NV NV - Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson, 13 Dec 2009 - #10

[CONCRNED CTZN]

Laytonian....Where ARE YOU?????? (ECHHOOOOOOO)

 

[laytonian]

Over the past few weeks, I've read comments inferring that the timeline's logic was INHIBITING discussion - and that there would more/better discussion without it.

Some have been vocal about "knowing what happened but [they[ can't say because it doesn't fit the timeline".

Then, I read comments from people saying that a "fresh start" was needed.

Putting that all together...I figured maybe they were all right.

Time and time again, I have challenged those who disagreed with the fine points/logic of the timeline to put their own up. OR....to provide scenario(s) that fit outside the timeline BUT with links/proof of how their scenario would work.

So today, taking people at their word, I took down the constraint. Apparently, that didn't work, either. What I thought would maybe shake things up, made things worse.

For that I apologize. When I'm wrong, I'm really wrong.

...and my name ain't "Lay". That's just plain offensive to me.

 

[Fairy1]

PD said "when they realized". If what you are saying is correct...and GW hadn't called, don't you think if they were going to call someone, they would have called GW first? I mean why call in a replacement, if the first guy is possibly on his way?

There may be nothing to this...but to call it a "men-ocracy" could be "allowing" something to slide by that could possibly be important. My husband was in the EQ for two years. These are not dumb men just sitting around trying to call people, they have "work" to do in these meetings. There are expectations of these men.

It is very strange that GW made it home to be seen at church at NOON, but not to the meeting, and without so much as a phone call?

In my scope of "theory", GW would be the only one to know about the NOON meeting; therefore, for some reason making it important to be at church at NOON. NOON...NOON...NOON

This is where it ends. I don't think GW committed a crime, I don't think he nor SK knew of the cameras... Maybe he was helping SK disappear and in some off chance that someone (cameras) saw Steven somewhere at noon, he had to have an alibi??

Thank you, CC. I want to say NOW, I also do not believe GW harmed Steven. However, I DO believe he knows more that we know about and I think there is a reason both he and Steven were here in Vegas that same weekend.

If I'm wrong on this, I will apologize every which way I know how.

 

[Fairy1]

Over the past few weeks, I've read comments inferring that the timeline's logic was INHIBITING discussion - and that there would more/better discussion without it.

Some have been vocal about "knowing what happened but [they[ can't say because it doesn't fit the timeline".

Then, I read comments from people saying that a "fresh start" was needed.

Putting that all together...I figured maybe they were all right.

Time and time again, I have challenged those who disagreed with the fine points/logic of the timeline to put their own up. OR....to provide scenario(s) that fit outside the timeline BUT with links/proof of how their scenario would work.

So today, taking people at their word, I took down the constraint. Apparently, that didn't work, either. What I thought would maybe shake things up, made things worse.

For that I apologize. When I'm wrong, I'm really wrong.

...and my name ain't "Lay". That's just plain offensive to me.

We don't need a fresh start - we just need a fresh clue.

Welcome back, my friend!

 

[CONCRNED CTZN]

Over the past few weeks, I've read comments inferring that the timeline's logic was INHIBITING discussion - and that there would more/better discussion without it.

Some have been vocal about "knowing what happened but [they[ can't say because it doesn't fit the timeline".

Then, I read comments from people saying that a "fresh start" was needed.

Putting that all together...I figured maybe they were all right.

Time and time again, I have challenged those who disagreed with the fine points/logic of the timeline to put their own up. OR....to provide scenario(s) that fit outside the timeline BUT with links/proof of how their scenario would work.

So today, taking people at their word, I took down the constraint. Apparently, that didn't work, either. What I thought would maybe shake things up, made things worse.

For that I apologize. When I'm wrong, I'm really wrong.

...and my name ain't "Lay". That's just plain offensive to me.

If the timeline inhibits someone...well they should stay away from it. And honestly, I would have to "stop this" before I would even pretend to put together a timeline, or end up single.

So...on to my next question.

Would it be prohibitive to ask PD how they found out GW would not be at the meeting? AND is the Facebook page an acceptable place to do this? At least this would answer a few questions for me. Selfish...I know.

 

[CONCRNED CTZN]

Thank you, CC. I want to say NOW, I also do not believe GW harmed Steven. However, I DO believe he knows more that we know about and I think there is a reason both he and Steven were here in Vegas that same weekend.

If I'm wrong on this, I will apologize every which way I know how.

And so will I!!!

 

[Fairy1]

If the timeline inhibits someone...well they should stay away from it. And honestly, I would have to "stop this" before I would even pretend to put together a timeline, or end up single.

So...on to my next question.

Would it be prohibitive to ask PD how they found out GW would not be at the meeting? AND is the Facebook page an acceptable place to do this? At least this would answer a few questions for me. Selfish...I know.

As far as I know, we don't know how extensively LE has questioned GW.

Naegle basically told us to "leave it alone," so I'm not sure FB would be the best way to go.

On this angle, I think we're going to have to have faith.

