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

[TxJan1971]

I'm trying my best here to not be so speculative of the parents . But yes, I agree with you. He was going to say 50 minutes. I think as a parent, I'd be stating a concrete time. 50 yds is hardly a measure a time, and it certainly doesn't take 10 minutes to walk 50 yds.



As stated above, I'm trying not to point fingers at the parents, so I'm doing my best to come up with any logical answer. I too think she says about an hour. I've stated all along IMO they were gone longer than 10 minutes and were more than 50 yds away. I'm 50/50 on whether GGP knew he was supposed to be watching Deorr. Strangely, it was the interview with IR that really made me question whether this was a simple accident or if something more sinister happened.

BBM

Based on the Sheriff's statements below, IMO, GGP knew:

4:58
Sheriff Bowerman:

“Ya’ know, personally, I think an abduction is one of the least likely events. Primarily, the information we have is…grandpa is watching the child. He tells me he looks away momentarily. When he looks back, he’s gone, and he’s assumed he’s gone over the bank. Right where grandpa is sitting, he’s within 20-30 yards of the only roadway into the campground, and absolutely no one was seen at that lower campground coming or going, and when my personnel went in, nobody was seen leaving, so I think it, You know, I mean I can’t completely rule it out, but it’s one of the least likely things that occurred.”

 

[Purplepixii]

Does anyone remember the Shannon Matthews case in the UK? I do - being from the UK the story was all over the news here. Shannon was never actually missing, she was hidden, and this was planned by Shannon's mum in order to gain money from the publicity. For some reason a comparison between the Matthews case and this case popped into my head during the early hours this morning when I couldn't get to sleep. It went something along the lines of: is a great way to raise money. When I awoke this morning and was revisiting this case I came across the Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository - it makes for interesting reading.

Note: I am not implying anything, just think this scenario is just as likely than many others I've read on here, if not more so.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Where did you read or hear that the parents lied? The sheriff didn't EVER say that in his interview nor did he make an insinuation. To me it sounded like the detectives/investigators made the omission and then found out their own mistake and corrected it.

Does anyone remember the Shannon Matthews case in the UK? I do - being from the UK the story was all over the news here. Shannon was never actually missing, she was hidden, and this was planned by Shannon's mum in order to gain money from the publicity. For some reason a comparison between the Matthews case and this case popped into my head during the early hours this morning when I couldn't get to sleep. It went something along the lines of: is a great way to raise money. When I awoke this morning and was revisiting this case I came across the Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository - it makes for interesting reading.

Note: I am not implying anything, just think this scenario is just as likely than many others I've read on here, if not more so.

It would certainly be among the best-case scenarios. Something like this offers the best possible chance of DeOrr being not just alive but well cared for as well.

 

[kammiemc]

Where did you read or hear that the parents lied? The sheriff didn't EVER say that in his interview nor did he make an insinuation. To me it sounded like the detectives/investigators made the omission and then found out their own mistake and corrected it.

I have no intention of arguing that the parents lied or produce sources to support that because we don't know that to be true. What we do know is the sheriff would have wanted to know when the parents first arrived at the campsite (detective work 101) and the info he received, presumably from the parents--who else would he ask when they are the ones that called 911 to report their child missing) was that they arrived Fri. He only found out they arrived Thurs later, through his investigation.
Like I said, VERY CLEARLY, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did NOT lie. However, that is one possibility.
I am having trouble following your sentences about LE omitting something then clarifying later so I can't really respond to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

The mom's FB post was from July 31st, so 2.5 weeks before LE verified the arrival date. She said they arrived Thursday at 9:30 pm (21:30).

Thanks. I've just gone back to check and see I was conflating the arrival time with the Truck Stop visit....(slaps wrist!)

<modsnip>

 

[katydid23]

BBM

Based on the Sheriff's statements below, IMO, GGP knew:

4:58
Sheriff Bowerman:

&#8220;Ya&#8217; know, personally, I think an abduction is one of the least likely events. Primarily, the information we have is&#8230;grandpa is watching the child. He tells me he looks away momentarily. When he looks back, he&#8217;s gone, and he&#8217;s assumed he&#8217;s gone over the bank. Right where grandpa is sitting, he&#8217;s within 20-30 yards of the only roadway into the campground, and absolutely no one was seen at that lower campground coming or going, and when my personnel went in, nobody was seen leaving, so I think it, You know, I mean I can&#8217;t completely rule it out, but it&#8217;s one of the least likely things that occurred.&#8221;

That ^^^ is what i just do not understand and it makes my head explode. If GGP saw the boy heading towards the bank, and assumed he had gone over it to the running water, then why the heck didnt he do something? He sees a 2 yr old heading for the creek, all alone and he does nothing about it? That REALLY bothers me. I don't understand it at all.

 

[kammiemc]

LE possibly found out when we did. When Mum posted the arrival time on FB (21:38 IIRC?)

Can't remember what date that was.

