I just saw this case today and have seen it several times before and I was wondering does any know if John Cheek was ever found? Have there been any updates on this case?

I just saw this case today and have seen it several times before and I was wondering does any know if John Cheek was ever found? Have there been any updates on this case?

Judging from the fact that his Doe Network profile is still active, it doesn't look good. :(

The Doe Network web site tends to be up to date on missing persons. Once someone on their list is found, the profile of that person is removed. Otherwise, the profile stays active.

http://doenetwork.us/cases/1141dmtn.html

For quite sometime (and maybe it's still up on the main page of this site) there was an article (off-site) called "Friends still puzzled over the disappearance of John Cheek" and the article basically sums up the case and what might have led to John's disappearance or what might have happened to him.

Does anyone have a link to that article? :)

I'm afraid the link to the article no longer works. If you got to the main page of the website (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/unsolvedmysteries.html) and scroll down you'll find a link to the article that no longer works. I tried searching for some cached webpages for it on google but found none. I do remember reading the article a while back. This is really a sad case.

Here's a link to an article that TJ posted a few years ago.

http://sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=1341160

I just saw this case today and have seen it several times before and I was wondering does any know if John Cheek was ever found? Have there been any updates on this case?

I just saw this one for the first time, this week. This is a strange one to me personally because I was born and raised in Memphis, Tennesee. I didn't move to Columbus until 1999. So strange that I don't even remember this case or this UM ep... I was only 17 when he disappeared so perhaps my mind was elsewhere. :)

Personally, I think John Cheek killed himself by jumping off the Hernando/Desoto bridge (they didn't call it that in the UM ep, but that's what it is). The Mississippi River is very unforgiving...John could have committed suicide and it is very possible his body wouldn't have been found. Probably wound up a John Doe in a morgue down in Mississippi. I think that trucker was probably mistaken with the identity of the young fella he had breakfast with.

The question is why would he kill himself? Could have been something as simple as stress from the major deal he was putting together; he was a fairly young CFO. Or, maybe personal problems with a close girlfriend... who knows.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. :)

The question is why would he kill himself? Could have been something as simple as stress from the major deal he was putting together; he was a fairly young CFO. Or, maybe personal problems with a close girlfriend... who knows.

Of course, I could be totally wrong. :)

I love how we all quantify our opinions on these cases. :) In all seriousness, though, I think you may be correct. John's Doe Network profile states that he was intoxicated on the night of his disappearance. From my experience, alcohol usually intensifies any feelings that you were having right before you started drinking (for example, you start drinking angry, you become beligerant. OR... you start drinking happy and become giddy.) If John was as stressed and upset about the business deal as everyone states that he was, it's likely to believe that this worry was intensified and John committed suicide. OR... John could have already been suicidal and the alcohol only served to lower his inhibitions about killing himself.

Just my thoughts.

I would totally agree with the suicide theory if it weren't for the shoes that the trucker noticed that the parents said exactly matched a pair Cheek owned. Still, if I had to guess, I'd say he did commit suicide, but the shoes plant a small seed of hope in me that he is alive and still missing.

Just re-watched this case. What I find interesting is that Cheek's father, at one point, in refuting the suicide theory, says something like "It's not possible to go from perfectly fine one minute to suicidal the next"; he then goes on to assert that Cheek was perfectly fine one minute, then suffering from stress-induced amnesia the next.

Pretty sure Cheek died in the Mississippi. Interesting that the UM segment "forgot" to mention he was last seen drunk the night of his disappearance, and that the business deal he was working on had fallen through a day or so BEFORE his disappearance. you see why, despite how much I love UM, I am often skeptical of their presentation of things.

...Interesting that the UM segment "forgot" to mention he was last seen drunk the night of his disappearance, and that the business deal he was working on had fallen through a day or so BEFORE his disappearance.

How did you find this information about what was happening in John Cheek's life days before his disappearance? I'm surprised that UM left that out!

How did you find this information about what was happening in John Cheek's life days before his disappearance? I'm surprised that UM left that out!

doenetwork.org , search for John Andrews Cheek.

Just re-watched this case. What I find interesting is that Cheek's father, at one point, in refuting the suicide theory, says something like "It's not possible to go from perfectly fine one minute to suicidal the next"; he then goes on to assert that Cheek was perfectly fine one minute, then suffering from stress-induced amnesia the next.

Pretty sure Cheek died in the Mississippi. Interesting that the UM segment "forgot" to mention he was last seen drunk the night of his disappearance, and that the business deal he was working on had fallen through a day or so BEFORE his disappearance. you see why, despite how much I love UM, I am often skeptical of their presentation of things.

Parents, understandably, are usually quite irrational when it comes to such cases. First, they want to believe their missing child is still alive, so they will cling to anything that might give them such a hope (ie. the sighting by the trucker). Second, they don't usually want to acknowledge that their child might have killed himself. For some reason, they would rather believe their child is a victim of a crime, got amnesia, etc. Good observation, though, on the inconsistency in his statement.

Like I just said in my comments on the Chaim Weiss case, UM usually knows more than they tell. And UM always wants to put the most mysterious "spin" on things. That Cheek was drunk that night makes the case for suicide quite a bit stronger - in fact, too strong - for something that is supposed to be a "mystery". Without the sighting from the trucker, UM would have never done a segment on it. But with that particular sighting, all of a sudden you have a "mystery", and an intriguing story to tell.

I believe John leapt to his death that night, I am sad to say. I felt bad for him - by the sounds of it, an excellent, honest, and dedicated businessman with a great personality and a bright future, who unfortunately found himself in a very stressful situation. I also felt bad for his parents, who seem like very nice people.

Hi. I'm a new member in this forum, I'm sorry because I don't have practice in the English language, but I'll try it. I live in Mexico City.

Well, today are 17 years since John Cheek disappeared. Is very sad that a young man as him, with a bright future like he has finished far from everything, losing to his identity and his family. God surely already has it in his presence and I wish that prompt he and his family return to be united. He is my inspiration because he and I did study similar careers. I expect some day to be able to look like for him remotely.

Well, I say goodbye. Greetings from Mexico and those that we prune let's pray something for him for his eternal rest. Bye, and excuse me again for my little domain of the language English.

Parents, understandably, are usually quite irrational when it comes to such cases. First, they want to believe their missing child is still alive, so they will cling to anything that might give them such a hope (ie. the sighting by the trucker). Second, they don't usually want to acknowledge that their child might have killed himself. For some reason, they would rather believe their child is a victim of a crime, got amnesia, etc. Good observation, though, on the inconsistency in his statement.

Like I just said in my comments on the Chaim Weiss case, UM usually knows more than they tell. And UM always wants to put the most mysterious "spin" on things. That Cheek was drunk that night makes the case for suicide quite a bit stronger - in fact, too strong - for something that is supposed to be a "mystery". Without the sighting from the trucker, UM would have never done a segment on it. But with that particular sighting, all of a sudden you have a "mystery", and an intriguing story to tell.

I believe John leapt to his death that night, I am sad to say. I felt bad for him - by the sounds of it, an excellent, honest, and dedicated businessman with a great personality and a bright future, who unfortunately found himself in a very stressful situation. I also felt bad for his parents, who seem like very nice people.

I agree poster. It's very difficult for parents to acknowledge that their children are having or had serious mental or emotional issues. Clearly, John Cheek was working far too many hours and was under more stress than he could handle. It sad that his superiors didn't see this and offer him the assistance he so obviously needed.

And as we all know, Unsolved Mysteries leaves out many details when they conflict with the purpose of the show, which was, of course, displaying "unsolved mysteries." in this case, the reason that this is such a mystery is that there was a reasonable expectation that his body would have been found if he had ( which I believe he did) jumped from the bridge.

Since there was no body and the trucker reported his sighting, all of the sudden, this now becomes an unsolved mystery.

Even though the UM segment didn't mention anything about what happened with this "big deal" he was working on, I kind of figured that he lost the deal got depressed and killed himself by leaping off of that bridge. If the deal didn't fall through wouldn't he be more anxious than stressed? That's why I don't believe the whole "stress induced amnesia" theory from his father. After reading that article on Cheek and learning that there was a problem with the deal that bothered him greatly enough to where he'd travel back to Memphis, I think it's safe to assume that he figured the deal was going to fall through and killed himself.

Hi. I found this links about John Cheek's dissapearance :( :

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=F-YyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lgcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=1182,509603&dq=missing+man+believed+spotted+at+caroline+county+truck+stop&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CJVaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IEsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7043,1464637&dq=john+cheek+missing&hl=en

Hi. I found this links about John Cheek's dissapearance :( :

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=F-YyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lgcGAAAAIBAJ&pg=1182,509603&dq=missing+man+believed+spotted+at+caroline+county+truck+stop&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CJVaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IEsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7043,1464637&dq=john+cheek+missing&hl=en

Thanks for posting that. That puts a different spin on things. If the woman is correct and basically saw him get mugged near where his car was found than his amnesia may be a result of a head injury. The thing that doesn't make sense though is why he would park his car there on the bridge. I wonder if they checked it to see if he was having car trouble. That would make sense why he parked it there.

Wow thank you! I really thought this man committed suicide, but now I'm not so sure.

If Cheek truely was the man who was seen being attacked, why did the motorist he flagged down not take him to a hospital or a police station, nor report the incident to the authorities? And why did it take this waitress two years to report what she saw?

Just re-watched this case. What I find interesting is that Cheek's father, at one point, in refuting the suicide theory, says something like "It's not possible to go from perfectly fine one minute to suicidal the next"; he then goes on to assert that Cheek was perfectly fine one minute, then suffering from stress-induced amnesia the next.

Pretty sure Cheek died in the Mississippi. Interesting that the UM segment "forgot" to mention he was last seen drunk the night of his disappearance, and that the business deal he was working on had fallen through a day or so BEFORE his disappearance. you see why, despite how much I love UM, I am often skeptical of their presentation of things.

Where did you read/hear that Cheek was drunk the night of his disappearance? The reason I ask is that while watching the segment, I figured this was open and shut. He probably got drunk and jumped off the bridge. If the most sane of people could do this is they were stupid drunk.

Where did you read/hear that Cheek was drunk the night of his disappearance? The reason I ask is that while watching the segment, I figured this was open and shut. He probably got drunk and jumped off the bridge. If the most sane of people could do this is they were stupid drunk.

It's listed on the Charley Project: link (http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/c/cheek_john.html)

It's listed on the Charley Project: link (http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/c/cheek_john.html)
I think that the assailants did signs to him in this place in order that it was stopping (probably shamming that they had problems) and they took advantage of it to assault it. After everything, I believe that the bridges are places where often this type of persons meet to commit misdeeds. For what the fact that his car was found exactly there can be a simple coincidence.

I don't understand how The Charley Project website is so sure that John was intoxicated the night in which it disappeared, who of his family or friends or witnesses gave this information.

It did not want to seem to be insensitive to the foreign pain, but probably if anybody was asking his sister, I am almost sure that this one is his Facebook, I do not see it feasible but if anybody wants to try it:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1489035910

I'm sorry but I just don't buy the assault theory. Seems more likely that he was depressed over a deal that fell through and jumped into the river.

Another sad anniversary. Eighteen years have happened since he was seen by last time.:( I hope that his parents and his sister are well.

I was browsing segments on the "forbidden site" and came across this case. I think it was my first time seeing it (at least in the last 15 years), I don't remember seeing it before. From what I've read in this thread, it's likely he committed suicide, but I'm not 100% convinced. It wouldn't surprise me if he snapped under the pressure of his career and ended it all. So sad.

yes,i really got the feeling,from seeing the pic of the car,that he stopped and parked it there for a reason,and that was to jump.i don't think you have to be psychic to figure it out.I suspect they just didn't find his body.JMO.

I feel so bad for the family, never finding out what happened.

Hello to all, I found a video that was titled:

John Andrews Cheek will be found safe at this location says worlds most accurate Psychic Detective Brian Ladd new must see video update released 36611 on BriansDreams website CNN News

I have a question: does someone about you know to this subject? And if what he says is credible?

Nineteen years have happened since he was seen by last time. It's so sad. :(

Hey Luigi, is that John Cheek in your Avatar photo?

Hey Luigi, is that John Cheek in your Avatar photo?

it is

John Cheek would have been 48 years old yesterday. :(

Hi to all. Another theory occurred to me: could be that maybe some of his coworkers have drunk to throw him into the river and then appropriating the product of his effort? I know that this sounds terribly crazy but in this world everything is possible.

Regards from Mexico.

i havent rewatched the video but just read the whole thread
Maybe it was possible he intended to kill himself and parked there and then out of nowhere he does get attacked and robbed and just kind of gets up and leaves. might have been a sign for him to just start a new life as he would of died anyway. or just took off and decided to vanish for a little to get away from the stress.
So strange. all the witness sightings over the years sound so accurate. the shoes and the parking ticket thing.
maybe he actually was coming back for that but met with foul play while hitchhiking his way back?

kind of weird the lady who says she saw him getting attacked after seeing the UM show on tv, how did she remember the exact date and time? and remmeber that is what he looked like. she obviously lived in that area, wouldnt she have seen the flyers or heard about it.
i dunno. that seems a bit off to me.

or maybe another theory is he parked the car there to make it look like he killed himself but just ran off and looked for a new life. seems farfetched but you never know.

Could he have fallen in the river while drunk? Happens all the time here in Montana... not sure if anyone has discussed that possibility.

Or someone asked him to meet them there?

I think his hard work may have led him to a mental breakdown that made him susceptible to foul play/an accident. Working 18-hour days and then not sleeping for three days may have culminated in an incident like this.

I wonder how the weather was that night. How high was the water and such? I've never been to that area so I have no idea about how the river is. Sad case.

Honestly, I've always thought that he killed himself or somehow accidently fell in the river. Intense stress, lack of sleep for a prolonged period of time plus becoming very intoxicated the night he disappeared is a pretty good indicator. First of all, even one or two nights of little sleep greatly increases the effects of alcohol on the body. In my early 20s when I use to party on the weekends have experienced this first hand (I wasn't under the intense stress he was and I had only gone a night or two without much sleep). I drank my usual amount of beer and instead of a good buzz/slight drunk, I blacked out most of the night and became highly intoxicated. I hadn't slept much in a night or two and it made a HUGE difference. I was nowhere near under the stress or lack of sleep John cheek was under but its just an example of how severe stress and lack of sleep can really exacerbate alcohol and being intoxicated. Also, most suicides or dangerous impulsive choices are done under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If he was sober, do I think he would've jumped/fell off the bridge? No, probably not. I think his success was incredible but very fast and intensely stressful and it just caught up with him in a tragic way. I'm John cheeks age when he disappeared and I don't know many people in their mid 20s that could successfully manage his level of stress/pressure without taking proper care of themselves. Eventually something would give in a lot of people. Alcohol I think just added gasoline to the fire. Again, I'm not sure if it was an impulsive decision to end his life or a tragic drunk accident but either way, I've always believed he fell of that bridge due to being highly intoxicated which was made much worse by his mental state and lack of sleep.

Hi everyone. Although this isn't a professional work, I found a webpage to make age progression photos and I loaded some of John... And this is the result (at least this is better than nothing, maybe this will help).

Best regards from Mexico.

Could he have fallen in the river while drunk? Happens all the time here in Montana... not sure if anyone has discussed that possibility.

I was thinking about this case today... and was going to bump the thread to make the same observation. I guess it's comforting to know that I'm consistent with my thought patterns in some of these cases! :lol: :lol:

Two years later, I'm left with the same question: We're so quick to assume suicide. Could he have just simply fallen in the river?

Two years later, I'm left with the same question: We're so quick to assume suicide. Could he have just simply fallen in the river?

I'd say it's a possibility. But he would have no real reason, according to coworkers and family, to have gone to that location that night. His car was found on an off ramp in an industrial area. He was supposed to be closing in on a huge deal at his firm within the next couple of days. I just think it would be too much of a coincidence for Cheek to have driven there for reasons unknown and then accidentally fell into the water.

This link (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/%0935%C2%B0+7%E2%80%B2+39.02%E2%80%B3+N,+90%C2%B0+4%E2%80%B2+32.42%E2%80%B3+W/Riverside+Dr+%26+W+E.H.+Crump+Blvd,+Memphis,+TN+38106/@35.127196,-90.0737743,16z/data=!4m11!4m10!1m3!2m2!1d-90.0756722!2d35.1275056!1m5!1m1!1s0x87d57c02bf1fb013:0x5b5b0a64cd4854bf!2m2!1d-90.066099!2d35.1258099) shows the approximate place where Cheek's vehicle was left, and how he would have had to walk a little over a half-mile to get to the bridge. So I doubt that this was an accident.

I had no idea until today that he was drunk on the night he disappeared. That was left out of the UM segment.

I think John Cheek had a psychological or medical event precipitated by the stress of his pending business deal as well as the inquiries by the SEC. In fact, I think the likelihood of this happening is greater than an accidental fall into the Mississippi River.

I would not completely dismiss suicide, either.

I think John Cheek had a psychological or medical event precipitated by the stress of his pending business deal as well as the inquiries by the SEC. In fact, I think the likelihood of this happening is greater than an accidental fall into the Mississippi River.

I would not completely dismiss suicide, either.

I have trouble with the suicide angle. His hard work was just about to pay off and he would have reaped mega benefits from it.

That being said, suicide never makes sense, so anything is possible.

I think John Cheek had a psychological or medical event precipitated by the stress of his pending business deal as well as the inquiries by the SEC. In fact, I think the likelihood of this happening is greater than an accidental fall into the Mississippi River.

I would not completely dismiss suicide, either.

I agree with everything you wrote; may I add, the man had not slept in three days. This case particularly saddens me because it seems as though he was a decent, hard working young man. Perhaps he pushed himself too hard.

this case re-aired just yesterday on the lifetime rerun with a shortened segment and so the case was not fresh in my mind. I am always glad to come here and read some thoughts. I have to go along with what some of you guys said so far and I dont buy the suicide angle. This case has a lot in common with a case I remember that was extra intriguing a man also in the financial industry just loses and goes to the desert and leaves his car on the side of the road and walks into the desert and is never heard from again. I wonder if in both cases this one and that one the person had a mental break and just lost it.

That being said I have to say the simplest and most plausible theory is he just sadly fell over the bridge in an intoxicated state. Either way this is a case that looks like will never be solved.

Bumping this case up, again, as it has been on my mind today.

I reread an earlier article that was previously posted here (http://sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=1341160 ). In the article, the attorney working closely with John Cheek said that he was despondent and depressed as the deal he was attempting to close appeared to be in turmoil. The deal eventually closed, but only after Cheek was missing.

I have never felt this was a suicide, until now. Mainly because I can relate to John in some ways, and can see how the lack of sleep plus the alcohol may influence a decision that is abrupt. It could be that after many drinks, he decided to just jump, as he did not want to disappoint his colleagues (he had dinner with them prior to his disappearance) and he may not have wanted to be seen as a failure.

I also don't believe he would have been walking on the bridge, and accidentally just slip over. Being that this was in Memphis, and not a pedestrian-friendly metropolitan area like San Fran, Chicago, New York C, etc., I cannot see a CFO just walking on a bridge for pleasure, without a preconceived idea to commit suicide.

Many suicides are often a spur of the moment kind of thing and alcohol does have a tendency to remove inhibitions and promote impulsive behavior, in addition to being a depressant. So I have no difficulty believing that Cheek could have committed suicide.

Hello. I have been researching this for a few weeks. I have a few leads.. If there is any new information please post or reply to me or send me a message. Thanks so much.

The John Cheek UM segment definitely seems like a clear-cut case of suicide:

JC's car is found abandoned by a bridge & he's nowhere to be found. The car is undamaged, nothing appears to be missing, and there is no evidence of foul play. It sounds like he jumped off the bridge into the river. Just because a body was never found doesn't mean he didn't jump into the river; I can easily see the body being swept away by the current, etc.

Unfortunately, I can see someone like JC who's under a huge amount of stress & not getting enough sleep, etc. just becoming despondent & wanting to end it all. Based on his business acumen & professionalism, etc. - I suspect he was a perfectionist & probably couldn't handle it when things didn't go well for him, etc.

