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

[neesaki]

OK here.....

Thanks, Mick and ILOKAL . Apparently all is well here too, just a weird glitch I guess. Now all I have to do is remember what it was I was trying to post, lol. :thinking:

 

[neesaki]

No, that's not what it implies. It implies she saw the man staring the morning "of" her son's disappearance. That is to say . . . . The morning of (the day) of her son's disappearance.

Yes! That's what I derived from it as well. Come to think of it, I think that's what the post I tried to post was going to say, something like that. I've been making dinner, and distracted. So, good to know it's finally been taken care of, took some doing though didn't it?

 

[cobalt sky]

Well there ya go. Thanks for the info.

Oh you're quite welcome, glad that it's cleared up for you! It was actually very simple, I just sent him an email and he responsed within minutes and corrected the article.

 

[ILOKAL]

Oh you're quite welcome, glad that it's cleared up for you! It was actually very simple, I just sent him an email and he responsed within minutes and corrected the article.

Oh, it was clear to ME from the get-go. It's always best to go directly to the source. I would have done the same if I had a question. Way to go!

 

[kammiemc]

I finally just watched the video. I really think that the PI just used a country-style double negative. I don't think he would go to all the trouble of staging a reenactment to then announce that his conclusion is that he does not think the parents had nothing to do with DeOrr's disappearance, IMO. I thought for sure if the purpose of the reenactment (as stated by the PI) was to prove that the parents weren't involved that he would want to share that reenactment with the people he was trying to prove it to. (I don't think LE will be determining anything based on a reenactment of what the POI's say happened, two months later.)

It would be like me saying I am going to stage a reenactment of me in the kitchen two months ago to show you that it was not me who took the cookie from the cookie jar, then come back to you and say that I did the reenactment and it did indeed prove it wasn't me. How does that help?

I didn't take it, btw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MzOpinion8d]

That works with what we know!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well...it works with what's been reported before, anyway. I don't feel like we "know" anything in this case really. I'm still trying to figure out how you "re-enact" an unknown event.

 

[kammiemc]

Well...it works with what's been reported before, anyway. I don't feel like we "know" anything in this case really. I'm still trying to figure out how you "re-enact" an unknown event.

Good point. We don't know much, and even the orig timeline we thought was correct was not. Facts are subject to change depending on who said it, relayed it and reported it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

I finally just watched the video. I really think that the PI just used a country-style double negative. I don't think he would go to all the trouble of staging a reenactment to then announce that his conclusion is that he does not think the parents had nothing to do with DeOrr's disappearance, IMO. I thought for sure if the purpose of the reenactment (as stated by the PI) was to prove that the parents weren't involved that he would want to share that reenactment with the people he was trying to prove it to. (I don't think LE will be determining anything based on a reenactment of what the POI's say happened, two months later.)

It would be like me saying I am going to stage a reenactment of me in the kitchen two months ago to show you that it was not me who took the cookie from the cookie jar, then come back to you and say that I did the reenactment and it did indeed prove it wasn't me. How does that help?

I didn't take it, btw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bessie posted something that said they are going over the timeline for the re-enactment. And of course LE is interested. It's no different than their interest in the witness statements and interviews. If LE wasn't interested in hearing (and seeing) what took place they wouldn't bother interviewing anyone. And surely you don't think the ONLY reason for the re-enactment is to absolve the parents, do you? (modsnip)

 

[MistyM]

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.

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

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."

I finally just watched the video. I really think that the PI just used a country-style double negative. I don't think he would go to all the trouble of staging a reenactment to then announce that his conclusion is that he does not think the parents had nothing to do with DeOrr's disappearance, IMO. I thought for sure if the purpose of the reenactment (as stated by the PI) was to prove that the parents weren't involved that he would want to share that reenactment with the people he was trying to prove it to. (I don't think LE will be determining anything based on a reenactment of what the POI's say happened, two months later.)

It would be like me saying I am going to stage a reenactment of me in the kitchen two months ago to show you that it was not me who took the cookie from the cookie jar, then come back to you and say that I did the reenactment and it did indeed prove it wasn't me. How does that help?