I have a feeling LE found out the correct arrival date when they investigated the few gas/diesel stations along the route from Idaho Falls to Leadore--or by simply asking for the parents last bank/cc transactions. However, they might have also found out by interviewing other family members about the logistics of the trip. IMO. No, I don't have sources. It's just a possibility that I am open to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

That ^^^ is what i just do not understand and it makes my head explode. If GGP saw the boy heading towards the bank, and assumed he had gone over it to the running water, then why the heck didnt he do something? He sees a 2 yr old heading for the creek, all alone and he does nothing about it? That REALLY bothers me. I don't understand it at all.

Me, too.

Some possibilities:

1. Never happened
2. Parents WERE right there and ggp saw them see DeOrr go over the embankment
3. Ggp was incapacitated by deteriorating mental health (though the family says no dementia), IQ or substance, so he couldn't process what was happening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DexterMorgan]

Y'all do realize that 50 yards away in the woods or campsite can be different than 50 yards on a open football field.

Even your child being 50 yards away from you in Toys R Us is bad due to it being 50 yards of an obstructed view rather than an open view 50 yards that you can clearly see in a open field.

So were the 50 yards obstructed by trees, boulders, hills and wilderness? Or were they simply 50 yards away with a clear open view of him?

 

[SweetT]

That ^^^ is what i just do not understand and it makes my head explode. If GGP saw the boy heading towards the bank, and assumed he had gone over it to the running water, then why the heck didnt he do something? He sees a 2 yr old heading for the creek, all alone and he does nothing about it? That REALLY bothers me. I don't understand it at all.

My understanding from what I've seen and read etc is that the parents started to leave the camp site..ggpa was not ASKED to watch the baby. The parents started to walk off and while they were still in eye site the baby followed. GGPA did not assume the baby fell into the creek but that he caught up with mom and dad. What did mom and dad do after going over the edge that they wouldnt have noticed the baby right behind them is my question.. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

Y'all do realize that 50 yards away in the woods or campsite can be different than 50 yards on a open football field.

Even your child being 50 yards away from you in Toys R Us is bad due to it being 50 yards of an obstructed view rather than an open view 50 yards that you can clearly see in a open field.

So were the 50 yards obstructed by trees, boulders, hills and wilderness? Or were they simply 50 yards away with a clear open view of him?

They had to have an obstructed view because at the end they were allegedly looking at minnows in the creek. So they were down the embankment a that time Which would have been right around the same time that GGP says that the baby went over the bank towards the creek. So I find that odd.

 

[katydid23]

My understanding from what I've seen and read etc is that the parents started to leave the camp site..ggpa was not ASKED to watch the baby. The parents started to walk off and while they were still in eye site the baby followed. GGPA did not assume the baby fell into the creek but that he caught up with mom and dad. What did mom and dad do after going over the edge that they wouldnt have noticed the baby right behind them is my question.. JMO.

Good question.

 

[katydid23]

My understanding from what I've seen and read etc is that the parents started to leave the camp site..ggpa was not ASKED to watch the baby. The parents started to walk off and while they were still in eye site the baby followed. GGPA did not assume the baby fell into the creek but that he caught up with mom and dad. What did mom and dad do after going over the edge that they wouldnt have noticed the baby right behind them is my question.. JMO.

If it is true that they walked off without asking GGP to watch the child---then that's straight up NEGLECT on their part. And that may be why GGP is not speaking publicly, nor is anyone else.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Does anyone remember the Shannon Matthews case in the UK? I do - being from the UK the story was all over the news here. Shannon was never actually missing, she was hidden, and this was planned by Shannon's mum in order to gain money from the publicity. For some reason a comparison between the Matthews case and this case popped into my head during the early hours this morning when I couldn't get to sleep. It went something along the lines of: is a great way to raise money. When I awoke this morning and was revisiting this case I came across the Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository - it makes for interesting reading.

Note: I am not implying anything, just think this scenario is just as likely than many others I've read on here, if not more so.

I feel like if the parents were just hiding Deorr, they would be all over the media. More media would usually equal more money. i feel like parents who pull a hoax like that would be narcisstic, entitled, attention-starved, and think they are invinicble. They would be making a huge hoopla over Deorr's disappearence if it was a hoax, IMO.

 

[SweetT]

If it is true that they walked off without asking GGP to watch the child---then that's straight up NEGLECT on their part. And that may be why GGP is not speaking publicly, nor is anyone else.

This has been my thought all along. They used GGPA as a scape goat. I think they were more afraid of neglect charges than giving accurate info to find their child. When in all honesty, more than likely no neglect charges would have been filed anyway..but I think the story, and timeline are skewed somewhat due to this. I've often wondered if they didnt go down there and smoke a little weed/make out etc. They knew it would look far worse if a little weed were involved, would also make you lose track of time. (Plus its illegal and possible charges for that.) Not saying that for sure is what happened but I have wondered. JMO

 

[ILOKAL]

I have no intention of arguing that the parents lied or produce sources to support that because we don't know that to be true. What we do know is the sheriff would have wanted to know when the parents first arrived at the campsite (detective work 101) and the info he received, presumably from the parents--who else would he ask when they are the ones that called 911 to report their child missing) was that they arrived Fri. He only found out they arrived Thurs later, through his investigation.
Like I said, VERY CLEARLY, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did NOT lie. However, that is one possibility.
I am having trouble following your sentences about LE omitting something then clarifying later so I can't really respond to that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

