Katherine Korzilius

[ufohealer]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

You know.. I've never considered that.. I've always had it in my mind, incorrectly, that an ambulance was called.

I don't read much into it either way, so far as it being 'odd'.. Pending on where the hospital is, it certainly could be quicker for them to put her in the vehicle and go to the hospital.

Looking at a map, there does seem to be a hospital about 2 miles or so away. Just across Hwy 360.. So.. I can see it.. Though at the end of the day, not knowing what happened.. She could have had a neck injury or anything.. It was a bad idea, but, at least understandable. Plus, it was August, she was on blacktop.. I think the mother said something about not wanting to leave her there because of that.. Again.. Bad idea, but.. Not something that is telling.

Now.. The removal from life support, I think that's the first time I've heard the timeline on that and yes.. That is VERY strange. Everything I've read is just that she "Passed away shortly after". Not waiting for the father to arrive.. Now.. It's also possible that they had talked, he was still hours away and reading a bit more, it seems she was totally brain dead.. If the mother pulled her from life support as a unilateral decision.. That's odder than if they talked, it was explained that she was gone and the husband said to go ahead and pull the plug.

I just looked up about people on life support, especially in their final stages, that their skin can turn blue! Perhaps the mother removed her from life support before her husband came home because "she didn't want him to see her like that". This way his last image of her was how she really looked every day, not half-dead and blue....

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by ufohealer

I just looked up about people on life support, especially in their final stages, that their skin can turn blue! Perhaps the mother removed her from life support before her husband came home because "she didn't want him to see her like that". This way his last image of her was how she really looked every day, not half-dead and blue....

IMO.. If that was the reasoning.. It doesn't change the fact that it was a bad decision.. If it was made unilaterally.

Now, that's in my mind. Perhaps the husband/father thinks differently, and.. his is really the only opinion that matters.

In the situation, I'm not sure where I would fall on whether I would want her removed from life support before I could get there. I think there'd be multiple factors to consider.. Including how long it would be before I would arrive and so on. The gut reaction is no, but.. Devil is in the details, as always.

However.. I would NOT want the decision to be made unilaterally. I'd want to be involved in the decision, i'd feel I have the right to be involved in the decision. And.. Whether the husband was or wasn't involved in the decision is likely something that we don't and won't know in this case.

[Godlovesyou419]

This is a very sad case i feel like she was on the back of her mom's car but it seems like no matter which theory there are just missing details so you cannot connect the dots. My heart hurts for this family. The parents divoreced in the aftermath and on March 18, 2020, Katherine's brother Chris a senior deputy passed away in a car accident on the way to work

[Dude111]

Welcome my friend

I wonder just how many Unsolved Mystery cases are still unsolved from Bobbys time on the show?'

I think all cases are sad that end in someones death.........

[MediaHoarder]

Just saw this one for the first time the other day. After reading a decent portion of this tread, I've very surprised how easily people bought the police explanation, despite the fact that it had little to nothing as far as supporting evidence.

Before hearing the explanation LE came up with I was fully convinced this was an abduction that was botched leading to her death and when they laid out the theory the detectives came up with I was almost bemused.

To believe that a 6 year old, who was last seen walking in the opposite direction, ran, jumped onto the back of the vehicle, and then held on unnoticed around half the loop before falling off entirely without notice, while also somehow leaving a scent track for dogs in the opposite direction is absurd.

Far more believable is that she was abducted near the vacant field, at the end of the scent track, then was put in or voluntarily got in a vehicle which she fell from (very possibly as the result of a struggle) where her body was found.

The former theory is significantly more parsimonious for LE than the latter, and I suspect that had some role in the proposition of that theory over the latter. The PI the family hired made some questionable leaps to judgement unfortunately rather than attacking the absurdity of the theory head on. A locked tailgate would not open and may have been cool enough to handle even in that heat. That is not the central problem with the theory, rather it’s the implausibility of everything else combined with the dog track.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

To believe that a 6 year old, who was last seen walking in the opposite direction, ran, jumped onto the back of the vehicle

Walking in the opposite direction was observed by the mother...and would also coincide with her walking to the back of the vehicle to hop on it. This is not implausible at all.

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

while also somehow leaving a scent track for dogs in the opposite direction is absurd.

Dogs could have traced her scent there if she had been in that field days before she fell from her mother's vehicle.

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

Far more believable is that she was abducted near the vacant field, at the end of the scent track, then was put in or voluntarily got in a vehicle which she fell from (very possibly as the result of a struggle) where her body was found.

What abductor couldn't subdue a little 6 year old girl? The entire abduction theory hinges on the fact that Katherine somehow was able to struggle her way out of a moving vehicle. Unless her abductor was a 5 year old girl, I think it's preposterous.

A hit and run however would be more believable, IMO.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

Just saw this one for the first time the other day. After reading a decent portion of this tread, I've very surprised how easily people bought the police explanation, despite the fact that it had little to nothing as far as supporting evidence.

Before hearing the explanation LE came up with I was fully convinced this was an abduction that was botched leading to her death and when they laid out the theory the detectives came up with I was almost bemused.

To believe that a 6 year old, who was last seen walking in the opposite direction, ran, jumped onto the back of the vehicle, and then held on unnoticed around half the loop before falling off entirely without notice, while also somehow leaving a scent track for dogs in the opposite direction is absurd.

Far more believable is that she was abducted near the vacant field, at the end of the scent track, then was put in or voluntarily got in a vehicle which she fell from (very possibly as the result of a struggle) where her body was found.

The former theory is significantly more parsimonious for LE than the latter, and I suspect that had some role in the proposition of that theory over the latter. The PI the family hired made some questionable leaps to judgement unfortunately rather than attacking the absurdity of the theory head on. A locked tailgate would not open and may have been cool enough to handle even in that heat. That is not the central problem with the theory, rather it’s the implausibility of everything else combined with the dog track.

You complain about people believing an explanation that has no evidence to back it up and follow up with an explanation that has.. No evidence to back it up.

[drew790]

I stand by my statement that the only reason this was a even segment was they wanted to get Bon Jovi.

[Mike82]

Originally Posted by drew790

I stand by my statement that the only reason this was a even segment was they wanted to get Bon Jovi.

Totally agree: this was aired in I believe 1998, which is right around the time UM had a number of cheap celebrity cash-in segments. I can guarantee if there was no celebrity angle, there is no segment.

My son is now Katherine's age and I can still say with near 100% certainty the only mystery is whether she was sitting or standing on that bumper and whether she was gripping the door handle or not.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

You complain about people believing an explanation that has no evidence to back it up and follow up with an explanation that has.. No evidence to back it up.

No, the abduction theory is supported by the dog track. Also the LE theory involves multiple implausible assumptions that are not required for an abduction theory. So in addition to the dog track, you have Occam's Razor in favor of an abduction.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Walking in the opposite direction was observed by the mother...and would also coincide with her walking to the back of the vehicle to hop on it. This is not implausible at all.

No part of "walking in the opposite direction" coincides with her walking toward the vehicle, in fact the exact opposite was implied. The vehicle and her mother were going the opposite direction from where she was last seen.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Dogs could have traced her scent there if she had been in that field days before she fell from her mother's vehicle.

If the scent was from days before it would have also tracked to the house, which it did not.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

What abductor couldn't subdue a little 6 year old girl? The entire abduction theory hinges on the fact that Katherine somehow was able to struggle her way out of a moving vehicle. Unless her abductor was a 5 year old girl, I think it's preposterous.

You forget the abductor was also driving the vehicle. Katherine may or may not have gotten in the vehicle voluntarily. In any case, once in the vehicle, the abductor would need to drive and, if she had not gotten in voluntarily, subdue her.

So two versions of this. One is she voluntarily got in and was not being actively subdued but then got out of the vehicle. Its possible she was offered a ride home and got out once she passed the house, or something else happened to frighten her and make her want to get away. She opens the door and falls out before the abductor, who is driving, can do anything.

Alternatively, she was being held by the abductor and they lost their grip or momentarily let go (perhaps to actuate the gearshift) and she jumped/fell out at that time.

Plenty of ways for this to happen that are very believable. Just because an abductor could overpower her in the abstract does not mean that they could not have momentarily lost control, especially while driving.

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

A hit and run however would be more believable, IMO.

I would consider this believable except that it does not account for the location of the body and contradicts the pathology report which says she fell from a vehicle.

[Killarney Rose]

That pathology report says she fell from a vehicle because she fell from her mom’s vehicle . I think deep down, mom has to know this,but can’t admit it.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Killarney Rose

That pathology report says she fell from a vehicle because she fell from her mom’s vehicle . I think deep down, mom has to know this,but can’t admit it.

The pathology report has no information on which vehicle she fell from because it is not knowable from the injuries alone.

We know she fell from a vehicle, and despite the highly imaginative and parsimonious theories LE drummed up, it was all but certainly not her mother's vehicle.

And no, I seriously doubt her mother "knows" this, when she has very clearly gone on the record disagreeing with it vehemently and gone so far as to hire a PI to demonstrate the implausibility of it.

[Killarney Rose]

Occam’s Razor says mom’s vehicle and I agree.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

No part of "walking in the opposite direction" coincides with her walking toward the vehicle, in fact the exact opposite was implied. The vehicle and her mother were going the opposite direction from where she was last seen.

Her mom saw her walk in the opposite direction...which also would have been on the way to the back of her vehicle.

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

If the scent was from days before it would have also tracked to the house, which it did not.

Why wasn't her scent traced to the house that day? Dogs are not 100% reliable at following scent trails. Also, presuming she was abducted from this field, why did she willingly go with a stranger or why didn't she scream and struggle while she was being abducted?

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

Its possible she was offered a ride home and got out once she passed the house, or something else happened to frighten her and make her want to get away. She opens the door and falls out before the abductor, who is driving, can do anything.

She just jumps out of a car driving in fear to escape an abductor and almost all of her wounds are on her back lying perfectly still was if she were sleeping? That didn't happen.

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

Alternatively, she was being held by the abductor and they lost their grip or momentarily let go (perhaps to actuate the gearshift) and she jumped/fell out at that time.

Her mother said it looked like someone arranged her position and her wounds were as if she fell straight back from a moving vehicle, and the only way she would obtain these wounds from an abductor is if she was pushed from the vehicle...which defeats the purpose of abducting her.

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

I would consider this believable except that it does not account for the location of the body and contradicts the pathology report which says she fell from a vehicle.

Cool. Occam's Razor it is. She fell from her mom's car.