavior. I think most families would prefer to blame some outside factor, if they could. And out of that collective desire, these cases with an all-too-simple explanation instead become some sinister, nationwide plot to abduct and murder college students. These detectives, I think, have lost their ability to review the evidence as a detached investigator. As the article said, they've mortgaged their homes for this investigation -- it better not be for nothing.

I don't mean this to sound harsh. I'd love for them to have cracked some big case and give closure to these families. I just don't think it's rationally supported by any evidence. I'm the last person to expect CSI-type forensics in every case -- but they've got nothing but their intense desire to link these cases.