The subsequent alleged sighting of JC at the rest stop in AR was almost certainly a red herring. The trucker (who was interviewed) saw the flyer looking for JC, and had seen & bought breakfast/lunch for a homeless drifter that resembled JC - not long before. The drifter was dressed relatively well but was still obviously down on his luck, which in & of itself is not really that unusual.

Hello everyone. After reading several newspapers from the time of John Cheek's disappearance, I have come to believe that, unfortunately, he is now deceased. However, after reading that immediately following the Ron Jackson sighting there were more sightings collected by several of John's friends, I do not believe that he committed suicide. I would give what I have to be able to bring closure to the Cheek family, although I think they must be resigned by now. R.I.P. John Andrews Cheek.

Hello everyone. After reading several newspapers from the time of John Cheek's disappearance, I have come to believe that, unfortunately, he is now deceased. However, after reading that immediately following the Ron Jackson sighting there were more sightings collected by several of John's friends, I do not believe that he committed suicide. I would give what I have to be able to bring closure to the Cheek family, although I think they must be resigned by now. R.I.P. John Andrews Cheek.

There's always 'sightings'

The problem is.. Rarely are they accurate.

Yet again, I will remind people of the "Lil Miss" sightings where HIGHLY credible people saw things that it wasn't possible for them to have seen.

Just like the Amy Bradley case, the simplest answer here is most likely true.. He went into the Mississippi River, either intentionally or not (More on this in a minute) and that's where his life ended that day.

Now.. Suicide / accident / medical event? How about all of the above? He was under high stress. He was 28.. A little long in the tooth, but at the area where psychological problems, such as schizophrenia, manifest.

Or.. He could be like the NFL QB Haskins who died here recently.. High on ketamine. Wouldn't be the first time someone stepped up or started drug use to handle stress.

I can't think of a single time where a "sighting" of someone like this actually turned out to be accurate.

I can't think of a single time where a "sighting" of someone like this actually turned out to be accurate.

Yeah.. I talked about this before.. 95% of the time sightings are BS. They keep getting talked about in any and every case, however, because the sighting fits someone's narrative.

Now, that narrative can be from family that just wants to believe.. Yet again, I will bring up the sweetly insane Noreen Gosch. She's lost her mind from grief and I doubt is thinking clearly.. but.. It's kinda understandable, you know?

Then there's the Lisa Kimmell situation. So many 'sightings' of her and her car.. Some of which I'm sure were just honest mistakes, such as the sheriff's wife. Unfortunately, them being incorrect probably hindered the case.

Then there's the people who mention a sighting.. I haven't figured this out yet, but because they want their 15 minutes, or are they throwing out something random so that they might get a piece of a reward? If you call in and say you saw so-and-so here at this time, and it was plausible they were there then.. Could you make a claim for a piece of the reward money?

Random thought having just re-watched this segment. I always thought the man who bought the drifter breakfast was telling the truth. I know tons of people say they saw this or that person when they're missing, but I always kinda believed him. Or at least he truly thought he saw John Cheek.

Random thought having just re-watched this segment. I always thought the man who bought the drifter breakfast was telling the truth. I know tons of people say they saw this or that person when they're missing, but I always kinda believed him. Or at least he truly thought he saw John Cheek.

You also have to look at him as possibly just being honestly mistaken. Those are the ones that are most believable, because THEY believe it themselves.

That still doesn't make them RIGHT. But, they're not trying to goof around or screw someone over or anything like that.. They just made a mistake and don't believe that they did or can't recognize that they did.

They, unfortunately, can certainly hinder an investigation by doing so, but.. You know.. Sometimes eyewitnesses are actually RIGHT, so, you don't really want to discourage these folks.. But, you have to look at EVERY report with, at least something of, a skeptical eye.

Once someone seizes upon something as fact. Whether it is or not.. It's hard, if not impossible to shake them of that belief.

If he was drinking that night, couldn't he have pulled over there just to urinate? It was 12 miles from his home and he might not have been able to hold it much longer. He could have gone near the bridge to go, then exhaustion and alcohol took over and he passed out falling off the bridge into the water. It's possible he just jumped due to the increased depression from the drinking. I don't think he was with the truck driver. Probably someone that looked like him.

I can't think of a single time where a "sighting" of someone like this actually turned out to be accurate.

The only ones I can think of are the people who saw Alex Cooper and the people who witnessed Devin Williams behaving strangely in the woods. Other than those, I got none.

Having just watched this segment and read though the posts, its clear people are overstating the odds of suicide in this case.

There is no evidence of suicide in this case, nor is there evidence of circumstances which might be expected to lead to suicide. He was by every measure a very successful man who was very close to closing a deal which would make him reasonably wealthy at the age of 28. Importantly, none of his family or friends indicated anything abnormal leading up to his disappearance which would indicate suicidal intent. This includes business associates who last saw him.

Contrary to some suggestions, the deal did not fall through, and an accounting review revealed that he was not implicated in any improper activity. The deal was held for further review by the SEC, but that would hardly have been a concern of significant magnitude to someone with his background.

Although the hours he was working were certainly long, for someone who had gone to UChicago they would not be that far out of his prior experience to think he was unable to handle it.

Significantly, no body was located despite the fact that an extensive search was undertaken. Although it is certainly possible to lose bodies in large rivers, the Mississippi at Memphis is a wide and slow moving river. It is also well south of the area which freezes with any regularity. December (when John went missing) is generally only slightly above the minimum flow rate seen in late summer. Given an extensive search of the area, and the fact that the car was located less than 12 hours after he was last seen the lack of a body is evidence against a suicide.

Several facts omitted from the Unsolved Mysteries segment further confuse the case. The garage door at John's house was left open, which was not something he ever did. The exact location of his car also seems to be a matter of some dispute, the location given by the Charley Project is closer to the exit than the bridge, although UM shows what appears to be the actual police photo which would contradict this.

Although sightings are sometimes incorrect, the suggestion they are wrong 95% of the time is absurd in any fair assessment of them. I suppose if you took any sighting, of any quality, as the denominator you could get to a 95% fail rate, however that is clearly not the rate for sightings which have been filtered based on some quality as to the observation and witness (if the fail rate was 95% UM would never have solved any cases, people can and do correctly identify persons pictured on the show).

That said I'm on the fence about the truck driver sighting. That would seem to fit a theory that he had mentally snapped or suffered a head injury and was wandering the country aimlessly. Given certain other elements of his disappearance, such as the car in an area it had no reason to be and an open door I wonder about him meeting with foul play for whatever reason.

There is no evidence of suicide in this case, nor is there evidence of circumstances which might be expected to lead to suicide.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest he killed himself.

-His car was found abandoned here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1253897,-90.0729194,3a,25.2y,312.3h,89.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBc8zNcZ7po_q3GlF_NyBkg!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), which is on a bridge overlooking the Mississippi River.

-He was reportedly working 18 hour days trying to close a very significant business deal.

-He did not show up for work, nor call in to say he wasn't coming in, which raised alarm bells with his coworkers.

