Katherine Korzilius

[MegtheEgg86]

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.

I tend to agree with you.

[MegtheEgg86]

The biggest problem I have with the abduction theory is that if you subscribe to it, you must also accept that very shortly thereafter her abductor left her in the middle of the street in her own neighborhood. It would be extremely risky for an abductor to do this, especially in a relatively affluent neighborhood like the one the Korziliuses lived in, where there are plenty of retirees and stay-at-home spouses who are physically in that neighborhood and can witness stuff, and families who quickly notice their children's absences, as Mrs. Korzilius did.

At the time, there were even weedy and wooded areas in this neighborhood and the abductor chooses to put the child in the middle of the road rather than one of those overwhelmingly more common places to put a body? And then to assume the high risk of being seen by not merely dumping a body in that road, but carefully placing it (by Mrs. Korzilius's own estimation) in the road? I'm having a hard time buying this.

That child had a horrible accident. That was my preliminary conclusion when I first saw the UM segment, and it became my definite conclusion once I researched it. I think I've made a pretty good effort over the years to try the abduction theories with an open mind, but anymore to me they kind of sound like someone trying to say someone murdered Kenneth Engie.

[Mike82]

/\ All of this.

I would also add that a)there is ZERO evidence of any other vehicles driving on Elder Circle at the same time and b)if the abductor was hiding without a vehicle, they would have melted from the heat long before any child passed by unless they got luckier than someone winning the lottery twice.

[freakbook]

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.

I've attached the neighborhood layout from the segment. Look at the vacant lot, the exit/entrance and where her body was found. If she was abducted from the vacant lot then why wouldn't the abductor just drive out of the neighboor as the exit is right there? Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn around in the lot and exit the neighborhood, rather than driving ALL the way around and spending more time risking been seen?

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

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.

We know nothing.

Based on the evidence, it is a strong assumption that she fell from a vehicle, vs was hit by a vehicle.. Because, if she was hit, in general, there would be lower extremity injuries consistent with being hit by a vehicle.

However.. It still remains, due to the fact that none of us were there, we do not "know" what happened.

Your theory also relies on the mother being truthful. or.. What we've been told about what she said containing all the information.

Let's just say she last saw her waking the opposite direction.. Then looked down to check the mail for 15 to 30 seconds.

She's being honest. She last saw her walking the opposite direction.. But, there was, perhaps, plenty of time for her to turn around and hop onto the back of the mothers vehicle unnoticed.

Further.. She was found the direction that the mother went. Something that I never see mentioned is.. It would seem to be quite difficult for her to wind up there and the mother not pass an abductor, if there was one. It's never mentioned that the mother or her brother mentioned passing any other vehicles on their way home.

Finally.. The timeframe. Is difficult to believe. The mother found her about 15 minutes later. We don't know the EXACT timeframe. Everything I read is 'a few minutes'.. Your theory.. Which you present as fact.. Has someone abducting her, taking her into a field where her scent is left, getting her back in the car, driving to the apex of the circle and tossing her out (or her escaping)and escaping.. All while not being seen by the mother or anyone else and no one hearing anything. AND.. Leaving no evidence whatsoever.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

I've attached the neighborhood layout from the segment. Look at the vacant lot, the exit/entrance and where her body was found. If she was abducted from the vacant lot then why wouldn't the abductor just drive out of the neighboor as the exit is right there? Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn around in the lot and exit the neighborhood, rather than driving ALL the way around and spending more time risking been seen?

That layout pretty much disproves the abduction theory.

[MegtheEgg86]

Originally Posted by freakbook

I've attached the neighborhood layout from the segment. Look at the vacant lot, the exit/entrance and where her body was found. If she was abducted from the vacant lot then why wouldn't the abductor just drive out of the neighboor as the exit is right there? Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn around in the lot and exit the neighborhood, rather than driving ALL the way around and spending more time risking been seen?

I'm glad you posted that map, because it reinforces something I saw on Katherine's profile on the official UM page in the comments section. I haven't looked to see if it's been posted in this thread somewhere earlier, but I think Robin may have referenced this particular post in his recent-ish podcast episode about the case.

