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

[Ciriii57]

I would be happy to answer any questions about the religion and how it might have played a factor in his disappearance.

Hey @cocomod thank you very much, very much appreciated. I do have a few questions. I think they are more to build a background into Reed's life, they may not even relate to his disappeance but it's good to have some insight.

1) What would a normal Sunday consist of for an LDS family who are active in the church? I'm trying to gat a picture of what Reed had done that Sunday morning. and related to this:

a)What is the difference between a Priesthood meeting and Sunday School? I ask this because Reed's sister Suzanne said that Reed returned from Sunday school, but Jon says it was a Priesthood Meeting. Is this just semantics, would it all just be regarded as Sunday school?

b)Jon says that after dinner/lunch Reed was supposed to attend Sunday School and then at 4pm a Sacrament. When Reed didn't show to either of these there doesn't seem to have been any massive concern yet. So, Was it normal for someone to miss these meetings on Sunday or would you get in trouble for not going? Would people be worried about you if you didn't show?

c)Would the family have all attended and left the church meetings together or are there different groups for different ages etc?

D)Are these church meetings usually at the same time in every church, or different churches have different timetables? I ask this as I thought it might help explain Jon and Suzanne's different version of events.

2) Reed's father committed suicide a year after Reed vanished. His brother Jon says it was because he couldn't explain the mystery of Reed's disappearance and so he somewhat lost his faith. But this reasoning has always bothered me since he chose to leave behind the rest of his family and cause them even more distress. Do you have any insight into how a suicide is viewed by the LDS church and maybe about Dr Jeppson's reasons for doing so?

3) Can you think of anything that an active member of the church would be doing on a Sunday, aged 15 that would just be a big NO. Something that he would have gotten in trouble for if he had told his family (although he may hav told his brother). I'm specifically meaning something that would be a no,no regarding the church, not general illegal activity etc...)

Thank you for being willing to answer these, if there is anything you don't want to answer then thats fine

 

[Ciriii57]

Hey everyone,

So, I had been thrashing out a theory with @Satch who convinced me to post it here for you guys to scrutinize! The theory is my own and of course, JMO. It is based on my belief that the family, specifically Jon, and I believe LE too, know more in this case than has been revealed. I don't think LE ever had enough evidence.<modsnip - not an approved source>

<modsnip - reference to unapproved source> Something was going on in that family, I am sure of it! Despite LE not ever charging Jon, it doesn't mean they weren't suspicious, just that there wasn't enough evidence. So my (very basic at the momet) theory is:

Jon and Reed had a massive argument about something. This must have been a huge argument, and since they were so close, it was probably even more intensified with emotion. They had been to church that morning together but when they got home Reed was still p****d. I don't know if you noticed in Jon's video, but although he claims to have been with Reed, he never actually mentions that they spoke to eachother (and yet he remembers conversations with literally everyone else in his past). It's odd that Jon was there and was Reed's best friend, but they didn't apparently speak or have any interactions at all once they got home. Reed only spoke to Suzanne. It could be because they weren't actually on speaking terms! This may also explain why the brother Keith mentioned about Reed being angry at the time, but that it wouldn't be a reason for him to run away. Someone else, Reed's friend from the neighborhood, knew that they had argued and thats why he implicated Jon (it's not uncommon for someone to shout "I'll kill you" in an argument for example). Perhaps the argument was about the money, or Reed or Jon's behaviour, but I feel that this may explain Jon's odd later statements and lack of emotion...maybe he was still furious with reed all these years later. Or maybe he was responsible for what happened to him?
I know this is all suposition and circumstantial and the theory needs some fleshing out, but I'd appreciate any feedback.

I am not really a believer in the accident theory for a number of reasons, the main one being I personally don't think he was ever in those foothills. And if he was then I noticed that the area he would have been in is not that thickly wooded, it is mostly scrubland. In October I think even more so as the trees would have started losing their leaves?? (please correct me if I am wrong). I don't really buy the animal attack theory as it doesn't explain the lack of remains found. By all accounts these foothills are really popular with locals for walking in so I really would have to believe that even if the extensive SAR didn't find him then someone in the intervening 59 years would have. He surely couldn't have gone THAT much off the beaten track.

I also don't belive that Reed was taken by a paedophile, but I will save that theory for another time.

And finally, I wanted to share one of my main reasons for not believing that Reed ever went into those foothills: The time!
I just don't think he had enough time. Even with Jon and Suzanne's differing versions of events, both say he had to be back either for dinner or to go back to church. When you go for a walk out into the country I think you usually plan on being a couple of hours. It doesn't make sense to me that he would have gone.
Another thing that bothers me. There is no mention that Reed was wearing a watch. Now, not only am I pretty certain that almost everyone in 1964 wore a watch, but without one, how would he have known at what time he had to get back for dinner and church if he really did go out walking in the hills? So, either Reed was wearing a watch and it has never been mentioned, or (in my view) he never intended to go into those foothills since he wouldn't have had the time, and quite literally...didnt know the time.

What do you all think?

 

[chart75]

Hi @chart75!

Good to hear from you again! Chart has been helping us by studying maps around Reed's house and the locations where he might have gone. Studies of the creek, the gully, trying to asses how the location was back in 1964.

@chart75 Can you elaborate for us on why Jon's account of Reed's disappearance is so much different than Suzanne's account and published reports of the case? Jon says that he remembers the family having dinner (lunch) and than Reed going out to walk the dogs. When he first speaks of Reed's disappearance, he gets the date wrong. Do you see that as odd at all? I am just trying to get as many perspectives on this tragic case as I can! Thank you!

Satch

Satch,

Jon does mess up the date (63 vs 64) but that video was filmed 56 years after Reed disappeared. My wife is always reminding me (correcting me might be more accurate LOL) about certain dates, facts, people, from the past, and we've only been married 25 years! This was 2x as long ago. If I went through something that traumatic as a young boy, I'm not sure if my brain could process it as well as he did. Plus, and this is the bigger point, there were 11 kids in that family. Did all of them even realize Reed was missing immediately? I'm guessing they would leave in groups to walk to church rather than one big family. That is a lot of children to keep track of.

It is weird how one of Jon's friends "reported him", and even stranger that the parents didn't go with him in the police car for the interrogation. Did that "friend" ever come forward with more info? Why did he believe Jon had something to do with it? Bizarre.

 

[chart75]

Hey @chart75 nice to speak, I had read all your earlier comments on this thread avidly! Now, here you have given me some new information! I had always thought that Reed was last spotted "in the grounds" of the St Mary school (I thought I had even read "behind" the school). But it is actually the case that the witness was by the church but saw Reed on Wasatch Drive? That does seem far to make a positive ID? I had a quick compare between the old and new maps but I can't rrally get a feel for the road would have bee like back then. Can you enlighten us? Today it looks mostly residential, was it then?


As you have experience of the area, do you think it was possible for someone to kidnap him in this area in the middle of the day in daylight on a quiet Sunday? Or was it much less residential then so it could have been?
I have turned the kidnap theory over in my head and I have struggled to make it work with a stranger abduction. It just seems unlikely that someone would take that risk there and then against a young man who is always described as strong. The only way that I can think that Reed was abducted at this time and in this way is that he knew the person so was comfortable to approach their vehicle/house and was then forcibly taken. I have issues with this theory too though, namely the dogs! I'm pretty sure if they were quite close to home, they would have found their way back. I don't think they were taken or killed as I do believe the witness sightings of them on the roads (which I now assume to be Wasatch Drive).

@Ciriii57 I can't remember what the area looked like in 64 (I was five), but you can get an idea of why I think it's impossible for anyone to have seen Reed up by St Mary's. This image from 1963 (courtesy of USGS topo maps) shows Reed's house to the far left (marked by an X), and just east of Wasatch Drive is Indian Hills School. St Mary's is another 3/4" of a mile or so further east of Indian Hills. If you click on this link and follow St Mary's Drive up the hill you will see what I'm talking about (it's a dead end) Google Maps The houses and trees would not have been there, but still, how could any just driving by, look eastward, and positively identify Reed and his dogs unless he was much closer? 

 

[Satch]

Great map Chart!

Thank you so much! I wish this person who claims to have seen Reed would come forward! Or if that person is deceased, someone could identify him/her. He/she in some reports has been called a "witness." In others, a "family friend." We don't know where this "witness" was standing when he saw Reed. At least to my knowledge.

Would love to find out who was the friend of Reed's that suspected Jon's involvement in Reed's disappearance, and why? There is difference of opinion in the WS community concerning Jon's involvement and what he knows?

Another question, isn't it strange that Jon has not, or could not, or won't go online to search for Reed's case, to find out that none of the published reports state his version of events?

Satch

 

[Ciriii57]

@Ciriii57 I can't remember what the area looked like in 64 (I was five), but you can get an idea of why I think it's impossible for anyone to have seen Reed up by St Mary's. This image from 1963 (courtesy of USGS topo maps) shows Reed's house to the far left (marked by an X), and just east of Wasatch Drive is Indian Hills School. St Mary's is another 3/4" of a mile or so further east of Indian Hills. If you click on this link and follow St Mary's Drive up the hill you will see what I'm talking about (it's a dead end) Google Maps The houses and trees would not have been there, but still, how could any just driving by, look eastward, and positively identify Reed and his dogs unless he was much closer? View attachment 415866

Thanks @chart75 thats brilliantly explained, made it all clear. I followed your link in google maps and yes, you're totally right, I can't see how anyone that far away could have a clear, unobstructed view to positively identify Reed. So they were either mistaken, or lying (but why lie?).

So, should this "witness" sighting be diregarded/treated as unreliable? If so, that means the last place Reed was positively identified was at his own home. Which is what some of the contemporary news reports also state. This fits in with a theory I have that Reed was never anywhere near those foothills on that day. I left my notes at home though so I'll try to post it here tomorrow.

UNLESS- the witness who saw Reed is the same witness who implicated Jon. Reason being that he also saw Jon near Reed on that day? But seriously, I can't believe that this fact wouldn't have been made public and not come out. So on balance, probably not.

<modsnip: Removed insinuations related to non POI/suspect>

 

[Satch]

A NEWER Jon Jeppson interview!!! Almost a whole half hour on Reed's disappearance, from his podcast:

1.) There is somewhat more emotion in this interview.
2.) No mention of Dad's suicide.
3.) No correlation to Suzanne's accounts. but he says, "Each of my brother's and sisters remembers this event differently"
4.) Still sticks to the story of Reed's vanishing as later in the day.
5.) Says the police looked for Reed up in the foothills!
6.) Recounts being interrogated by the detective.
7.) Personally, I still have problems with trusting him.
8.) Oh now, we have Reed going missing, according to Jon, in 1965!"

https://podbay.fm/p/notes-from-jon-with-a-babble-from-bon/e/1546837991

Starts around 2:30

I don't know who Bon is.

Satch

 

[Ciriii57]

WOW @Satch !! Amazing find, I just listened. A little bit more info than the other video and agree with your points:

1.) There is somewhat more emotion in this interview. Somewhat! Not much though
2.) No mention of Dad's suicide.
3.) No correlation to Suzanne's accounts. but he says, "Each of my brother's and sisters remembers this event differently" I mean really....if the family can't get the day's events straight then how did LE stand a chance, or us for that matter!
4.) Still sticks to the story of Reed's vanishing as later in the day. And also mentions that his Dad had been to church and came home with them, so Dad was also present when Reed vanished.
5.) Says the police looked for Reed up in the foothills! I noticed that he didn't actually mention St Mary of the Wasatch school. He mentions the sighting was near Hogle Zoo (implications?). Although they're not far, this would place Reed slightly further North and in what I think is more rugged terrain near to the "Pioneer Monument State Park", now known as "This Is The Place Heritage Park" which has lots of walking trails. This park was purchased in 1957 and had previosuly been used "AS AN ARTILLERY RANGE FOR FORT DOUGLAS". Does that mean there could have been unexploded shells etc in the area?
Interestingly, this location would also be a few minutes walk from where Reed's Dad killed himself.
6.) Recounts being interrogated by the detective.
7.) Personally, I still have problems with trusting him. Me too!
8.) Oh now, we have Reed going missing, according to Jon, in 1965!" I mean really, again! I feel like this is something that should be seared into his mind! And surely you would double check if you are doing a podcast!

I also would like to add a couple of my own observations if yo don't mind:

A) "There was alot of competition between me and Reed. We had a lot in common, but also alot NOT in common"
I know it is normal for brothers to have differences and be in competion, but I want to know what they did NOT have in common! The way he said it, I was almost waiting for him to follow up with something that they had disagreed about!
B) Apparently Reed was raising 2 "little" dogs rather than an adult and a pup. This may just be the way he speaks about them though and not meaningful. Again, no mention of the Bird hunting, but for a scouting merit badge.

So, what new information have we got to process now? Or have we just ended up with even more confusion! ?

Edit:
PS: Bon is Jon's wife, Bonnie

 

[cocomod]

Hey @cocomod thank you very much, very much appreciated. I do have a few questions. I think they are more to build a background into Reed's life, they may not even relate to his disappeance but it's good to have some insight.

What would a normal Sunday consist of for an LDS family who are active in the church? I'm trying to gat a picture of what Reed had done that Sunday morning. and related to this:

• What is the difference between a Priesthood meeting and Sunday School? I ask this because Reed's sister Suzanne said that Reed returned from Sunday school, but Jon says it was a Priesthood Meeting. Is this just semantics, would it all just be regarded as Sunday school?
  • There was a difference in Sunday School and Priesthood. Generally the “Priesthood” session would be early morning, then we would go back to church later for Sunday school class. Priesthood is men only (there is a different meeting for women), Sunday school is joint.
• Jon says that after dinner/lunch Reed was supposed to attend Sunday School and then at 4pm a Sacrament. When Reed didn't show to either of these there doesn't seem to have been any massive concern yet. So, Was it normal for someone to miss these meetings on Sunday or would you get in trouble for not going? Would people be worried about you if you didn't show?
  • I don’t know about his particular family, but I know you wouldn’t be in trouble with the church for not showing up. Perhaps because he was a teenager, maybe he was “pulling away” from the strict schedule of the church. I remember when I was like younger I would want to stay home in the mornings to watch cartoons. I know that my boys now would sometimes miss Priesthood. It usually starts as a teen when they want to figure things out on their own.
• Would the family have all attended and left the church meetings together or are there different groups for different ages etc?
  • There are different rooms/groups for different age groups. Again, this was in the 60’s which is slightly different from today. Usually we would wait for one another since they do end at the same time and go home together though. However, when I was really young, our home was less than a block from the church house so we would walk home alone. This was in the 80’s, not the 60’s, but should have been similar.
• Are these church meetings usually at the same time in every church, or different churches have different timetables? I ask this as I thought it might help explain Jon and Suzanne's different version of events.
  • Different Wards may have a different time for sure. Like today, we have 3 different wards (neighborhood) in the same building. One starts at 9:00, the next at 11:00, the next at 1:00. It could be possible in the 60’s that there was something similar.
• Reed's father committed suicide a year after Reed vanished. His brother Jon says it was because he couldn't explain the mystery of Reed's disappearance and so he somewhat lost his faith. But this reasoning has always bothered me since he chose to leave behind the rest of his family and cause them even more distress. Do you have any insight into how a suicide is viewed by the LDS church and maybe about Dr Jeppson's reasons for doing so?
  • To be honest, in the 60’s our church had a very strict view of suicide. I remember being told basically that a person would go to H3!! Basically, it was treated almost like murder and was extremely frowned upon. My religion has come a very long way in this regard since back then. However, I can see how a very, very strict LDS father would see the inability to “protect” his son as a failure. I think it is an extreme act from a desperate father, but I do wonder if there was something going on in the family that hasn’t been disclosed. I wonder what happened to the rest of the children in the family after his disappearance. Did they all stay in the church, or did they leave. I can see how the father would question his religion if he was questioning how God let this happen. I also can see how it would lead to problems in marriage which would also make him feel like a failure. Especially in the 60’s, divorce in our religion was something that one would try very hard not to do. I know that in any disappearance and/or murder, the stress on a marriage and family is extreme (in the LDS religion or not). I have read about so many marriages failing after something like this. I wouldn’t be surprised, but it is my own theory, that the stress caused their marriage to crack as well. Also, did he have a hard time with his job after this? The stress can cause a loss of job/income as well. This combined with the disappearance and possible money issues may have pushed him over the edge.
• Can you think of anything that an active member of the church would be doing on a Sunday, aged 15 that would just be a big NO. Something that he would have gotten in trouble for if he had told his family (although he may hav told his brother). I'm specifically meaning something that would be a no,no regarding the church, not general illegal activity etc...)
  • No, nothing like that for sure! If he maybe was drinking (which would be illegal as well), he would feel shame/fear. But, even then, it wouldn’t be something that the church would cause a huge problem.

Thank you for being willing to answer these, if there is anything you don't want to answer then thats fine

(See answers in quote)

In conclusion, I still really don’t think religion is the issue here. In reading and refreshing my memory with articles, I think there is someone that knows something. Maybe Jon, or more likely, maybe his friend. Why did his friend say he saw him at 1:00 that day over 50 minutes away from his home? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense from the timeline.



Personally, I think he was lured away from his home. I still lean towards foul play and not involving his family.

 

[cocomod]

WOW @Satch !! Amazing find, I just listened. A little bit more info than the other video and agree with your points:


I also would like to add a couple of my own observations if yo don't mind:

A) "There was alot of competition between me and Reed. We had a lot in common, but also alot NOT in common"
I know it is normal for brothers to have differences and be in competion, but I want to know what they did NOT have in common! The way he said it, I was almost waiting for him to follow up with something that they had disagreed about!
B) Apparently Reed was raising 2 "little" dogs rather than an adult and a pup. This may just be the way he speaks about them though and not meaningful. Again, no mention of the Bird hunting, but for a scouting merit badge.

So, what new information have we got to process now? Or have we just ended up with even more confusion! ?

Edit:
PS: Bon is Jon's wife, Bonnie

RSBM

First, to be honest, especially in the 60's, it was somewhat common for LDS to have a lot of children. I do think since Reed was a teen, it does explain why his disappearance didn't raise an alarm right away. He may have enjoyed getting outside away from the noise! Also, my boys (in the 2000's) also enjoyed playing in the "dirt hills" right next to our house. They would go outside often. My boys love the outdoors - it may be a Utah thing! They would go out every single chance they got! Climbing trees, making tree houses, riding bikes, making jumps - all in the dirt hills.

Now, regarding the bolded part of your questions - maybe they disagreed about religion. Maybe Reed was questioning his religion at that point in his life. It seems from the podcast that Jon is still extremely religious. It may have been a big point of contention if Reed didn't want to stay in the church. Also, if Reed was in to girls and maybe exploring his sexuality with girls (or boys), that may have been a big point of contention. In the LDS church, we were taught from a young age to abstain from sex until marriage. If Reed had a girlfriend in town (or the one out of town) and Jon knew about it, maybe he was upset that Reed was "going too far" with the girls. Just a thought

 

[Ciriii57]

Hey @cocomod thank you so much for sharing your insight and answering my questions. I found it very useful to getting an insight into Reed's home life and you cleared up a few things I didn't underastand, I certainly don't believe that religion was a cause for Reed's disappearance, but I think it's important to understand someone's background and how it might cause them to react.
I'll try and answer some of your own questions (in bold) too: I do wonder if there was something going on in the family that hasn’t been disclosed. I wonder what happened to the rest of the children in the family after his disappearance. Did they all stay in the church, or did they leave. I can see how the father would question his religion if he was questioning how God let this happen
I see that you also find the reason suggested for Dr. Jeppson's suicide a little hard to explain. I agree with you, this situation must be terrible on someone and I cannot imagine what he was going through, by all accounts he did in fact question his faith. But I still have trouble with how someone who had been taught that suicide would send him straight to hell would leave the rest of his family, rather than stay and protect them. I suppose I can understand the overwhelming feeling of failure may have taken over. As an aside, it might be interesting to note that Mr and Mrs Jeppson had previously lost 2 other children; Philip died aged just 1 day old in 1940 and Helen died aged 5 months in 1951.
As far as I can tell from reading the obituaries of Reed's brothers who have since passed they all remained pretty active within the church (missions later in life and such) and as you noted, Jon has an extremely strong faith. I guess the rest of the family remained in the church. After Dr Jeppson passed, Mrs Jeppson remarried, but I have never come across any statement from or about her at all. I don''t think the family had financial troubles tbh, they owned a huge property and Dr Jeppson was apparently a well-respected doctor.

maybe they disagreed about religion

Yes, I think they did. As mentioned before, Jon has a very strong faith and it seems that all of the unfortunate events in his life have just made that faith stronger. I notice in his interviews/podcast that he has a habit of always referring the point he is talking about back to how it affected him religiously and so I think when he talks about the things he and Reed did not have in common, it was likely a reference to something faith based. I think you're right that Reed maybe was just not "into" the church anymore, at 15 he may have found other things that he'd rather be doing and like you said, was just figuring it out for himself.

if Reed was in to girls and maybe exploring his sexuality with girls (or boys)...maybe he was upset that Reed was "going too far" with the girls. Just a thought

Yes! I am pretty sure that Reed had had some experience with a girl and I am wondering if the statement in the media that "Reed had grown close to a girl from Missouri" was, at the time, a polite way of saying he was in a relationship that involved more than just holding hands! If Reed had told Jon this little secret I can't imagine it would have gone down too well. Especially if Jon then told his father, or a teacher/counsellor/priest at church!
@cocomod Can I ask, is it just the act of sex itself that is discouraged, or are we talking everything sexual? I mean, I assume you can have a girlfriend/boyfriend and kiss & cuddle? Is this rule usually followed..or enforced?

 

[Ciriii57]

With everyone's insight and input into this I wondered if it might be possible now to "tentatively" reconstruct Reed's morning. I know it won't solve his disappearance, but it's useful nonetheless I think. So with that in mind, despite the various discrepancies in Jon and Suzanne's accounts, I do believe that they are both telling the truth as they rememeber it, so can we somehow get their stories to tally? I think maybe Reed's morning happened something like this:

• Dr Jeppson, Jon and Reed returned to the house from a Priesthood meeting they had attended at the church which was about 200m/650 ft from their home.
• Reed went upsatirs, got changed and then returned to the kitchen at about 12.30pm where he got out some dog food. His sister Suzanne then told him dinner would be ready in 30 mins and Reed told her he would be back by then. Suzanne believes this is the last time she saw Reed.

We now know for certain that at 12.30pm there were 4 people in the house (Dr Jeppson, Jon, Reed and Suzanne) and we can surmise that there were 2 dogs in the backyard. There is no information on where the other family members were. It is now that Jon's story would come into play.

• I speculate that Reed did in fact return into the house at about 1pm and ate his dinner, as witnessed by Jon. I have a couple of reasons for speculating this:

1. Would it be normal to feed and then immediately walk the dogs? I imagine you would want to give the dogs time to eat and digest their food a bit before walking them?
2. I don't think a 15 year old would plan on going on a walk on an empty stomach, he wouldn't want to miss his lunch
3. We don't know what lunch was. It may not have been a big Sunday dinner, if it was just a sandwich he could have eaten it in no time and Suzanne may not have seen him.

• Between about 1-1.30pm Reed went out back to walk the dogs. And vanished.

Of course this is just my own theory. But what it does mean is that there is no way that the later sighting up at the St Mary of Wasatch school can have been correct. And I am not sure if it should be treated as accurate. If we ignore this sighting as unreliable then it means that the last absolute place Reed was seen was in his home-heading out to the backyard.It is possible that he never went anywhere near the Wasatch hills. In fact I happen to believe he never had the intention of going there:

• He isn't mentioned to be wearing a watch. Without any idea of time, how could he know to be in time for Sunday School. Sunday was a busy day for him churchwise by all accounts; would it make sense to go hiking in the foothills when you had so little time.
• Reed was wearing Tennis Shoes. I hardly think they were appropriate footwear for a hike in the mountains, in October, with only a parka jacket for warmth. Reed was a keen hiker, I guess he would have had boots. And probably would have taken more supplies.

And finally I had a couple of things that occurred to me as unexplained, or perhaps things that LE has withheld information about, that people might be able to offer their insights into:

1. Why is it that only Suzanne's versions of events made it to media reports, when we know that there were at least 2 other people in the house; including Reed's father. Isn't it more common to have a statement from a parent?
2. Did anyone ever check if the dog's collars, leashes and licenses has actually been taken. I believe it was mandatory for a dog to wear a license on it's collar. Would this have included the dog's name as well? Reed probably had the dogs on a leash while he was walking in his neighbourhood. So my thought is ...those dog tags are somewhere, they would be hard to dispose of, they wouldn't just rot away. If I were LE I would've released the names of the dogs/info on the tags-if say a metal detectorist or a family member going through a relatives posessions finds them, or even took in the dogs at the time- then at least they might make a connection. Find those dog tags and you probably find Reed.
3. Did anyone ever check if the Dogs had actually been fed/eaten their food that day?
4. If Reed indeed had $60 then wouldn't he have also had his wallet? It isn't mentioned in his posessions, what did he carry that cash in?
5. LE only ever really gave a limited description of Reed's clothes (basic colours). Usually in a missing person's case we get a good description, brand names, sizes and even photos of the same items. All we know for Reed is a white shirt (was this a T-shirt or a shirt?), blue levis, white tennis shoes and a blue/black parka. Why?
6. And finally something I doubt there'll ever be an answer to: when Reed's dog went missing for 2 weeks previously what did Reed do? Did he post missing posters, get upset, get angry? Or did he know the person responsible...was it ever discovered who and why? Could this incident be more important than it seems?

All my own opinion and welcome ALL comments and ideas

 

[WingsOverTX]

With everyone's insight and input into this I wondered if it might be possible now to "tentatively" reconstruct Reed's morning. I know it won't solve his disappearance, but it's useful nonetheless I think. So with that in mind, despite the various discrepancies in Jon and Suzanne's accounts, I do believe that they are both telling the truth as they rememeber it, so can we somehow get their stories to tally? I think maybe Reed's morning happened something like this:

• Dr Jeppson, Jon and Reed returned to the house from a Priesthood meeting they had attended at the church which was about 200m/650 ft from their home.
• Reed went upsatirs, got changed and then returned to the kitchen at about 12.30pm where he got out some dog food. His sister Suzanne then told him dinner would be ready in 30 mins and Reed told her he would be back by then. Suzanne believes this is the last time she saw Reed.

We now know for certain that at 12.30pm there were 4 people in the house (Dr Jeppson, Jon, Reed and Suzanne) and we can surmise that there were 2 dogs in the backyard. There is no information on where the other family members were. It is now that Jon's story would come into play.

• I speculate that Reed did in fact return into the house at about 1pm and ate his dinner, as witnessed by Jon. I have a couple of reasons for speculating this:

1. Would it be normal to feed and then immediately walk the dogs? I imagine you would want to give the dogs time to eat and digest their food a bit before walking them?
2. I don't think a 15 year old would plan on going on a walk on an empty stomach, he wouldn't want to miss his lunch
3. We don't know what lunch was. It may not have been a big Sunday dinner, if it was just a sandwich he could have eaten it in no time and Suzanne may not have seen him.

• Between about 1-1.30pm Reed went out back to walk the dogs. And vanished.

Of course this is just my own theory. But what it does mean is that there is no way that the later sighting up at the St Mary of Wasatch school can have been correct. And I am not sure if it should be treated as accurate. If we ignore this sighting as unreliable then it means that the last absolute place Reed was seen was in his home-heading out to the backyard.It is possible that he never went anywhere near the Wasatch hills. In fact I happen to believe he never had the intention of going there:

• He isn't mentioned to be wearing a watch. Without any idea of time, how could he know to be in time for Sunday School. Sunday was a busy day for him churchwise by all accounts; would it make sense to go hiking in the foothills when you had so little time.
• Reed was wearing Tennis Shoes. I hardly think they were appropriate footwear for a hike in the mountains, in October, with only a parka jacket for warmth. Reed was a keen hiker, I guess he would have had boots. And probably would have taken more supplies.

And finally I had a couple of things that occurred to me as unexplained, or perhaps things that LE has withheld information about, that people might be able to offer their insights into:

1. Why is it that only Suzanne's versions of events made it to media reports, when we know that there were at least 2 other people in the house; including Reed's father. Isn't it more common to have a statement from a parent?
2. Did anyone ever check if the dog's collars, leashes and licenses has actually been taken. I believe it was mandatory for a dog to wear a license on it's collar. Would this have included the dog's name as well? Reed probably had the dogs on a leash while he was walking in his neighbourhood. So my thought is ...those dog tags are somewhere, they would be hard to dispose of, they wouldn't just rot away. If I were LE I would've released the names of the dogs/info on the tags-if say a metal detectorist or a family member going through a relatives posessions finds them, or even took in the dogs at the time- then at least they might make a connection. Find those dog tags and you probably find Reed.
3. Did anyone ever check if the Dogs had actually been fed/eaten their food that day?
4. If Reed indeed had $60 then wouldn't he have also had his wallet? It isn't mentioned in his posessions, what did he carry that cash in?
5. LE only ever really gave a limited description of Reed's clothes (basic colours). Usually in a missing person's case we get a good description, brand names, sizes and even photos of the same items. All we know for Reed is a white shirt (was this a T-shirt or a shirt?), blue levis, white tennis shoes and a blue/black parka. Why?
6. And finally something I doubt there'll ever be an answer to: when Reed's dog went missing for 2 weeks previously what did Reed do? Did he post missing posters, get upset, get angry? Or did he know the person responsible...was it ever discovered who and why? Could this incident be more important than it seems?

All my own opinion and welcome ALL comments and ideas

Where were the other family members? I envision a family dinner after church. Where is evidence only four people were home for lunch?
Just curious.

 

[Ciriii57]

Where were the other family members? I envision a family dinner after church. Where is evidence only four people were home for lunch?
Just curious.

We only know for sure the whearabouts of Dr Jeppson, Jon, Reed and Suzanne as per Jon and Suzanne's statements. The others may well have been at the property at the time, but they have never been mentioned in any source or by the interviews with Jon, nor did they ever give any interviews themselves to validate their wherabouts, so we can't definitely say they were there. It's possible there were other activities they were involved in at the time, or perhaps they were at the home. Unfortunately we just don't know.
It has also never been mentioned what lunch consisted of. Yes, it could have been a big Sunday dinner, but equally it may not have been. Perhaps the Jeppsons had their big Sunday meal later when all the family were together. Suzanne was aged 20 at this time, maybe she was cooking a big meal by herself, as she is the only person mentioned to be in the kitchen. But also maybe it was just a midday snack. Again, we just have no idea.

 

[Satch]

Hey @Cieii57,

This is an excellent timeline and it shows a very plausible version of events that day! It also shows the strong possibility that both Suzanne and Jon are telling the truth. Furthermore,it totally discounts the timing of Reed's later sighting by the school, which under these conditions, could not have occurred at 1PM.

What about the possibility of the following?:

1.) Suzanne, Reed, Jon, and Dr, Jeppson are all in the house. Suzanne is preparing dinner for the family.

2.) Reed comes down from changing his clothes after the priesthood meeting and says, "I am going to go feed the dogs" when Suzanne asks where he is going. She says, "Hurry back, dinner's going to be ready in half an our."

3.) Reed tells her, "Oh, I'll be right back." and leaves to feed (and only to feed the dogs.) He returns about ten minutes later to have his dinner. It is possible that Jon and Dr. Jeppson are there. But Suzanne is either in another part of the house, or had to go somewhere. If the family had different schedules to keep, they would be old enough and responsible enough to eat at different times. A teen is not going to miss lunch or dinner! And I think it would be helpful for the dogs to digest their food first.

4. Reed finishes dinner and goes out to feed the dogs. Now, with the dogs being fed, Reed having his dinner, and free time that we did not assume he had, until we put the theory of @Ciriii57's timeline in place he actually takes the dogs on a long walk. He looses all sense of time that he had to be back by 4:00 for a Church service, which, according to Jon, "Dad would not be happy about Reed missing church." From these circumstantial pieces of evidence, we can conclude that Reed was not wearing a watch.

A. If he didn't have a watch he might have gone into those foothills and had an accident there. Or could he have been seen walking the dogs around 1:30- 1:45 that afternoon by a witness and this actually occurred. But the timing reported is wrong. What is the distance between the Saint Mary's school and the foothills? I am not good at map reading. I still think an accident or animal attack is possible, There are more natural predators up there in the mountains and fields of Utah that could strike an unsuspecting person or animals that could have spooked the dogs, than a pedophile looking to grab a kid walking two dogs. A pedophile would want an easy target, and those dogs would be a deter rant.

B. I think Reed had a secret that Jon knew and Keith saw that Reed was angry about it.This explains why Jon seems to suffer memory loss when talking about the tragic events specific to Reed's case. But has great recall when talking about things related to the church or his own spiritual experiences, as well as great recall of the things they shared together,

C. I think Reed was angry about something. This would have explained Keith's statement that "any anger Reed had would have vanished in a year, six months." I think Keith witnessed the anger between Reed and another family member. Both he and Jon, knew Reed's secret.

What do I think personally happened to Reed Jeppson:

1.) He and the dogs suffered a catastrophic accident when Reed, after having his dinner,went out to walk the digs, (after feeding them before dinner) The circumstances of Reed's fate and the dogs were the same.

2.) Assuming Reed had eating following the above timeline, and without a watch, Reed probably thought he had several hours out there to explore with the dogs and adventure seek. This makes the accident theory more plausible.

D.Whether Reed had his savings account money or not does not change the accident theory IMO.

OR:

3.) There was no accident. Reed, on that long walk, decided to use that $60 savings to buy or something big, maybe sell the dogs, exchange money with a friend, and get pay this friend to get belongs to leave and start a new life This friend is the person whom we don't know, but Reed swore him to secrecy. I think that Reed, Jon, and the an "unknown friend" know the reason for Reed's leaving. This person helped Reed plan to leave. He/she arranged clothes, food, lodging, first-aid kit for him to leave. This person would be needed, because Reed could not run away without making preparations with someone for a survival kit and plan.

Could this have been the same "friend" who saw Reed at the school? The same friend who implicated Jon in Reed's disappearance? Not only that, but the friend who intentionally gave the wrong time about the sighting of Reed at the school to remove himself from getting involved because he/she knew the secret of Reed's vanishing and wanted to protect him? Than, the friend implicates Jon because the friend knows that both Reed and Jon had a big fight? The friend throws Jon "under the bus." because/he/he liked Reed, but not Jon, and this unknown person wanted to not get involved with this conflict?

4.) I think the big argument that Reed could have had with Jon, (with Keith hearing) was a life-changing thing! Reed told of his love and devotion to his family, but just could no longer take the demands and requirements of the strong LDS church upbringing anymore. Well, knowing how religious Jon is to this day, he really became very angry with Reed for making this decision that would shatter the family. Reed- "Jon, I don't want to shatter anything. I love you and this family with all my heart, but I can't tell them I am leaving the church. Please, please, don't say ANYTHING!" The go back and forth, but Jon, simply can't get Reed to change his decision. Reed- "I want to help people, but I have to do it in my own way. I have to be free. I want my decisions to be mine alone, not God's!"

That last bolded statement puts a dagger in John's heart and that could even explain his memory loss when getting the year of Reed's disappearance wrong. Jon fee's guilty, and responsible for whatever happened to Reed. Therefore he knows that "Reed, my heavenly brother, needs God's help NOW!" That could stand to reason why even to this very day, Jon turns discussions about Reed to his faith in the All Mighty. He has no other way to deal with the situation. He has totally accepted that "God has made that decision." And this could also explain his lack of emotion when talking about Reed. Showing emotion about a negative event in his life that he can't control, is like questioning God's will. And because Jon's religious views are so extreme he can't do that.

This is why it is easier for Jon to talk about Reed concerning the great things that they shared together, but Jon becomes confused when talking about Reed concerning his disappearance. He can't show emotion over negativity, because that questions "Our Heavenly Father's decisions." And Jon will never do anything that goes or speaks against what God has done.

Finally, I also want answers to all the unanswered questions below posted by @Ciriii57

1. Why is it that only Suzanne's versions of events made it to media reports, when we know that there were at least 2 other people in the house; including Reed's father. Isn't it more common to have a statement from a parent?
2. Did anyone ever check if the dog's collars, leashes and licenses has actually been taken. I believe it was mandatory for a dog to wear a license on it's collar. Would this have included the dog's name as well? Reed probably had the dogs on a leash while he was walking in his neighborhood. So my thought is ...those dog tags are somewhere, they would be hard to dispose of, they wouldn't just rot away. If I were LE I would've released the names of the dogs/info on the tags-if say a metal detectorist or a family member going through a relatives possessions finds them, or even took in the dogs at the time- then at least they might make a connection. Find those dog tags and you probably find Reed.
3. Did anyone ever check if the Dogs had actually been fed/eaten their food that day?
4. If Reed indeed had $60 then wouldn't he have also had his wallet? It isn't mentioned in his possessions, what did he carry that cash in?
5. LE only ever really gave a limited description of Reed's clothes (basic colours). Usually in a missing person's case we get a good description, brand names, sizes and even photos of the same items. All we know for Reed is a white shirt (was this a T-shirt or a shirt?), blue Levis, white tennis shoes and a blue/black parka. Why?
6. And finally something I doubt they'll ever be an answer to: when Reed's dog went missing for 2 weeks previously what did Reed do? Did he post missing posters, get upset, get angry? Or did he know the person responsible...was it ever discovered who and why? Could this incident be more important than it seems?

Satch

 

[Satch]

Correction! # 4. Above should read:

"4). Reed finishes dinner and goes out to walk (not feed.) the dogs.

Satch

 

[Ciriii57]

Hey @Satch Thanks! I'm glad you also think it is plausible. Yes, I think what you added could well be what happened; Suzanne may have gone to a different part of thr house. She may even have been busy chatting to her mother or looking after one of the smaller kids (if they were there!) and just didn't see Reed again, but that doesn't mean he wasn't there at the time.
I definitely think that it could be that Jon and Reed had had a disagreement, and it may be that Keith and other family members were aware too. It makes sense of Jon's comment about there being things that they DID NOT agree on, and also about them bein in competition. It also makes Keith's comment about Reed being angry make more sense. It also seems to me that when Jon describes the evebts of that morning he never recounts having actually spoken to Reed; I wonder if that's because they weren't on speaking terms at the time. It could have been about the religion but knowing siblings I think it could also have been about anything. My guess though woukd be that it was about either Reed's getting close to a girl or another behaviour of which Jon disapproved.

I know that we have our own "favoured" theories on this. For me personally the accident in the hills is way down (Reed even being in those foothills is way down!)...but that's OK coz it's only beneficial to come at things from different angles to get different viewpoisnts So regarding number 4:

Now, with the dogs being fed, Reed having his dinner, and free time that we did not assume he had, until we put the theory of @Ciriii57's timeline in place he actually takes the dogs on a long walk. He looses all sense of time that he had to be back by 4:00 for a Church service, which, according to Jon, "Dad would not be happy about Reed missing church." From these circumstantial pieces of evidence, we can conclude that Reed was not wearing a watch.

I failed to mention one of the meetings that Reed should have attended that day, sorry! My point was actually supposed to be that Reed did not at all have any time to go on a long dog walk. In Jon's original interview he said of his and Reed's day:

1. Priesthood Meeting (which we now know was before lunch)
2. Sunday School after lunch
3. Sacrament (at about 4pm)

If Reed had intended to attend all of these meetings as usual (and not risk his father's wrath) then I can't see anyway he had time for a long dog walk into the hills. I think sacrament is the most important event if the week so I don't think he'd have missed it, we also aren't sure how long each of these meetings take (@cocomod ???). So my pointanyway is that unless Reed had decided to intentionally miss church that day (possible of course) and take the dogs hiking then I don't think he went into the hills.

My own prefferred theories as to what happened are:
1) Reed was abducted and probably murdered by someone he knew (eg: neighbour, family member, family friend, someone from church...). This may have had a sexual nature, or it may have been someone he had some unknown issues with.
2) Reed voluntarily left home (ran away) on that day for reasons unknown to a fate unknown.

 

[Satch]

Hey @Satch Thanks! I'm glad you also think it is plausible. Yes, I think what you added could well be what happened; Suzanne may have gone to a different part of thr house. She may even have been busy chatting to her mother or looking after one of the smaller kids (if they were there!) and just didn't see Reed again, but that doesn't mean he wasn't there at the time.
I definitely think that it could be that Jon and Reed had had a disagreement, and it may be that Keith and other family members were aware too. It makes sense of Jon's comment about there being things that they DID NOT agree on, and also about them bein in competition. It also makes Keith's comment about Reed being angry make more sense. It also seems to me that when Jon describes the evebts of that morning he never recounts having actually spoken to Reed; I wonder if that's because they weren't on speaking terms at the time. It could have been about the religion but knowing siblings I think it could also have been about anything. My guess though woukd be that it was about either Reed's getting close to a girl or another behaviour of which Jon disapproved.

I know that we have our own "favoured" theories on this. For me personally the accident in the hills is way down (Reed even being in those foothills is way down!)...but that's OK coz it's only beneficial to come at things from different angles to get different viewpoisnts So regarding number 4:

I failed to mention one of the meetings that Reed should have attended that day, sorry! My point was actually supposed to be that Reed did not at all have any time to go on a long dog walk. In Jon's original interview he said of his and Reed's day:

1. Priesthood Meeting (which we now know was before lunch)
2. Sunday School after lunch
3. Sacrament (at about 4pm)

If Reed had intended to attend all of these meetings as usual (and not risk his father's wrath) then I can't see anyway he had time for a long dog walk into the hills. I think sacrament is the most important event if the week so I don't think he'd have missed it, we also aren't sure how long each of these meetings take (@cocomod ???). So my pointanyway is that unless Reed had decided to intentionally miss church that day (possible of course) and take the dogs hiking then I don't think he went into the hills.

My own prefferred theories as to what happened are:
1) Reed was abducted and probably murdered by someone he knew (eg: neighbour, family member, family friend, someone from church...). This may have had a sexual nature, or it may have been someone he had some unknown issues with.
2) Reed voluntarily left home (ran away) on that day for reasons unknown to a fate unknown.

Thanks for this @Ciriii57!

I forgot, did you discount Reed being kidnapped because of the dogs being a deterrent? But, I agree that if Reed was abducted/murdered this person had to have known Reed and the dogs. I can't remember, but I think it was @chart75 who supports a kidnapping/murder theory that probably happened on his way back from walking the dogs. I think if this happened, Reed gained a "False Trust" of someone he knew.

I have to ask, if you think Reed was murdered, what do you think the motive was for the killer? (i.e kill the doctors son? Reed saw something that he wasn't supposed to see?) Do you think he was attacked with little to no warning? Or do you think that he had that stash of $60 on him, and went somewhere to see someone regarding something that the family would not approve of him doing? A shady deal that turned violent, and resulted in his death? If murder was the reason for Reed's vanishing, I think that going out to see someone was probably the reason. And more than likely, Jon and this unknown friend knew about this someone that Reed was going to see.

IMO, it stands to reason that Reed's life could have been sparred if he had simply not walked the dogs that day, or taken that money with him. I'll open this up for the Community:

With Blue Laws in effect on Sunday, (meaning most places closed) where would a strongly raised 15-year old Mormon LDS teen go on a Sunday with $60 on him in 1964? Three things come to mind for me. A relationship/friendship situation? looking at cars? experimenting with drugs? Reed was born in May of 1949? Did he have his temps yet? Did the Mormon faith, or being a LDS member frown upon young kids driving? I think I remember once or twice in my life where I recall one or two people who told me that their parents would not let them drive until they were 18.

Update: OMG look what I just found from a Church of Latter Day Saints forum regarding teens and driving: (I searched for Mormons and teen driving.)

Youth Driving Youth - Tech Forum

Also a study of @Ciriii57 second possibility:

Reed felt compelled to leave home because of some severe family, church, personality, sexual abuse conflict that he felt the family would never understand or accept.

I give much higher weight to Reed and the dogs being involved in an accident that @Circe77 does. This is the only element of Reed's case on which we disagree, but we are on the same page for everything else! LOL! But, we want to review ALL EVIDENCE, and any new perspectives on the case, so pleas share your thoughts with us and the community, whether you agree with them or not! Thanks to everyone!

Satch

 

[Ciriii57]

I forgot, did you discount Reed being kidnapped because of the dogs being a deterrent?

I haven't discounted a kidnap, I sort of lump kidnap and abduction together. But I think it's improbable he would be kidnapped by a stranger. There's the dogs, as you said, and also there was no ransom demand or anything. It could have been of course, but it would have to be a very brave and strong person to take him in broad daylight on the spur of the moment like that. This feels more planned to me.

I have to ask, if you think Reed was murdered, what do you think the motive was for the killer?

Wow, I mean where do you start..it could really be so many things. Even on WS we read about so many motives that seem crazy reasons to commit murder. But some of the ones that have gone through my head:

• The dogs were barking all the time and a neighbour was getting p****d off
• Someone made sexual advances to Reed that he refused
• Reed was being abused and someone had to stop him telling
• Reed knew something about someone and they killed him to keep his mouth shut
• He was accidentally shot in a hunting accident
• Someone wanted to teach his family a lesson
• Someone wanted to steal the dogs
• Reed stumbled onto some drug trafickers or other illegal activity
• Someone (jocks from school for example) were playing a trick that went horribly wrong (like the frats do at college)

The list could be endless and without further information I don't know how we can narrow it down!?? All suggestions welcome!
All of the theories that you suggested work too. And I am VERY suspiscious of the friend who implicated Jon. I just wish we knew what the reason was for that. I get the distinct impression that this friend and Jon did not see eye to eye about something and both know more information.

JMO-I honestly get the strangest feeling that Reed was tied to a chair somewhere underground or in a basement somewhere. There is absolutely NO evidence for this let me be clear...I just get this image. I am not psychic or anything. Just thought I'd share.

Did he have his temps yet?

Does this refer to a temporary drivers lisence? Could Reed have driven? He was only 15 and a half. As I don't really know the rules in America, I must admit, I have never really considered anything about a car before as I just don't have the knowledge. Do you really think he would look at buying his first car without his Dad's input? The link you shared definitely indicates that giving rides to others has the potential to be frowned on. I think we would need to know how old a person needed to be in Utah in 1964 to drive a car and whether they needed to be accompanied by a parent or other adult. Can this information be found?

<modsnip - if you have rules questions, ask moderators via "report" under any post, not other members>

 

[Satch]

I haven't discounted a kidnap, I sort of lump kidnap and abduction together. But I think it's improbable he would be kidnapped by a stranger. There's the dogs, as you said, and also there was no ransom demand or anything. It could have been of course, but it would have to be a very brave and strong person to take him in broad daylight on the spur of the moment like that. This feels more planned to me.


Wow, I mean where do you start..it could really be so many things. Even on WS we read about so many motives that seem crazy reasons to commit murder. But some of the ones that have gone through my head:

• The dogs were barking all the time and a neighbour was getting p****d off
• Someone made sexual advances to Reed that he refused
• Reed was being abused and someone had to stop him telling
• Reed knew something about someone and they killed him to keep his mouth shut
• He was accidentally shot in a hunting accident
• Someone wanted to teach his family a lesson
• Someone wanted to steal the dogs
• Reed stumbled onto some drug trafickers or other illegal activity
• Someone (jocks from school for example) were playing a trick that went horribly wrong (like the frats do at college)

The list could be endless and without further information I don't know how we can narrow it down!?? All suggestions welcome!
All of the theories that you suggested work too. And I am VERY suspiscious of the friend who implicated Jon. I just wish we knew what the reason was for that. I get the distinct impression that this friend and Jon did not see eye to eye about something and both know more information.

JMO-I honestly get the strangest feeling that Reed was tied to a chair somewhere underground or in a basement somewhere. There is absolutely NO evidence for this let me be clear...I just get this image. I am not psychic or anything. Just thought I'd share.


Does this refer to a temporary drivers lisence? Could Reed have driven? He was only 15 and a half. As I don't really know the rules in America, I must admit, I have never really considered anything about a car before as I just don't have the knowledge. Do you really think he would look at buying his first car without his Dad's input? The link you shared definitely indicates that giving rides to others has the potential to be frowned on. I think we would need to know how old a person needed to be in Utah in 1964 to drive a car and whether they needed to be accompanied by a parent or other adult. Can this information be found?

<modsnip - if you have rules questions, ask moderators via "report" under any post, not other members>

Thanks again for the great research @Ciriii57!

Where I live in the States for driving, you have to be at least 15 years old to get a temporary license and if you are under 18, you must have a parent or guardian consent form. However, I don't know what the regulations were in Utah back in 1964.

<modsnip - misstatement of Websleuths rule regarding contacting case players>

Satch