 

[Sin City]

Check post #257 on previous page. Guitar was there. I assume the three
dogs were family pets (or not) and did not need to be pictured in the media.
If it is important, maybe Sin City or Fairy1 has a picture.

The dogs at the search Saturday were family pets. I asked specifically.

And, I'm sorry I don't have any pictures of the dogs. I'll check the pictures of some of the search party that I have to see if the dogs are present, but I couldn't post these anyway.

 

[Fairy1]

The dogs at the search Saturday were family pets. I asked specifically.

And, I'm sorry I don't have any pictures of the dogs. I'll check the pictures of some of the search party that I have to see if the dogs are present, but I couldn't post these anyway.

Thank you, SC! I don't really think we need pics of the dogs that were there.

If anyone wants to see a picuture of a beautiful, but untrained, dog - let me know! I'd be more than happy to put up a pic of my puppy!

 

[Sin City]

BBM-really? Now see why I am confused, lol?? There were dogs, no dogs, they were scent dogs, they were family pets....did any of the handlers have ID or shirts identifying a certain dog group?

No dog handlers. One of the dogs was a family pet of a woman who was wearing a LVMP (Las Vegas Metro Police) t-shirt. I don't know if she was there to represent LVMP, but maybe one of the other searchers spoke to her, and could confirm this or not.

 

[sarx]

The dogs at the search Saturday were family pets. I asked specifically.

And, I'm sorry I don't have any pictures of the dogs. I'll check the pictures of some of the search party that I have to see if the dogs are present, but I couldn't post these anyway.

Umm, am I reading this correct? Like this was Fido the family poodle?

If someone could link me to the info/interviews about this and the info about the cadaver dogs not being able to work I might be able to make more out of it. TIA

 

[sarx]

Actually, do you have a picture of the owner and the pet together? I'd be curious to see how they were representing themselves.

 

[Fairy1]

Umm, am I reading this correct? Like this was Fido the family poodle?

If someone could link me to the info/interviews about this and the info about the cadaver dogs not being able to work I might be able to make more out of it. TIA

Here is the post where one of our members - who was on the search Saturday and is a personal friend of Steven's - related what the PI told him:

NV NV-Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson MSG 13 Dec 09 thread #10 - Page 10 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



There was another where it was stated the PI said cadaver dogs couldn't hit on skeletal remains, but I'm too tired to find it now!

Are you willing and able to weigh in on these claims?

 

[Fairy1]

Actually, do you have a picture of the owner and the pet together? I'd be curious to see how they were representing themselves.

I didn't take any pictures of the dogs, but here's what I witnessed.

When I arrived at the search site at about 7:30 AM, there was a dog there. I believe this dog (#1) belonged to the PI. A little while later, another searcher arrived, with their dog (#2). These two dogs began growling at and going after one another and the co-owner of #1 (Carrie, who I believe was the PI's wife) said something like, "Oh - they live next door to each other and they do this all the time."

Do they sound like trained search dogs to you?

If there was a 3rd dog there, I didn't see it.

 

[Sin City]

Actually, do you have a picture of the owner and the pet together? I'd be curious to see how they were representing themselves.

I do not have any pictures of any of the pets with, or without owners.

 

[Mia]

I think the presence of those dogs at the search last weekend are causing some confusion. Granted, I wasn't there of course, but it sounds like the PI and a couple of searchers just brought their pet dogs along so they could get some fresh air and some exercise. Considering this was potentially a crime scene and there was a chance Steven's remains were out there, I find this kind of irresponsible, especially of the PI, who really should know better. I just find it strange that people would think a search for human remains is a good opportunity to bring their dog along 'for fun'. It was a search after all, not a Saturday picnic. IMO.

On another note, is another search planned? I am just recalling Naegle's post from a few days ago where she warned WSleuthers to, and I'm paraphrasing, stay out of the area that was searched and out of SCA itself because it is the site of an active criminal investigation. This is also confusing to me. If they think there is more terrain that needs to be searched, and if they still think Steven or evidence of Steven is in this area, why isn't another search planned for this weekend? And why isn't LE involved? Between this, him bringing his dog along, and the PI's supposed statement that trained cadaver dogs 'wouldn't work' in finding Steven's remains (isn't that what cadaver dogs are trained for?) I'm beginning to question what this PI is all about.

 

[Sin City]

I think the presence of those dogs at the search last weekend are causing some confusion. Granted, I wasn't there of course, but it sounds like the PI and a couple of searchers just brought their pet dogs along so they could get some fresh air and some exercise. Considering this was potentially a crime scene and there was a chance Steven's remains were out there, I find this kind of irresponsible, especially of the PI, who really should know better. I just find it strange that people would think a search for human remains is a good opportunity to bring their dog along 'for fun'. It was a search after all, not a Saturday picnic. IMO.