I have boldened the relevant text:

Originally Posted by Tim

I lived, in Austin, when this happened, work in the music business, peripherally know the husband and am very familiar with the area where it happened. It was no secret, at the time this happened, and to those who knew Paul in the Austin music business community, that the child fell off the car and the mother knew. Not intentional, but a tragic accident. Katherine got on the back of the car and fell off. She was found on the side of the ‘circle’ that the mother and her brother drove towards the home on and way past the route Katherine would have ‘walked back’. And it was in an area where she would have been turning and Katherine was thrown from the car. As to whether the mother knew she was on the car and this was a normal “thing” that they did (coming back from the mailbox) or whether Katherine jumped on the back unbeknownst to the mother remains a mystery to those not intimately involved. However, I’ve talked to enough people that feel like they did this from time to time and it was a an occasional thing they did that just turned out horribly wrong. She went back to the house and panicked and then was the one that ‘miraculously’ found her. The private investigator brought in was to help the mother save face (in the community) and keep her from being charged with involuntary manslaughter or vehicular homicide. This wasn’t a hit-and-run or an abduction. This is a quiet, sleepy neighborhood, which at the time, was out in the middle of nowhere. These are seven figure homes in a private gated community. The whole thing about the car being too hot or her thumb in a split was a smokescreen to cast doubt and muddy the investigation. The coroner had it right. The family didn’t want the mother to go to jail for a tragic accident and fracture the family further.. Subsequently, the net effect of this was that Paul and his wife divorced not long after and he has since remarried and lives in Vancouver. He still works with Bon Jovi, the son would be a young adult now and I have no idea where the mother is. End of story.

Link to the profile page:

https://unsolved.com/gallery/katherine-korzilius/

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by freakbook

I've attached the neighborhood layout from the segment. Look at the vacant lot, the exit/entrance and where her body was found. If she was abducted from the vacant lot then why wouldn't the abductor just drive out of the neighboor as the exit is right there? Wouldn't it have been easier to just turn around in the lot and exit the neighborhood, rather than driving ALL the way around and spending more time risking been seen?

As someone who has spent years driving in these kind of Texas neighborhoods no, I draw the opposite conclusion.

If the abductor was driving counterclockwise in the loop as pictured and stopped at the field, their vehicle would be pointed counterclockwise when they continued driving if they parked on the street.

Due to the fact that empty lots typically are not readily navigable, are often separated from the street by a curb, often contain nails and other tire hazards, and are more apt to leave identifiable tire prints, its unlikely someone drove into the field. They likely parked on the street.

So if someone was already going counter clockwise would they turn around? Its certainly possible, but based on my experience of driving such neighborhoods for years, I would say not as likely as continuing to drive the circle.

First, turning around is often more time consuming and difficult than just continuing around the circular road and coming out the other exit. Depending on the width of the street, vehicles parked on it, and the turning radius of your vehicle its often not possible to do in a single maneuver, which then results in reversing in the middle of the road.

Although there are times where I do intentionally reverse in such a way, most of the time I find it easier and faster to just drive the road around to the next junction or exit without having to reverse or turn around mid street.

Second, if the perpetrator was unfamiliar with the neighborhood, they may not have realized how far the road went before another junction or exit was available. I have done this myself many times, where not knowing the road I just drove in the direction I was already going and later realizing it was a long loop around.

In terms of "risking being seen" I would say having to reverse mid street is often going to garner as much attention as just continuing to drive, especially when it is not possible to do it in a single maneuver without reversing. Cars driving by generally escape the notice of people unless something noteworthy happens, such as turning around in the middle of the road and having another car come upon you and have to stop and wait, etc.

So in short, I don't consider the proximity of the exit meaningful whatsoever in the case.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by Mike82

/\ All of this.

I would also add that a)there is ZERO evidence of any other vehicles driving on Elder Circle at the same time and b)if the abductor was hiding without a vehicle, they would have melted from the heat long before any child passed by unless they got luckier than someone winning the lottery twice.

This is a common fallacy when it comes to evidence.

"ZERO" evidence is only meaningful when there would be reason for evidence to exist in the first place.

