NV NV - Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson, 13 Dec 2009 - #12

[laytonian]

A lot of the pings were apparently in Whitney Ranch and never went back to SCA. Leading me to believe he never left Whitney Ranch area on his own.

....which is confusing, based on the area that's been searched (which is ALWAYS around SCA).

 

[swjaxon]

Hi sw, it's not unclear in conjunction with phone bill. If call were incoming and went to voice mail it would show on phone bill, wouldn't it?

If call were outgoing and it answered, even with voice mail, it would show up on phone bill if he left a voice mail, but not if didn't? I was asking about taht in previous post.

But LL and TH presumably would say if they were trying to call him that day or got a message. To have that activity and not say it is a huge deal.

On other hand for neither to have a voice mail left or for that matter not see his number in caller id of calls received that day also doesn't make sense.

If phone bill detail is different these days let me know, but I am thinking that voice mail used to be billed minutes same as talking.

Bottom line, with rules for billing and his phone bill along with pings would think we should be able to establish incoming or outgoing. I have to say that whether incoming or outgoing, I can't understand LL and TH not knowing about the phone calls Sunday afternoon.

rd

Let me explain a little bit on this topic.

I have two documents: cell tower pings and cell phone bill. The phone bill spans the time frame of 12/07 to the morning of 12/13. So you're right, I believe the calls from LL and TH didn't get answered. Also, the VM call on the 14th isn't on the bill.

The ping list spans 12/12-12/16 and shows what I believe are both answered/made calls and unanswered calls.

Essentially, to answer your question, I don't believe he answered a call after talking to SA on the morning of the 13th.

Finally, to address the call not being on the bill. I don't know if this is curious or not. I found a couple of calls, including the VM call, not on the actual phone bill when they should have been. But I also found a couple of calls that weren't on the ping list that were on the bill. So I wonder if it's just AT&T's oversite/bad accounting of their calls.

 

[swjaxon]

My ATT family plan, with shared minutes, doesn't identify calls on the bill unless they're over the limit. Incoming calls that go directly to voice mail don't count against our minutes, but outgoing calls answered by the recipient's voice mail do. The call to voice mail to retrieve the messages counts. And text messages aren't usually identified at all, just how many we got or sent.

I don't know whether SK's plan was similar. It sounds like he might have had a by-the-call billing.

Yes. Steve was on the AT&T Family Plan.

 

[swjaxon]

Stunned that someone had this info all the time.

Sorry. I made an agreement not to share it publicly. The family has the info as well.

 

[Fairy1]

Let me explain a little bit on this topic.

I have two documents: cell tower pings and cell phone bill. The phone bill spans the time frame of 12/07 to the morning of 12/13. So you're right, I believe the calls from LL and TH didn't get answered. Also, the VM call on the 14th isn't on the bill.

The ping list spans 12/12-12/16 and shows what I believe are both answered/made calls and unanswered calls.

Essentially, to answer your question, I don't believe he answered a call after talking to SA on the morning of the 13th.

Finally, to address the call not being on the bill. I don't know if this is curious or not. I found a couple of calls, including the VM call, not on the actual phone bill when they should have been. But I also found a couple of calls that weren't on the ping list that were on the bill. So I wonder if it's just AT&T's oversite/bad accounting of their calls.

I just want to be sure I'm understanding you here. Are you saying there were several calls from the LL and TH between 12/12 and 12/16 or were they earlier in the month?

 

[swjaxon]

I just want to be sure I'm understanding you here. Are you saying there were several calls from the LL and TH between 12/12 and 12/16 or were they earlier in the month?

There are several calls between SK and TH from 12/8-12/11, no calls on the phone bill on 12/12 or 12/13. On the ping list, there are several calls (probably unanswered since they didn't get on the bill) from TH from the evening of 12/13-12/16.

LL texts Steve on 12/7 and that's his only appearance on the bill. On the ping list, which spans the dates 12/12-12/16, his number starts appearing at 4:36 on the 13th and then 10 more times until the 16th.

 

[Fairy1]

There are several calls between SK and TH from 12/8-12/11, no calls on the phone bill on 12/12 or 12/13. On the ping list, there are several calls (probably unanswered since they didn't get on the bill) from TH from the evening of 12/13-12/16.

LL texts Steve on 12/7 and that's his only appearance on the bill. On the ping list, which spans the dates 12/12-12/16, his number starts appearing at 4:36 on the 13th and then 10 more times until the 16th.

Thank you. Disturbing. I sure hope someone is paying attention.

 

[webrocket]

I have not posted here in a while since there was nothing new. I almost missed this whole ping thing.

This is my take on it - Steven met up with whomever he intended to meet in SCA (not a person who lives there, just a pick up spot). The person Steven left SCA drove them to the Whitney Ranch area where they spent the night. Steven used the phone one last time in the morning and then he departed the area with his companion.

 

[Fairy1]

I have not posted here in a while since there was nothing new. I almost missed this whole ping thing.

This is my take on it - Steven met up with whomever he intended to meet in SCA (not a person who lives there, just a pick up spot). The person Steven left SCA drove them to the Whitney Ranch area where they spent the night. Steven used the phone one last time in the morning and then he departed the area with his companion.

Good to "see" you WR. I sure hope you're right, but this new info makes me nervous.

 

[webrocket]

Steven had his phone with him after he left SCA so if he was in any trouble whatsoever, he could easily have called 911. I can't imagine anyone with criminal intent allowing a person he is holding captive to keep his phone. In fact, it would be the first thing to go - you toss it out the window or down a storm drain ASAP.

So this new information only strengthens my view that he met up with someone in SCA (a transit point only) before moving on.

Now the more interesting question is whether his travel companion lived in Whitney Ranch or whether they stayed in a motel for one night. Had this information been known sooner, LE could have checked out local lodging sites to see if anyone recognized his face.

 

[laytonian]

I have not posted here in a while since there was nothing new. I almost missed this whole ping thing.

This is my take on it - Steven met up with whomever he intended to meet in SCA (not a person who lives there, just a pick up spot). The person Steven left SCA drove them to the Whitney Ranch area where they spent the night. Steven used the phone one last time in the morning and then he departed the area with his companion.

But why would he "spoil" the getaway plan, by using the phone continually after he dropped off the car? You start the new life at that point, IMO?

Your scenario is the most hopeful, and while I'm not convinced, I'm cheering for it to be true.

 

[RubyRed]

I still think he met with foul play. jmo

 

[webrocket]

But why would he "spoil" the getaway plan, by using the phone continually after he dropped off the car? You start the new life at that point, IMO?

Your scenario is the most hopeful, and while I'm not convinced, I'm cheering for it to be true.

He might not have been knowledgeable about pings, (not that I am all up on them) but he did not take it with him when he left LV for whatever his destination was. So in his mind, the trail of Steven Koecher ended in LV, not aware or not concerned with whether they picked up a signal in Henderson, LV, Whitney Ranch or any other neighborhood around town.

 

[laytonian]

We drove across Northern Nevada last Sunday, from SLC. What a long, boring drive for Steven ... especially since he began driving 8pm or just before 2am (and drove in total darkness).

I noticed something, that made my brain go "ka-ching".

The assumption has always been that Steven would have taken an I-80 exit at Wells, Nevada and driven south to Ruby Valley. That's the route supported by the receipts and bank records, as well as Microsoft mapping and Google maps.

BUT....there's no sign there, pointing to Ruby Valley!

It's not until you drive almost to Elko, Nevada that you see a turn-off to Ruby Valley (Halleck exit, # 321). It's about 40 miles further, and over a bit of a mountain pass ....but not as far OFF the freeway.

It made me wonder if Steven really WAS going to Sacramento (having been sent there by someone), and just decided to "drop in" at Ruby Valley. We know that AN's family convinced him that he should be going back to St George, due to an incoming storm ... and that he did.

IF he was sent to Sacramento, and failed to do whatever he was supposed to do by not going there, could this have been the start of the week's problems?

(I don't think he'd have worked for TH the next day, if he was supposed to be doing something else -- I'm thinking of someone else.)

Remember, whatever happened, started after the phone argument between SK and his dad -- and that there may have been some urgency in working something off.

 

[carbuff]

I haven't thought this through completely yet, so I'm not sure it will hold up -- but it makes me wonder whether Steven was seeing somebody in Henderson. Somebody he didn't want his family to know about (but maybe the friends from church did know about?) Somebody who didn't want the neighbors to know about him (hence parking in a nice safe cul-de-sac elsewhere).

So he parks, she picks him up, they go off for their time together.

Then -- what, her husband gets home early, before she can bring him back to his car?

 

[laytonian]

He might not have been knowledgeable about pings, (not that I am all up on them) but he did not take it with him when he left LV for whatever his destination was. So in his mind, the trail of Steven Koecher ended in LV, not aware or not concerned with whether they picked up a signal in Henderson, LV, Whitney Ranch or any other neighborhood around town.

Perhaps not. But he knew who paid the phone bill, and what they'd be able to tell.

Plus, for this perfect disappearance to work, he'd have to start using a different phone at some time under his new entity. So why keep talking until the next day?

 

[webrocket]

Perhaps not. But he knew who paid the phone bill, and what they'd be able to tell.

Plus, for this perfect disappearance to work, he'd have to start using a different phone at some time under his new entity. So why keep talking until the next day?

I have always felt he had a second phone, a prepaid thing which he used to call his pal in the LV area, whoever he or she might have been. Thus there are no suspicious calls on the real phone.

 

[swjaxon]

Had this information been known sooner, LE could have checked out local lodging sites to see if anyone recognized his face.

What makes you think LE doesn't have the info?

 

[laytonian]

Finally, to address the call not being on the bill. I don't know if this is curious or not. I found a couple of calls, including the VM call, not on the actual phone bill when they should have been. But I also found a couple of calls that weren't on the ping list that were on the bill. So I wonder if it's just AT&T's oversite/bad accounting of their calls.

I just found a discussion about something *like* this: here.

I don't know if it applies, but there's another possibility, too: the plan may allow "free" calls to VM, which would allow them to show up on the pings but not the bill itself.

 

[laytonian]

I haven't thought this through completely yet, so I'm not sure it will hold up -- but it makes me wonder whether Steven was seeing somebody in Henderson. Somebody he didn't want his family to know about (but maybe the friends from church did know about?) Somebody who didn't want the neighbors to know about him (hence parking in a nice safe cul-de-sac elsewhere).

So he parks, she picks him up, they go off for their time together.

Then -- what, her husband gets home early, before she can bring him back to his car?

There's one hitch: no prior pings/calls or evident visits to that area (except perhaps on Dec 12th, when he left St George early and came back in the late afternoon). But that would have required his phone be off for several hours on Dec 12th?

If he wasn't hiding on Dec 13th, why would he hide earlier?

But this is another hopeful scenario; the best outcome.