NV NV - Steven T. Koecher, 30, Henderson, 13 Dec 2009 - # 6

[laytonian]

Here are the two reasons I do not believe SK was invloved in drugs :

1. He was almost destitute. Had barely enough money for food. Sleeping in his car. People involved in the drug scene live high on the hog. Only time they get raggedy is if they are using their drug profits to buy drugs for themselves. And that is easy to spot.

2. His character as I know it. I do not know SK, but here is something I noticed : when the other guy who lived in the house took his food, what did Steven do ? He went to the landlady, and reported it. Did he punch the other roomer in the face ? No. Threaten him ? Not that we know of. Very telling ; He was into doing the right thing, the straight arrow thing. IMHO.

I never connected SK's religion with "straight arrowness " ( is there such a word ?).

1. WHAT IF Steven was only involved in drugs for a few days, when he did a favor (maybe unknowingly) for someone? I think someone who's near-destitute is most likely to get involved with something like that....and based upon the drug arrests in my area, it's a myth that people involved in drugs are all living high on the hog. Maybe the kingpins, but not the mules and workers.

2. I'd think the straight-arrow thing to do, would be to man up and confront the roomie to his face: "Quit. Taking. My. Food." Complaining to the landlord about it is, IMO, a bit childish. ...and would only anger the roomie. "You got me in trouble!" says the roomie!

 

[liz b.]

Laytonian,
I see your theory about Steven unknowingly transporting drugs. I wonder if that's also what hollyblue thinks ? It's not a bad theory. One glaring thing,though : the people who were looking to distribute the drugs, do you think they would risk being ripped off, or worse, by using a stranger ? Isn't it more likely that they would use aquaintances ? They would need to have some way to enforce compliance on the part of their mules. e.g. " if you **** up in any way, we will go visit your kids/sister/mother. It's maybe more likely IMHO. Other than that,though, I don't dislike this theory.

 

[liz b.]

Laytonian,
In any tenant dispute situation, the only legal option is to inform the landlord of any issues. Steven absolutely did the mature and responsible thing there. His rights as a tenant in this house were being violated by the other tenant stealing from him. And, god knows,he needed the food. JMO

 

[hollyblue]

Thanks! I hadn't seen this one and one thing that struck me is the end photo of him, not in a dress shirt and tie, It doesn't look a thing like the other photos of him! I seriously think more photos of him need to get out there, not just the blue shirt and white shirt. Not just smiling, but ones like this one where he is just not looking as happy, because that is probably the state he is in IF he is still with us! :twocents:

Yes, This is the photo I was speaking of Lay. He looks more grown up to me in this one. Sorry, I should have specified which pic before...:blushing:

 

[laytonian]

Laytonian,
In any tenant dispute situation, the only legal option is to inform the landlord of any issues. Steven absolutely did the mature and responsible thing there. His rights as a tenant in this house were being violated by the other tenant stealing from him. And, god knows,he needed the food. JMO

I see it as part of Steven's character that we're gradually learning about.

Whether it's a character flaw, or part of the immaturity that stillLooking was intimating, it's something we should consider.

Tattling to the landlord about missing food (and evidently wanting someone 200+ miles away to take care of that nickel-dime issue) BUT not paying his rent for three months?

Driving around aimlessly, spending money on gas and fast food, instead of working at his part-time job that at least paid him on Dec 8th?

 

[hollyblue]

I was replying to the scenario you're supporting (the one presented by ding last night). That scenario requires the involvement of many people. AN's family, the neighbor of the two little girls, the two little girls themselves, Steven's neighbor who saw "him" pull in.

We have three known sightings in that five-day period:
AN's family in Ruby Valley (Dec 9)
The neighbor of the locked-out girls (Dec 11)
Neighbor saw Steven & his car (late Dec 12)

...and on at least the 9th and 10th, he's talking to his Mom, Dad and sister on the phone. Those are better "sightings" than a fuzzy security fish-eye video.

Obviously, if a crime is involved, someone is covering something up. But that doesn't make it a 120-hour conspiracy involving over 1,000 days of random driving.
Someone covering up a crime, isn't going to involve a lot of other people. They become witnesses to the crime.

My "theory" doesn't include all the people the other poster was talking about. I even told them as much in my post. And I think we should do a double take on the sightings.

Out of the three sightings you have mentioned...

AN: This would be after his visit to Ruby Valley.
NEIGHBOR: It was late at night, not good visibility. Less than the video.
LOCK OUT/GIRLS: We know the police verified this by the phone records, but did they show a pic to them for verification? I don't recall. Didn't they just call, the father had no clue, and the little girls said, that must be the guy that helped us? If I knew these girls identified Steven, I'd toss this idea. Actually, I would like to have the address/vicinity where this took place.

As far as the phone calls, that proves nothing except that Steven did talk to them, but from where? Could be SG and could be Sacramento.

As far as Steven's parent's verification, if you listen to the video, the reporter says IF this is Steven. I've noticed that in the few video (reports) that have come out lately.
Written articles, I'll have to double check.

 

[laytonian]

Laytonian,
I see your theory about Steven unknowingly transporting drugs. I wonder if that's also what hollyblue thinks ? It's not a bad theory. One glaring thing,though : the people who were looking to distribute the drugs, do you think they would risk being ripped off, or worse, by using a stranger ? Isn't it more likely that they would use aquaintances ? They would need to have some way to enforce compliance on the part of their mules. e.g. " if you **** up in any way, we will go visit your kids/sister/mother. It's maybe more likely IMHO. Other than that,though, I don't dislike this theory.

OK...this goes back to the character/immaturity:

Steve "told on" the roomie to the landlord, about some food.

Maybe he'd threaten to "tell on", if he found out he was involved in something illegal?

What's legal and right, might not be the best mature judgment at the time.

 

[RubyRed]

OK...this goes back to the character/immaturity:

Steve "told on" the roomie to the landlord, about some food.

Maybe he'd threaten to "tell on", if he found out he was involved in something illegal?

What's legal and right, might not be the best mature judgment at the time.

I was thinking the same thing when I read that. If you will rat out your roomie about food . What else would you rat about ? Nobody likes a rat.

 

[liz b.]

Re : " Tattling to the landlord " I have had tenants who have attempted to settle their (somewhat petty) disputes with knifefights at 3 a.m. Believe me, Steven's way was better. I believe that at this particular time Steven Koecher was desperate ; not his normal self. The seemingly aimless driving could be nothing more than an attempt to "unplug" from his worsening situation IMHO. Yes, I agree that Steven was a bit immature, but lots of people drive around when they feel pressured ; it seems to both relax them and help them think KWIM ?
And I was actually using the example of the other tenant stealing from Steven to illustrate his apparent tendancy to stay within the parameters of what's right and legal. That's what I meant by a straight arrow...

 

[laytonian]

My "theory" doesn't include all the people the other poster was talking about. I even told them as much in my post. And I think we should do a double take on the sightings.

Out of the three sightings you have mentioned...

AN: This would be after his visit to Ruby Valley.

OK, since we're playing defense vs prosecution. It's a good way to knock things around:

Why after? Outside of being a convenient way of eliminating a sighting...it's still a convoluted Substitute Steven theory. Why lure Steven so far away, then "capture" him somewhere in Nevada and steal his ID?

NEIGHBOR: It was late at night, not good visibility. Less than the video.

Neighbor was already standing outside, acclimated to lighting conditions. When Steven opened his car door, the interior light(s) came on and he was clearly visible. If there's a garage door opener and he drove inside, that light would also have gone on.

LOCK OUT/GIRLS: We know the police verified this by the phone records, but did they show a pic to them for verification? I don't recall. Didn't they just call, the father had no clue, and the little girls said, that must be the guy that helped us? If I knew these girls identified Steven, I'd toss this idea. Actually, I would like to have the address/vicinity where this took place.

One of the early articles mentioned that the neighbor (who Steven took the girls to) identified Steven from picture(s).

As far as the phone calls, that proves nothing except that Steven did talk to them, but from where? Could be SG and could be Sacramento.

Yes, but location isn't as important for Substitute Steven as is the importance of being able to fool three family members and three church friends.

As far as Steven's parent's verification, if you listen to the video, the reporter says IF this is Steven. I've noticed that in the few video (reports) that have come out lately.
Written articles, I'll have to double check.

Maybe they ARE reading our timeline ... and maybe his parents are starting to waver on the ID? Or maybe it's just the opinion of the reporter.

Question for you: How did Substitute Steven find out whose family Steven "drew" for Christmas presents?

 

[hollyblue]

Here are the two reasons I do not believe SK was invloved in drugs :

1. He was almost destitute. Had barely enough money for food. Sleeping in his car. People involved in the drug scene live high on the hog. Only time they get raggedy is if they are using their drug profits to buy drugs for themselves. And that is easy to spot.

2. His character as I know it. I do not know SK, but here is something I noticed : when the other guy who lived in the house took his food, what did Steven do ? He went to the landlady, and reported it. Did he punch the other roomer in the face ? No. Threaten him ? Not that we know of. Very telling ; He was into doing the right thing, the straight arrow thing. IMHO.

I never connected SK's religion with "straight arrowness " ( is there such a word ?).

I agree that everything we have been told or perceive about Steven's character would point to a negative in his dealing of drugs. And I don't think he was into doing them. But, I can see a young man, hurting for money, if even to just bail out of the area, doing this.
If he did do this, I just hope he didn't try to take any part of it that was not his.

 

[hollyblue]

I was thinking the same thing when I read that. If you will rat out your roomie about food . What else would you rat about ? Nobody likes a rat.

I don't like thieves. That is a sense of entitlement. They would not care for it, if done to them. Period. They did not pay or work for it. If they ask, that's another story.

I too have thought Steven could have tattled re: drug use. (He complained to his parents) Shoot, maybe even the parents called the landlord for all we know. Then the landlord may have told that Steven tattled and he was evicted. I want to say this was in November. Does anyone else remember when Z left---because of non-payment of rent? JMO

 

[laytonian]

I don't like thieves. That is a sense of entitlement. They would not care for it, if done to them. Period. They did not pay or work for it. If they ask, that's another story.

I too have thought Steven could have tattled re: drug use. (He complained to his parents) Shoot, maybe even the parents called the landlord for all we know. Then the landlord may have told that Steven tattled and he was evicted. I want to say this was in November. Does anyone else remember when Z left---because of non-payment of rent? JMO

Z wasn't evicted.

He just left, stiffing them on the rent....and taking small kitchen appliances. A doper who's truly the definition of the word

Remember? That's why the landlords were so "stuck". Neither of their tenants had been paying rent.

 

[hollyblue]

OK, since we're playing defense vs prosecution. It's a good way to knock things around:

Why after? Outside of being a convenient way of eliminating a sighting...it's still a convoluted Substitute Steven theory. Why lure Steven so far away, then "capture" him somewhere in Nevada and steal his ID?


Neighbor was already standing outside, acclimated to lighting conditions. When Steven opened his car door, the interior light(s) came on and he was clearly visible. If there's a garage door opener and he drove inside, that light would also have gone on.




One of the early articles mentioned that the neighbor (who Steven took the girls to) identified Steven from picture(s).

OK, you convinced me on this until I can verify.

Yes, but location isn't as important for Substitute Steven as is the importance of being able to fool three family members and three church friends.



Maybe they ARE reading our timeline ... and maybe his parents are starting to waver on the ID? Or maybe it's just the opinion of the reporter.

Question for you: How did Substitute Steven find out whose family Steven "drew" for Christmas presents?

That's a good one, kudos. But you know I'll still be looking at differenct angles. Theory dropped for time being.

 

[RubyRed]

Receipt: K-Mart $9.42 (1 baby girl bib, 4 /Christmas ornaments @ $1 suitable for brother Matthew's family, later found in abandoned car).

When I think about this purchase, I can see him feeling very depressed over all he could afford to buy. Even though it is the thought that counts . When everyone is opening presents , I mean at 30 years old if that is all you can buy, his perception could be that it is embarrassing. It doesn't matter if family says , don't worry about . Maybe he really did not want to go home for Christmas . Landlord calls father, tells him Steven is behind on rent. Father calls Steven, he hangs up . Maybe the humiliation is just too much. The last thing someone 30 wants is parents knowing your business.

 

[RubyRed]

I don't like thieves. That is a sense of entitlement. They would not care for it, if done to them. Period. They did not pay or work for it. If they ask, that's another story.

I too have thought Steven could have tattled re: drug use. (He complained to his parents) Shoot, maybe even the parents called the landlord for all we know. Then the landlord may have told that Steven tattled and he was evicted. I want to say this was in November. Does anyone else remember when Z left---because of non-payment of rent? JMO

I don't like thieves neither, but like Laytonian said I wonder why he didn't just say something to the room mate . More or less what I was saying is if you rat out the wrong person (whether it is to do with drugs or not ) you could just find yourself in the gutter.

 

[hollyblue]

Z wasn't evicted.

He just left, stiffing them on the rent....and taking small kitchen appliances. A doper who's truly the definition of the word

Remember? That's why the landlords were so "stuck". Neither of their tenants had been paying rent.

I know what we have been told. I'm just going back and questioning everything. What if........ ? Maybe he was told to leave by a certain date and took the appliances out of spite. He took food. Not someone with a clear view of mature respect that's for sure. JMO


Just to let you all know I love "rallying" with ya's. TY:dance:

 

[liz b.]

Wait. The churchmembers said that they would have a job for Steven around January 1st ? This is new information,isn't it ? So, maybe he wasn't really desperate ? Why would he be suicidal ? Was he really looking for work when he vanished ? This is starting to feel a bit hinky. We keep getting fed these bits of info, and it changes the whole picture. Strange ....

 

[RubyRed]

Wait. The churchmembers said that they would have a job for Steven around January 1st ? This is new information,isn't it ? So, maybe he wasn't really desperate ? Why would he be suicidal ? Was he really looking for work when he vanished ? This is starting to feel a bit hinky. We keep getting fed these bits of info, and it changes the whole picture. Strange ....

Maybe not suicidal , but humiliated that someone had to help him get a job.
There is nothing worse than being around family and friends and hearing how great their life is, when you feel like yours is in the toilet. I still think that he was in SCA for something specific, Was it for a job, having an affair ? I don't know, however, I think the answer is near where he parked his car. More specifically, in one of the houses . moo

 

[liz b.]

Rubyred,
Here's the thing : Steven had always been given help with jobs. And yes, IMHO, the area in Anthem is very important.
But, what I mean is that we develop theories, check videos, timelines and so on .... then out of nowhere, a new "fact" is introduced. And many of our theories are thus demolished ..... I still say : Strange ....