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

[Rayemonde]

Yes, they camped within the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

ETA: here's a link to some photos of cougars at Salmon-Challis National Forest. They're so much bigger than some think. Some of the photos (obviously) are of other wildlife from the forest.

http://www.google.com/search?q=moun...0CDwQ7AlqFQoTCLuh3qaahMgCFUhyPgodOZAF_Q&dpr=1

Thanks. I was looking for information about cougars in the area, but couldn't find any. I wonder how common they are there, how bold they are around humans and if they tend to avoid campsites.

 

[ILOKAL]

Note in the 8th row down, there's a cougar on the left being held up by a hunter and two photos down is a hunter with a huge elk. Cougars eat elk as part of their regular diet. Hard to believe that cat can take that 800 lb elk down by itself.

 

[ILOKAL]

Thanks. I was looking for information about cougars in the area, but couldn't find any. I wonder how common they are there, how bold they are around humans and if they tend to avoid campsites.

They are stealth, NOT shy! There are successful cougar hunts in the forest and many outfitters that service cougar hunts in the forest. They don't avoid campsites, but they stalk their chosen prey from a distance. When the opportunity presents itself, they pounce (up to 40 ft from a standstill and 20 ft up), grab their prey and then drag or carry it (depending what size) to an out of site area where they methodically begin to remove certain organs which they eat first. If the entire prey cannot be consumed at one time, they will bury it under leaves, sticks, brush to keep it out of site from other animals and to keep the food cool. They will return to it periodically. They will often kill more than they can consume. They are killers!

 

[pepelepolecat]

Is it wise to say that you believe that a cougar took him? Or are you open to other possibilities?

I'm not sure how your "test" would prove much. I don't think we have any idea how much bigger in size than Deorr's foot. 4 or 5 inches is different than 1, for instance, and until we knew his actual shoe size and size of the boot I don't think your experiment will provide a lot of insight.

But I am interested to hear the details and results.

I've not done any experiments of this sort, but I can tell you that more than once we picked a kid up out of his shoes when my kids were toddlers, lol. It didn't even have to be too-big shoes but just shoes that didn't tie or otherwise secure to their feet (like crocs or slip-ons). But of course that's just my own experience and not necessarily applicable to anyone else's experience (neither does my experience negate theirs nor theirs mine).

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Why didn't the sheriff just state he was 100% certain DeOrr was at the campsite?

 

[Elena]

i dont know.. IIRC the sheriff has ruled out an abduction because no one saw or heard any other campers in the area. no one saw a cougar either. Why rule out either? No evidence of anything as far as we know. I don't think the PI is throwing the GGP under the bus.. i really don't. If a gun was found, a knife, an axe, coveralls or duct tape and rope.. what is the difference? Was there blood, tissue, signs of a struggle? How could the PI be throwing GGP under a bus when he is actively pursuing a gray haired man in a Rubicon? MOO

Just my opinion on all of this.

In my opinion, anyone, anyone at all, is good - to take the suspicions off the parents. Good move for IR to lawyer up. He could be next.

 

[iluvmua]

Sure . . . . How well would it sit with you if they did? JW

If they did lawyer up, that would not mean they are guilty of anything.

(although the behavior of JM and DK is odd to me).


jmo.

 

[ILOKAL]

I've not done any experiments of this sort, but I can tell you that more than once we picked a kid up out of his shoes when my kids were toddlers, lol. It didn't even have to be too-big shoes but just shoes that didn't tie or otherwise secure to their feet (like crocs or slip-ons). But of course that's just my own experience and not necessarily applicable to anyone else's experience (neither does my experience negate theirs nor theirs mine).

I think that has even happened to most adults with slip-ons and Crocs, LOL. But we're not talking about slip-ons or Crocs.

 

[kammiemc]

I think it must be unlikely that the sheriff didn't get confirmation from all four POIs that little Deorr was indeed there. If all four didn't confirm, the sheriff couldn't be 99% sure he was there, yet he is. IMO

I agree (obviously, since I also said in my post that is unlikely). However, I do wonder if IR could even confirm that NE came knocking on his door that morning or how many people were with NE. (I'm thinking 50/50 chance).

Does he always have a great grasp on what's happening at all times? I dunno! It wouldn't appear CERTAIN. IMO.

What condition was he in that evening at the campsite? Did he pitch a tent away from the camper/truck/suburban for a bit of privacy? When did he wake up? Were the parents and toddler already gone to town? Was he already gone fishing when they returned?

So yes, unlikely that he could not confirm the toddler was at the campsite. but not impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

Why didn't the sheriff just state he was 100% certain DeOrr was at the campsite?

Probably because he didn't see him with his own eyes. JMO

 

[ILOKAL]

If they did lawyer up, that would not mean they are guilty of anything.

(although the behavior of JM and DK is odd to me).


jmo.

Of course it wouldn't mean they are guilty of anything, but how do you think that would be perceived by some, including LE?

 

[ILOKAL]

I agree (obviously, since I also said in my post that is unlikely). However, I do wonder if IR could even confirm that NE came knocking on his door that morning or how many people were with NE. (I'm thinking 50/50 chance).

Does he always have a great grasp on what's happening at all times? I dunno! It wouldn't appear CERTAIN. IMO.

What condition was he in that evening at the campsite? Did he pitch a tent away from the camper/truck/suburban for a bit of privacy? When did he wake up? Were the parents and toddler already gone to town? Was he already gone fishing when they returned?

So yes, unlikely that he could not confirm the toddler was at the campsite. but not impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mathematically speaking, he would have HAD to confirm for the sheriff to make that 99% statement. No?

 

[kammiemc]

If they did lawyer up, that would not mean they are guilty of anything.

(although the behavior of JM and DK is odd to me).


jmo.

If I were them and I had the money I would get a lawyer, not because I had something to hide but because I would want to make sure my rights were protected as a POI in an FBI investigation. I would want to understand better what was happening and if any kind of charges could potentially be brought against me for something seemingly innocent, like going exploring when I thought my Grandpa knew he was babysitting and was capable of doing so. (I actually have no idea if that could be seen as neglectful in a court of law. I hope not. But I would want to know.)
IMO, them lawyering up wouldn't make them seem any more or less suspicious of anything. I hope they will hire a lawyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

Mathematically speaking, he would have HAD to confirm for the sheriff to make that 99% statement. No?

Say what? That will break my brain to try to figure out that equation. Anyway, 99% percent is a figure of speech. There is not actually data that the sheriff has calculated. And if IR couldn't confirm because he was lights out, I don't think the data would change and the sheriff would say he was 87.5% sure and explain the details around that. I could do some guessing but I don't know if his 1% uncertainty is because not everyone could confirm or because he didn't see pics of the child there or because he didn't see him there himself. None of us know. We're just guessing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

Thanks. I was looking for information about cougars in the area, but couldn't find any. I wonder how common they are there, how bold they are around humans and if they tend to avoid campsites.

This is probably not as helpful as you might wish, but for what it's worth, in that General region, two hours north where my fam lives, mountain lions are rare sightings and attacks, but they do occur and it wasn't that many years ago that an elementary school class was walking-within city limits on a trail and a mountain lion attacked one of the kids. My brother also says he was stalked by one while fishing kinda sorta near there at a very remote stream. There are warnings about how to respond if you see one at trail heads, etc., but you can camp and hike those mountains for your whole life and not see one. See, totally unhelpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[charminglane]

And then again, I live in Los Angeles and have cougars in my neighborhood!

 

[Cardinal47]

I was sitting here thinking about the PI and how much attention he is getting on SM. Didn't the little boy out in CA that looks like DeOrr just fuel his fire and his opinion that DeOrr was kidnapped?

Then along came the TIP he received from the woman with four kids that a man with white hair in a new black jeep was looking at her kids.

Didn't that all start out with a creepy man in a blue pick up truck looking at DeOrr? Now DeOrr Sr suddenly remembers that fancy black jeep.

Geeez. We are chasing our tails. What's next?

MOO

 

[kammiemc]

GGP should get a lawyer too. He needs someone to defend him in the public eye against what the PI is saying. I think LE is probably past the stage in their investigation where lawyering up would make a significant difference in how they view each person in terms of their "interest."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

Say what? That will break my brain to try to figure out that equation. Anyway, 99% percent is a figure of speech. There is not actually data that the sheriff has calculated. And if IR couldn't confirm because he was lights out, I don't think the data would change and the sheriff would say he was 87.5% sure and explain the details around that. I could do some guessing but I don't know if his 1% uncertainty is because not everyone could confirm or because he didn't see pics of the child there or because he didn't see him there himself. None of us know. We're just guessing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well of course it's a figure of speech, but like other figures of speech, it has a meaning. He didn't have to make the statement at all. But he did and he used that figure of speech for a reason. The most obvious reason would seem to be that everyone there at the time confirmed to him that little Deorr was indeed there and that's the message he wanted to get across. IMO

 

[kammiemc]

Well of course it's a figure of speech, but like other figures of speech, it has a meaning. He didn't have to make the statement at all. But he did and he used that figure of speech for a reason. The most obvious reason would seem to be that everyone there at the time confirmed to him that little Deorr was indeed there and that's the message he wanted to get across. IMO

Ok!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk