When the victim’s replacement laptop arrived on April 1, Wan offered to pick up the computer from the freshman mail center and to set it up so that it would be ready when the victim returned from class, the victim said.

The victim said he happily gave Wan his key, ID, and mailbox combination.

That night, the victim said he noticed that his computer was missing expected components—both the DVD drive and the T-23 label were missing.

Three days later, the victim said he noticed an IBM Thinkpad T-23 on Wan’s desk. He said he did not suspect anything because Wan had always told him that he had a Thinkpad at home, and now said that his parents had shipped it to him.

But on April 26, the victim said Wan asked their proctor to check the laptop on the victim’s desk, because he believed the victim had faked the theft of his own laptop to commit insurance fraud, even though the victim had not yet filed for insurance money.

Wan and the victim’s proctor, Steven J. Mitby, declined comment yesterday.

When the proctor examined the victim’s laptop, the computer actually contained files from a date prior to the new computer’s purchase.

Further investigation indicated that it was not, in fact the expected T-23 computer but instead was the same T-22 computer the victim had originally reported stolen.

The victim said the proctor then proceeded to question him for three hours, believing that he had faked the theft of his own computer.

“I was saying ‘I want to know where my new computer is,’ but then I realized that all evidence was pointing against me,” the victim said.

The victim said he became distressed and decided to stay with family for the weekend. When he returned, he spoke with his proctor again, trying to convince him that he had been framed.

On April 28, the victim said, his proctor obtained a confession from Wan, and found the victim’s replacement computer—the T-23 earlier spotted on Wan’s desk—in Wang’s room upstairs.

Other Incidents

The computer incident was not the only one about which Wan and Wang were questioned by HUPD last week.

Two weeks before the computer story unraveled, early on the morning of April 17, the victim was returning to his room but was unable to enter because the lock had been jammed with plastic pieces.