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

[Fairy1]

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.

I don't think this theory is wacky at all. I actually believe this is right on point - hence - my feeling that someone knows more than they've said. He may not be directly responsible for Steven going missing but, IMO, there is more to that angle.

No one should assume that the conversations between that person and Steven were 100% church-related. IMO, there are red flags there.

 

[Fairy1]

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.

Not everyone knows about cell phone pings. It never ceases to amaze me how people who have cell phones on them during the commission of a crime are so clueless about that.

Not everyone is a WS'er!

 

[laytonian]

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.

Bingo.
He never covered his tracks.

He left receipts strewn in the car.
When he went on a long drive, he visited people he knew.
He used his credit card on that drive, leaving a trail.
He used his cellphone until it went dead.
He told two people he was in Vegas, Sunday morning.

Anyone involved in the "breaking news" disappearance of someone else, at the point it was really hot, wouldn't leave such a trail.

The search *may* have started earlier, if he'd not answered the calls from the church guys.
Then again, they didn't call him afterwards.
Neither did his family call on the 13th, 14th or 15th, from what I can see, .

LL's debt calls, and TH, plus one from the garage door guy.

 

[laytonian]

Not everyone knows about cell phone pings. It never ceases to amaze me how people who have cell phones on them during the commission of a crime are so clueless about that.

Not everyone is a WS'er!

True.

But it's part of the trail; if you were purposely planning to disappear, would you leave all those clues behind.

It's like breadcrumbs, to me -- but it took so long for anyone to miss him, that the birds ate some of the crumbs.

 

[Fairy1]

True.

But it's part of the trail; if you were purposely planning to disappear, would you leave all those clues behind.

It's like breadcrumbs, to me -- but it took so long for anyone to miss him, that the birds ate some of the crumbs.

If you were purposely trying to disappear, you would ditch your phone eventually.

And, because it took several days for anyone to miss him, he seems to have made a clean getaway.

The fact that NO one knows why he was here, when he was here, tells me he WAS covering his tracks.

 

[laytonian]

If you were purposely trying to disappear, you would ditch your phone eventually.

And, because it took several days for anyone to miss him, he seems to have made a clean getaway.

The fact that NO one knows why he was here, when he was here, tells me he WAS covering those tracks.

Then the only tracks he covered, were when he LEFT Vegas.

Maybe that's the crumbs: he left a trail TO Vegas, and no one's looked beyond there?

 

[carbuff]

Then the only tracks he covered, were when he LEFT Vegas.

Maybe that's the crumbs: he left a trail TO Vegas, and no one's looked beyond there?

That's what has made me wonder all along whether the trail to Vegas is a false one, intended to mislead.

 

[laytonian]

That's what has made me wonder all along whether the trail to Vegas is a false one, intended to mislead.

If it's a purposeful disappearance, it makes total sense.
Vegas just isn't a "fit" for him.
A cousin he didn't bother visiting, is all he had there.

 

[carbuff]

If it's a purposeful disappearance, it makes total sense.
Vegas just isn't a "fit" for him.
A cousin he didn't bother visiting, is all he had there.

Would also make sense of why he was so open about being there. In fact, almost going out of his way to make sure everybody knew he WAS in Vegas and WAS NOT in St. George.

 

[laytonian]

Would also make sense of why he was so open about being there. In fact, almost going out of his way to make sure everybody knew he WAS in Vegas and WAS NOT in St. George.

True.

If he truly wanted to hide his whereabouts, he'd have told SA "I'm sick in bed today".

Maybe he couldn't tell that white lie, because GW knew where he was - or where he'd been that weekend? (Possibility that they'd been somewhere together on Saturday, and GW didn't know he'd returned on Sunday?)

 

[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.

And one of the really good things about this group is that we've been able to misunderstand, ask for clarification, explain and apologize, etc. like rational people, and still stay focused on finding out what happened to Steven.

And even our way-out-there theories are more reasonable than the ones that have showed up on some of the other missing threads...

 

[swjaxon]

Do you still feel that way?? Any idea motivation for recent postings? He says on Facebook he wants to talk to SK bc of some things SZk told him. What does he say about that additional conversation?