-Outside of one very shaky alleged sighting two months after he disappeared, no one has reported to have seen this man alive since he disappeared in 1993.

-Both the police and John's family inspected his car and both agreed that it was left the way John would have left it.

The only reason this segment made it to UM was because of the alleged breakfast sighting. His car was abandoned with no signs of foul play. His family believed it was left the way John would have left it. Meaning he drove it there. Either he jumped off the bridge or hitchhiked his way out of his old life and is living in a homeless shelter somewhere being able to successfully hide for the last 30 years.

Either he jumped off the bridge or hitchhiked his way out of his old life and is living in a homeless shelter somewhere being able to successfully hide for the last 30 years.

Yeah, it's the same shelter with Kristi Krebs, Gordon Page, Patty Meehan, Gordy Collins and whoever else I'm missing. The reason they can't be found is that the shelter is on Florian's ship in international waters. Speculation that these people were alive for any length of time has gotten even older than the cases themselves.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest he killed himself.


I disagree with that conclusion, there is no evidence he killed himself, and limited circumstantial evidence he did so. But I appreciate the push for discussion here.


-His car was found abandoned... which is on a bridge overlooking the Mississippi River.


As I pointed out, some sources disagree on where the car was abandoned, though the bridge location does seem most well supported.
That said, a car being abandoned by a river is very weak evidence of suicide, it could be evidence of foul play just as easily, or even abandonment by John before going off on foot. But I will agree that this could be evidence of suicide among other things.


-He was reportedly working 18 hour days trying to close a very significant business deal.


This is really not evidence of suicide, if anything it is the evidence against suicide given how much he stood to gain in the deal. Also while working those kinds of hours might be a problem for many people he was a graduate of the University of Chicago ie. he was cut from a different fabric than many and would be well acquainted with such work levels.


-He did not show up for work, nor call in to say he wasn't coming in, which raised alarm bells with his coworkers.


Might be evidence of suicide, but is just as much evidence of foul play. Significantly, none of those same coworkers, family, or friends gave any indication whatsoever of changes in his mood, etc. that would support a suicide conclusion.


-Outside of one very shaky alleged sighting two months after he disappeared, no one has reported to have seen this man alive since he disappeared in 1993.


This is evidence he is deceased, it is not evidence that he died by his own hand. I agree with the conclusion that he is very likely deceased and further that he likely died prior to the alleged sighting. But none of that suggests he died at his own hand, only that he died.


-Both the police and John's family inspected his car and both agreed that it was left the way John would have left it.


Almost every case I have ever heard the "they left the car the way they would have" line I have rolled my eyes.:rolleyes:
Seriously, what the hell does that even mean? They put it in park like everyone else? I'm sorry, but I am just completely unconvinced that there is anything distinctive about how we leave our cars. Its not a fingerprint, its not fiber evidence, its not a polygraph, its next to nothing. The only exception to this might be if someone had a very peculiar habit in how they parked their car like putting it in 5th gear and leaving the brake off or something, but 99% of the time this line is just BS. Parking a car is a highly standardized procedure with few input variations that most people do the same way. The only cases where I find this even slightly convincing are where the car was left in an unusual way that the family does not think someone would leave it (ie. Brianna Maitland). On top of all of that, the idea that a person's relatives know how they park their car is even a bit questionable, if you asked mine how I parked my car they probabally could not say much beyond I lock it like most people.
This is not evidence of anything, much less suicide. It is spurious reasoning based on nothing.


The only reason this segment made it to UM was because of the alleged breakfast sighting.


I might agree with that, but I really don't think making it to UM or not has any bearing on it being a suicide vs foul play. The breakfast sighting might have been needed to make a segment, but even without that it might have worked.


His car was abandoned with no signs of foul play.


Yes, but a car does not show foul play the way a home often does, there are few things to knock over or bump out of place. If someone tussles in the car it can look the same unless significant bleeding takes place. For example someone carjacking the car with a firearm could easily do so without leaving a trace of a struggle. The absence of signs of a struggle does not mean that much.


His family believed it was left the way John would have left it. Meaning he drove it there.


See above on "he left it the way he would have." Also if you think the family can tell that he parked the car, then why not also believe the family that is equally certain the man sighted long after the fact was John as well? The details of the sighting involve the actual person, not an inanimate object they interact with and thus should be far more reliable.

Also, while this detail was strangely omitted from UM (as far as I can tell, its not in the Wiki write-up and I don't recall it from the remixed film rise segment, though it could have been in the original) The Charley Project indicates that "The garage door, which Cheek always kept shut, was left open." Again, if we believe that the family can be authoritative on how he parked the car we must also concede that they know how he kept the garage door and that indicates he was not the one who opened it.

To jump to the conclusion he drove it there is completely unwarranted.


Either he jumped off the bridge or hitchhiked his way out of his old life and is living in a homeless shelter somewhere being able to successfully hide for the last 30 years.


An obvious false dichotomy fallacy. There is no reason it must be either of those options. He could have met with foul play at that time (my favored theory) or actually lived homeless for a time (enough to make the sighting real) only to die of exposure, misadventure, suicide, or foul play subsequent to that time but long before 30 years passed and been registered as a John Doe or never found at all. Trying to support a suicide conclusion by constructing an artificially absurd alternate conclusion and claiming it is the only alternative does not work logically or otherwise.

Just watched this case for the first time (realizing that I haven't seen alot of cases). It's obvious that he jumped off the bridge where his car was found. Why else would his car be parked on the bridge? He was driving along just fine, and then had a mental breakdown out of nowhere and decided to hitchhike?

To hitchhike from Memphis to Virginia (and apparently staying at a shelter in Arkansas) I feel like someone else would've identified him. I feel like a clean-cut man in a suit walking around mumbling to himself would've drew more attention.

I'm not sure if the truck driver had breakfast with a drifter or not, but it wasn't with John. I feel like he was either over-stressed, or the deal fell through and he jumped off the bridge

double post

I disagree with that conclusion, there is no evidence he killed himself, and limited circumstantial evidence he did so. But I appreciate the push for discussion here.

You originally said there was "no evidence of suicide" in this case, but you are now conceding that there was "limited" circumstantial evidence.

As I pointed out, some sources disagree on where the car was abandoned, though the bridge location does seem most well supported.

What sources "disagree"? UM showed the actual police photos of the car being found on the bridge. His family does not contest that his car was found there.

That said, a car being abandoned by a river is very weak evidence of suicide, it could be evidence of foul play just as easily, or even abandonment by John before going off on foot. But I will agree that this could be evidence of suicide among other things.

His car was in the condition his family said it would always be left in: neat. The odds that someone else drove the car to this location who would have had a reason to do harm to John would have been perfect story fodder for UM to play up, and an angle you would think his family would have wanted pursued. But nope. They fully believe that if he was alive he had some sort of stressed induced amnesia. There is absolutely zero evidence of foul play in this case.

This is really not evidence of suicide, if anything it is the evidence against suicide given how much he stood to gain in the deal. Also while working those kinds of hours might be a problem for many people he was a graduate of the University of Chicago ie. he was cut from a different fabric than many and would be well acquainted with such work levels.

The apparent stamina of University of Chicago graduates aside, there is more evidence to suggest there were other things he was tied up in at the time of his disappearance aside from the deal. This (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1994/02/25/an-executive-hits-the-vanishing-point/30dddee8-d4d6-442e-b310-8c13bcf593e2/) article says he owned and managed several apartment complexes in several states in the south. Maybe that was the stressor that caused him to snap, and had nothing to do with this big deal about to go through. This (https://memphismagazine.com/features/unsolved-mysteries/) article reports a "last minute glitch" about the deal, but doesn't go into specifics. This (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-91592.html) article states the issue was "beyond calling it a "tax issue that was resolved," Good declined to say exactly what went wrong."

Might be evidence of suicide, but is just as much evidence of foul play. Significantly, none of those same coworkers, family, or friends gave any indication whatsoever of changes in his mood, etc. that would support a suicide conclusion.

John was dropped off at his car on December the 1st by a coworker at 11:00 p.m. The cops searched his home and found nothing. His car was locked...something someone disposing of it would not care about doing. Nothing was missing from the house except for John.

This is evidence he is deceased, it is not evidence that he died by his own hand. I agree with the conclusion that he is very likely deceased and further that he likely died prior to the alleged sighting. But none of that suggests he died at his own hand, only that he died.

You need actual suspects to declare that he was the victim of foul play. None of which have ever turned up.

Almost every case I have ever heard the "they left the car the way they would have" line I have rolled my eyes.:rolleyes:
Seriously, what the hell does that even mean? They put it in park like everyone else? I'm sorry, but I am just completely unconvinced that there is anything distinctive about how we leave our cars. Its not a fingerprint, its not fiber evidence, its not a polygraph, its next to nothing. The only exception to this might be if someone had a very peculiar habit in how they parked their car like putting it in 5th gear and leaving the brake off or something, but 99% of the time this line is just BS. Parking a car is a highly standardized procedure with few input variations that most people do the same way. The only cases where I find this even slightly convincing are where the car was left in an unusual way that the family does not think someone would leave it (ie. Brianna Maitland). On top of all of that, the idea that a person's relatives know how they park their car is even a bit questionable, if you asked mine how I parked my car they probabally could not say much beyond I lock it like most people. This is not evidence of anything, much less suicide. It is spurious reasoning based on nothing.

Yeah, you're right. People don't move the seat forward or backwards depending on who is driving it, and they definitely are never particular about how tidy they keep their vehicles. :rolleyes:

I might agree with that, but I really don't think making it to UM or not has any bearing on it being a suicide vs foul play. The breakfast sighting might have been needed to make a segment, but even without that it might have worked.


"TONIGHT ON UNSOLVED MYSTERIES...a prominent businessman who was working on a million dollar deal that hit a glitch days before it was about to close mysteriously vanished and his car was found on a bridge...was he the victim of an overworked schedule...or aliens?!?!"

Wouldn't have made for a great segment at all because it would have been clear to anyone with common sense that he killed himself.

Yes, but a car does not show foul play the way a home often does, there are few things to knock over or bump out of place. If someone tussles in the car it can look the same unless significant bleeding takes place. For example someone carjacking the car with a firearm could easily do so without leaving a trace of a struggle. The absence of signs of a struggle does not mean that much.

Why did this mysterious carjacker not actually do the things carjackers typically do and actually rob their victim?

See above on "he left it the way he would have." Also if you think the family can tell that he parked the car, then why not also believe the family that is equally certain the man sighted long after the fact was John as well? The details of the sighting involve the actual person, not an inanimate object they interact with and thus should be far more reliable.

There is more evidence to suggest John Cheek was alive after his car was found than there is that he was the victim of foul play.

Also, while this detail was strangely omitted from UM (as far as I can tell, its not in the Wiki write-up and I don't recall it from the remixed film rise segment, though it could have been in the original) The Charley Project indicates that "The garage door, which Cheek always kept shut, was left open." Again, if we believe that the family can be authoritative on how he parked the car we must also concede that they know how he kept the garage door and that indicates he was not the one who opened it.

This just means he left it open.

An obvious false dichotomy fallacy. There is no reason it must be either of those options. He could have met with foul play at that time (my favored theory) or actually lived homeless for a time (enough to make the sighting real) only to die of exposure, misadventure, suicide, or foul play subsequent to that time but long before 30 years passed and been registered as a John Doe or never found at all. Trying to support a suicide conclusion by constructing an artificially absurd alternate conclusion and claiming it is the only alternative does not work logically or otherwise.

Do you copy and paste your responses and forget which threads you are using them in? Your "favored theory" is "spurious reasoning based on nothing" and "does not work logically or otherwise."

To hitchhike from Memphis to Virginia (and apparently staying at a shelter in Montana) I feel like someone else would've identified him. I feel like a clean-cut man in a suit walking around mumbling to himself would've drew more attention.



Am I completely forgetting something about supposedly staying at a shelter in Montana, or are you confusing this aspect with the Dan Wilson case?

Am I completely forgetting something about supposedly staying at a shelter in Montana, or are you confusing this aspect with the Dan Wilson case?

Oh crap I meant Arkansas. In the segment the truck driver said that he was talking about a homeless shelter in Arkansas that took care of him

Oh, that's right, too.

In yet another case of a mistaken eyewitness, Dan Wilson was the one who stayed at a shelter in Montana. Actually, a Dan Wilson did stay there per the sign-in sheet, but not the correct man.

You originally said there was "no evidence of suicide" in this case, but you are now conceding that there was "limited" circumstantial evidence.


False, I still say there is no evidence, only circumstantial evidence (and there is a distinction).
Evidence of suicide would be something like a suicide note saying he was going to kill himself. That note implies suicide and does not readily imply anything else.
By contrast, the car being abandoned is ambiguous, maybe he jumped off the bridge, or maybe someone dumped him off. Hence the term "circumstantial" it is only evidence of suicide due to surrounding circumstances.



What sources "disagree"? UM showed the actual police photos of the car being found on the bridge. His family does not contest that his car was found there.

The Charley Project states "his car was found abandoned in an industrial area at Crump Boulevard and Riverside Drive on the Delaware Street exit ramp" this is hard to read as being consistent with the UM placement.
Like you I presume what UM showed was the actual photo, and thus most likely correct, but the fact that other descriptions place the car differently in that area is worth noting.



His car was in the condition his family said it would always be left in: neat.


What does "neat" even mean? That someone did not make a mess? Supposing someone else drove his car the x miles to the bridge how exactly would it cease to be "neat"? I suppose if they stopped off at Micky-D's for a Big Mac and smeared fries into the seat cushions that might do it, but realistically the car not becoming filthy in x miles does not seem relevant. Many people keep their cars neat, and there is certainly nothing unique in that description to justify a conclusion that he drove it there or didn't.


