UT UT - Reed Jeppson, 15, Salt Lake City, 11 Oct 1964

[Satch]

So, I thought I would try and have a look at some of the other leads and tips in this case that have received little attention compared to others. Although LE did follow them up at the time, they didn’t lead anywhere, but I wonder if we can shed any new light on them now. It always bothered me that the sighting at St Mary of Wasatch school was given so much credibility but other information was sort of just brushed under the carpet. Especially considering the school sighting seems to not tie in with Jon Jeppson’s memories of events at all. So here goes:

“Reports that motorists who believed they had seen the dogs were checked out."

So, it seems that LE received reports from several people that they had seen the dogs. After looking into it, LE didn’t find anything…hardly surprising as the dogs were probably long gone. Now apparently this is several different reports, not just one, which adds credence to the reports. I for one believe these reports for the reason that it seems a stretch to believe that there were more than one set of the same breed of dogs, an older one and a pup, potentially wandering around the same area. Unfortunately there is no mention of what road the motorists saw the dogs on or even if it was at the same place, which is a shame as it could help to place where Reed was when he vanished. I wonder if LE would release this information if they were asked? Do you think it is worth contacting them to ask the information?

I think we have always assumed that dogs would have returned home so we assumed that they were either taken with Reed or were involved in an accident along with him, but what if that’s not the case, what if for whatever reason they didn’t return home. I just did a quick Google search for “will German pointer return home if lost?” and I got page after page basically telling me that this breed is prone to wandering away, running away and is easily distracted and basically no, this breed may not return home of its own accord. One page says “German Shorthaired Pointers can be escape artists, runners and go missing to far away locations”.

I think this has implications. It seems possible that Reed may have actually been kidnapped and the kidnapper just didn’t take the dogs. Afterwards the dogs just must have wandered off along the road. I can’t say where they ended up. Although I’d like to believe that local people or even the local pound would have realised these were Reed’s dogs, we can’t be 100% sure of that, especially if they wandered far enough away.

It is also possible that Reed had an accident and the dogs didn’t stay with him, but somehow I find that harder to believe. I am drawn to Reed having been taken in a car. Since he would never have left the dogs, it would have to be by force.



Kansas City, MO police were "notified after information was received that the youth might be traveling to that city."



This one has always stood out to me. LE received a tip that he had gone to Kansas City…from who? People don’t just leave credible tips unless they have some extra information. (I had originally thought that it was Kansas the state, I now realise it is Kansas City. Not being American I had no idea that Kansas City was actually in Missouri so I at least learnt something!). Anyway, since SLCPD went to the trouble of notifying Missouri LE I assume the tip was credible. The question is, what was in Kansas City?

I did a bit of research. The only events I can find that were happening close to Reed’s disappearance were

• 17th October-A Beatles concert
• 18th October-Kansas City Chiefs vs. Denver Broncos

But both of these dates are a week after he went missing so I am not convinced it was for them. We know he was a football fan, but would he have been interested in that particular game? Neither is a local team for him. And as for the Beatles, how likely is it he was such a big fan to run away to see them? Either there was something else happening or someone who knew him knew of another reason he would want to go there?

There are also the dogs to consider. I don’t think he would take the dogs with him if he was intending to go elsewhere. But still it bothers me that someone was convinced enough that he may have gone to Kansas City that they informed LE.



I also intend to have a look at the local Salt Lake papers in the weeks leading up to October 11th to see if there was any particular crime reported that stands out as possible something significant, maybe Reed stumbled into something illegal.



Anyway, please let me know your thoughts on this, and if anyone has anything to add.

Regarding Kansas and Kansas City,

In the USA there is the State of Kansas. There are TWO Kansas cities:

1.) Kansas City, Kansas
2.) Kansas City, Missouri

Satch

 

[voicefromtheholler]

I think about the above statement as well,

So many articles saying different contradictory things! For me it boils down to two likely outcomes. contingent on whether Reed took his $60 savings account money with him? And even if he did, why would he leave his paper route money at home? Why not take all his money?

