NV NV - Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson, 13 Dec 2009 - #21

[Weygand]

Although I have two main theories, I will restate the one that I believe is more traceable and more plausible.

The theory is that for some reason, which is difficult to determine since there were no solid clues left behind and SK was unpredictable due to life's distress, he drove to SCA on Sunday, December 13th, 2009. At noon he left his vehicle parked in the cul-de-sac of the retirement community and departed with some guiding material, such as a map or a plan. He headed for the golf course and gained access to it via one of the two utility easements between the homes. Once on the course, he followed the paths northerly and came upon one of the upstream reaches of the Pittman Wash. He followed the wash northerly downstream, sometimes taking advantage of the nearby walking and biking paths. By 5pm and over twelve miles later, he made his way up to the area of the first cell phone ping, near the Hendersons Parks & Recreation area (N. Arroyo Grande Blvd./Santiago Dr.). He continued downstream but he couldn't take advantage of the paths since they terminated shortly past the park. By 7pm he made his way another half a mile downstream, near the second ping location (N. Stephanie/W. Sunset Rd.). He continued another mile downstream, but as the night was setting in, he decided to rest beneath a bridge, somewhere by the third ping location (N. Stephanie St./US-95). He spent the night there in the cold as the temperatures dropped to the mid 30's. He might have gotten wet from his travel in the channel. At 7am he checked his voicemail, which was his last identifiable act. He then either succumb to hypothermia, ended his life, or was come upon by shady character(s) and was killed. His cell phone was therefore in that location for two more days until the battery ran out. Due to this theory, had a search been conducted in the Pittman Wash near the third ping location shortly after SK's disappearance, a body would have been discovered. But as time went by, and storm runoff passed through that wash and the downstream Las Vegas Wash, his remains were transported downstream and were scattered about over the following months. Today the search area increased from the concentrated Pittman Wash area at ping #3 to anywhere from that wash to Lake Mead.

He very well could have been ongoing manic/depressive and didn't seek treatment which is why he did stuff no reasonable person would do: moving to St George, driving around like a trucker on bennys and then when he came down said "FYIQ", parked his car and walked to his doom

Personally, I still think he walked away.

 

[MarioM]

Personally, I still think he walked away.

I really hope he did, and that his decision to resurface would come soon.

 

[TechWriter797]

I just can't agree. Here is a man, with extremely limited funds, who drove hundreds of miles to see a woman who wasn't even there! He didn't call ahead or even look her up on Facebook, where he would have learned she was in SLC. Who does that?

I think someone here may have posted something along these lines last year: What if this woman was not interested in Steven and when he asked her out for dinner she told him she wouldn't be able to go because she would be visiting her parents. She had no intention of visiting her parents. She was giving him the brush off without hurting his feelings. Steven, however, sees this as an opportunity to see her and her parents in a comfortable setting and drives a great distance to do so. When he arrives and finds that she was not there and was not expected, he knew she lied to him. He made up an excuse of being "in the neighborhood" and "on his way somewhere" to cover his embarrassment. This may have been the last straw.

 

[MarioM]

I think someone here may have posted something along these lines last year: What if this woman was not interested in Steven and when he asked her out for dinner she told him she wouldn't be able to go because she would be visiting her parents. She had no intention of visiting her parents. She was giving him the brush off without hurting his feelings. Steven, however, sees this as an opportunity to see her and her parents in a comfortable setting and drives a great distance to do so. When he arrives and finds that she was not there and was not expected, he knew she lied to him. He made up an excuse of being "in the neighborhood" and "on his way somewhere" to cover his embarrassment. This may have been the last straw.

That is completely possible, and I'm glad you brought it up. This possible interest of Steven could shed some light on this theory, but one would also need to take any denial of such a communication between Steven and this female with a grain of salt. She may not be comfortable admitting that her innocent comments might have resulted in Steven's disappearance.

 

[MarioM]

I apologize for bringing up questions that I have asked before, but the answers that were posted did not fully satisfy my curiosity.

1) We know that SK's cell phone bills and laptop were searched for any possible link to SCA, but were his email account(s) hacked into? Did SK have email accounts with Google, Yahoo, or other such web-based account provider, which may not have left any evidence of such email activity on his laptop? One can communicate via email from his cell phone and leave absolutely no evidence of it on his laptop.