<modsnip>

It seems as though the sheriff may have made an assumption on when they arrived and when the detectives re-interviewed the parents the ERROR was discovered. As to when some on the forum found out from the grandmother's FB, that wasn't even until three weeks (21-days) after little Deorr disappeared. I don't think we can nor should conclude that the incorrect arrival date was due to misinformation provided by the parents, nor do we have reason to believe the parents even realized the wrong information was out there. Seems to me they had much more on their emotional plate that would prevent them from even caring about something that had absolutely nothing to do with when and why their little boy disappeared. All IMO, of course.

 

[TxJan1971]

Just to refresh:

Nate Eaton:
“Let’s go back to the beginning. Can you kind of give us a timeline as to when the family arrived and what proceeded?”

Sheriff Bowerman:
“Well, the family, from what I understand, that we learned during the investigation arrived the evening prior to July 10th, sometime fairly close to dark on Thursday, July 9th, and then, uh, they went to uh…went to town in uh Leadore and upon returning they supposedly thought they were turning their child over to their uh, grandfather – the child’s great-grandfather. They went down to the creek which is right next to the campground, and within 10 to 15 minutes they go up to find their child to show him some fish in the stream and he’s nowhere to be found. Grandfather assumes he’s gone down to them because he was within their line of sight and uh, wasn’t too far from the campground. Uh, they started their initial search and eventually called 911 when they realized they couldn’t find the child. “

Nate Eaton:
1:05
“Where was Mr. Renwand during all of this?”

Sheriff Bowerman:
1:08
(Using his hands to demonstrate)
“He was in the same general proximity. The creek…it’s just over the bank. Um, he’s downstream, they’re upstream. Uh, they’re all within probably (head nodding left to right) 100 to 150 feet of each other. “

Nate Eaton:
“Very close proximity.”

Sheriff Bowerman:
“Very close.”

 

[DexterMorgan]

So they want us to believe that they expected ggp to keep up with a 2 year old in the wilderness while wearing a oxygen tank?

Did they sit the boy down with milk and cookies and told him to stay here with ggp until we get back.

And to all who say that they let their guard down because of them being at a campsite and the wilderness; I say bull crap. Since it's easier to get lost in the wilderness than any where else.

Jmo

 

[Mickshawn]

Does anyone remember the Shannon Matthews case in the UK? I do - being from the UK the story was all over the news here. Shannon was never actually missing, she was hidden, and this was planned by Shannon's mum in order to gain money from the publicity. For some reason a comparison between the Matthews case and this case popped into my head during the early hours this morning when I couldn't get to sleep. It went something along the lines of: is a great way to raise money. When I awoke this morning and was revisiting this case I came across the Idaho Supreme Court Data Repository - it makes for interesting reading.

Note: I am not implying anything, just think this scenario is just as likely than many others I've read on here, if not more so.

Wow, that is really an interesting thought.

 

[SweetT]

Just to refresh:

Nate Eaton:
&#8220;Let&#8217;s go back to the beginning. Can you kind of give us a timeline as to when the family arrived and what proceeded?&#8221;

Sheriff Bowerman:
&#8220;Well, the family, from what I understand, that we learned during the investigation arrived the evening prior to July 10th, sometime fairly close to dark on Thursday, July 9th, and then, uh, they went to uh&#8230;went to town in uh Leadore and upon returning they supposedly thought they were turning their child over to their uh, grandfather &#8211; the child&#8217;s great-grandfather. They went down to the creek which is right next to the campground, and within 10 to 15 minutes they go up to find their child to show him some fish in the stream and he&#8217;s nowhere to be found. Grandfather assumes he&#8217;s gone down to them because he was within their line of sight and uh, wasn&#8217;t too far from the campground. Uh, they started their initial search and eventually called 911 when they realized they couldn&#8217;t find the child. &#8220;

Nate Eaton:
1:05
&#8220;Where was Mr. Renwand during all of this?&#8221;

Sheriff Bowerman:
1:08
(Using his hands to demonstrate)
&#8220;He was in the same general proximity. The creek&#8230;it&#8217;s just over the bank. Um, he&#8217;s downstream, they&#8217;re upstream. Uh, they&#8217;re all within probably (head nodding left to right) 100 to 150 feet of each other. &#8220;

Nate Eaton:
&#8220;Very close proximity.&#8221;

Sheriff Bowerman:
&#8220;Very close.&#8221;

Both these bolded statements tell me that they ASSUMED never asked GGPA to watch their child. GGPA saw the baby go after them while they were still in eye sight. These 2 were neglectful and they know it. Which is why I feel some of the story is made up to make it seem less than what it was. JMO I feel sorry for them, it was a stupid mistake to assume someone else was watching your child but I still feel they were worried about neglect charges. Unfortunately their neglect is what caused them to lose track of their son. again JMO