On another note, is another search planned? I am just recalling Naegle's post from a few days ago where she warned WSleuthers to, and I'm paraphrasing, stay out of the area that was searched and out of SCA itself because it is the site of an active criminal investigation. This is also confusing to me. If they think there is more terrain that needs to be searched, and if they still think Steven or evidence of Steven is in this area, why isn't another search planned for this weekend? And why isn't LE involved? Between this, him bringing his dog along, and the PI's supposed statement that trained cadaver dogs 'wouldn't work' in finding Steven's remains (isn't that what cadaver dogs are trained for?) I'm beginning to question what this PI is all about.

The PI had his family keep their pet back at the trailer for a majority of the time. This pet wasn't out walking around with a searcher, or the family during the search. Another dog was out with the searchers...wearing a red bandana around it's neck.

 

[sarx]

Here is the post where one of our members - who was on the search Saturday and is a personal friend of Steven's - related what the PI told him:

NV NV-Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson MSG 13 Dec 09 thread #10 - Page 10 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community



There was another where it was stated the PI said cadaver dogs couldn't hit on skeletal remains, but I'm too tired to find it now!

Are you willing and able to weigh in on these claims?

I am willing and able, and oh boy is there a lot to say!

It's hard to pick where to start...

First of all, dogs other than trained SAR K9 have no place at a search, how can you be effective in a search if you are trying to control your pet? Incredibly irresponsible. If they want to see if their dog can find human remains, go to a training with a HRD group. I would have a total fit if someone showed up at a search with their pet.

In post 231 it was asked
Do scent dogs not get results in our windy and arid climate?
What type of dogs are we talking about? Trailing dogs or area search dogs or cadaver/HRD dogs? If you're not sure of the difference let me know and I'll post my little blip on the differences, it helps to understand the differences.
This depends largely on the amount of time that has passed. The desert dry heat will destroy your trail faster. Are we talking hours, days, weeks, or months here?

There was a comment about no scent leaving the car. This tells me they were working trailing dogs that are scent specific.
Again, how long after he went missing was this search conducted at the car?
Do we know that he was there for sure and nobody else drove the car and left it where it was found?
Absolutely correct, if one dog gets nothing, you try another one. Working 3 is ideal, then you should get at least 2 the same (at least you hope that's what happens). This same thing happened in the Chelsea King case, in that case the dog just blew it and didn't pick up the trail, it happens.

Where on earth did 60 days is the max for cadaver dogs come from? Things aren't even getting "ripe" for a cadaver/HRD dog at that point! The fact that a PI said that who is being paid to find this person I assume is just scary. Just an example, there are dogs that are specially trained (it is way more intensive than the standard cadaver dog training) for what they call Historical Human Remains Detection. In 2007 they found remains in the Czech Republic dating to 450 A.D.. Your run of the mill HRD dog is trained on bones years old, 60 days is, I don't even know what to say... not an issue.

 

[Sin City]

Anybody seen Fasteddy4 on the thread in a while? I know he was asked to provide a copy of a certain thread posting, that was removed by the poster, to the PI. And, one of the homeowners in SCA also asked him for a copy to read.

 

[Fairy1]

I am willing and able, and oh boy is there a lot to say!

It's hard to pick where to start...

First of all, dogs other than trained SAR K9 have no place at a search, how can you be effective in a search if you are trying to control your pet? Incredibly irresponsible. If they want to see if their dog can find human remains, go to a training with a HRD group. I would have a total fit if someone showed up at a search with their pet.

In post 231 it was asked
Do scent dogs not get results in our windy and arid climate?
What type of dogs are we talking about? Trailing dogs or area search dogs or cadaver/HRD dogs? If you're not sure of the difference let me know and I'll post my little blip on the differences, it helps to understand the differences.
This depends largely on the amount of time that has passed. The desert dry heat will destroy your trail faster. Are we talking hours, days, weeks, or months here?

There was a comment about no scent leaving the car. This tells me they were working trailing dogs that are scent specific.
Again, how long after he went missing was this search conducted at the car?
Do we know that he was there for sure and nobody else drove the car and left it where it was found?
Absolutely correct, if one dog gets nothing, you try another one. Working 3 is ideal, then you should get at least 2 the same (at least you hope that's what happens). This same thing happened in the Chelsea King case, in that case the dog just blew it and didn't pick up the trail, it happens.

Where on earth did 60 days is the max for cadaver dogs come from? Things aren't even getting "ripe" for a cadaver/HRD dog at that point! The fact that a PI said that who is being paid to find this person I assume is just scary. Just an example, there are dogs that are specially trained (it is way more intensive than the standard cadaver dog training) for what they call Historical Human Remains Detection. In 2007 they found remains in the Czech Republic dating to 450 A.D.. Your run of the mill HRD dog is trained on bones years old, 60 days is, I don't even know what to say... not an issue.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I just want to say - if it had been June, July, August - I may have bought into it. But it's been December, January, February, March and now, April. We've had a lot more rain than usual this winter, but mostly mild temps.

I don't know what the dogs on the first search (end of Dec) were given to track, but I will try to find out. I do hope it wasn't the car...