I didn't take it, btw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hey i'm not trying to start a rumor that the PI thinks they are guilty, just pointed out his grammatical error.

i'm sure there are 'language expert' people out there who will see that though, and run with it.

 

[jbelle]

In your opinion of course . The quote does not say the day of her son's disappearance, it says the morning of. This would mean that it is implied that her son disappeared that morning. However, I can see how some might it interpret it the way you did, and perhaps the author meant it that way as well. We can't know for sure unless he tells us though.

I don't think it's just opinion.

If I said, "I went to brunch with my bridesmaids the morning of my wedding", it does not indicate that the two events happened simultaneously, nor does it indicate that my evening wedding happened in the morning, it just means both events occurred the same day.

 

[ClaireNC]

hey i'm not trying to start a rumor that the PI thinks they are guilty, just pointed out his grammatical error.

i'm sure there are 'language expert' people out there who will see that though, and run with it.

It is very possible that the PI was having doubts about the parents' innocence and conducted the reenactment to prove to himself that a kidnapping was, in fact, possible.

 

[TheGambler]

I think just thinking it through would tell Vilt a kidnapping is possible (not probable though). I really would have liked to see what GGP was doing when the baby "disappeared".

Also I read some concerns over them changing the story from the parents "going exploring" and the parents "going to find fishing spots" (not exact words). They really could mean the same thing with the 2nd sentence being more specific. I personally think they were doing something more embarrassing and they felt they needed to explain "what" they were doing and came up with the "looking for a fishing spot" line. They should have just kept the wording the same as before.

 

[desert-blue]

I think stranger abduction makes absolutely no sense in this case. I think abduction by someone who has a motive specific to this family could be remotely possible, especially based on the parent's comments after Deorr had been missing only three days (who would do this to us?). There could be things going on that we know nothing about which would provide motive. Alternatively, I suppose the parents could have been trying to "redirect" the investigation early on. MOO.

That being said, I think the fact that GGP has never once spoken or made a statement about the last minutes he saw Deorr is very strange. We've been told he was the last one to see the child but every version of his account has been by a third party (and has changed slightly each time). His account is crucial and we know nothing about it. I still think it was strange the way his identity was concealed for so long as well. MOO.

Key elements to me are: the store receipt(s) with time stamp, GGP's testimony and IR's testimony. Without those, it's hard to navigate this case.

Is anyone still searching for him at all? Have people given up hope of finding him (or any trace of him... boots, etc.) in the wilderness? Is the family's focus mainly on abduction at this point? I just checked and it does look like the go - fund - me search effort is still in place so I guess that's good - however they are waiting until after the FBI turns their findings over to the sheriff.

Such an awful case. It's getting cold here in Idaho. Some of the mountains are already getting a dusting of snow at night. I wish they'd find him or get a break in the case.

 

[wondering25]

Correct me if i am wrong. Only the parents participated in the re-enactment.. not the GGP or IR, Right? If that is the case, then this was pretty useless. yes, it can illustrate that an abduction was possible, i suppose. Just because no one was seen or heard on the roads etc. at the time the baby disappeared doesnt mean someone WASNT there. Perhaps a re-enactment might trip someone's memory? But if all four campers didn't participate in this exercise, i cant see any HUGE evidentiary value JMO

Just because the original campers told LE they didnt see or hear anything doesnt mean they are correct. They are on vacation, distracted, loud running creek, and an abduction is possible, which I guess was the point of the PI conducting this experiment. Doesnt mean it happened, just means it is possible. They may as well put an animal in the campfire area and see if a cougar comes to grab that. Point being, nothing can be ruled out and I don't know why the sheriff was so quick ti rule out virtually everything.

The timeline has always seemed murky to me..Thursday, Friday, 6pm sighting at the store, store in the morning, receipt, the family not seizing on the fact a filthy bawling baby seen at 6pm FRIDAY couldnt be their abducted child..and thinking the clerk got it wrong..

I will go with my gut on this.. one of the 4 knows.. JMO on all of this.

 

[bessie]

Key elements to me are: the store receipt(s) with time stamp, GGP's testimony and IR's testimony. Without those, it's hard to navigate this case.