2) We know that SK's cell phone bills and laptop were searched for any possible link to SCA, but were the filled out job application forms located in his room and vehicle analyzed for any such link? Where are those forms right now?

3) We know that SK's cell phone was pinged three times (5pm, 7pm, 7am) after he departed from his vehicle (noon). Do we know whether his cell phone was pinged during the five hours between the time he departed his vehicle and the 5pm ping? Or is this information not attainable because the cell phone company only keeps records for the last three pinged towers?

And finally new, but related, questions.

4) I'm not fully informed how exactly the pinging of a cell phone works, hence the barrage of the following questions:
a)Was SK's phone pinged only once at 5pm and again at 7pm, or was it pinging multiple times as the phone moved between the towers?
b)We know his phone was pinged for two days at the 7am tower, which may make one believe SK's phone was being pinged several times at the 5pm and 7pm towers.
c)Is there a difference between pings when one turns on a phone, wakes up a phone from standby mode, sends a text message, logs onto the web, etc.? Do all these tasks generate different pings, or do they all report to the cell tower under the same ping?
d) Do we know what type of a phone SK had? Was it a new smart phone, or an older one?

Thank you in advance.

 

[swjaxon]

1) We know that SK's cell phone bills and laptop were searched for any possible link to SCA, but were his email account(s) hacked into? Did SK have email accounts with Google, Yahoo, or other such web-based account provider, which may not have left any evidence of such email activity on his laptop? One can communicate via email from his cell phone and leave absolutely no evidence of it on his laptop.

Steven had a Yahoo account as his primary email and a Gmail account. Both have been looked at and there is no sign of SCA or job hunting in the Las Vegas/Henderson area. Steven also had a simple cell phone that does not appear to be able to contact email (he had a Samsung Sync SGH-A707).

2) We know that SK's cell phone bills and laptop were searched for any possible link to SCA, but were the filled out job application forms located in his room and vehicle analyzed for any such link? Where are those forms right now?

I don't know if the job apps were searched for a link. I don't know where the forms are now.

3) We know that SK's cell phone was pinged three times (5pm, 7pm, 7am) after he departed from his vehicle (noon). Do we know whether his cell phone was pinged during the five hours between the time he departed his vehicle and the 5pm ping? Or is this information not attainable because the cell phone company only keeps records for the last three pinged towers?

Yes... Nine calls or texts were made to Steven after he was seen walking away from his car on December 13. From my research, it appears the tower info only updates when a new tower is accessed. So while he hit off three towers that day he left his car, he did get more than three calls. Also on Dec. 13, he (or someone) also checked voicemail twice after leaving his car.

4) I'm not fully informed how exactly the pinging of a cell phone works, hence the barrage of the following questions:
a)Was SK's phone pinged only once at 5pm and again at 7pm, or was it pinging multiple times as the phone moved between the towers?
b)We know his phone was pinged for two days at the 7am tower, which may make one believe SK's phone was being pinged several times at the 5pm and 7pm towers.
c)Is there a difference between pings when one turns on a phone, wakes up a phone from standby mode, sends a text message, logs onto the web, etc.? Do all these tasks generate different pings, or do they all report to the cell tower under the same ping?
d) Do we know what type of a phone SK had? Was it a new smart phone, or an older one?

A) The file I have is very complicated, so I had someone whose job it is to know this crap to look it over. He says when calls come in, if a new tower handles the call, the file will update with that information. If no new tower, the field with the tower ID info will just be blank, as is the case with this file. So in the 5-7 range, he had three calls in an hour and pinged off the same tower. Does that make sense?

B) That is correct. He got a handful of calls in the 5-7 p.m. timeframe.

C) Again, it is a complicated document, however there are phone numbers attached to most pings. So the vast majority are either calls or text messages. It is unclear if they are incoming or outgoing.

 

[MarioM]

Since we were discussing the odd behavior of people in distress due to what life has handed to them, how about these oddities from some of the people I met during my college years. All three were in their early 20's, single, had very limited incomes, and I believe suffered from at least moderate depression.

1) A male, making a 50 mile round trip nearly every summer weekend to the beach where he hoped an unknown female would start up a conversation with him and a relationship would eventually develop. This continued for maybe three summers with no results.

2) A petite female, making a 100 mile round trip alone to a hiking trail in a mountainous wilderness where she could have encountered bears, mountain lions, and shady characters. The gratification was to relive the memory of the hike she partook with her ex-boyfriend.

3) A male, making a 200 mile round trip to another town just so he could consume a $3 food item. He could have purchased a very similar item, just as tasty but slightly differently prepared, from a place in his town. This trip was done twice to my knowledge.

People in depression often make decisions that appear weird and wasteful in healthy person's mind. A depressed person isn't only sad, or feels down, but his ability to make rational decisions is often compromised. He, or she, is willing to go to extreme measures to suppress the constant negative feelings that originate from no particular reason or cause. In their mind they are able to separate and isolate the benefit, however minor it may be, from the negatives a certain act may generate, and up to the time when the benefit is finally exhausted, they live for that one positive drive. They often live from day to day, and any long term plans are non-existent. Even after they enjoyed a good comedy or stand up act, once the jokes end, they return right back to their darkness. Often some of these sufferers can not identify the cause of the depression, like a death in the family, and are treading through life with no hope for a sunnier tomorrow. Others do know the reason for their depression, like not having the desired love life or job, but they just can't seem to accomplish their goal that would rid of their depression. I truly feel for the afflicted and understand why they sometimes make strange, and often illogical, choices.

 

[OldSteve]

I would like to comment about the above statement.

I don't think SK was heading to Ruby Valley to rekindle a relationship, since there wasn't one to rekindle. To me it appears SK had trouble meeting women, and he was smitten with love, or a crush, with this female. SK tried his best at getting a job without success, and before he made his next drastic move, whatever he had in mind, he needed to prove to himself that there was no option in getting involved with this former acquaintance, just to avoid any regrets or something that may hold him back. He might have been searching for any reason to continue his current life(style), and money wasn't an object at that late point of his game. (If you're broke, spending/charging extra couple of hundred dollars isn't going to make a difference in your financial situation.) He believed in simple existence, and maybe was hoping this female would have the same outlook on life. Maybe she came across that way when he knew her back when. One doesn't need a job before he tries to pick up a girl. There are plenty of unemployed single people, male and female, looking for a relationship. Dating isn't only for the ones holding a job.
I believe people are making a bigger deal of SK's visit to Ruby Valley than what it really was, his way of searching for love.

That's my two cents.

BBM

I enjoy reading your "two cents" - thanks! What I made bold in your post is something that really resonated with me! Don't think I've seen his trip put in that perspective before, and I agree 100%.

 

[SassyBenton]

I think someone here may have posted something along these lines last year: What if this woman was not interested in Steven and when he asked her out for dinner she told him she wouldn't be able to go because she would be visiting her parents. She had no intention of visiting her parents. She was giving him the brush off without hurting his feelings. Steven, however, sees this as an opportunity to see her and her parents in a comfortable setting and drives a great distance to do so. When he arrives and finds that she was not there and was not expected, he knew she lied to him. He made up an excuse of being "in the neighborhood" and "on his way somewhere" to cover his embarrassment. This may have been the last straw.

Hmm, the more I think about this, the more I question Steven’s thinking/mental stability before his disappearance. If this was perhaps his reasoning, it doesn’t seem that logical to me, in fact, it seems quite desperate. In my opinion, most people would not drive that distance to meet up with someone without having concrete plans with them first. Also, wouldn’t you feel a little like you were imposing on a family if you just showed up uninvited? I am starting to think that Steven may have been heading towards a mental breakdown of some type and was not rationally thinking. If this was the case, who knows what he could’ve been doing the day he disappeared? Perhaps on a whim he decided to show up somewhere in SCA he wasn’t expected/invited and this led to trouble. Maybe he finally hit rock bottom and for whatever reason, decided to wander around the hiking trails near SCA to figure things out and had some sort of accident out there.

This case just keeps me guessing….:waitasec:

 

[MarioM]

Steven had a Yahoo account as his primary email and a Gmail account. Both have been looked at and there is no sign of SCA or job hunting in the Las Vegas/Henderson area. Steven also had a simple cell phone that does not appear to be able to contact email (he had a Samsung Sync SGH-A707).

I don't know if the job apps were searched for a link. I don't know where the forms are now.

Yes... Nine calls or texts were made to Steven after he was seen walking away from his car on December 13. From my research, it appears the tower info only updates when a new tower is accessed. So while he hit off three towers that day he left his car, he did get more than three calls. Also on Dec. 13, he (or someone) also checked voicemail twice after leaving his car.

