NV NV - Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson, 13 Dec 2009 - #20

[fridaybaker]

---can't get that little smiley at the END of the sentence instead of under my name like Believe, but ONE DAY I'll get this whole interent/websleuth thing figerred out!

 

[webrocket]

Marcyjoy, one aspect of this mystery that I've noticed here -and this is just what I THINK that I've assessed- haven't really done any tallying or anything- is that it seems to me that the men here or ones who've weighed in via spouse, are more likely to think that he voluntarily disappeared than the women. A big, big generalization, I know, but I still think that I detect that pattern. (Laytonian's comment a while back that a woman would have been likely to ask "which medication" when SK told a (man) friend he was taking something also points out the differences in how women vs. men see things!) That's why I've been so curious to find out the mens' lines of thought here. It just appears to me that men may tend to have a better idea about how a fellow man might react to certain situations. Don't know, but it's interesting to me.

as a guy I will say this - I do think that our own life experiences have a huge influence over how we view things. for instance, I almost completely avoid threads about missing children (Patrick Alford is an exception) and I also tend to avoid the threads about missing women. generally speaking, and I know this is a gross generalization, there are usually predictable patterns involving missing women and children. the men closest to the women are usually suspects #1 and often children are drawn into custody disputes or are otherwise harmed by immediate family members. men who disappear are a whole different species.

some men go off on drug or alcohol binges, done in by grudges or illicit transactions gone bad, want to run from trouble or just want to leave an unsatisfying life behind. since there is no indication that Steven was ever involved in illicit activities, I have never seriously considered those options. while he had no relationship to leave behind or support obligations to get out from under, one cannot escape his reality that as a 'good' Mormon, one of his primary goals was to get married and have his own family.

if one looks at his history, he never got close to the altar and for the last couple of years before he vanished, I can't say he could offer a bride much in terms of being able to support a wife and children. this leads us to the big question WHY?

it has been my belief that Steven concluded that he was gay and for whatever reasons felt that telling his family and living openly as a gay man was not an option to him. so he could live life being miserable and finding some reason to dismiss this or that girl as marriage material or he could just go off and live his life as he wanted to free of any interference from family, friends and church people. however unsettling (or irrational) an option that might seem to some, it is not at all out of the question when you look at the totality of the person and how he boxed himself in to the eyes of the community he chose to associate with.

so to get back to the original proposition by fridaybaker that men and women see things differently, I have to agree totally. a suburban wife and mother would find it hard to believe that a good kid like Steven could walk away and hurt his family. if however, Steven viewed coming out as a gay man as causing his family greater harm, then it is not at all inconceivable.

I've said on a number of occasions that I do not know as a fact that Steven is gay. I like to think that if one 'does the math' that is a very good conclusion to draw from what we know.

 

[laytonian]

Please tell us all how you know that he didn't go to Sacramento and that he went back to St. George?

Couldn't he have gone to anywhere from Henderson? What suggests that, if he did leave Henderson, he went back to St. George?

If he did go back to St. George, maybe you could let us know about the on-going search efforts in St. George so we know what is and isn't being done.

I was speaking in context; he mentioned Sacramento (to see friends) only once to anyone -- and that was while he was in Ruby Valley. We know he didn't go to Sacramento during that trip. We also found out later that he had no known friends in Sacramento. No one else knows why he mentioned Sacramento. It seemed to be a conversational thing like "Is AN here? Oh. Well, I was on my way to see friends in Sacramento anyway and just thought I'd drop in".

Sure, he could have gone later. But he had left his car behind. He never returned to his apartment in St George. He could have gone anywhere. Unless he was being sent to Sacramento on a particular errand by someone else (which we do not know), no one knows why he'd even mention it.

Get out your road map, and see why it seemed conversational (may be even hinky) to the Ruby Valley family.

Maybe this will help: we have a detailed timeline, and the link is right below, in my signature. I think it will answer a lot of your questions - and also help you rest easy knowing that we're savvy about things like NAMUS.

 

[laytonian]

...also: I've been reading posts about positions/structure of LDS Wards but didn't see this: In a singles ward, is everyone single -including those in leadership, such as Bishop, Clerk, EQ President, etc?

"Singles wards" consists of single ward member, with "adult" leadership (PD, the Bishop, etc).
I put adult in quotes, because singles can be up to 30 years old or so.

Other positions are filled by singles.

GW was referred to as "President".
SK was a Counselor.
SA, the ward clerk, was single at that time (and is now married).

NOTE:
Singles wards have been reorganized recently into a larger geographical format, to allow the singles to interact with a larger group. It also would help eliminate "ward-hopping" engaged in by some singles.

 

[marcyjoy]

as a guy I will say this - I do think that our own life experiences have a huge influence over how we view things. for instance, I almost completely avoid threads about missing children (Patrick Alford is an exception) and I also tend to avoid the threads about missing women. generally speaking, and I know this is a gross generalization, there are usually predictable patterns involving missing women and children. the men closest to the women are usually suspects #1 and often children are drawn into custody disputes or are otherwise harmed by immediate family members. men who disappear are a whole different species.

some men go off on drug or alcohol binges, done in by grudges or illicit transactions gone bad, want to run from trouble or just want to leave an unsatisfying life behind. since there is no indication that Steven was ever involved in illicit activities, I have never seriously considered those options. while he had no relationship to leave behind or support obligations to get out from under, one cannot escape his reality that as a 'good' Mormon, one of his primary goals was to get married and have his own family.

if one looks at his history, he never got close to the altar and for the last couple of years before he vanished, I can't say he could offer a bride much in terms of being able to support a wife and children. this leads us to the big question WHY?

it has been my belief that Steven concluded that he was gay and for whatever reasons felt that telling his family and living openly as a gay man was not an option to him. so he could live life being miserable and finding some reason to dismiss this or that girl as marriage material or he could just go off and live his life as he wanted to free of any interference from family, friends and church people. however unsettling (or irrational) an option that might seem to some, it is not at all out of the question when you look at the totality of the person and how he boxed himself in to the eyes of the community he chose to associate with.

so to get back to the original proposition by fridaybaker that men and women see things differently, I have to agree totally. a suburban wife and mother would find it hard to believe that a good kid like Steven could walk away and hurt his family. if however, Steven viewed coming out as a gay man as causing his family greater harm, then it is not at all inconceivable.

I've said on a number of occasions that I do not know as a fact that Steven is gay. I like to think that if one 'does the math' that is a very good conclusion to draw from what we know.

You make some really great points. Ironically, what drew me to Steven's case over a year ago was that I was searching for information on a local case of a man who up and walked away...Nicholas Francisco. In that case, he left his family, children and pregnant wife to live a "alternative" lifestyle. What is different is that he left a trail of breadcrumbs like you wouldn't believe and was located a year or so ago.

Good points webrocket, thank you.

 

[sophieness]

as a guy I will say this - I do think that our own life experiences have a huge influence over how we view things. for instance, I almost completely avoid threads about missing children (Patrick Alford is an exception) and I also tend to avoid the threads about missing women. generally speaking, and I know this is a gross generalization, there are usually predictable patterns involving missing women and children. the men closest to the women are usually suspects #1 and often children are drawn into custody disputes or are otherwise harmed by immediate family members. men who disappear are a whole different species.

some men go off on drug or alcohol binges, done in by grudges or illicit transactions gone bad, want to run from trouble or just want to leave an unsatisfying life behind. since there is no indication that Steven was ever involved in illicit activities, I have never seriously considered those options. while he had no relationship to leave behind or support obligations to get out from under, one cannot escape his reality that as a 'good' Mormon, one of his primary goals was to get married and have his own family.

if one looks at his history, he never got close to the altar and for the last couple of years before he vanished, I can't say he could offer a bride much in terms of being able to support a wife and children. this leads us to the big question WHY?

it has been my belief that Steven concluded that he was gay and for whatever reasons felt that telling his family and living openly as a gay man was not an option to him. so he could live life being miserable and finding some reason to dismiss this or that girl as marriage material or he could just go off and live his life as he wanted to free of any interference from family, friends and church people. however unsettling (or irrational) an option that might seem to some, it is not at all out of the question when you look at the totality of the person and how he boxed himself in to the eyes of the community he chose to associate with.

so to get back to the original proposition by fridaybaker that men and women see things differently, I have to agree totally. a suburban wife and mother would find it hard to believe that a good kid like Steven could walk away and hurt his family. if however, Steven viewed coming out as a gay man as causing his family greater harm, then it is not at all inconceivable.

