NV NV - Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson, 13 Dec 2009 - #17

[laytonian]

One remote possibility for how a connection might play out: if Steven and Susan knew each other in West Valley (no evidence that they did, or that their paths would likely have crossed), and were friends -- and when she decided to leave her relationship, she called on her old friend to help her get away -- and her husband found out about it and killed them both, assuming they were lovers. This would mean he hunted Steven down later -- which I'm not sure he had the opportunity to do. And there are other holes too.

I could see a similar scenario with somebody in Anthem. He went to help a friend leave an abusive relationship, husband caught them, killed him, has woman too terrorized to call the cops. Or killed her too only nobody knows she's missing.

I mean, I can make up scenarios all day. When there's very little evidence, there's lots of room for fantasizing.

...and lots of room to make stuff up, in direct conflict with known details.

We actually have more details in this case, than most. In what other cases, have we had the family's input, answers? In what other case, have WSers been provided details of phone records and bank activities?

The biggest hole in the S&S theory? Logic.

Susan Powell could have taken her purse and/or cash, bought a bus ticket to St George, and been long gone -- before her husband and kids arrived back from that "overnight camping in the snow" trip.

Since she could easily have done that, WHY would she take a bus to a far-away place in the wrong direction (Sacramento? Wendover?) to meet up with SK?

----------

And so, we have the problem of a family who's been open with us. NOW, we see that same family being accused of hiding their son's whereabouts, and purposely spreading falsehoods.

I can't entertain those with such theories and accusations, any longer.

 

[laytonian]

Would a bishop contact another bishop and ask for assistance in moving a very unhappy member of his church to another area so that he/she might start a new life? Would the hierachy become involved like this?
Thank you.

Remove a woman from her husband and sons?
Hide a man from his family?

Two words: absolutely not.

 

[carbuff]

...and lots of room to make stuff up, in direct conflict with known details.

We actually have more details in this case, than most. In what other cases, have we had the family's input, answers? In what other case, have WSers been provided details of phone records and bank activities?

The biggest hole in the S&S theory? Logic.

Susan Powell could have taken her purse and/or cash, bought a bus ticket to St George, and been long gone -- before her husband and kids arrived back from that "overnight camping in the snow" trip.

Since she could easily have done that, WHY would she take a bus to a far-away place in the wrong direction (Sacramento? Wendover?) to meet up with SK?

----------

And so, we have the problem of a family who's been open with us. NOW, we see that same family being accused of hiding their son's whereabouts, and purposely spreading falsehoods.

I can't entertain those with such theories and accusations, any longer.

I seem to have been even more unclear than usual -- I thought I was disagreeing with the Susan-on-the-bus theory. I certainly and absolutely did not mean to imply that the family knows anything or didn't tell the truth or hasn't been completely honest. If Steven ran into trouble while trying to help someone -- the very very slim chance that he did so -- they wouldn't know about it.

Gotta get my humor meter tested...

 

[Fairy1]

That's what I was asking: has anyone here asked, via NAMUS, if there could be a link between the Idyllwild remains and Steven?

I'll send it in.

 

[laytonian]

I seem to have been even more unclear than usual -- I thought I was disagreeing with the Susan-on-the-bus theory. I certainly and absolutely did not mean to imply that the family knows anything or didn't tell the truth or hasn't been completely honest. If Steven ran into trouble while trying to help someone -- the very very slim chance that he did so -- they wouldn't know about it.

Gotta get my humor meter tested...

I'm the one who should have been clearer.

I was agreeing with you.

Just expounding a bit and thinking out loud about the theory du joir.

 

[carbuff]

I'm the one who should have been clearer.

I was agreeing with you.

Just expounding a bit and thinking out loud about the theory du joir.

Ah, okay, I was afraid I'd really messed it up.

Yeah, the theory du jour does not hold water.

 

[SugarJames]

in my book the odds that Steven is the bank robber in the photo is 100 times more likely than him running off with Susan Powell.

I think that bizarre theory does a disservice to both the Koecher and Powell families.

at least the bank robber speculation is based upon a fact - we can see the bank robber's face and people can decide for themselves how much, if any, resemblance there is to Steven Koecher.

If you wanna play the odds...the odds are that he is most likley a adult runaway based on statstics.

 

[carbuff]

If you wanna play the odds...the odds are that he is most likley a adult runaway based on statstics.

Exactly. With suicide in second place.

 

[Fairy1]

I seem to have been even more unclear than usual -- I thought I was disagreeing with the Susan-on-the-bus theory. I certainly and absolutely did not mean to imply that the family knows anything or didn't tell the truth or hasn't been completely honest. If Steven ran into trouble while trying to help someone -- the very very slim chance that he did so -- they wouldn't know about it.

Gotta get my humor meter tested...

Your humor meter is fine - totally got where you were coming from!