The odds that someone else drove the car to this location who would have had a reason to do harm to John would have been perfect story fodder for UM to play up, and an angle you would think his family would have wanted pursued. But nope. They fully believe that if he was alive he had some sort of stressed induced amnesia. There is absolutely zero evidence of foul play in this case.


This is spurious logic. Just because UM could have also taken that angle does not mean it is invalid. I suspect the family, and maybe even UM, chose to play up the amnesia angle because they hope to find him alive. The possibility he is dead and at the hands of another is relatively less pleasant. But in any case, the idea that UM ignoring something makes it irrelevant is not something you or I or anyone else here would consistently agree to.


The apparent stamina of University of Chicago graduates aside, there is more evidence to suggest there were other things he was tied up in at the time of his disappearance aside from the deal. This (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1994/02/25/an-executive-hits-the-vanishing-point/30dddee8-d4d6-442e-b310-8c13bcf593e2/) article says he owned and managed several apartment complexes in several states in the south. Maybe that was the stressor that caused him to snap, and had nothing to do with this big deal about to go through. This (https://memphismagazine.com/features/unsolved-mysteries/) article reports a "last minute glitch" about the deal, but doesn't go into specifics. This (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/archive/index.php/t-91592.html) article states the issue was "beyond calling it a "tax issue that was resolved," Good declined to say exactly what went wrong."


Regarding the issue, with the benefit of hindsight we know that the deal did go through and no lasting issue was found. From The Charley Project " Later, the deal was completed and an audit of the business found no evidence of wrongdoing on Cheek's part, but because he was missing he was never given the financial rewards he expected."
All evidence suggests that there was nothing wrong with the deal itself, no wrongdoing on John's part, etc. that would be a cause for him committing suicide. Had the deal actually fallen through before he disappeared, or had some accounting irregularity been found after the fact to suggest a reason for him to be concerned that would be different, but that isn't what happened.



John was dropped off at his car on December the 1st by a coworker at 11:00 p.m. The cops searched his home and found nothing.


False, the cops found "The garage door, which Cheek always kept shut, was left open." (Charley Project)


His car was locked...something someone disposing of it would not care about doing. Nothing was missing from the house except for John.


Someone disposing of a vehicle may or may not lock it. It could be locked out of habit, or it could be locked as a way to prevent anyone from simply opening a door to check the contents and see what was afoot. Or it could have been intentionally locked to give the impression John parked it there.


You need actual suspects to declare that he was the victim of foul play. None of which have ever turned up.


Demonstrably false. There are thousands of cases nationwide where persons have been obvious victims of foul play without a suspect. You do not need a suspect to prove that someone died of foul play. You do need a body however, which in this case we do not have. However, in the absence of a body both suicide and foul play are possibilities and the relative probability of each must be determined by circumstances. See The Charley Project for many examples where a the evidence surrounding a missing person strongly implies either foul play, suicide, misadventure, or none of those.


Yeah, you're right. People don't move the seat forward or backwards depending on who is driving it, and they definitely are never particular about how tidy they keep their vehicles. :rolleyes:


Moving a seat forward or back is important when the driver is of significantly different size than the previous driver. John was 6 feet tall, fairly close to average for a male, and there is a good chance that any foul play would have been at the hands of a male, so a seat adjustment is not required.
Furthermore, seat adjustments are more important and noticeable when driving a manual transmission than an automatic. John's vehicle was offered with both transmission options so it is hard to say which he had, but especially with an auto it is not necessary to adjust the seat, especially for a short duration drive.
As to being tidy, I fully agree some people are particular about how "tidy" they keep a vehicle or not. However one person driving the vehicle as a result of foul play for 10 miles or whatever is unlikely to materially affect how tidy the vehicle is so that means little.



"TONIGHT ON UNSOLVED MYSTERIES...a prominent businessman who was working on a million dollar deal that hit a glitch days before it was about to close mysteriously vanished and his car was found on a bridge...was he the victim of an overworked schedule...or aliens?!?!"

Wouldn't have made for a great segment at all because it would have been clear to anyone with common sense that he killed himself.


Argumentum ad absurdo. There is no need for the "aliens" alternative. A simple "foul play or suicide" line works fine. Let's re-write it to illustrate this.

"TONIGHT ON UNSOLVED MYSTERIES...a prominent businessman who was working on a million dollar deal that would have made him a wealthy man disappears...was he the victim of an overworked schedule...or foul play?"


Why did this mysterious carjacker not actually do the things carjackers typically do and actually rob their victim?


I did not say he was carjacked for theft. I am saying if someone pointed a gun at him and ordered him to drive to a location and get out of the car that would leave no evidence of a struggle. It would also constitute a carjacking.


There is more evidence to suggest John Cheek was alive after his car was found than there is that he was the victim of foul play.


Debatable. Given how much he had going for him it seems far more reasonable to me that he was killed than deciding to off himself. Furthermore, suicides don't hide bodies, but killers often do.


This just means he left it open.


Nope. Once you are insistent that his "distinctive way of parking his car" means that he parked it, you must also concede that the fact that he never left the door open means someone else did.


Do you copy and paste your responses and forget which threads you are using them in? Your "favored theory" is "spurious reasoning based on nothing" and "does not work logically or otherwise."


Um...no? Not sure what part of that quote does not apply to John, but it was written specifically for this response.

As to my favored theory, it is neither spurious nor based on nothing, but rather that a successful man that was about to become significantly wealthy is less likely to kill himself than be killed by someone else. That is based on solid facts, that we know he was successful and that the deal would have made him wealthy, neither of which can be disputed.
By contrast, the suicide theory is based on ignoring the garage door being open, and assuming that John parked the car by the bridge, which is speculation not fact.

On a final note, I'm very happy to have re-invigorated the discussion on this case, even if we don't agree on the conclusion. :)

False, I still say there is no evidence, only circumstantial evidence (and there is a distinction).
Evidence of suicide would be something like a suicide note saying he was going to kill himself. That note implies suicide and does not readily imply anything else.
By contrast, the car being abandoned is ambiguous, maybe he jumped off the bridge, or maybe someone dumped him off. Hence the term "circumstantial" it is only evidence of suicide due to surrounding circumstances.

Lol, you are a troll.

The Charley Project states "his car was found abandoned in an industrial area at Crump Boulevard and Riverside Drive on the Delaware Street exit ramp" this is hard to read as being consistent with the UM placement.
Like you I presume what UM showed was the actual photo, and thus most likely correct, but the fact that other descriptions place the car differently in that area is worth noting.

Here (https://cdn.unsolved.com/wp-content/uploads/existing/mis_john_cheek2.jpg?x33421) is his car. I don't care what Charley Project (which is often wrong with details) says. They showed the actual picture of his car on UM.