I've said on a number of occasions that I do not know as a fact that Steven is gay. I like to think that if one 'does the math' that is a very good conclusion to draw from what we know.

I don't think I would be shocked if he was gay. But to me that would seem more likely, if he had been really successful careerwise, and then maybe disappeared. Then the relationship issue would be the only thing that stands out but it isn't.

It doesn't surprise me that someone who seems to struggle a little bit with life in general and being able to hold a steady job or career path would struggle relationship wise as well. I admit I don't think SK had schizophrenia but there was something different about him, something vulnerable, something that leads me to believe that maybe his general difficulties with focusing/ maintaining goals etc, being able to hustle to pay his rent (I don't mean this in an illegal sense) were that same causes he had for difficulty relating to and pursuing specific relationships. I think the warning signs were there but they were too easy to miss. Steven needed help long before I disappeared I think...I don't think just financially...it sounds like people tried to help him, but maybe spiritual and financial assistance just wasn't enough. The fact that his friend was I think "shocked" that he would take a medication (we don't know that it was prescribed) makes me wonder if the culture in utah is as accepting of people who are different, outside the mold, etc., whether gay, mentally ill, or just plain different.

I did live in Utah for a year in a reform school when I was young. I found the people to be very strict in that setting when someone did anything "wrong", but kind overall in conversation and very open about their beliefs. A lot of those schools are in utah because the laws in utah are different on how you can punish kids or something, like we would be put in isolation as punishment and had to stand against the wall most of the day etc. We had to fit a certain mold and everything be just right to succeed.

 

[Lady LEO]

I was speaking in context; he mentioned Sacramento (to see friends) only once to anyone -- and that was while he was in Ruby Valley. We know he didn't go to Sacramento during that trip. We also found out later that he had no known friends in Sacramento. No one else knows why he mentioned Sacramento. It seemed to be a conversational thing like "Is AN here? Oh. Well, I was on my way to see friends in Sacramento anyway and just thought I'd drop in".

Sure, he could have gone later. But he had left his car behind. He never returned to his apartment in St George. He could have gone anywhere. Unless he was being sent to Sacramento on a particular errand by someone else (which we do not know), no one knows why he'd even mention it.

Get out your road map, and see why it seemed conversational (may be even hinky) to the Ruby Valley family.

Maybe this will help: we have a detailed timeline, and the link is right below, in my signature. I think it will answer a lot of your questions - and also help you rest easy knowing that we're savvy about things like NAMUS.

<modsnip>?

Yes, I am aware of <modsnip> timeline and the changes that you have made to it over the past year. What you don't know is how long I was a guest watching this case. But, thanks anyway.

And thank you for making sure that I can rest easy knowing that you are savvy about things like NAMUS. You are too kind. As I saw no mention of NAMUS previous to my post, I just thought it might be helpful, not just to you but also to some of the new-comers who may not know about that resource and might be interested in exploring it themselves. I'm sorry if you took that personally and thought I was telling you about NAMUS.

<modsnip>

 

[JaneDoe91]

First, I'd like to extend my sympathies to Mr. Koesher's loved ones. My prayers are not only with them but I also pray I never find myself in their shoes.
I am bothered by a few things about Mr. Koesher's disappearance. First thing being that I find it improbable that no one in the neighborhood has any useful information to provide. By all accounts, this was not some crime riddled area where the residents are afraid to even speak to one another. This was a nicely kept, "retirement" community where the residents work toward a common goal of neighborhood upkeep. Which is why I would imagine there to be at least a minimal interaction/relationship between neighbors. It would also stand to reason that if certain residents cared enough to install security cameras, they would also at least take a passing interest in someone who clearly wasn't a resident, walking through their neighborhood. Yet when interviewed, no one apparently saw, heard, or otherwise noticed anything out of the ordinary.
I am also bothered by the white SUV seen in the surveillance footage. I've heard that investigators determined it to belong to a real estate agent showing a home in the area. IMHO however, that still doesn't explain the driving pattern. To me it appeared that the driver was intentionally following the figure on tape. Perhaps it is just a flaw in the footage or optical illusion, but I still can't shake the feeling that the white SUV is of importance in this case.
Unfortunately, my opinion (for whatever it's worth) is all I have to offer. Thank you fellow posters for listening.

 

[laytonian]

First, I'd like to extend my sympathies to Mr. Koesher's loved ones. My prayers are not only with them but I also pray I never find myself in their shoes.
I am bothered by a few things about Mr. Koesher's disappearance. First thing being that I find it improbable that no one in the neighborhood has any useful information to provide. By all accounts, this was not some crime riddled area where the residents are afraid to even speak to one another. This was a nicely kept, "retirement" community where the residents work toward a common goal of neighborhood upkeep. Which is why I would imagine there to be at least a minimal interaction/relationship between neighbors. It would also stand to reason that if certain residents cared enough to install security cameras, they would also at least take a passing interest in someone who clearly wasn't a resident, walking through their neighborhood. Yet when interviewed, no one apparently saw, heard, or otherwise noticed anything out of the ordinary.
I am also bothered by the white SUV seen in the surveillance footage. I've heard that investigators determined it to belong to a real estate agent showing a home in the area. IMHO however, that still doesn't explain the driving pattern. To me it appeared that the driver was intentionally following the figure on tape. Perhaps it is just a flaw in the footage or optical illusion, but I still can't shake the feeling that the white SUV is of importance in this case.
Unfortunately, my opinion (for whatever it's worth) is all I have to offer. Thank you fellow posters for listening.

I hear ya.

All we know, is that LE "cleared" her easily. Not only was she showing the home at 2639 SS, but she was the owner of that home.
I always figured that she was easy to clear, because the clients showed up (or maybe were in the car with her). Clients would show up on the security video, past the point that was publicly released. The video would also show her leaving.

I understand what you're saying about the neighborhood. When you're there, it seems almost abandoned and sterile. The time I was there, we saw one person out walking - and for those with me, it was the first time they'd ever seen anyone on the street.
Because the homes have xeriscaped landscaping maintained by the HOA, the homeowners aren't ever out working in their yards. (They can't even change anything, without HOA permission.)
The homes have walls separating them and because they're so close together, there are no side windows on homes which abut others.

There IS a volunteer parking patrol, and a neighborhood watch. I don't know how active those things are, because despite the no street parking rules, Steven's car was there for days before anyone got serious about finding the owner.

 

[pudd]

Here I am after many moons - I do pop in occasionally, but have nothing to add. I did appreciate Jobu's posts on how easy it was to get onto the streets and stay there; I could see Steven doing something along those lines ("I'm not going back until I'm a success").

It's not a crime to walk away, and I really think Steven seemed to have little to go back to.

Can anyone tell me what happens in LDS singles wards if you are over 30? Do you move to another (ie family) ward, or do you stay where you are?

Laytonian, stop the tantalising! I can't see any elephant although I wish I could. Any hints?

And webrocket is a man? :thud: I would never have thought. I luv the internet! (In case webrocket gets upset, I'm just teasing. Really, I have no idea who is what gender unless they mention husbands/wives/etc)

 

[Lady LEO]

I'm sorry, but I see a math problem.

The study doesn't say that 80% of disappearances are due to mental issues.

Decided (purposeful absences) comprise 64%
(with mental health issues comprising only part)

Unintentional absences comprise 16%
(with mental health issues comprising only part)

Therefore, the 80% figure would comprise decided + unintentional

Here's another way of looking at it. The study demonstrated 11 reasons as to why someone would go missing. Of those 11 items, mental health problems were 2 of the 11 and all other reasons were listed only one time.

Mental Illness 2/11
Each individual reason other than mental illness, 1/11.

Seems like someone is twice as likely to go missing due to mental illness when compared to that of any other single reason.

 

[jmarple]

Can anyone tell me what happens in LDS singles wards if you are over 30? Do you move to another (ie family) ward, or do you stay where you are?

According to Handbook 2, Administering the Church 2010, pg 128:
Membership in a young single adult ward is temporary. Leaders help young single adults prepare to return to a conventional ward when they marry or reach age 31.

This handbook is available online at lds.org

 

[Fairy1]

Here's another way of looking at it. The study demonstrated 11 reasons as to why someone would go missing. Of those 11 items, mental health problems were 2 of the 11 and all other reasons were listed only one time.

Mental Illness 2/11
Each individual reason other than mental illness, 1/11.

Seems like someone is twice as likely to go missing due to mental illness when compared to that of any other single reason.

I can't buy into the study you posted but, even so, we still have NO IDEA what led to Steven's disappearance. If we write it off to mental illness, we drastically reduce the possibilities. While many of us have our own theories, it doesn't help to be closed off to others.

 

[Lady LEO]

In SK's church speech, he states, "My brother drowning."

Did SK have a brother that drowned?

If so, when did this happen, how old was SK when it happened, what were the circumstances, was the brother younger or older and by how much?

 

[sophieness]

I always wondered that too, seemed like it wasn't referred to as to what that meant, at least the things I've read so far. Does anyone have a link to the whole speech?

 

[CONCRNED CTZN]

I hear ya.

All we know, is that LE "cleared" her easily. Not only was she showing the home at 2639 SS, but she was the owner of that home.
I always figured that she was easy to clear, because the clients showed up (or maybe were in the car with her). Clients would show up on the security video, past the point that was publicly released. The video would also show her leaving.

I understand what you're saying about the neighborhood. When you're there, it seems almost abandoned and sterile. The time I was there, we saw one person out walking - and for those with me, it was the first time they'd ever seen anyone on the street.
Because the homes have xeriscaped landscaping maintained by the HOA, the homeowners aren't ever out working in their yards. (They can't even change anything, without HOA permission.)

The homes have walls separating them and because they're so close together, there are no side windows on homes which abut others.

There IS a volunteer parking patrol, and a neighborhood watch. I don't know how active those things are, because despite the no street parking rules, Steven's car was there for days before anyone got serious about finding the owner.

A few things...

The home is still vacant from what I can tell (the one where they would not lease out the casita) and there are no current listings for sale or lease. I know the owners live close, but using the house for storage seems strange.

I've always believed SK walked with purpose.

I've never gotten the answer to my questions concerning GW, I hope the family has...why he was in Vegas? Where he stayed the night? Was it verified? How did he just happen to be VERY close to SK when they talked that morning, even though LV is very large, and neither live in the area? How did the EQ "come to realize" GW would not make the meeting, causing them to call SK? If GW told them, why didn't he tell them he had already talked to SK? GW didn't know until he went through SKs room with SK's parents that SK was organizing the Home Teaching. This is a fairly detailed process, why does GW think SK was doing it? Why didn't GW offer SK a job?

Yeah, I know, I'm still stuck on GW...but all my other questions over the course of the last year got answers. And then there were the Facebook postings by GW. It was the worst time of his life as he put it, yet we later found out he was moving forward professionally.

Is he still single? There's an easy one.

 

[Lady LEO]

I can't buy into the study you posted but, even so, we still have NO IDEA what led to Steven's disappearance. If we write it off to mental illness, we drastically reduce the possibilities. While many of us have our own theories, it doesn't help to be closed off to others.

Not sure who is closed off to other theories, I'm just exploring this theory presently.

In transcribing the episode of Disappeared, please reference the following:

Rolfe Koecher: We knew he was struggling and like I say that's why we wanted him to come home.

Narrator: Deanne suspects that it is something worse than a jaunt to Las Vegas. She's afraid that loneliness and financial troubles have overwhelmed him.