Certain events tend to leave evidence. Burglary often leaves evidence in the form of broken glass, damaged locks, etc. Its reasonable to expect evidence of that nature in such a case.

Homicide often leaves evidence such as a body, blood, or spent shell casings. Again it is reasonable to expect such things to be found.

A vehicle driving through a residential neighborhood however does not generally leave evidence. Especially in the era this case happened which predates mass market surveillance camera systems for residences. The only "evidence" that would likely surface would be eyewitness testimony.

Several reasons exist that make this less likely. Given the season and time of day in Texas few people would be outside, and many would have their blinds drawn to reduce heat intrusion. It would also be a time that many people were not at home as was the case with the Korziliuses who themselves just recently returned home.

Finally, a vehicle driving through a residential neighborhood even under ideal circumstances often produces no notice in most people. Of all the places I've lived, only a handful of times has a vehicle passing by caught my attention. In every case, some additional factor was required for it to do so, loud operation, very late hour, unusual behavior such as stopping in the middle of the road, etc.

And above all that, the same argument cuts against the absurd LE theory, as no one came forward saying they saw a child riding on the back of an SUV freestyle, which would be far more noteworthy than a vehicle simply driving through.

Given the injuries Korzilius had being consistent with falling from a vehicle, I am 100% in agreement with you that the abductor had a vehicle which would be not at all unusual in Texas. But the fact that no one noted the vehicle is not of any real meaning.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

As someone who has spent years driving in these kind of Texas neighborhoods no, I draw the opposite conclusion.

If the abductor was driving counterclockwise in the loop as pictured and stopped at the field, their vehicle would be pointed counterclockwise when they continued driving if they parked on the street.

Due to the fact that empty lots typically are not readily navigable, are often separated from the street by a curb, often contain nails and other tire hazards, and are more apt to leave identifiable tire prints, its unlikely someone drove into the field. They likely parked on the street.

So if someone was already going counter clockwise would they turn around? Its certainly possible, but based on my experience of driving such neighborhoods for years, I would say not as likely as continuing to drive the circle.

First, turning around is often more time consuming and difficult than just continuing around the circular road and coming out the other exit. Depending on the width of the street, vehicles parked on it, and the turning radius of your vehicle its often not possible to do in a single maneuver, which then results in reversing in the middle of the road.

Although there are times where I do intentionally reverse in such a way, most of the time I find it easier and faster to just drive the road around to the next junction or exit without having to reverse or turn around mid street.

Second, if the perpetrator was unfamiliar with the neighborhood, they may not have realized how far the road went before another junction or exit was available. I have done this myself many times, where not knowing the road I just drove in the direction I was already going and later realizing it was a long loop around.

In terms of "risking being seen" I would say having to reverse mid street is often going to garner as much attention as just continuing to drive, especially when it is not possible to do it in a single maneuver without reversing. Cars driving by generally escape the notice of people unless something noteworthy happens, such as turning around in the middle of the road and having another car come upon you and have to stop and wait, etc.

So in short, I don't consider the proximity of the exit meaningful whatsoever in the case.

You keep saying "what you would do" or "you drove similar streets" but youre not thinking with the logic of a kidnapper. If the supposed kidnapper drove counter clockwise, then they would be aware at how close the exit is to the lot.

Wouldn't it make more sense to turn around in the lot and quickly exit the neighborhood, versus continuing to drive through the whole neighborhood?

You say if the driver drove counter clockwise then they wouldn't know how long another exit to the neighborhood was, but if that's the direction they drove in then they'd obviously know how close the exit was as they would have just entered the neighborhood. Why risk driving pass houses, when you can just turn around in the lot and go undetected? I

Youre entitled to your opinion, but your logic on why the kidnapper wouldn't take the closest exit from the lot doesnt make any sense. You cannot compare yourself driving normally to a kidnapper who would be trying to get the hell out of dodge

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

I'm glad you posted that map, because it reinforces something I saw on Katherine's profile on the official UM page in the comments section. I haven't looked to see if it's been posted in this thread somewhere earlier, but I think Robin may have referenced this particular post in his recent-ish podcast episode about the case.

I have boldened the relevant text:



Link to the profile page:

https://unsolved.com/gallery/katherine-korzilius/

Yeah I saw that comment a while ago when I was scrolling through the comments. But that was always my theory, because I could tell the mother was hiding something.

If Katherine hitched a ride on the back of the truck without her knowing, then why all the damage control? The P.I.; saying weird things like "she was laid out there for me to find" all pointed at her trying to escape responsibility. I found the mother extremely odd and more concerned with not being responsible than finding the truth about her daughter's death.

While it would be terrible if you were indirectly responsible for your child's death, I wouldn't look at her suspiciously if she admitted it could've been a possibility but she didn't, she did the opposite

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

This is a common fallacy when it comes to evidence.

"ZERO" evidence is only meaningful when there would be reason for evidence to exist in the first place.

Certain events tend to leave evidence. Burglary often leaves evidence in the form of broken glass, damaged locks, etc. Its reasonable to expect evidence of that nature in such a case.

Homicide often leaves evidence such as a body, blood, or spent shell casings. Again it is reasonable to expect such things to be found.

Abduction, kidnapping or assault of a child often leaves evidence, such as skin cells under the childs fingernails from where they scratched and fought trying to get away. Also often leads to noise, such as the child screaming.


Telling also is how (most) everyone else here talks about "I think this happened" or "This seems the most logical to me" while your statements go more to "This is what happened"..

[Mike82]

Originally Posted by MediaHoarder

A vehicle driving through a residential neighborhood however does not generally leave evidence. Especially in the era this case happened which predates mass market surveillance camera systems for residences. The only "evidence" that would likely surface would be eyewitness testimony.

I don't disagree but, much like the family you are muddying the water. I (or should I say most people here) are not claiming this is proof of no vehicle, but that if you casually glanced at the case you would think that there was a white van with a free candy sign spotted driving around. Nobody, including the mother reported anyone else driving on the road.

And above all that, the same argument cuts against the absurd LE theory, as no one came forward saying they saw a child riding on the back of an SUV freestyle, which would be far more noteworthy than a vehicle simply driving through.

She was only outside the car for about a minute. The key difference here is that an abductor would’ve had to drive past even more houses to reach the end of the street, and it’s extremely unlikely they could have convinced Katherine to go with them willingly in such a short time. If there had been any sort of struggle, we would expect to hear about a scream loud enough to alert neighbors, yet no one reported hearing anything, either at the time or the next day when it made the news.

There were also no defensive wounds, no signs of physical assault like choke marks, and, to my understanding, this took place in a gated community. While not exactly Fort Knox, that does significantly reduce the odds of a random person cruising through undetected.

You might call it absurd, but I see it as following the evidence to the only logical conclusion: she almost certainly fell from the bumper, suffered a head injury, and wandered off in a dazed, almost sleepwalking state — something I’ve seen firsthand with similar injuries. Eventually, she laid down and passed out. We’ve all seen plenty of examples of police or medical incompetence, but in this case, they got it right.

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by Mike82

You might call it absurd, but I see it as following the evidence to the only logical conclusion: she almost certainly fell from the bumper, suffered a head injury, and wandered off in a dazed, almost sleepwalking state — something I’ve seen firsthand with similar injuries. Eventually, she laid down and passed out. We’ve all seen plenty of examples of police or medical incompetence, but in this case, they got it right.

Why do you think she wandered?

Seems more likely to me that she fell, rolled to a stop and stayed there until her mother picked her up and took her to the hospital.

I haven't seen autopsy reports or anything, but I've always had the view that the head injury was pretty massive. One that you don't get up and walk around for a while with. Lights pretty much out immediately with death happening shortly afterwards. The only reason she didn't die there on the pavement was because she was found quickly and put on life support at the hospital.

[Mike82]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

Why do you think she wandered?

Mainly because everyone is so hung up on the "she was laid out" and "it wasnt (exactly) on the turn" claims. I am not tied to that belief and want to be clear we are talking 2-3 feet at most, not exactly a jog around the block.

I don't think it matters that much and is not really that relevant to the main point: based on all the evidence, while there are countless ways it could specifically have happened (standing, sitting, jumping, slipping), she fell off the Suburban.