A) The file I have is very complicated, so I had someone whose job it is to know this crap to look it over. He says when calls come in, if a new tower handles the call, the file will update with that information. If no new tower, the field with the tower ID info will just be blank, as is the case with this file. So in the 5-7 range, he had three calls in an hour and pinged off the same tower. Does that make sense?

B) That is correct. He got a handful of calls in the 5-7 p.m. timeframe.

C) Again, it is a complicated document, however there are phone numbers attached to most pings. So the vast majority are either calls or text messages. It is unclear if they are incoming or outgoing.

swjaxon,

Thank you very much for all that info. Yet I still have questions about the cell phone pings timeline.

1) From your reply, I am unable to determine whether SK's phone was pinged between noon and 5pm on 12/13/09. If there were pings between the hours in question (12pm to 5pm), what tower(s) were they from?

2) You stated there were nine calls or texts made to Steven after he walked away from his car. Were all nine of these pings to the same three towers everyone is aware of, or were there additional towers involved?

3) Various sources state that there was a call made to check his voicemail early the following day, 7am 12/14/09. You stated there were two such calls to check the voicemail on 12/13/09. So, were there total of 3 such calls?

Again, thank you for all your valuable information.

 

[swjaxon]

1) From your reply, I am unable to determine whether SK's phone was pinged between noon and 5pm on 12/13/09. If there were pings between the hours in question (12pm to 5pm), what tower(s) were they from?

2) You stated there were nine calls or texts made to Steven after he walked away from his car. Were all nine of these pings to the same three towers everyone is aware of, or were there additional towers involved?

3) Various sources state that there was a call made to check his voicemail early the following day, 7am 12/14/09. You stated there were two such calls to check the voicemail on 12/13/09. So, were there total of 3 such calls?

1) It's not really a simple answer. Basically, when those calls come in, the field for tower info is blank. My expert says that's because he pings off the previous tower used. So if a call came in, hypothetically, at 5 p.m. and he pings off the same tower as a call at 3 p.m., the info will not update in the form. You just have to go by the previous tower info. Does that make sense?

2) Yes. All tower info has been disclosed.

3) Yes. There were two voicemail calls made on Dec. 13 after he left the car and one voicemail call early the next day.

 

[MarioM]

1) It's not really a simple answer. Basically, when those calls come in, the field for tower info is blank. My expert says that's because he pings off the previous tower used. So if a call came in, hypothetically, at 5 p.m. and he pings off the same tower as a call at 3 p.m., the info will not update in the form. You just have to go by the previous tower info. Does that make sense?

2) Yes. All tower info has been disclosed.

3) Yes. There were two voicemail calls made on Dec. 13 after he left the car and one voicemail call early the next day.

swjaxon,

So just to summarize all this ping info, this is how I view it.

- There were total of nine pings to SK's phone after he departed from his car.
- Three of these nine pings were to check the voice mail, 2 on 12/13/09 and one at 7am on 12/14/09.
- All the nine pings to SK's phone after he left the car came after 5pm.
- There were no pings to SK's phone between the last phone conversation with GW at around 9am on 12/13/09 and the 5pm ping the same day at tower #1.
- All the pings after SK left his car were to those three cell towers only, starting with tower #1 at 5pm and ending with tower #3 two or so days later.

Are all my above statements correct?

Finally, how many pings came in after that 7am 12/14/09 voice mail check and when did the last one of those nine pings come in?

Thank you again.

 

[Fairy1]

swjaxon,

So just to summarize all this ping info, this is how I view it.

- There were total of nine pings to SK's phone after he departed from his car.
- Three of these nine pings were to check the voice mail, 2 on 12/13/09 and one at 7am on 12/14/09.
- All the nine pings to SK's phone after he left the car came after 5pm.
- There were no pings to SK's phone between the last phone conversation with GW? at around 9am on 12/13/09 and the 5pm ping the same day at tower #1.
- All the pings after SK left his car were to those three cell towers only, starting with tower #1 at 5pm and ending with tower #3 two or so days later.

Are all my above statements correct?

Finally, how many pings came in after that 7am 12/14/09 voice mail check and when did the last one of those nine pings come in?

Thank you again.

There were 3 tower pings, but there were nine calls. The call information was determined by checking Steven's phone records. IIRC, the ping information came from another source.

The last ping was the one on 12/14 at 7 AM. That hit a tower near Russell Road and the 515.

 

[MarioM]

There were 3 tower pings, but there were nine calls. The call information was determined by checking Steven's phone records. IIRC, the ping information came from another source.

The last ping was the one on 12/14 at 7 AM. That hit a tower near Russell Road and the 515.

Ok, now I'm confused. Isn't the term PING used for any type of a transmission between the cell phone and the tower, such as incoming and outgoing calls and texts, voicemail checks, etc.? I would think the 9 ping information printout from the phone company is a lot more informative than SK's phone bill.

Maybe someone should just post all the times/dates of all the communications between SK's cell and the three towers, identifying which tower was pinged and the type of a communication it was.

Thank You.

 

[Fairy1]

Ok, now I'm confused. Isn't the term PING used for any type of a transmission between the cell phone and the tower, such as incoming and outgoing calls and texts, voicemail checks, etc.? I would think the 9 ping information printout from the phone company is a lot more informative than SK's phone bill.

Maybe someone should just post all the times/dates of all the communications between SK's cell and the three towers, identifying which tower was pinged and the type of a communication it was.

Thank You.

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=U...306272,-114.743958&spn=0.700525,1.087646&z=10

 

[swjaxon]

- There were total of nine pings to SK's phone after he departed from his car.
- Three of these nine pings were to check the voice mail, 2 on 12/13/09 and one at 7am on 12/14/09.
- All the nine pings to SK's phone after he left the car came after 5pm.
- There were no pings to SK's phone between the last phone conversation with GW at around 9am on 12/13/09 and the 5pm ping the same day at tower #1.
- All the pings after SK left his car were to those three cell towers only, starting with tower #1 at 5pm and ending with tower #3 two or so days later.
Finally, how many pings came in after that 7am 12/14/09 voice mail check and when did the last one of those nine pings come in?

1) Correct -- nine calls on the 13th after he left his car.
2) After he left his car, the first call came in at 4:36 p.m. and the last came in at 7:58 p.m. on the 13th.
3) Seth called Steven after GW. No calls to SK between about 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
4) He hit three towers after he left his car on the 13th and one on the 14th.
5) A lot! Thirty calls between the morning of the 14th and the evening of the 16th.

 

[Fairy1]

1) Correct -- nine calls on the 13th after he left his car.
2) After he left his car, the first call came in at 4:36 p.m. and the last came in at 7:58 p.m. on the 13th.
3) Seth called Steven after GW. No calls to SK between about 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
4) He hit three towers after he left his car on the 13th and one on the 14th.
5) A lot! Thirty calls between the morning of the 14th and the evening of the 16th.

Just so I'M clear, there wouldn't be a ping associated with every call, right? If you're location is somewhat stationary, you would ping off the same tower or towers in the area. Right?

 

[swjaxon]

Just so I'M clear, there wouldn't be a ping associated with every call, right? If you're location is somewhat stationary, you would ping off the same tower or towers in the area. Right?

That's my understanding. In the document, unless the tower that handles the call changes from the previous one used, the tower field is blank.

So if a call came in at 9 a.m. and hit off tower A and then another at 9:05 a.m. also hit off tower A, there would only be tower info for the first call -- the tower field for the second call would be blank. If a call came in at 9:10 a.m. and hit off tower B, the field would be updated.

Make sense?

ETA: For the record, the cell phone tower document took me a very long time to figure out, so I totally understand any confusion behind it.

 

[Fairy1]

That's my understanding. In the document, unless the tower that handles the call changes from the previous one used, the tower field is blank.

So if a call came in at 9 a.m. and hit off tower A and then another at 9:05 a.m. also hit off tower A, there would only be tower info for the first call -- the tower field for the second call would be blank. If a call came in at 9:10 a.m. and hit off tower B, the field would be updated.

Make sense?

Yes, thank you. I'm just trying to establish that there were more calls than there were pings and that we're looking at two different things. Pings will show your general location, while calls will show the actual activity. KWIM?

 

[swjaxon]

Yes, thank you. I'm just trying to establish that there were more calls than there were pings and that we're looking at two different things. Pings will show your general location, while calls will show the actual activity. KWIM?

Correct. Lots of activity on the phone (shall we say activity instead), few pings.