Deanne Koecher: I thought life really got too tough for him, he's walked out into the desert, and was horrified by that but that's kind of where I went in my head first.

Detective: The family believes that it is a possibility that Steven has some sort of mental issue.

Narrator: His mother believes his mental instability could have been caused by depression or a blow to the head.

Deanne Koecher: Maybe he was going to walk away from the life the he knew so there was a mental disconnect and he was just going to a totally different life.

Deanne Koecher: That someone wanted to hurt him or kill him, that makes even less sense to me but that is where my head is now.


In some of the posts here on WS, statements have been made that the family didn't believe that SK had any mental health issues. But, the interviews of DK would say otherwise. If DK didn't believe that there was an emotional/mental health problem, then why would she make those comments?

If SK was doing very well emotionally and mentally, why would his mother's first thoughts about the reasons for SK's disappearance be that he had wandered off into the desert (implied suicide) because he was overwhelmed and/or had a mental disconnect and entered a new life?

And, what does DK mean by mental disconnect? Mental breakdown? Loss touch with reality? All euphemisms for psychosis...disconnected from reality. She seems comfortable entertaining the idea that he had a psychotic episode, maybe we should be too?

The detective references that the family believes that SK may have had some mental illness. The show's writer and by default the narrator also stated that DK believes that SK's mental instability (meaning instability was present and acknowledged) was caused by depression or a blow to the head.

For those who think the head scar is a scar and not a cowlick, his mother believes his mental instability could have been caused by a blow to the head, one that perhaps she was aware of him incurring. On a side note, head injuries can cause depressive symptoms and here's a link, but it's not the only website out there that documents the causal relationship between head injuries and depression...Link: www.braininjury.com/symptoms.html

It would seem that if someone was very happy, contented, showed no signs of being suicidal, that if they went missing would inferred suicide (walked off into the desert) be the first thought to come to mind?

Sounds like SK's family, more specifically his mother, have much more of a understanding and belief that mental illness is for the reason behind his disappearance.

Maybe revisiting mental illness isn't a bad idea based upon DK's statements. She's a pretty reliable source and knows SK better than any of us.

 

[sophieness]

Not sure who is closed off to other theories, I'm just exploring this theory presently.

In transcribing the episode of Disappeared, please reference the following:

Rolfe Koecher: We knew he was struggling and like I say that's why we wanted him to come home.

Narrator: Deanne suspects that it is something worse than a jaunt to Las Vegas. She's afraid that loneliness and financial troubles have overwhelmed him.

Deanne Koecher: I thought life really got too tough for him, he's walked out into the desert, and was horrified by that but that's kind of where I went in my head first.

Detective: The family believes that it is a possibility that Steven has some sort of mental issue.

Narrator: His mother believes his mental instability could have been caused by depression or a blow to the head.

Deanne Koecher: Maybe he was going to walk away from the life the he knew so there was a mental disconnect and he was just going to a totally different life.

Deanne Koecher: That someone wanted to hurt him or kill him, that makes even less sense to me but that is where my head is now.


In some of the posts here on WS, statements have been made that the family didn't believe that SK had any mental health issues. But, the interviews of DK would say otherwise. If DK didn't believe that there was an emotional/mental health problem, then why would she make those comments?

If SK was doing very well emotionally and mentally, why would his mother's first thoughts about the reasons for SK's disappearance be that he had wandered off into the desert (implied suicide) because he was overwhelmed and/or had a mental disconnect and entered a new life?

And, what does DK mean by mental disconnect? Mental breakdown? Loss touch with reality? All euphemisms for psychosis...disconnected from reality. She seems comfortable entertaining the idea that he had a psychotic episode, maybe we should be too?

The detective references that the family believes that SK may have had some mental illness. The show's writer and by default the narrator also stated that DK believes that SK's mental instability (meaning instability was present and acknowledged) was caused by depression or a blow to the head.

For those who think the head scar is a scar and not a cowlick, his mother believes his mental instability could have been caused by a blow to the head, one that perhaps she was aware of him incurring. On a side note, head injuries can cause depressive symptoms and here's a link, but it's not the only website out there that documents the causal relationship between head injuries and depression...Link: www.braininjury.com/symptoms.html

It would seem that if someone was very happy, contented, showed no signs of being suicidal, that if they went missing would inferred suicide (walked off into the desert) be the first thought to come to mind?

Sounds like SK's family, more specifically his mother, have much more of a understanding and belief that mental illness is for the reason behind his disappearance.

Maybe revisiting mental illness isn't a bad idea based upon DK's statements. She's a pretty reliable source and knows SK better than any of us.

They said possible that he had more severe mental issues, not definitively. They knew he was struggling finding a job, and they knew he had some issues struggling with SLC weather in the past- possibly indicating a hx of depression. Gsmith has explained that Steven struggled with loneliness. I believe the family said he stated his biggest goal was to have a wife and family, but hadn't acheived that yet, and couldn't pay his rent.

I think they were trying to think of anything that may have happened...with little information. They were pretty straightforward in the show that the family considered many possible scenarios, but now feel foul play makes the most sense, knowing their son. People here DO consider mental illness, it has been considered over and over again and is still considered. There is a big difference between saying something is possible and saying it is almost certain. In addition, it is important to note that if Steven had issues with depression, these are very different than psychosis. Evidence that possibly points to loneliness or depression is not evidence that points to a psychosis, unless someone is behaving in a way that is psychotic. Most of us don't feel there is enough information out there to explain his disappearance with certainty at present.

"Sounds like SK's family, more specifically his mother, have much more of a understanding and belief that mental illness is for the reason behind his disappearance." Not so, she said she now believes that Steven was hurt or killed. The only mental issues she considers in the interview are depression, suicide, accident or harm (possible blow to the head), or leaving to start a new life after having a mental disconnect. Mental disconnect is not an automatic euphemism for psychosis, although it can be. The way she puts it in context acknowledging his financial struggles and leaving to start a "new life" bring to mind for me more of a mental wall or disconnect to distance yourself from your life/family/friends because you cannot deal with the pressure anymore, more than a disconnect from reality itself. She does state that is not where she is at now in her thinking. A breakdown does not automatically mean psychosis either, people can have breakdowns due to depression or other mental disorders. If you like statistics and thinking about what is more common, it would be the latter, by far. Just saying.

Good breakdown of most common mental disorders here: http://www.mentalhealth.com/ also here http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20050606/mental-illness-common-in-us This source is best for stats- http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/index.shtml#Mood

However I don't believe personally one can use frequency of occurrence to identify what happened to a specific person. I do have a question for you, although I understand if you don't want to answer. If someone shows signs of loneliness and depression, or cognitive functions issues such as an attention deficit, do you feel that it means there is a high likelihood that they have a psychotic disorder?

 

[sophieness]

http://ezinearticles.com/?ADHD-Without-Hyperactivity&id=217560

http://www.addchoices.com/add without.htm

these articles are about ADD without hyperactivity, if anyone considers this a possible option. I know ADD in general has been mentioned. It can cause a lot of problems for people, in different areas of their life. Of course they wouldn't explain where SK went, but if he did struggle with something like this it could explain some characteristics others have mentioned and an additional source of stress.

 

[fridaybaker]

I knew Webrocket was a man (insert smiley here, because I can't figure out how to put the silly thing on here!) What this tells me is that my insight into how men and women view things and express themselves is much better than my sleuthing skills. I still haven't figured out what this elephant's name is (I think I'm on the right track -who, not what?!) Argh...

Here is a thought, though: After reading the several posts above about the various things that the Koecher's have said after SK's disappearance, one little fact does stand out and it's something I noticed in the beginning. Often when people go missing family members and friends will say "so and so would NEVER just disappear. They simply would not do so. So and so would NEVER commit suicide." I've heard these kinds of categorical statements many, many times regarding missing people, and that's what often convinces LE to look into the possibility of foul play.

However, that's not at all what the Koecher's and SK's friends have said. They may have said that they don't think he would just up and walk away or commit suicide, but they've never, that I can remember, been categorical about it. Just a thought.