Sorry I'm late on getting back to you. Election coverage is killing me...

Yes, I do still feel that way. I do not know the motivations for why people offer "tips" to families of missing people. Maybe he truly thinks he saw Steve. I doubt it. I won't talk too much about our conversations, but as I started going back over my notes, his story sounded very dubious.

 

[hollyblue]

]....and unfortunately, SK's financials and stability were even worse at that time, than JP's.[/B]
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.

This is exactly what I was referring to in describing "emotional clairvoyance". Your speculating and shutting down theories based on what you think a person would or not do. That's not fact, but mere speculation also. The same with taking info from a FB site...as in people saying he was at the temple that night. Unless, verified by LE, it's just rumor and speculation. And the mother never mentioned one iota of info concerning that occassion in public PC regarding her timeline...nothing. Your "speculations" in the timeline are not based on facts---as known---

.

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

Ditto.

My questioning if the family knows where he is, but we don't know about it, has been raised by none other than yourself....saying they might have, it's they're right and it wouldn't be anyone else's concern....remember?

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.

I challenge the facts as they have been told.... Why? Because they don't add up .....and it seems the family has circled the wagon around SK's disappearance all together. More or less stating so in MSM and with the invitation only website. Msg to public...we don't want or need your help. imo.

Although, I like you was never interested in any reward and only wanting to find SK, I thought it very strange that after offering that reward at the PC, the family more or less shut down the info line. Granted, we weren't given much to begin with except the basic facts about SK and the family's portrayal of him. Pretty much he drove to Henderson and disappeared...leaving his car. How can anyone expect to find someone without all the info? Haven't we ALL speculated that "something more" is in fact missing? Just one...his employment history... which has opened up many, many ideas and more speculations within itself. He had a job that required him to use his puter, but yet rents a place with no access????? His personal life and recreation...not much info except what he did with regards to his church life....nothing on the FB site pertaining to that. Not to mention GW never said dip or even posted IIRC. His caring buddy who was gracious enough to hold up a missing poster in front of SK's house. ???

Fact...they people who have more info....are not tellig what needs to be told. JMO

 

[hollyblue]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Except for the parts that appear to accuse Steven's family of criminal activities and untruths.

I think you missed reading the big word IF in my post. I'll be happy to clarify any remaining questions you may have petaining to the confusion your having Laytonian.

 

[webrocket]

I challenge the facts as they have been told.... Why? Because they don't add up .....and it seems the family has circled the wagon around SK's disappearance all together. More or less stating so in MSM and with the invitation only website. Msg to public...we don't want or need your help. imo.

Although, I like you was never interested in any reward and only wanting to find SK, I thought it very strange that after offering that reward at the PC, the family more or less shut down the info line. Granted, we weren't given much to begin with except the basic facts about SK and the family's portrayal of him. Pretty much he drove to Henderson and disappeared...leaving his car. How can anyone expect to find someone without all the info? Haven't we ALL speculated that "something more" is in fact missing? Just one...his employment history... which has opened up many, many ideas and more speculations within itself. He had a job that required him to use his puter, but yet rents a place with no access????? His personal life and recreation...not much info except what he did with regards to his church life....nothing on the FB site pertaining to that. Not to mention GW never said dip or even posted IIRC. His caring buddy who was gracious enough to hold up a missing poster in front of SK's house. ???

Fact...they people who have more info....are not tellig what needs to be told. JMO

there are many things I wish I knew and many have asked here and in private messages to family members for more info. I too have been frustrated at what appears to be the complete exclusion of voluntary departure by family. early on I said I thought the answers were contained in his laptop usage and I did not mean a simple answer to the question of "why was SK in Henderson that day". however, nothing more was said by family so the possibilities are 1. there is in fact nothing on the laptop of interest 2. there are things there that could shed light on it, but the family (and/or the PI) do not recognize the possible significance of or 3. there are things on there that they feel would be an embarassment to the public image of their missing son.

the problem is that we cannot force them to give out the information even if it is there and there is only so much that we as concerned members of the public could do with it even if we knew.

absent new discoveries like a previously unknown website or email address or someone saying they saw a guy in ________ location who was a dead ringer for SK, there is not much we can do but speculate. I prefer to deal with theories with some factual basis or at least good hunches drawn from known information.

 

[hollyblue]

there are many things I wish I knew and many have asked here and in private messages to family members for more info. I too have been frustrated at what appears to be the complete exclusion of voluntary departure by family. early on I said I thought the answers were contained in his laptop usage and I did not mean a simple answer to the question of "why was SK in Henderson that day". however, nothing more was said by family so the possibilities are 1. there is in fact nothing on the laptop of interest 2. there are things there that could shed light on it, but the family (and/or the PI) do not recognize the possible significance of or 3. there are things on there that they feel would be an embarassment to the public image of their missing son.

the problem is that we cannot force them to give out the information even if it is there and there is only so much that we as concerned members of the public could do with it even if we knew.

absent new discoveries like a previously unknown website or email address or someone saying they saw a guy in ________ location who was a dead ringer for SK, there is not much we can do but speculate. I prefer to deal with theories with some factual basis or at least good hunches drawn from known information.

I couldn't agree more....with everything you stated webrocket.


They just found what they believe to be Zahra Baker's prosthetic leg off a road..per LE PC. That baby girl needs justice.

 

[Fairy1]

I challenge the facts as they have been told.... Why? Because they don't add up .....and it seems the family has circled the wagon around SK's disappearance all together. More or less stating so in MSM and with the invitation only website. Msg to public...we don't want or need your help. imo.

Although, I like you was never interested in any reward and only wanting to find SK, I thought it very strange that after offering that reward at the PC, the family more or less shut down the info line. Granted, we weren't given much to begin with except the basic facts about SK and the family's portrayal of him. Pretty much he drove to Henderson and disappeared...leaving his car. How can anyone expect to find someone without all the info? Haven't we ALL speculated that "something more" is in fact missing? Just one...his employment history... which has opened up many, many ideas and more speculations within itself. He had a job that required him to use his puter, but yet rents a place with no access????? His personal life and recreation...not much info except what he did with regards to his church life....nothing on the FB site pertaining to that. Not to mention GW never said dip or even posted IIRC. His caring buddy who was gracious enough to hold up a missing poster in front of SK's house. ???

Fact...they people who have more info....are not tellig what needs to be told. JMO

I get your point hollyblue. But in defense of the family, I believe the offer of the reward brought out a bunch of crackpots and false leads. It's a double-edged sword. And you have to admit, it must be very painful for the family of a missing person to hear less-than positive theories about what might have happened to a person they love. I don't see it as a deliberate snub or an indication they are hiding anything.

It's entirely possible the family and the PI don't realize that something they found among Steven's things might lead to finding him. It's not unusual for people to overlook the obvious - especially when faced with such a surreal circumstance as a loved one going missing.

By the same token, I couldn't really blame them for doing what they can to protect Steven's character and, by extension, that of the family.

Even so, I wish we had more to work with too. It's been so long.

 

[Fairy1]

...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.

Happy to report that I have already received a reply on this submission from the Deputy Coroner/caseworker on this UID case:

No the skull has been dead for 10 plus years. Thanks

I will not offer my sarcastic remarks but, suffice it to say, this UID is not Steven.

 

[Kelly_Robinson]

I am not sure that I have posted on Websleuth before, because I rarely sign on. I have posted a bit on facebook. I don't know if anyone will even read this. However, I need to know if the information about Steven being seen at Best Buy is reliable information? Do those who are most familiar with this missing person's case feel that the man who claims to have seen Steven feel the information is reliable?

Kelly

 

[laytonian]

Happy to report that I have already received a reply on this submission from the Deputy Coroner/caseworker on this UID case:

No the skull has been dead for 10 plus years. Thanks

I will not offer my sarcastic remarks but, suffice it to say, this UID is not Steven.

Can I add sarcastic remarks? OK, just one: "Well, why don't you say that on the NAMUS page! It lists 2010 as a possible date of death."

Thanks for checking that one out.
I don't think there's much hope for a ten-year-old skull fragment.