1.) If Reed took money with him intending to meet someone, he most likely met with foul play.
2.) If Reed only took the dogs for a walk. I lean more towards an accident.
3.) It is possible that Reed could have met up with an accident before meeting the party(s) involved with the transaction.
4.) Still wishing that the friend who claimed to see Reed behind the school would have come forward with more information, if known.
5.) Need to hear from classmates, LE, any other surviving people who remember the day and investigation.
6.) Over time, the family had different theories about what happened to Reed. But are 1000% convinced, as I am that he did not run away, nor commit suicide. Something terrible happened to him.

Happy New Year! Thinking of you Reed, wherever you are, you will always be loved, and remembered!

Satch

does anyone know if this family were fundamentalist mormons? i have heard rumors that fundamentalists often send their young men away once they reach a certain age due to competition for the younger girls?? i also know that in the amish communtities they have rumspringa where the young kids go off to enjoy life outside of their community. a sort of rite of passage. not sure if the mormon community does something like that or not. the disappearance of the dogs is more questionable. as dogs will return home eventually.

 

[Ciriii57]

In the USA there is the State of Kansas. There are TWO Kansas cities:

1.) Kansas City, Kansas
2.) Kansas City, Missouri

Haha just to add to the confusion! Thanks for clarifying @Satch
Would I be right to assume that LE specifically notified the Missouri LE since it was "Kansas city, MO"?

 

[Ciriii57]

does anyone know if this family were fundamentalist mormons? i have heard rumors that fundamentalists often send their young men away once they reach a certain age due to competition for the younger girls?? i also know that in the amish communtities they have rumspringa where the young kids go off to enjoy life outside of their community. a sort of rite of passage. not sure if the mormon community does something like that or not. the disappearance of the dogs is more questionable. as dogs will return home eventually.

Welcome @voicefromtheholler
I don't believe the Jeppsons were fundamentalists, just active Mormons. I've never heard about sons being sent away like that. I know that members of the LDS church will travel in their teenage years doing missionary work, but I don't believe Reed had actually taken part in this yet. Unfortunately he never got the chance to...

 

[voicefromtheholler]

Welcome @voicefromtheholler
I don't believe the Jeppsons were fundamentalists, just active Mormons. I've never heard about sons being sent away like that. I know that members of the LDS church will travel in their teenage years doing missionary work, but I don't believe Reed had actually taken part in this yet. Unfortunately he never got the chance to...

Thank you.

 

[Satch]

Haha just to add to the confusion! Thanks for clarifying @Satch
Would I be right to assume that LE specifically notified the Missouri LE since it was "Kansas city, MO"?

I would have to see the published reports. I THINK it was Missouri. But am not 100% sure.

Satch

 

[wary]

does anyone know if this family were fundamentalist mormons? i have heard rumors that fundamentalists often send their young men away once they reach a certain age due to competition for the younger girls?? i also know that in the amish communtities they have rumspringa where the young kids go off to enjoy life outside of their community. a sort of rite of passage. not sure if the mormon community does something like that or not. the disappearance of the dogs is more questionable. as dogs will return home eventually.

In my opinion, German Shorthaired Pointers don’t necessarily return home.

JMO

 

[voicefromtheholler]

In my opinion, German Shorthaired Pointers don’t necessarily return home.

JMO

its according to how far from home they travel, if they are picked up by people or hit by a car or attacked by another animal. most dogs have a keen since of smell and can find their way back home.

 

[Ciriii57]

In my opinion, German Shorthaired Pointers don’t necessarily return home.

JMO

I agree with you, I think far too much emphasis has been put on the dogs returning home in this case when that is not at all alwayys the case, especially not this breed. These dogs could have carried on on their merry way for miles and been found and taken by someone who had no idea about Reed's case (it was never actually front page news in the newspapers, anyone who didn't follow the news might not have known) or just didn't put 2 and 2 together.

its according to how far from home they travel, if they are picked up by people or hit by a car or attacked by another animal. most dogs have a keen since of smell and can find their way back home.

According to the below link only 20% of lost dogs will ever find their way back home. I am inclined to believe this figure as otherwise we wouldn't have so many dogs in pounds and shelters nor the need for microchipping etc...

Do Lost Pets Find Their Way Home?

Research shows that one in three pets will become lost in their lifetime, but the good news is that lost pets can find their way home with the right help.

lost.petcolove.org

Many dogs just don't find their way despite their amazing sense of smell etc. In this case we definitely cannot assume that the dogs were injured/attacked/killed just because they didn't return home and I think it was a mistake to think that. The dogs could easily have lived out the rest of their lives elsewhere with people who had no clue to their history.
We don't know if they were wearing collars or tags with their details on either? Was this a legal requirement at the time and if so was it regularly ignored?