What does "neat" even mean? That someone did not make a mess? Supposing someone else drove his car the x miles to the bridge how exactly would it cease to be "neat"? I suppose if they stopped off at Micky-D's for a Big Mac and smeared fries into the seat cushions that might do it, but realistically the car not becoming filthy in x miles does not seem relevant. Many people keep their cars neat, and there is certainly nothing unique in that description to justify a conclusion that he drove it there or didn't.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neat

This is spurious logic. Just because UM could have also taken that angle does not mean it is invalid. I suspect the family, and maybe even UM, chose to play up the amnesia angle because they hope to find him alive. The possibility he is dead and at the hands of another is relatively less pleasant. But in any case, the idea that UM ignoring something makes it irrelevant is not something you or I or anyone else here would consistently agree to.

When asked to comment on a 2003 article, his parents declined saying it was "too painful". Which is totally something you would do if you thought your child was the victim of foul play.

Regarding the issue, with the benefit of hindsight we know that the deal did go through and no lasting issue was found. From The Charley Project " Later, the deal was completed and an audit of the business found no evidence of wrongdoing on Cheek's part, but because he was missing he was never given the financial rewards he expected."
All evidence suggests that there was nothing wrong with the deal itself, no wrongdoing on John's part, etc. that would be a cause for him committing suicide. Had the deal actually fallen through before he disappeared, or had some accounting irregularity been found after the fact to suggest a reason for him to be concerned that would be different, but that isn't what happened.

Cheek didn't have the benefit of hindsight because he killed himself before the deal was completed.

False, the cops found "The garage door, which Cheek always kept shut, was left open." (Charley Project)

It's funny how you dismiss his car being left the way he always left it and then want to hang your hat on the fact that his garage door being open is somehow evidence of foul play.

Someone disposing of a vehicle may or may not lock it. It could be locked out of habit, or it could be locked as a way to prevent anyone from simply opening a door to check the contents and see what was afoot. Or it could have been intentionally locked to give the impression John parked it there.

By whom?

Demonstrably false. There are thousands of cases nationwide where persons have been obvious victims of foul play without a suspect. You do not need a suspect to prove that someone died of foul play. You do need a body however, which in this case we do not have. However, in the absence of a body both suicide and foul play are possibilities and the relative probability of each must be determined by circumstances. See The Charley Project for many examples where a the evidence surrounding a missing person strongly implies either foul play, suicide, misadventure, or none of those.

Nope, you need some sort of suspect. It could even be a random serial killer who targets overworked University of Chicago grad students who abandon their car a day after a huge business deal hits a snag.

"TONIGHT ON UNSOLVED MYSTERIES...a prominent businessman who was working on a million dollar deal that would have made him a wealthy man disappears...was he the victim of an overworked schedule...or foul play?"

And then the segment is 3 minutes because all they have is his car being abandoned on a bridge and a garage door being left open.

I did not say he was carjacked for theft. I am saying if someone pointed a gun at him and ordered him to drive to a location and get out of the car that would leave no evidence of a struggle. It would also constitute a carjacking.

Ahh, the good ol' fashioned carjackers who order you at gunpoint to jump off of a bridge.

Debatable. Given how much he had going for him it seems far more reasonable to me that he was killed than deciding to off himself. Furthermore, suicides don't hide bodies, but killers often do.

Suicides do hide bodies. All the time.

Nope. Once you are insistent that his "distinctive way of parking his car" means that he parked it, you must also concede that the fact that he never left the door open means someone else did.

I like how you use quotations for things I never said. But yes, the garage door being left open definitely means someone else left it open. :rolleyes:

As to my favored theory, it is neither spurious nor based on nothing, but rather that a successful man that was about to become significantly wealthy is less likely to kill himself than be killed by someone else. That is based on solid facts, that we know he was successful and that the deal would have made him wealthy, neither of which can be disputed.
By contrast, the suicide theory is based on ignoring the garage door being open, and assuming that John parked the car by the bridge, which is speculation not fact.

:wave: troll

It's obvious that he jumped off the bridge where his car was found. Why else would his car be parked on the bridge? He was driving along just fine, and then had a mental breakdown out of nowhere and decided to hitchhike?

To hitchhike from Memphis to Virginia (and apparently staying at a shelter in Arkansas) I feel like someone else would've identified him. I feel like a clean-cut man in a suit walking around mumbling to himself would've drew more attention.

I'm not sure if the truck driver had breakfast with a drifter or not, but it wasn't with John. I feel like he was either over-stressed, or the deal fell through and he jumped off the bridge

This pretty much sums it up.

The Charley Project states "his car was found abandoned in an industrial area at Crump Boulevard and Riverside Drive on the Delaware Street exit ramp" this is hard to read as being consistent with the UM placement.
Like you I presume what UM showed was the actual photo, and thus most likely correct, but the fact that other descriptions place the car differently in that area is worth noting.

Emphasis mine. There is no Delaware Street exit ramp at the Crump/Riverside Dr interchange in Memphis. It simply does not exist, so we know Charley Project is wrong on this point.

Crump Blvd becomes I-55 west of this interchange, towards Arkansas. Just a mile or so down the road, Exit 12C, at the time of Cheek's disappearance, would have been the Delaware St exit (it's now Metal Museum Dr). This is the last exit ramp one can take before crossing the Memphis-Arkansas bridge over the Mississippi River. It isn't far at all from the bridge itself--one could abandon a car on this exit ramp and walk just a few hundred feet to it.

Even if the photograph WAS a recreation of some sort by the television show (and I personally don't think it is), the point still stands that all descriptions have that car abandoned on or within feet of the bridge, lending credence to the theory that John jumped from it.

I'm not sure if the truck driver had breakfast with a drifter or not, but it wasn't with John. I feel like he was either over-stressed, or the deal fell through and he jumped off the bridge

Agreed. I don't think it was explicitly mentioned in the segment, but I believe sleep deprivation could also have been a factor. He was working long days, almost certainly not sleeping much, and traveling frequently. Lack of sleep and stress will absolutely wreck you, even if it's something you think you can handle for a prolonged period of time. It doesn't sound like the deal fell through (as the company became very successful), but I think he eventually broke under the pressure and just couldn't handle it anymore and leaped from the bridge.

I really feel for his poor parents, and I'm sure the sight of the drifter gave them hope they desperately wanted. But it almost certainly couldn't have been John.

In addition to the sleep deprivation and the stress he was under, didn’t other materials reveal that John had been drinking heavily the night he went missing? Because if he had, that only further serves to add more fodder to the Suicide theory. All the details mentioned sound like textbook suicide behavior.

FYI, a lot of times suicide is a disturbingly spur-of-the-moment affair, often involving little, if any, planning. Cheek could have easily just crashed emotionally, driven to the bridge, and leapt off without giving much time and attention to his actions. Also, very few suicide victims leave behind notes, further demonstrating the spontaneity involved with the event.