Is anyone still searching for him at all? Have people given up hope of finding him (or any trace of him... boots, etc.) in the wilderness? Is the family's focus mainly on abduction at this point? I just checked and it does look like the go - fund - me search effort is still in place so I guess that's good - however they are waiting until after the FBI turns their findings over to the sheriff.

Such an awful case. It's getting cold here in Idaho. Some of the mountains are already getting a dusting of snow at night. I wish they'd find him or get a break in the case.

(rsbm)

It's my understanding that the family and friends have gone back to search on weekends.

 

[ILOKAL]

I think stranger abduction makes absolutely no sense in this case. I think abduction by someone who has a motive specific to this family could be remotely possible, especially based on the parent's comments after Deorr had been missing only three days (who would do this to us?). There could be things going on that we know nothing about which would provide motive. Alternatively, I suppose the parents could have been trying to "redirect" the investigation early on. MOO.

That being said, I think the fact that GGP has never once spoken or made a statement about the last minutes he saw Deorr is very strange. We've been told he was the last one to see the child but every version of his account has been by a third party (and has changed slightly each time). His account is crucial and we know nothing about it. I still think it was strange the way his identity was concealed for so long as well. MOO.

Key elements to me are: the store receipt(s) with time stamp, GGP's testimony and IR's testimony. Without those, it's hard to navigate this case.

Is anyone still searching for him at all? Have people given up hope of finding him (or any trace of him... boots, etc.) in the wilderness? Is the family's focus mainly on abduction at this point? I just checked and it does look like the go - fund - me search effort is still in place so I guess that's good - however they are waiting until after the FBI turns their findings over to the sheriff.

Such an awful case. It's getting cold here in Idaho. Some of the mountains are already getting a dusting of snow at night. I wish they'd find him or get a break in the case.

Since the sheriff is (apparently) satisfied with the receipt and time stamp, as well as what they bought, shouldn't we also be?

 

[pepelepolecat]

I think just thinking it through would tell Vilt a kidnapping is possible (not probable though). I really would have liked to see what GGP was doing when the baby "disappeared".

Also I read some concerns over them changing the story from the parents "going exploring" and the parents "going to find fishing spots" (not exact words). They really could mean the same thing with the 2nd sentence being more specific. I personally think they were doing something more embarrassing and they felt they needed to explain "what" they were doing and came up with the "looking for a fishing spot" line. They should have just kept the wording the same as before.

I agree that they could have been doing something that they perceived as embarrassing, but I also seem to remember that early on, they said they were looking for minnows to show DeOrr. I think that explanation ties into the other two -- exploring, fishing -- without there being any contradictions. (my opinion only, jmo, and possibly speculation since I have no link to prove the minnows comment).

 

[ILOKAL]

Could someone please explain to me why some believe the parents MUST HAVE been doing something other than what they SAID they were doing? Something must cause some to think they were either doing something sexual or something illegal (embarrassing). I'd like to know what causes some to think that, because in all honestly, I don't think that at all. I have not seen or heard anything to make me believe they weren't doing exactly what they have said they were doing.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

If I was working for the parents doing PR, I would tell them to insist that Deorr got lost. There will be less pressure on you to keep the case in the media as time goes on. Nobody will be asking why you aren't on Nancy Grace. Constantly bring up the "Dingo" case in Australia, where a woman was charged with killing her daughter when it was actually a dingo. If it's ever announced that you are suspects, be like "It's a shame that 35 years later, this is still happening". Talk about all the kids who have been lost in the woods and never found.

 

[kammiemc]

Bessie posted something that said they are going over the timeline for the re-enactment. And of course LE is interested. It's no different than their interest in the witness statements and interviews. If LE wasn't interested in hearing (and seeing) what took place they wouldn't bother interviewing anyone. And surely you don't think the ONLY reason for the re-enactment is to absolve the parents, do you? (modsnip)

I only know what the PI said in terms of why he was conducting the experiment--to prove that the parents weren't involved. You might have other information that points to this being done for other reasons. It sounds like you do. Please share if so. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk