NV NV - Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson, 13 Dec 2009 - #14

[TechWriter797]

OK, I just remembered.

LL is suing Z for Z's back rent (and the small appliances). They've apparently got a civil warrant out on him. Z was in town for quite awhile after SK disappeared, but LL lost track of him.

LL didn't mention having a warrant out on SK for the same thing, which I found odd. He also owes rent, and if such a warrant would help find/ID him, why not do it?

Maybe SK made a delivery or did some other favor for LL in lieu of payment.

 

[Fairy1]

Not if he was planning to leave as soon as he had the cash. He'd have had to do it as part of the preparations.

Okay.....so was he planning to leave or was he murdered when he came to Vegas for payment? Sorry - I was under the impression that was what was being tossed around here.

I suspect the cost is irrelevant. The family didn't seem to have any doubts they were intended as presents. He might have spent quite a lot of time searching out personalized ornaments, or ones that reflected the kids' interests, etc.

I said the cost was irrelevant. My point - related to the "murdered while attempting to collect" - was WHY would he have purchased those gifts if he believed he was coming into $$$?

 

[Fairy1]

Maybe SK made a delivery or did some other favor for LL in lieu of payment.

Indeed. All those phone calls AFTER we understood the matter to have been resolved....

 

[laytonian]

Well, if he were even barely tied to a missing persons' case (which he is), you'd think they'd try a little harder.

LE has no warrant out for him; even "barely tied" means he'd have some involvement. He evidently doesn't.

I check THIS SITE once a week. If Z really was "one of the biggest drug dealers in St George", as the LL claimed, wouldn't he be on that list, too? He's not.

You'd think that someone "barely tied" to a possible murder, would be sought much heavier than the druggiest on that "most wanted" page.

IMO, friend.

 

[Fairy1]

LE has no warrant out for him; even "barely tied" means he'd have some involvement. He evidently doesn't.

I check THIS SITE once a week. If Z really was "one of the biggest drug dealers in St George", as the LL claimed, wouldn't he be on that list, too? He's not.

You'd think that someone "barely tied" to a possible murder, would be sought much heavier than the druggiest on that "most wanted" page.

IMO, friend.

He's no dealer. If he was, he would have paid his rent and stayed under the radar.

Still, while he may have nothing to do with Steven's disappearance, there is an obvious degree of separation there that SHOULD be fully explored.

But then, I'm not in charge of the "investigation."

IS ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS????

 

[sbakker]

He's no dealer. If he was, he would have paid his rent and stayed under the radar.

Still, while he may have nothing to do with Steven's disappearance, there is an obvious degree of separation there that SHOULD be fully explored.

But then, I'm not in charge of the "investigation."

IS ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS????

I am paying attention, but what do you mean by the painfully obvious?

 

[Fairy1]

I am paying attention, but what do you mean by the painfully obvious?

There are people who have close ties to Steven. Motives or possible motives that should be looked at...

We have no idea whether they have been or not.

 

[Sin City]

Would someone remind me if Z was questioned about SK's disappearance, and who questioned him? I'm sorry, but I don't trust myself to try to find the information in the previous posts.

 

[Fairy1]

Would someone remind me if Z was questioned about SK's disappearance, and who questioned him? I'm sorry, but I don't trust myself to try to find the information in the previous posts.

IIRC - NO. He was already gone.

 

[Sin City]

I am paying attention, but what do you mean by the painfully obvious?

IMO the PI needs to find Z, and question him. We don't know if the PI has.

Or Z needs to come forward on his own. That is, if he even knows SK is missing. IMO a small civil case isn't as important as the fact that one's roommate is missing.

I'm hoping Z will 'man-up', and be responsible, but I'm sure I'm expecting too much.

 

[carbuff]

Okay.....so was he planning to leave or was he murdered when he came to Vegas for payment? Sorry - I was under the impression that was what was being tossed around here.



I said the cost was irrelevant. My point - related to the "murdered while attempting to collect" - was WHY would he have purchased those gifts if he believed he was coming into $$$?

I'm sorry, I appear to have explained badly. Also, two separate discussions seem to have crossed paths. I was wondering whether there was any evidence that SK had been making deliveries for some time, saving the money until he had enough to make his break. This is separate from the murdered-in-LV scenario. If that were the case, it seems more logical that he picked up the final payment on the trip that generated the Overton/Mesquite ping on the 12th, also taking care of details for the next day's departure. Then the departure happened in an area that had nothing to do with the deliveries or the payments.

If that were the case, he might have had money to buy more expensive presents, but probably would have followed his old habits. And as a side point I mentioned that just because he didn't spend a lot of money on them didn't mean he didn't take some time and thought to buy things that were appropriate for the recipient. He doesn't seem to have been a person who spent a lot of money at any time. Which is why I agreed that the cost was irrelevant.

Is that clearer? I'm sorry I'm not explaining myself well...

 

[carbuff]

I hope they've gone that far back on *everything* (phone records, banking, any other credit cards that popped up on his Experian and every darned email in that five-year history in the computer). You don't have to read all the emails, but you can search for words like "hide", "meet" or "address". Or certain phrases.



Oh, man.
So each of them signed a separate lease making them each responsible for the *full* rent? Or was it some kind of sublease that went horribly wrong? Your brother's attorney couldn't fight it?
I know, NOMB :angel:

It was a boilerplate lease that said they were renting the apartment. One lease, both their signatures. Since it didn't specifically say each was responsible for half the rent, that meant it defaulted to both of them fully responsible. But it does sound like that's not the case here. Though again I'd like to see some definite statement of that.

And attorney? Huh. That's for things that require posting bail And the kind of apartment my brother lived in back then, it was probably cheaper to pay the rent.

 

[carbuff]

It's just a civil warrant; LE isn't looking for him. If he's pulled over for a traffic violation, the warrant should pop up on LE's computer. I don't know if he can be arrested for a civil warrant or not, or if it's just used to find him.

Z hasn't been convicted of anything, for a long time (and they were minor infractions).

Very unlikely. In general, you can't be arrested for debt in the US. If there's an associated crime, like theft or fraud, that's different, but owing money by itself isn't an issue for criminal courts.

I agree, that's not the resume of a druggie. And it looks like there's a lot worse running around the St. George area.

 

[sbakker]

There are people who have close ties to Steven. Motives or possible motives that should be looked at...

We have no idea whether they have been or not.

Okay. I guess I wanted to know if I was on the same track as you. And I agree, and it is frustrating!

 

[sbakker]

IMO the PI needs to find Z, and question him. We don't know if the PI has.

Or Z needs to come forward on his own. That is, if he even knows SK is missing. IMO a small civil case isn't as important as the fact that one's roommate is missing.

I'm hoping Z will 'man-up', and be responsible, but I'm sure I'm expecting too much.

I agree with you, and I think many of us here, are so frustrated. If you are not guilty, why wouldn't you come forward and try to help. But if Z is wanted for other things, maybe thats why he isn't coming forword.

From the beginning, it seemed so strange, that sk's friends,employer, did not come forward to help. The people that he worked with in his church position, or his employer. Yet we are people who do not know him and care alot about him for one reason or another.

I guess I think about having a loved one missing, and would hope there would be organization help, posters immediately, church groups helping, community help, and so forth. i guess I compare it with other stories I know about,or have read about.

I lived one block away from Debbie Kent, who was murdered by Ted Bundy. That was a time, when we did not have all the resources to help find someone. That was so traumatic, I told myself, I would try to do a little part to help in other cases in my community. Even if it was a phone call. Support somehow or another. For we never know what tomorrow brings.

 

[laytonian]

Would someone remind me if Z was questioned about SK's disappearance, and who questioned him? I'm sorry, but I don't trust myself to try to find the information in the previous posts.

IIRC - NO. He was already gone.

IMO the PI needs to find Z, and question him. We don't know if the PI has.

Or Z needs to come forward on his own. That is, if he even knows SK is missing. IMO a small civil case isn't as important as the fact that one's roommate is missing.

I'm hoping Z will 'man-up', and be responsible, but I'm sure I'm expecting too much.

This is important to clarify: Z knows SK is missing and he HAS been questioned by LE..

KCN on QA-2 page:

"Q: I wonder if the police have confirmed where Steven's ex roommate was on the day he dissapeared.
A: Yes, they seem to be satisfied he was not involves. He still gives me the creeps."

ETA:
Z left the house either at the end of Oct or very early November (six weeks or so, before SK disappeared).
Since the police were able to question him, that means his whereabouts were known and he was still in St George in late December.

 

[laytonian]

I lived one block away from Debbie Kent, who was murdered by Ted Bundy. That was a time, when we did not have all the resources to help find someone. That was so traumatic, I told myself, I would try to do a little part to help in other cases in my community. Even if it was a phone call. Support somehow or another. For we never know what tomorrow brings.

You are absolutely correct.

Nancy Baird disappeared in July 1975 from a place I'd bought gas at, two hours before (it was then the East Layton Shamrock gas station).
Like Debbie Kent, Baird's body was never found.
It wasn't until Bundy was near execution that he confessed to Baird's murder. We walk carefully in the mountains, because that's where Bundy took the remains of his victims.

I hope I can help in this case, because once you're even that close to something like Bundy -- who drove past our place every time he visited his Ogden girlfriend, you don't forget it. And yeah, I had long dark hair parted in the middle.

 

[laytonian]

Very unlikely. In general, you can't be arrested for debt in the US. If there's an associated crime, like theft or fraud, that's different, but owing money by itself isn't an issue for criminal courts.

I agree, that's not the resume of a druggie. And it looks like there's a lot worse running around the St. George area.

I know LL had to file the civil warrant themselves and fill out the paperwork (remember, she came here with some questions on how to do it) -- and maybe the theft of the small appliances, trash can and cleaning supplies was enough to add up to a theft warrant?
Z was supposed to appear in court, but never showed up -- hence the warrant.

 

[sbakker]

Is sk's family or the PI or KC, asking any questions to any of you? Or saying anything about Websleuth? Do they want us to continue? Are they getting any clues? I do not know about anyone else, but hey, are we in the dark, are we leasrning anything, getting a yeah or a no on what we are doing? Just thinking outloud-frustrated I guess.

 

[Fairy1]

I'm sorry, I appear to have explained badly. Also, two separate discussions seem to have crossed paths. I was wondering whether there was any evidence that SK had been making deliveries for some time, saving the money until he had enough to make his break. This is separate from the murdered-in-LV scenario. If that were the case, it seems more logical that he picked up the final payment on the trip that generated the Overton/Mesquite ping on the 12th, also taking care of details for the next day's departure. Then the departure happened in an area that had nothing to do with the deliveries or the payments.

If that were the case, he might have had money to buy more expensive presents, but probably would have followed his old habits. And as a side point I mentioned that just because he didn't spend a lot of money on them didn't mean he didn't take some time and thought to buy things that were appropriate for the recipient. He doesn't seem to have been a person who spent a lot of money at any time. Which is why I agreed that the cost was irrelevant.

Is that clearer? I'm sorry I'm not explaining myself well...

No I'M sorry. You expressed yourself just fine, I'm just annoyed with the whole murdered-in-Vegas-by-whoever-he-was-working-for scenario and I took it out on you. I apologize. :truce:

I have long considered that Steven had more money than we believe. Though I don't necessarily feel it was tied to anything illegal - whether he was aware or not. And if that is the case, my guess is that he was saving up to take off - otherwise, someone in his life would have known about it and he would have been paying his bills in St. George.

The thing about this scenario and the illegal deliveries/murdered scenario is that both explain the two factors that defy explanation; the driving all over for no logical reason, and the complete lack of a trail to his final destination.

****************sigh**************