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

[pepelepolecat]

So is the assumption that text is wrong and the author made a mistake by specifying morning? I guess it wouldn't be the first time.

This article says morning, but I'm going to guess it's an error, then. How on earth is any new source to be relied upon if they cannot get details correct? It may seem minor, but all these minor mistakes (wrong timeline, wrong time of day, announcing the discovery of the wrong toddler, etc.) are really adding up.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/kunz-family-reenacts-toddlers-disappearance/35281146

 

[ILOKAL]

This article says morning, but I'm going to guess it's an error, then. How on earth is any new source to be relied upon if they cannot get details correct? It may seem minor, but all these minor mistakes (wrong timeline, wrong time of day, announcing the discovery of the wrong toddler, etc.) are really adding up.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/kunz-family-reenacts-toddlers-disappearance/35281146

When looking for the truth, faith can help fill in the gaps. I know it works for me

 

[Little Ol Me]

I do wonder what was the point of it all. 2 minutes of video with a reporter's voiceover mainly.
I thought reenactments were to go through the whole event with everyone (or subs) there doing what they were doing at the time.

Is it possible any more video will be made public?
I don't have any faith in this PI at all. Seemed a pointless waste of time. IMO.

I doubt that the reenactment will be made available to the public.
I doubt it was a waste of time to the P.I, the parents, or L.E. (that attended). I would think that it was helpful to all of them, in some way or another.
Plus, it did receive media attention, which is a plus for Deorr Jr.

 

[jessie]

The clip didn't show the re-enactment. Everyone was seated at the picnic table when the clip was being taped.

Oh I see. I quite misunderstood the purpose of that piece of tape then.

Is it likely the whole thing was videod ? Would it be considered unofficial or official. ?

 

[ILOKAL]

Oh I see. I quite misunderstood the purpose of that piece of tape then.

Is it likely the whole thing was videod ? Would it be considered unofficial or official. ?

The clip was merely a piece of local news pertaining to this case.

 

[rkf]

I think you're having some technical difficulties. The post of mine that you responded to with your post (copied above) is actually in response to a post by eileenhawkeye (which was stated as fact rather than as opinion, IMO) and had nothing to do with what you are posting.

Maybe you should check with the mods to see if they can offer you some assistance.

IIRC, your response to Eileen said it was her opinion, stated as fact, that this maneuvering was PR, aimed at removing suspicion from the parents (paraphrasing). My post is just showing that the PI stated his purpose for conducting the re-enactment was to show the parents had nothing to do with DeOrr's disappearance.

Thank you for trying to help me. I am still catching up on the thread, so I may have responded before seeing your explanation.

 

[gliving]

For easy reference:

[video=youtube;CzGrVTYrzb8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzGrVTYrzb8[/video]

 

[ILOKAL]

IIRC, your response to Eileen said it was her opinion, stated as fact, that this maneuvering was PR, aimed at removing suspicion from the parents (paraphrasing). My post is just showing that the PI stated his purpose for conducting the re-enactment was to show the parents had nothing to do with DeOrr's disappearance.

Thank you for trying to help me. I am still catching up on the thread, so I may have responded before seeing your explanation.

IMO, eileenhawkeye's post was not quoting anyone and as I stated in my reply to her, it read as "fact" when it actually was her "opinion". You copied and pasted "my" reply to her but your post wasn't a reply to my post. That's the way it appeared to me and I wanted to make sure that in doing so my post didn't take on some unintended meaning. Thanks for your reply.

 

[MistyM]

You know neesaki, I watched the clip of the re-enactment and I'm not even sure that Vilt said that's what GGPA did. I wish someone who also saw it and listened would chime in. Vilt said a few things and the rest was the reporter. I think maybe the demonstration about stepping inside the camper was not a part of the re-enactment but was just a way to prove if someone (GGPA in this case) took their eyes off a child (not by going inside the camper) even for such a short time that the child could be abducted just that fast.

the only thing i noticed that was weird was vilt said "i'm positive the parents did NOT have NOTHING to do with his disappearance" which can be taken in a bad way. i'm sure it was a slip of grammar though.

on the video at 1:30ish

 

[kammiemc]

This article says morning, but I'm going to guess it's an error, then. How on earth is any new source to be relied upon if they cannot get details correct? It may seem minor, but all these minor mistakes (wrong timeline, wrong time of day, announcing the discovery of the wrong toddler, etc.) are really adding up.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/kunz-family-reenacts-toddlers-disappearance/35281146

I agree. The basics of the timeline of when a toddler went missing (morning vs afternoon) isn't minor and I don't even see how the author could have assumed that based on the very obvious conflicting information unless he/she heard differently directly from the PI. If the article was written just based on watching the video that's pretty sloppy and not doing the parents any favors. The PI should make sure the article is updated to be accurate to what he said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Suthrnqt]

The PI didn't misspeak, and he didn't say "morning". Neither did the reporter.

:bump:

 

[ILOKAL]

the only thing i noticed that was weird was vilt said "i'm positive the parents did NOT have NOTHING to do with his disappearance" which can be taken in a bad way. i'm sure it was a slip of grammar though.

on the video at 1:30ish

Are you SERIOUS?!

 

[Arnie M]

The noses looked similar in one photo, but I think DeOrr's ears protrude more than the California child. After seeing the photo, the dad said he was waiting to hear from LE if it was his son. ??? The cousin said it was DeOrr. So sad.

DeOrr's ears protrude more from his head. You can't see the CA boy's right ear, but I think if it was DeOrr, you would be able to see part of it, even from that angle. Also, the CA boy's ears seem to be higher on his head than DeOrr's. There are a lot of similarities otherwise, though. JMO.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion , the right ear is not visible on the California Mystery child , and the left one is covered by the phone

But anyway , I spent a lot of time comparing the pictures , esp the 4 on facebook , and those two kids are like twins.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Thank you, thank you, thank you Bessie! I wonder how far this "mistake" (on the part of posters) will run based on the giant legs it has so quickly grown?!

"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on."

 

[pepelepolecat]

the only thing i noticed that was weird was vilt said "i'm positive the parents did NOT have NOTHING to do with his disappearance" which can be taken in a bad way. i'm sure it was a slip of grammar though.

on the video at 1:30ish

Yes, I think it's safe to say that was a grammatical error. I hear an awful lot of people use a double negative for emphasis, so I rather assume that's what he was doing.

 

[pepelepolecat]

I agree. The basics of the timeline of when a toddler went missing (morning vs afternoon) isn't minor and I don't even see how the author could have assumed that based on the very obvious conflicting information unless he/she heard differently directly from the PI. If the article was written just based on watching the video that's pretty sloppy and not doing the parents any favors. The PI should make sure the article is updated to be accurate to what he said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I don't think it's minor either, but I can see how some people might think so. And yes, it definitely needs to be corrected. I realize that many people simply watch the video, but that's not possible for everyone, so the accounts both need to be accurate and properly done.

 

[neesaki]

the only thing i noticed that was weird was vilt said "i'm positive the parents did NOT have NOTHING to do with his disappearance" which can be taken in a bad way. i'm sure it was a slip of grammar though.

on the video at 1:30ish

He just used a double negative, bad grammar but not that uncommon, lol.

 

[Mickshawn]

Are you SERIOUS?!

OK...I just listened to Vilt's sentence about 5 times and what I heard was:

"I'm positive his parents had...uh... nothing to do with his disappearance."

 

[neesaki]

One, two, three, check. Just seeing if this will post, Anyone else having problems posting? :waitasec:

 

[ILOKAL]

OK...I just listened to Vilt's sentence about 5 times and what I heard was:

"I'm positive his parents had...uh... nothing to do with his disappearance."

Figures! Thank you Mick.