Katherine Korzilius

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by Mike82

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.

Ok.. The picture I have had in my head is that she was likely standing on the back bumper, fell backwards and hit the back of her head on the pavement. Fractured her skull.. bleeding and swelling.. Lights out, party over.

Obviously, yes, other ways. She could have been sitting on the bumper and slid off sort of sideways.. But the back of the head hit is usually more apt to happen.. Falling in other ways usually has some built in protection for the head (Falling on your side, the head has the distance between shoulder and ground, falling face first, the hands and arms usually instinctively come up to protect the head), and seeing as the speeds would have been relatively low in the neighborhood.. Backwards fall is what makes the most sense to me.

[mikewho]

Ive gone back and forth on this one and it seems that there's not much evidence for one way over the other. Im still as confused to what happened now.

As of 2025 if I had to choose, I'd guess she most likely was riding on the back or the suburban and fell off, but that's just a guess. I used to feel more like an attempted abduction but there's very little evidence to prove one way or another which is sad

[Mike82]

I just re-read this entire thread and rewatched the segment now that my son is about to surpass Katherine in age (where does the time go??). It’s interesting to see how the general mood here has shifted over the years from “definite abduction” to “almost certainly accidental fall.” I keep bringing up the recent surge in interest around the Amy Bradley case because the two situations share a lot: the leading theory lacks a smoking gun, but the circumstantial evidence points strongly in one direction, while the alternatives have little to no supporting evidence despite how many people still cling to them.

While the kidnapping theory may look plausible on the surface, I just don’t see how anyone can still support it. For it to be true, all of the following would have to happen:

• A kidnapper would have to attempt a stranger abduction of a young child: something that is exceedingly rare. Even hardened criminals usually won’t approach a small child, and there’s no evidence of serial predators or similar offenders in the area at the time.
• They would need to repeatedly sneak into Elder Circle (a gated community) to learn the routine or get extremely lucky. It wasn’t the kind of place you could loiter all day without drawing attention—from the heat or from the police.
• They’d have to go completely undetected by the entire neighborhood (no reports of suspicious people or vehicles) and somehow convince a 6-year-old—who almost certainly had “the talk”—to get into a vehicle quietly and without resistance.
• They’d need to plan a high-risk abduction only to be either overpowered by a small child who jumped or suddenly change their mind within seconds and push her out.
• They’d have to be a criminal on the level of an Oba Chandler, yet still care enough to “lay her out” so she could be found and helped—dramatically increasing their own chances of being caught.
• They would have to leave behind no defensive wounds and no unexplained injuries.
• They would need to have kept this secret for 30 years without confessing, bragging, slipping up, or being implicated. It’s hard to believe someone who abducts a child would be a one-and-done offender with lifelong silence.

For this hypothetical kidnapper to exist, we’re talking about someone with astronomically good luck. And honestly, the only reason the theory (and the so-called “Private Investigator”) ever got traction is because no knowledgeable critic was given a chance to challenge her claims. Any competent detective or scientist would have dismantled her “airtight facts” without breaking a sweat. I’m no fan of law enforcement either, but it’s telling that they didn’t participate in the segment—because they know it’s an evidence-free theory.

Years ago in this thread, I shared a video of a shackled adult prisoner hanging onto a similar bumper at highway speeds and escaping custody for several hours. Someone else pointed out a Rescue 911 episode where a girl Katherine’s age did the same thing for nearly 30 minutes. Yet some people still insist it’s impossible for a 6-year-old to hop onto a large bumper without being noticed.

At this point and after all these years, I just don’t see how it could be anything other than falling from the vehicle (almost certainly from the bumper) because every alternative requires just as much bad luck, perfect timing, and implausible circumstances.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Mike82

At this point and after all these years, I just don’t see how it could be anything other than falling from the vehicle (almost certainly from the bumper) because every alternative requires just as much bad luck, perfect timing, and implausible circumstances.

Nice post.

What sealed it for me was that her parents initially accepted the hit and run theory (as did the police) and the cops were pursuing leads trying to find a suspect. Which would mean they would have been canvassing the neighborhood asking neighbors about any suspicious looking people or vehicles that were in the area the day Katherine died. But when the medical examiner ruled that her injuries were not consistent with being hit by a car but rather falling, jumping, or being thrown from a moving vehicle and the cops backed off the hit and run theory, the obvious conclusion was inescapable: she fell off of her mother's car and died tragically. Katherine was found on the same route her mother drove home. I mean what is there to speculate at this point?

[Labonte18]

Originally Posted by Mike82

I just re-read this entire thread and rewatched the segment now that my son is about to surpass Katherine in age (where does the time go??). It’s interesting to see how the general mood here has shifted over the years from “definite abduction” to “almost certainly accidental fall.” I keep bringing up the recent surge in interest around the Amy Bradley case because the two situations share a lot: the leading theory lacks a smoking gun, but the circumstantial evidence points strongly in one direction, while the alternatives have little to no supporting evidence despite how many people still cling to them.

