ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #11

TheTruthWillOut · Sep 18, 2015

katydid23 said:
What I wrote is exactly what the sheriff said happened according to his investigation:

GGP was watching him, saw him going towards the embankment, so then GGP assumed he had found his parents, so he was surprised when they came back 10 minutes later looking for him.

Why are you saying that is not what happened?

Here is verbatim what the Sheriff said:

Upon returning [from the store in Leadore] they supposedly thought they were turning over their child over to their grandfather, the child's great grandfather, they went down to the crick which is right next to the campground and within 10-15 minutes they go up to find their child to show'em some fish in the stream and he's nowhere to be found and grandfather assumes he's gone down to them because he was within their line of sight and er wasn't too far from the campground.

ILOKAL · Sep 18, 2015

katydid23 said:
What I wrote is exactly what the sheriff said happened according to his investigation:

GGP was watching him, saw him going towards the embankment, so then GGP assumed he had found his parents, so he was surprised when they came back 10 minutes later looking for him.

Why are you saying that is not what happened?

The question to me was (in your original Post #394) . . . . "Isn't that exactly what 'they' told the sheriff?" . . . .(I took "they" to mean the parents)

I have no way of knowing "who" told the sheriff what. I don't think the sheriff indicated who told him that.

ILOKAL · Sep 18, 2015

katydid23 said:
What I wrote is exactly what the sheriff said happened according to his investigation:

GGP was watching him, saw him going towards the embankment, so then GGP assumed he had found his parents, so he was surprised when they came back 10 minutes later looking for him.

Why are you saying that is not what happened?

Your question wasn't about what the sheriff said. The question was "isn't that exactly what 'they' told the sheriff?". (your Post #394) Assuming you are referring to the parents, I don't think the sheriff stated where and from whom he got that information. Do you?

ILOKAL · Sep 18, 2015

Suthrnqt said:
Yes, it is so. That's what the Sheriff said happened.

So I don't have to keep repeating myself, please refer to my responses in Posts #427 and #428 above. Thank you.

ILOKAL · Sep 18, 2015

TheTruthWillOut said:
Here is verbatim what the Sheriff said:

Upon returning [from the store in Leadore] they supposedly thought they were turning over their child over to their grandfather, the child's great grandfather, they went down to the crick which is right next to the campground and within 10-15 minutes they go up to find their child to show'em some fish in the stream and he's nowhere to be found and grandfather assumes he's gone down to them because he was within their line of sight and er wasn't too far from the campground.

That's not what katydid123 stated in her Post #394 and Post #423 which is the post I replied to. She asked . . . . "Isn't that exactly what 'they' told the sheriff?". I took "they" to mean the parents. What she posted was a statement made BY THE SHERIFF and he didn't give a source IIRC.

What you have posted is what "they" (the parents) said happened in their interview and in the sheriff's statement as you have posted. Nothing whatsoever about the embankment as was stated in katydid123's Post #394 and Post #423. I hope that is clear. The sheriff, NOT "they" (the parents) made the comment about GGPA and the embankment though I don't believe he allowed who the source was for that information, IIRC.

ILOKAL · Sep 18, 2015

kammiemc said:
Thanks. I hope that the PI will come through with his sentiments by showing the reenactment with all of its participants (even if there are stand-ins.) Videos are easy enough to take these days. He could do it and put it out on youtube or one of the FB pages quite easily even if the newscast didn't pick it up. (And if SM is where the parents are being questioned, that would be the perfect place to show the reenactment that proves they could not be involved, right?)
I am so confused by why he would do the reenactment and just state that he did it, but not show it! We are not in kindergarten.

I don't know if Vilt would need LE permission to publish the re-enactment. I say this because a deputy was to have been present and we don't know how or why that came to be. Was LE asked to attend? Did LE ASK to attend? Did LE also want this re-enactment? Who or what (production company?) filmed the re-enactment? We don't know who has rights to or authority over the re-enactment and if something's in place that would prevent Vilt from publishing it. JMO

TheTruthWillOut · Sep 18, 2015

ILOKAL said:
That's not what katydid123 stated in her Post #394 and Post #423 which is the post I replied to. She asked . . . . "Isn't that exactly what 'they' told the sheriff?". I took "they" to mean the parents. What she posted was a statement made BY THE SHERIFF and he didn't give a source IIRC.

What you have posted is what "they" (the parents) said happened in their interview and in the sheriff's statement as you have posted. Nothing whatsoever about the embankment as was stated in katydid123's Post #394 and Post #423. I hope that is clear. The sheriff, NOT "they" (the parents) made the comment about GGPA and the embankment though I don't believe he allowed who the source was for that information, IIRC.

I'm a bit confused about your post but anyway...I don't think there is a need to be so semantic/anal about exact words otherwise I could state katydid123 said no such thing!

What posters have said have the basic facts and sequence of events correct, even if not exact words, to the best of their knowledge to what is known/have been told. It doesn't help when MSM articles constantly change and edit articles and get things wrong.

I'm a bit alarmed that you believe the Sheriff didn't give a source of his information. As he wasn't there when whatever happened, happened then I think it is safe to say the info came from one of, or a combination of, all four adults present. Maybe you could expand on this point?

alexwood · Sep 18, 2015

ILOKAL said:
I assume this is merely your opinion, yet you have stated it as fact.

:shame:

wondering25 · Sep 18, 2015

thepinkdragon said:
If GGP was so medically fragile with dementia and on oxygen, why on earth would he be driving a Suburban and hauling a camper? I call BS on how sick he supposedly is. In fact, I call BS on their entire story. MOO

So because of the sheriff's statement that GGP is in declining physical and mental health, IMO he is not a reliable witness. It would appear his story has changed several times. I can tell you that just because someone is out and about and on oxygen they can still drive. Wearing oxygen in and of itself is not a deterrent . What sometimes happens is that when their oxygen needs increase and they are (say at a higher elevation like the campsite was) the normal liter flow of oxygen they usually use may have to be adjusted. This may have affected his judgment or this may be an ongoing thing and he is just failing slowly. I do wonder if the reenactment was filmed at all? While i do not find the PI particularly helpful to my agenda which is to try to piece things together and get at the truth, he is a former LE officer and is looking to approach this puzzle in a different way..JMO.

Since the PI has come on the scene, LE seems to have responded to him in the media. ..Right now, LE is asking for all tips to go to them. IMO only, the PI may have uncovered something, may be making LE rethink some things, and may even be making LE look deficient in some area.

IMO, the dike is leaking and LE isnt happy. Why not? If they the parents are "solid", no one is a suspect etc etc why is LE reacting at all?
IMO, perceptions by LE as it relates to this case have changed. JMO

All of this is just my opinion.

ILOKAL · Sep 18, 2015

TheTruthWillOut said:
I'm a bit confused about your post but anyway...I don't think there is a need to be so semantic/anal about exact words otherwise I could state katydid123 said no such thing!

What posters have said have the basic facts and sequence of events correct, even if not exact words, to the best of their knowledge to what is known/have been told. It doesn't help when MSM articles constantly change and edit articles and get things wrong.

I'm a bit alarmed that you believe the Sheriff didn't give a source of his information. As he wasn't there when whatever happened, happened then I think it is safe to say the info came from one of, or a combination of, all four adults present. Maybe you could expand on this point?

When the sheriff talked about the embankment he never said WHO made those statements, be it "they" (the parents), GGPA, or IR, or if the sheriff's statement is a combination of several things. He did not tell us and that was NOT the version told by the parents (the 'they' in question, IMO) OR the sheriff in each of their initial accountings. It makes a difference and is clearly not a matter of semantics. Two completely different accountings - one that is sourced and one that is not! Put any value on it that you want, but IMO, the embankment version has NEVER been attributed to the parents.

ClaireNC · Sep 18, 2015

desert-blue said:
Perhaps the FBI wasn't too pleased with the PI's announcement that GGP's coveralls and ax had been taken in for evidence. Kind of a slap in the face if you ask me.

This is the most bizarre case. I'm curious as to why the funded search has been cancelled. I'm thinking (hoping) the FBI report is imminent. MOO.

Yes, it does sound like the FBI report is imminent. With LE asking that all tips go through them and requesting the cancellation of the volunteer search it sounds like something has changed in the past week. Maybe the FBI has given a preliminary report of their findings.

O/T - general comment to all reading. WS has an Ignore button. It is a wonderful thing.

neesaki · Sep 18, 2015

bakerlady said:
:blushing: I wasn't sure if you left something out. I haven't been following as closesly as others but really it's like IR is some ghost who doesn't even seem to have been there. I don't get it! :gaah:

This raised my hinky meter when in their first interview, they didn't even mention that IR was at the camp site, as though he wasn't there. Ignoring the elephant in the room ? Did / do they think he has something to do with it?

wondering25 · Sep 18, 2015

Why does anyone think we will even be privy to the FBI report? Are these generally made public? Even if the FBI says they are clueless or they say they have no suspects at this time, why would that necessarily be divulged? Has anyone ever seen a complete FBI "report"? I have heard statements attributed to the FBI at times but i just dont think we are going to know. I foresee "It is still an open investigation" as the one and only FBI remark. JMO

Let me add.. unless an arrest is made. JMO

wondering25 · Sep 18, 2015

neesaki said:
This raised my hinky meter when in their first interview, they didn't even mention that IR was at the camp site, as though he wasn't there. Ignoring the elephant in the room ?