 

[Ciriii57]

Okay so bear with me here....I was watching a crime drama last night (totally unrelated to this case). Anyway, there had been a murder and there were several people with information on what the person's actions had been earlier in the day. But one of these person's timelines just didn't quite fit in with the rest (very slight differences in time etc but nothing major) and it was confusing the investigation. Anyway, long story short, this guy was the murderer. He had been lying about events which is why it didn't gel with the other testimony. Their true versions were based on fact which they remembered, whereas his lies were not accurate because it had never happened and he adjusted things to make himself look more innocent.

Anyway the point of this post...I immediately thought of JJ and his odd recollectoion of events that didnt fit the version of facts that have been established since 1964...how is it that after 56 years he suddenly has different information and a new timeline of events. Well thats all....it bothered me.

 

[Alleykins]

Does anyone know how many of Reeds's siblings were home the day he went missing/living at home at the time? Because it sounds like he had older siblings who were on their own. So, I'm wondering who was actually there when he went missing, who witnessed the events leading up to his disappearance, and how many are second hand accounts, based on someone who was there.

 

[Satch]

Anyway the point of this post...I immediately thought of JJ and his odd recollectoion of events that didnt fit the version of facts that have been established since 1964...how is it that after 56 years he suddenly has different information and a new timeline of events. Well thats all....it bothered me.

It bothers me too as well. I can't get it out of my head,

Do you suppose Jon responded differently in 1964, just like he is doing today from the rest of the family and has his own version of events to keep his version they way he sees fit.

Can someone help me here- Jon came back from being interrogated by the detective and a friend of Reed's according to that video earlier in this thread. He was angry at being accused, and he said, "I raised my voice to my parents for the first time in my life. and said, "Why are they accusing me that I had something to do with this?" Jon said, he's parents said, that LE wanted to try to get him to open up about what he knew." His parents appoligized for the incident. At least that's what I recall from the interview. I don't think they took Jon to the station when he had him in the car with Reed's friend. They pressed him, but I think Jon pursuaded them that he didn't do anything.

Jon and Reed shared the same paper route, and the same bedroom. It is remotely possible that Reed might have confided something to Jon in secrecy that he didn't want the rest of the family to know about, because Reed did not want to worry or shame them. He might have told Jon, that he was going to a place that might have been frowned upon by the rest of the family. Maybe Reed gave him money to keep him quiet. Could Reed with his popularity have been pressured into doing something that the family would disapprove of him doing? Reed had to tell Jon to clear his conscience. So Reed goes to see somebody on a Sunday with his savings account money, but not his paper route money. He takes the dogs and feeds them,and even walks them to avoid suspicion.

But something happened along the way. Accident or abduction, murder, and Jon can't disclose the special place or secret Reed shared shortly before leaving, because it would destroy the family. The shame and pain would be too much for them. So, he changes the version of events because he doesn't want to know "Reed's big secret" or plans for the day, which only Jon knows.

Could he have told Jon that he wanted to try drugs, such as weed or something? And were the dogs with him if he met up with such a person or situation? It's still a 50/50 accident or abduction case because we have no evidence to go either way. But I am trying to account for Jon's nochelont behavior that continued over the years.

Satch

 

[Alleykins]

I would hope, with the passing of time, and the parents, if there were any secrets which may have been viewed as shameful or harmful in 1964 would be revealed by now for the purpose of finding him. The only reason I can see for not revealing a secret would be to protect someone who is still around.
For example, I think the reason my paternal aunts won't speak about the murder their grandfather committed is they're afraid they might be implicated for something (like harboring a fugitive), even though it was eons ago.
I wonder why the police would have interrogated his brother in a way which may him feel accused. Did they apply the same tactics to the parents or any other adult who may have been there that day? Or was he singled out?

 

[Ciriii57]

Does anyone know how many of Reeds's siblings were home the day he went missing/living at home at the time? Because it sounds like he had older siblings who were on their own. So, I'm wondering who was actually there when he went missing, who witnessed the events leading up to his disappearance, and how many are second hand accounts, based on someone who was there.

It’s a very good question @Alleykins and I think it depends on whose version of events you believe.

Right from the beginning the only statement that was ever issued from a family member was from Reed’s sister Suzanne that he returned from Sunday school and went to change his clothes then went out to feed the dogs. I believe this was at about 12.30-12.45pm. She told him dinner/lunch would be ready in half-an-hour (so about 1-1.15pm). She never mentioned anyone else being at home, and LE never released any statements from another family member, so I had always assumed that it was just Reed and Suzanne at home at the time and she was the last person to see him alive.

But then after half a century Jon suddenly comes up with an entirely different set of events. He says that he and Reed came home from a Priesthood meeting. That the family had lunch (by this statement I assume that the whole family was there for the meal) and then Reed went to feed the dogs AFTER lunch, and that was the last time he was seen.

The two stories don’t gel with each other at all. If Jon’s account is correct then there is no way that the later sighting up at the school can have happened, or the timing was way off. I also wonder why Reed changed his clothes when he and Jon were supposed to be returning to church right after lunch and then again at 4pm, he wouldn’t have time to take the dogs for a walk. It also doesn’t make any sense that only Suzanna’s statement was taken by LE when Jon claims that he was there, and presumably the rest of the family as well.

I don’t buy that Jon’s memory is no good due to age/illness because he has VERY specific memories of everything else, including detailed conversations, so why not with this event?

 

[Ciriii57]

Can someone help me here- Jon came back from being interrogated by the detective and a friend of Reed's according to that video earlier in this thread. He was angry at being accused, and he said, "I raised my voice to my parents for the first time in my life. and said, "Why are they accusing me that I had something to do with this?" Jon said, he's parents said, that LE wanted to try to get him to open up about what he knew." His parents appoligized for the incident. At least that's what I recall from the interview. I don't think they took Jon to the station when he had him in the car with Reed's friend. They pressed him, but I think Jon pursuaded them that he didn't do anything.

Yes you are correct. I took this to mean that LE convinced the parents to let them interrogate Jon as they believed he knew something and the parents agreed. Jon later confronted his parents about it and they said they were sorry but they didn’t know what else to do. The thing that stood out for me about this story was that Jon remembers the conversation word-for-word and yet then he states that he doesn’t remember whether it was his mum or dad who apologised and said they had no choice. How likely is it that he remembers the whole conversation in detail but can’t remember who said what!?
No, Jon was never taken to the station, but the detective did threaten him with a lie-detector if he didn't tell him what he knew. We never learnt who the "friend" actually was in this situation or what they might have known, but Jon did state that it was a friend of Reed specifically, not a friend of Jon or them both. Interesting since Reed and Jon were meant to be best friends you would have thought that they would have shared the same friends. Apparently not...

I am on the same page as you @Satch with my thinking. I am believing that Reed had shared something with Jon and whatever it was it was something that Jon couldn't or didn't want to reveal. I had even started to wonder if Reed had in fact run away from home and Jon knew this:

Jon and Reed shared the same paper route, and the same bedroom.

This made me wonder if the reason that Reed left his paper route money was because half of it was Jon's. He left him that, and took his savings instead. That is of course if Reed left home. I consider it...but then I think..."well surely he would have gotten in contact after all this time, especially when his parents passed". In this scenario, is it possible the Reed took the dogs with him because he was actually going to sell them or give them to someone else to care for while he was away. I dunno, I can't square it in my mind.

The below link is to a blog of a girl who ran away from the LDS Church during her mission. She is actually from the Wasatch Mountains and is also a hiker! Although she eventually did return to the fold at the end, if you read the first parts of her experiences trying to leave then it could almost be Reed talking and perhaps similar to what he was going through:

I Ran Away on My Mission, Here's What Happened and Why | Third Hour

The life God had me living just wasn't cutting it so I left my companion, became a run away missionary and planned to start a new life.

thirdhour.org

I must say, I was disturbed (though intrigued) to learn that the LDS has uniformed members keeping an eye on anyone who might leave and potentially putting them in the trunk of a car to make sure they don't run away!! That puts a whole new light on Reed's disppaearance in my mind. Since Reed had missed several meetings at church did they send out the heavies to go fetch him, found him doing something that was frowned upon and then used just a little too much force to bring him back? Is it possible that, back in 1964, they were a hell of a lot rougher than they would be nowadays? That may also explain why the family didn't report him missing until past 12 hours later.

Unless he has been living another life all this time (which seems highly unlikely, though not impossible) then whatever made him leave on that day was also the probable cause of his death (I include being forced back in this scenario) And it really could be anything couldn't it; drugs, sex, homosexuality, crisis of faith, abuse from a family member, abuse within the church, being bullied...the list is endless. But I am pretty convinced now that someone in the family knew way more than they let on...and the finger does point to Jon, his stories don't add up and even LE seemed so sure that he knew something!

 

[Satch]

It’s a very good question @Alleykins and I think it depends on whose version of events you believe.

Right from the beginning the only statement that was ever issued from a family member was from Reed’s sister Suzanne that he returned from Sunday school and went to change his clothes then went out to feed the dogs. I believe this was at about 12.30-12.45pm. She told him dinner/lunch would be ready in half-an-hour (so about 1-1.15pm). She never mentioned anyone else being at home, and LE never released any statements from another family member, so I had always assumed that it was just Reed and Suzanne at home at the time and she was the last person to see him alive.

But then after half a century Jon suddenly comes up with an entirely different set of events. He says that he and Reed came home from a Priesthood meeting. That the family had lunch (by this statement I assume that the whole family was there for the meal) and then Reed went to feed the dogs AFTER lunch, and that was the last time he was seen.

The two stories don’t gel with each other at all. If Jon’s account is correct then there is no way that the later sighting up at the school can have happened, or the timing was way off. I also wonder why Reed changed his clothes when he and Jon were supposed to be returning to church right after lunch and then again at 4pm, he wouldn’t have time to take the dogs for a walk. It also doesn’t make any sense that only Suzanna’s statement was taken by LE when Jon claims that he was there, and presumably the rest of the family as well.

I don’t buy that Jon’s memory is no good due to age/illness because he has VERY specific memories of everything else, including detailed conversations, so why not with this event?

Yea,

When Jon gets the year wrong about Reed's disappearance, even though he later corrects himself,that's a red flag.

Satch

 

[Satch]

I am on the same page as you @Satch with my thinking. I am believing that Reed had shared something with Jon and whatever it was it was something that Jon couldn't or didn't want to reveal. I had even started to wonder if Reed had in fact run away from home and Jon knew this:

I am thinking that too as well!

If that is the case, it's obvious why Jon would want to change the events of the story. which unquestionably he has done.

Satch

 

[Satch]

According to this you need to be 18-25 to be a Mormon Missionary: (Google Search )

Missionaries can be single men between the ages of 18 and 25, single women over the age of 19 or retired couples. Missionaries work with a companion of the same gender during their mission, with the exception of couples, who work with their spouse.

Reed was too young at only 15. But there is now no doubt in my mind that Jon knows where Reed was going, or intended to go that tragic day. I don't think he knows what happened. But I think that this was some sort of brotherly secret between the two of them.

Satch

 

[Ciriii57]

But there is now no doubt in my mind that Jon knows where Reed was going

I am in complete agreement with you. Now...we just need to work out where he was going!?

 

[Alleykins]

But I am pretty convinced now that someone in the family knew way more than they let on...and the finger does point to Jon, his stories don't add up and even LE seemed so sure that he knew something!

@Ciriii57

Not sure if you're familiar with the Anita Drake (15, Ohio, 1963) case, but this is exactly what happened with her.
The whole time she was missing, her family believed she was kidnapped and murdered. Well, everyone in her family believed this but her little sister and some of her friends. She knew Anita had run away to escape an abusive situation that their parents had turned a blind eye to, and was alive. She let her family believe that whole time that Anita was dead, knowing she wasn't.
Because after her disappearance, Anita would call her. When Anita stopped calling year later, she had an idea something had happened to her sister, but didn't know what. She didn't pursue it. Turns out, she'd passed away from cancer. Anita's sister and her friends were going to take the secret to the grave until Anita's daughter discovered her mother wasn't who she said she was, figured out who she was, and called Anita's sister to ask questions about her. It's sounds like, even then, the sister was hesitant to tell her.
I'm going from memory here, so the case may have been updated since it first broke, but the point I'm trying to make is families will go to great lengths to keep a secret and keep their skeletons in the closet, in the closet, often to the detriment of its most vulnerable.