While the kidnapping theory may look plausible on the surface, I just don’t see how anyone can still support it. For it to be true, all of the following would have to happen:

• A kidnapper would have to attempt a stranger abduction of a young child: something that is exceedingly rare. Even hardened criminals usually won’t approach a small child, and there’s no evidence of serial predators or similar offenders in the area at the time.
• They would need to repeatedly sneak into Elder Circle (a gated community) to learn the routine or get extremely lucky. It wasn’t the kind of place you could loiter all day without drawing attention—from the heat or from the police.
• They’d have to go completely undetected by the entire neighborhood (no reports of suspicious people or vehicles) and somehow convince a 6-year-old—who almost certainly had “the talk”—to get into a vehicle quietly and without resistance.
• They’d need to plan a high-risk abduction only to be either overpowered by a small child who jumped or suddenly change their mind within seconds and push her out.
• They’d have to be a criminal on the level of an Oba Chandler, yet still care enough to “lay her out” so she could be found and helped—dramatically increasing their own chances of being caught.
• They would have to leave behind no defensive wounds and no unexplained injuries.
• They would need to have kept this secret for 30 years without confessing, bragging, slipping up, or being implicated. It’s hard to believe someone who abducts a child would be a one-and-done offender with lifelong silence.

For this hypothetical kidnapper to exist, we’re talking about someone with astronomically good luck. And honestly, the only reason the theory (and the so-called “Private Investigator”) ever got traction is because no knowledgeable critic was given a chance to challenge her claims. Any competent detective or scientist would have dismantled her “airtight facts” without breaking a sweat. I’m no fan of law enforcement either, but it’s telling that they didn’t participate in the segment—because they know it’s an evidence-free theory.

Years ago in this thread, I shared a video of a shackled adult prisoner hanging onto a similar bumper at highway speeds and escaping custody for several hours. Someone else pointed out a Rescue 911 episode where a girl Katherine’s age did the same thing for nearly 30 minutes. Yet some people still insist it’s impossible for a 6-year-old to hop onto a large bumper without being noticed.

At this point and after all these years, I just don’t see how it could be anything other than falling from the vehicle (almost certainly from the bumper) because every alternative requires just as much bad luck, perfect timing, and implausible circumstances.

I don't agree entirely with your points there.. But I do agree with the overall conclusion.

The only real question for me is.. Whether the mother knew or not.

The smoking gun for me is where she was found. She was basically at the apex of the circle. Walking home, she would have gone counter-clockwise. It was the shorter distance.

The mother went clockwise around the circle. And.. never passed another vehicle. That's massive.. Because.. For Katherine to get to the apex of the circle, going counter-clockwise.. It's just not logical that the mother wouldn't have passed either her or the abductors.

Just for the layout.. Mailboxes were at about 6 o'clock.. House was at 3 o'clock.. Mother goes clockwise.. Katherine supposedly walked counter-clockwise.. And her body was found at 12 o'clock. Roughly.

The fact that she was found along the route the mother took.. Another huge item.

At the end of the day.. I have to believe.. The mother did NOT know. Why? You bring up a very good point about people keeping their mouths shut. There were 3 people there. Katherine was dead. But the son went on to become a cop.. I don't think the mother could know without the son knowing. And.. I don't think the son stays quiet. Obviously.. He isn't talking now, because he's dead as well..

So.. I do think it's just a tragic accident.. And.. I suspect the mother was so traumatized that she couldn't accept that she could bear some responsibility.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by Labonte18

I don't agree entirely with your points there.. But I do agree with the overall conclusion.

The only real question for me is.. Whether the mother knew or not.

The smoking gun for me is where she was found. She was basically at the apex of the circle. Walking home, she would have gone counter-clockwise. It was the shorter distance.

The mother went clockwise around the circle. And.. never passed another vehicle. That's massive.. Because.. For Katherine to get to the apex of the circle, going counter-clockwise.. It's just not logical that the mother wouldn't have passed either her or the abductors.

Just for the layout.. Mailboxes were at about 6 o'clock.. House was at 3 o'clock.. Mother goes clockwise.. Katherine supposedly walked counter-clockwise.. And her body was found at 12 o'clock. Roughly.

The fact that she was found along the route the mother took.. Another huge item.

At the end of the day.. I have to believe.. The mother did NOT know. Why? You bring up a very good point about people keeping their mouths shut. There were 3 people there. Katherine was dead. But the son went on to become a cop.. I don't think the mother could know without the son knowing. And.. I don't think the son stays quiet. Obviously.. He isn't talking now, because he's dead as well..

So.. I do think it's just a tragic accident.. And.. I suspect the mother was so traumatized that she couldn't accept that she could bear some responsibility.

Oh wow, I didn't realize Katherine's brother had become a cop but has also passed away. So I looked it up, yeah, he died in 2020. It doesn't say how, but he was 31 years old, that's it. He was still in Texas, I assume his mother was as well. Unfortunately their parents split up, not sure how much longer they were together after Katherine's death, but it mentions his dad and stepmother as well. That's so sad. In 1995 that family was a classic nuclear family, mom, dad, daughter, son, a million dollar family as they call it when you have one gender of each. Then the incident with Katherine, then a divorce and then their only other child dies at 32. The whole thing is a tragedy.

I do believe that she fell off of the SUV and landed. I think her mother didn't know for sure, but might have always thought it was a chance. The guilt would overwhelm you. It obviously broke a marriage it seems.

[mwcarolina]

This is one of those cases that likely won’t ever be solved. 2 things bother me!!! 1) if she was abducted, how was no evidence left behind!!?? No one saw ANYTHING. 2) if she fell off her mom’s car, how did the mom and brother never see her body in the rear view mirrors. I don’t know about yall, but someone fell off the back of my car; I’d feel I’d notice.

I do tend more to believe (now) she fell, but it’s just a weird case