We have tossed around many, many theories here over the past 10 months. That's what we're supposed to be doing. Some theories have seemed out of left field, some have seemed logical (such as it is). We have been fortunate to have insights and information from Steven's family and friends. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many of us still hold fast to the theories we've had from the very beginning - give or take. That doesn't mean we can't see other points of view, does it?

That being said, I wish Steven and Susan were together somewhere; safe and sound. But, based on everything we've learned about these people since they went missing, Susan would NEVER have left her babies with a man like JP and Steven would not leave his family wondering if he were dead or alive. IMO.

 

[SugarJames]

If you wanna play the odds...the odds are that he is most likley a adult runaway based on statstics.

I admit my theory is bizarre...but keep in mind I have found what I was looking for in more bizarre ways this.

 

[laytonian]

Your humor meter is fine - totally got where you were coming from!

We have tossed around many, many theories here over the past 10 months. That's what we're supposed to be doing. Some theories have seemed out of left field, some have seemed logical (such as it is). We have been fortunate to have insights and information from Steven's family and friends. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and many of us still hold fast to the theories we've had from the very beginning - give or take. That doesn't mean we can't see other points of view, does it?

That being said, I wish Steven and Susan were together somewhere; safe and sound. But, based on everything we've learned about these people since they went missing, Susan would NEVER have left her babies with a man like JP and Steven would not leave his family wondering if he were dead or alive. IMO.

....and unfortunately, SK's financials and stability were even worse at that time, than JP's.
If SK is the man he's been portrayed as, he'd never have run off with a woman so "loose" as to leave her children behind.
If anything, he'd have made sure the kids went with them.

Theories are fine, but I believe they should be built on known facts. Facts don't deny a theory; they help make it stronger.

 

[Fairy1]

....and unfortunately, SK's financials and stability were even worse at that time, than JP's.
If SK is the man he's been portrayed as, he'd never have run off with a woman so "loose" as to leave her children behind.
If anything, he'd have made sure the kids went with them.

Theories are fine, but I believe they should be built on known facts. Facts don't deny a theory; they help make it stronger.

Agree. But we are obviously still missing key facts here and until we have them, speculation will happen.

Why was Steven in Henderson?
Where was he headed in that video?
Why did he go to Ruby Valley (really)?
Why did he leave the holiday party abruptly?
Why was he driving willy-nilly all over the place before he disappeared?
Why did he leave no trail that answers these questions?

Etc.

 

[SugarJames]

...and lots of room to make stuff up, in direct conflict with known details.

We actually have more details in this case, than most. In what other cases, have we had the family's input, answers? In what other case, have WSers been provided details of phone records and bank activities?

The biggest hole in the S&S theory? Logic.

Susan Powell could have taken her purse and/or cash, bought a bus ticket to St George, and been long gone -- before her husband and kids arrived back from that "overnight camping in the snow" trip.

Since she could easily have done that, WHY would she take a bus to a far-away place in the wrong direction (Sacramento? Wendover?) to meet up with SK?

----------

And so, we have the problem of a family who's been open with us. NOW, we see that same family being accused of hiding their son's whereabouts, and purposely spreading falsehoods.

I can't entertain those with such theories and accusations, any longer.

Everyone following this case has thier own reasons. Be it family or friends or those with something as simple as a chance meeting, a dream or trusted intuition that drives them for answers. I personally am not here do "do harm" My theory is based on facts gathered from News, Facebook, misc.web pages, maps and listening/reading what people are saying about what is happening in the community.

Most of the internet data I am using is from a timeline and information you yourself have been posting in your search. I respectfully thank you for every peace of it, as well as information and thought provoking comments from others on this thread.

 

[Fairy1]

Everyone following this case has thier own reasons. Be it family or friends or those with something as simple as a chance meeting, a dream or trusted intuition that drives them for answers. I personally am not here do "do harm" My theory is based on facts gathered from News, Facebook, misc.web pages, maps and listening/reading what people are saying about what is happening in the community.

Most of the internet data I am using is from a timeline and information you yourself have been posting in your search. I respectfully thank you for every peace of it, as well as information and thought provoking comments from others on this thread.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been working this case to find Steven Koecher. He happens to have gone missing in my city - or so it seems. I have no ulterior motive.

 

[laytonian]

:banghead:

Agree. But we are obviously still missing key facts here and until we have them, speculation will happen.

Why was Steven in Henderson?
Where was he headed in that video?
Why did he go to Ruby Valley (really)?
Why did he leave the holiday party abruptly?
Why was he driving willy-nilly all over the place before he disappeared?
Why did he leave no trail that answers these questions?

Etc.

We know about those things, because he did leave a trail. He wasn't hiding anything; even after he walked away from his car, he (apparently) was checking his voicemails.

My questions are also mostly "why" types:

Why didn't he just drive to his destination?
Why abandon the car, and walk...to wherever?

He used his credit card for very minor purchases, continuously.
Why did he not use his credit card for anything, after Saturday evening's purchase of the Christmas cookies and baby bib?

If that was him checking the voicemails for another 18 hours, didn't he even get hungry and buy food?
Breakfast, lunch, dinner and another breakfast?

Did he really take that much cash with him, to walk away with?

If he was absolutely down to his last dollar, why did he buy gas Saturday afternoon in Mesquite - when he didn't need to? (Half a tank of gas was left in the abandoned car.)

:banghead:

I believe it's possible he left with someone else (that's the "happy" scenario) -- but I don't believe it's that woman.

 

[CONCRNED CTZN]

True. But it takes more than that, to get a search warrant, to name a POI, to bring the case before a grand jury.

I think this case is truly "empty pockets". The person most mentioned here as a suspect, was 120 miles away when SK walked down that street. By himself.

He was, and it turns out to be, literally, the perfect alibi, which does not exonerate him, just means at the time SK was last seen, he made sure he was seen.

Of course...it could be that he is totally innocent as well.

 

[Fairy1]

:banghead:

We know about those things, because he did leave a trail. He wasn't hiding anything; even after he walked away from his car, he (apparently) was checking his voicemails.

I disagree. There was no trail that led him to SCA (that we know of). Was he purposely hiding it or was it just innocent happenstance?

My questions are also mostly "why" types:

Why didn't he just drive to his destination?

Maybe he did?

Why abandon the car, and walk...to wherever?

Maybe he didn't walk.

He used his credit card for very minor purchases, continuously.

Why did he not use his credit card for anything, after Saturday evening's purchase of the Christmas cookies and baby bib?

Good question. Maybe THAT'S when he started covering his tracks?

If that was him checking the voicemails for another 18 hours, didn't he even get hungry and buy food?
Breakfast, lunch, dinner and another breakfast?

I guess we really don't KNOW it was actually Steven checking his voicemails. Just as we don't know if he was with his phone and his car in SCA. Personally, I believe it was him in SCA and on the video.

Did he really take that much cash with him, to walk away with?

If he was absolutely down to his last dollar, why did he buy gas Saturday afternoon in Mesquite - when he didn't need to? (Half a tank of gas was left in the abandoned car.)

:banghead:

I believe it's possible he left with someone else (that's the "happy" scenario) -- but I don't believe it's that woman.

I don't, necessarily, believe he was down to his last dollar. But I'm open to the possibility someone else began caring for him once he arrived in Henderson/Vegas.

 

[laytonian]

He was, and it turns out to be, literally, the perfect alibi, which does not exonerate him, just means at the time SK was last seen, he made sure he was seen.

Of course...it could be that he is totally innocent as well.

True - but then we have a conspiracy involving him and someone else ... a kind of trap, that SK willingly walked into.

My turn for wacky theory:

My thoughts in that direction, are of a break-up or unrequited love. It may explain some of that week's odd behavior.

All the texts/calls between them.

Monday's "abrupt departure" from the party they both attended.

Wed/Thurs' drive to Ruby Valley, where he asked to see AN (someone he must have loved/trusted). Maybe a chance to set life in another direction.

Saturday's drive south....likely at least as far as Vegas.

Sunday's short conversation, then SK checking his voicemail several times until the phone went dead.....like he was waiting for one person to call him ... but all there were, was more landlord and TH. A debt and a job he probably felt demeaned by. Then?
Hopelessness?

When I look at it that way, the outcome is obvious.

 

[CONCRNED CTZN]

...and on a day HE had other obligations, too. I know, I know.

Have we looked at this case:
UID, Idyllwild, CA - a mountain area above Palm Springs, CA.

And we can't forget the fact that he didn't try to hide the fact that the was in Vegas...he openly shared that fact. If I was running away, going into hiding, or doing something illegitimate I don't think I would tell people where I was, or even answer the call. Not answering the calls woulnt have set the search into motion anytime sooner in my mind.

 

[laytonian]

I disagree. There was no trail that led him to SCA (that we know of). Was he purposely hiding it or was it just innocent happenstance?



Maybe he did?



Maybe he didn't walk.



Good question. Maybe THAT'S when he started covering his tracks?



I guess we really don't KNOW it was actually Steven checking his voicemails. Just as we don't know if he was with his phone and his car in SCA. Personally, I believe it was him in SCA and on the video.

I don't, necessarily, believe he was down to his last dollar. But I'm open to the possibility someone else began caring for him once he arrived in Henderson/Vegas.

If he purposely left, he had money.

But if you're covering your tracks after Saturday night, wouldn't you also stop using the cellphone -- which tracks you even better than a credit card?
Why would you tell two people, Sunday morning, that you were in Vegas?

He might as well have bought himself a big breakfast in Vegas He was giving himself away.

There I go. Trying to assign logic to the illogic.