The fact that JM saw a suspicious older man with white/gray hair leering at her son in the store makes me think that she has pointed her fears in that direction and already knows IR was not/could not have been involved in the baby's disappearance. JMO

Dee10 · Sep 18, 2015

This is my take on the coveralls & axe: The FBI didn't come come into town until weeks later. I think that LE confiscated those and other items in the beginning (just in case) then the when the Sheriff said the direction of the investigation changed and he called in the FBI he gave those items to the FBI for testing as well as the interviews etc.

I do believe the PI is doing everything he can to create reasonable doubt in case there should be any charges. He was formerly a US Marshall & I have no doubt he knew what he was doing when he dropped that tidbit of information. IMO he's throwing spaghetti at the wall to confuse & see what sticks. This case really reminds me of the "Baby Lisa" case; smoke & mirrors come to mind.

kammiemc · Sep 18, 2015

Dee10 said:
This is my take on the coveralls & axe: The FBI didn't come come into town until weeks later. I think that LE confiscated those and other items in the beginning (just in case) then the when the Sheriff said the direction of the investigation changed and he called in the FBI he gave those items to the FBI for testing as well as the interviews etc.

I do believe the PI is doing everything he can to create reasonable doubt in case there should be any charges. He was formerly a US Marshall & I have no doubt he knew what he was doing when he dropped that tidbit of information. IMO he's throwing spaghetti at the wall to confuse & see what sticks. This case really reminds me of the "Baby Lisa" case; smoke & mirrors come to mind.

Great post!

neesaki · Sep 18, 2015

wondering25 said:
The fact that JM saw a suspicious older man with white/gray hair leering at her son in the store makes me think that she has pointed her fears in that direction and already knows IR was not/could not have been involved in the baby's disappearance. JMO

But if there really is a man such as this that took Deorr, how did he know where Deorr was and how would he have had access to him, considering the remoteness of their location ? Maybe this was their line of thinking at the time, just speculation and JMO.

iluvmua · Sep 18, 2015

neesaki said:
But if there really is a man such as this that took Deorr, how did he know where Deorr was and how would he have had access to him, considering the remoteness of their location ? Maybe this was their line of thinking at the time, just speculation and JMO.

I believe LE when they say an abduction did not take place.

wondering25 · Sep 18, 2015

neesaki said:
But if there really is a man such as this that took Deorr, how did he know where Deorr was and how would he have had access to him, considering the remoteness of their location ? Maybe this was their line of thinking at the time, just speculation and JMO.

No, my point was about IR. JM apparently has not focused on any of the POI and has focused on abduction from the beginning..most recently the leering man. Therefore, those who question IR's possible involvement might need to understand that JM (who was at the campsite) has already dismissed IR as a possible suspect. JMO

Originally Posted by neesaki

This raised my hinky meter when in their first interview, they didn't even mention that IR was at the camp site, as though he wasn't there. Ignoring the elephant in the room ?"

edited to add the post i was really responding to above

eileenhawkeye · Sep 18, 2015

Dee10 said:
This is my take on the coveralls & axe: The FBI didn't come come into town until weeks later. I think that LE confiscated those and other items in the beginning (just in case) then the when the Sheriff said the direction of the investigation changed and he called in the FBI he gave those items to the FBI for testing as well as the interviews etc.

I do believe the PI is doing everything he can to create reasonable doubt in case there should be any charges. He was formerly a US Marshall & I have no doubt he knew what he was doing when he dropped that tidbit of information. IMO he's throwing spaghetti at the wall to confuse & see what sticks. This case really reminds me of the "Baby Lisa" case; smoke & mirrors come to mind.

I feel like the reasonable doubt the PI is creating only works now because we would have not heard anything about the prosecution's (hypothetical) case. I think they would need evidence that Deorr was murdered to arrest the parents, and I don't know how easily they could find that, without finding Deorr. I think one difficulty could be if they found evidence that Deorr was harmed at his house, but both GGP and the friend insist that he was at the campground. However, the prosecution might be able to get past that during cross-examination. Is the jury going to believe IR and GGP over forensic evidence? Who knows...But I could see the case coming down to that. Sadly, there's been people convicted due to only eyewitness testimony, where the witness is like the most unreliable person and has an IQ of 5 and wasn't even in the area when the crime happened.

ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #11

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics