ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #13

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
He answered all the questions with his eyes shut like he didn't care and was trying to get them to go by giving them what they wanted just moo I heard "yeah" but he answered three times in a row so might of been a yes in there. All three answers with his eyes shut.

BTW I'm not trying to be difficult or anything. I think its great we all have so many different ideas so we actually have ideas to throw around and talk about.

But he is being interviewed about a missing baby. He has no desire to be truthful or accurate on that subject? He knows it is for television news report. And he answers the door with no shirt and provides incorrect info? Makes me suspicious.
 
In my own opinion that only counts as such, I think the actual timeline should have been given to the public as soon as the info that DeOrr was missing was relayed to the public.
If LE wanted everyone to look for this toddler, then it would have been extremely important to get the facts out there.
The real facts, including times and dates.
jmo
 
I just went back and listened again. In fact, Isaac answered THREE questions in the affirmative, that go against what the sheriff was told.



So, [when he wandered off] he was just with u and the GP? [ Isaac answers YES]

And then u guys thought he was with the parents? [ YES]

And the parents came back and he was gone? [ YES]

[video=youtube;01DB2lqpWcs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01DB2lqpWcs[/video]

NONE of the above is accurate. Yet he answered YES to all 3 questions. WTH?
He never says "yes" he says "mmm humm" the first time "yeah" the second time. And "mmm humm" the third time.
I honestly think he wanted them to go away.
 
He never says "yes" he says "mmm humm" the first time "yeah" the second time. And "mmm humm" the third time.
I honestly think he wanted them to go away.

All of the above means yes. He is being interviewed by a tv news reporter about a missing child. Why LIE?
 
He never says "yes" he says "mmm humm" the first time "yeah" the second time. And "mmm humm" the third time.
I honestly think he wanted them to go away.

If he wanted them to go away, then when asked the first question he could have stuck with the original story and said " NO, I wasn't there when he went missing.'
 
But he is being interviewed about a missing baby. He has no desire to be truthful or accurate on that subject? He knows it is for television news report. And he answers the door with no shirt and provides incorrect info? Makes me suspicious.

He probably answered the door with no shirt on because he didn't have a clue who was at his door. That doesn't prove nothing other then he was in the comfort of his own home.
Later while they were talking he say "I cant I don't wanna say no more" we don't know what le was telling him he could and could not say at that point. With FBI involved as well. Idk why would the parents cover for him? Why would he lie for the parents?
 
If he wanted them to go away, then when asked the first question he could have stuck with the original story and said " NO, I wasn't there when he went missing.'
Do you honestly think he's the sharpest tool in the box? I mean like so smart he could kill DeOrr and fool everyone LE the parents and the FBI?
 
He never says "yes" he says "mmm humm" the first time "yeah" the second time. And "mmm humm" the third time.
I honestly think he wanted them to go away.
So do I. That wasn't an interview. It was an ambush. He was much more polite than I would have been.
 
So do I. That wasn't an interview. It was an ambush. He was much more polite than I would have been.
Thank you. My point exactly. That reporter had no right going to his house I'm the first place let alone three times. It was wrong. I know we all wanted answers but it was wrong.
 
Do you honestly think he's the sharpest tool in the box? I mean like so smart he could kill DeOrr and fool everyone LE the parents and the FBI?


Frankly, I am not very impressed with LE in this case. Not a popular opinion, but it is still my opinion.

My side eye has been on IR since the first day I read about this case. And that interview sealed the deal for me.

Other opinions may vary.
 
I agree with you and I think the Sheriff does this young couple with the missing child a terrible injustice if they did indeed pass their polys.

The targets have been on their backs from day one.

I am quite aware polys are not allowed in court and can be off but in just about every missing person case they are administered and LE goes from there.

MOO

In missing children cases rarely does LE rule anyone out. Nor do they release the results of a poly to the media/public.

The way we usually know a poly result is if the one/s taking it speaks out in the media.

I have wished on many cases such as this that LE would come out and either state they passed a poly or rule the family members out altogether. But it just doesn't usually happen.

There have been maybe two or three cases that I can remember out of hundreds of cases when a child was missing where LE did that by ruling out the parent/s by name.

In fact it is rare even when a missing adult is involved or even if the body is found and is an unsolved homicide. It seems more often they don't rule anyone out and when there is an arrest (if one) is when the public is aware of who the suspect is and who was not. When the suspect is arrested then the others are ruled out by default and that is how the police usually does it.

I got the impression he really doesn't suspect the parents. I don't find it suspicious that he is not revealing the results of the poly. He is just keeping all of his options open as he should and that way he doesn't box himself in.

But when he did say if anyone saw Deorr it made me feel he does think it is a possibility he has been abducted and the fact that he truly believes the area has been searched thoroughly. It really doesn't take but a blink of an eye for someone to nab a child. Unfortunately we have discussed many such cases over the years. At his age he easily could have been enticed even if the person told him they would go buy him candy if he came with them. We have seen the many shows that show how easily a small child can be lead away by someone they don't know. Its terrifying to watch but children are still very naïve and trusting. Deorr wouldn't even have those instincts at his age to recognize danger.

I have never suspected these parents. Imo, he was either abducted or he is there some place unfound at the time. It is an area that would be very unkind to a little child if they wandered off. Them not finding him doesn't mean he isn't there. We have seen cases that entailed many searches, which were suppose to be thorough... only for someone much later on, even years... to stumble upon the remains. Finding a tiny body is literally like looking for a tiny needle in a haystack.

LE never really cares who the public hones in on or who thinks someone is suspicious. I guess they feel it isn't their place to come out do so because so many times in cases like this the family members are seen as the possible suspects by the internet masses even when later on it turned out they weren't guilty of anything but losing a child. In some of those cases the police knew behind the scene all along the parent/s had nothing to do with their child being missing. Yet, not once, did they come out and try to quell the rampant speculation even when they knew they weren't involved. I wish they would do this but most LE just doesn't do it no matter how much the parents are left twisting in the wind with suspicion casted on them.

IMO
 
But didn't the reporter tell IR that it was him at the door? IOW didn't he know exactly who was there to ask him questions?
I might not have been happy to speak w/the news either were I in his shoes. I wouldn't have gone to the door.
Rude? I guess maybe so.
Reporters seek the answers we all ask them to try to get for us.
Mark Sievers was none to happy w/reporters either.
jmo
 
Not really. He agreed with Nate but never actually said anything about being with GGP and DeOrr.
I also really don't feel the story has changed as much as we have learned new info.
And of course LE learned threw out the course of their investigation that they arrived Thursday and not Friday. From the moment they arrived the investigation started so I'm sire they also learned their names during the course of their investigation as well.

In all realness why would we need to know when they arrived exactly? How would that help DeOrr? As long as LE new. SB said they've been 100% cooperative so I have no reason to believe the family has been untruthful to LE then. I think SB hasn't felt a need to clear things up but is willing to answer if asked.

BBM

Speculation ahead ...

If DeOrr was abducted, knowing the *correct* time of arrival could help bring in tips. If someone saw something hinky or strange on Thursday evening, they might blow it off since as far as anyone knew, the family wasn't even there until Friday. So clearly, according to this imaginary witness of mine, there could be no connection between weirdo creepy stalker person and that little boy who went missing Friday. No, DeOrr wasn't taken on Thursday, but that doesn't mean a predator wasn't lurking somewhere that evening or doing something strange.

I don't think it matters what DK and JM were off doing (fishing, finding minnows, exploring, whatever), and I don't think it matters all that much whether GGPA sneezed or closed his eyes or fell asleep in the grand scheme of things. The parents weren't there with DeOrr for a brief period, and GGPa wasn't watching him for whatever reason, and that's what we need to know as far as that goes (moo). But it absolutely does matter -- imo -- when they arrived and it absolutely did matter -- imo -- to the public if LE wanted tips from the public.

That's a lot of speculation and what-ifs. And tbh, I think that stranger abduction is about the least likely scenario -- but on this point, I believe very much that their time of arrival should have been corrected immediately. I can't help but wonder why LE didn't do that. By their own admission, they are not ruling out a stranger abduction, so why not correct the timeline and maybe get more tips? *

*Although as I say that, I wonder if it had something to do with them being snowed under a blizzard of nonsensical tips ...
 
Does anyone know if they're planning on expanding the search area at all? Or are they just continuing to scour that two or so mile ring?
 
But didn't the reporter tell IR that it was him at the door? IOW didn't he know exactly who was there to ask him questions?
I might not have been happy to speak w/the news either were I in his shoes. I wouldn't have gone to the door.
Rude? I guess maybe so.
Reporters seek the answers we all ask them to try to get for us.
Mark Sievers was none to happy w/reporters either.
jmo
Its pretty obvious Nate didn't call before stopping over. He had no way of knowing. Maybe just maybe its why he stood behind the door the whole time.
 
From the interview
--- parents arrived back at the campground after the store trip
--- IR told them he was catching some fish
--- Parents ask IR to show them where he caught the fish
--- The three of them start toward the creek which is just 50 feet below the campground
--- They turned and asked their son if he wanted to come or stay with GGP
--- DeOrr chose Grandpa and headed toward Grandpa
--- Mom and dad and IR head down to the creek
--- once they step over the edge of the bank GGP cannot see them and parents cannot see campground
--- mom and dad do some fishing
--- GGP is looking at little DeOrr
--- GGP looks away momentarily and DeOrr is not there
--- GGP assumes DeOrr changed his mind and decided to follow parents
--- GGP thinks nothing of it because the parents were real close (just out of sight)

Other notes:
--- Only one couple camping in other campground . They never saw DeOrr at all
--- They helped search for 2 days , they have been completely cleared by police
--- Sheriff says the only reason the parents , GGP and IR are POI's is simply because they were there
--- Parents were not allowed in the official search area (this is routine procedure)
--- So parents camped outside of search area , and searched outside of official search area
--- Sheriff team searched 2 miles of creek
--- They used a Plexiglas tube to look under creek banks and rocks
--- Two scent dogs used the first day and 18 additional dogs used after

Arnie, you noted that the older couple never saw DeOrr at all, but the sheriff said they didn't see the Kunz family. The reason this is important (IMO) is because if they only said they never saw DeOrr (but saw the rest of the group) it could make some think that DeOrr was never there.
 
I keep remembering the story back in 1987 of Jessica McClure who fell 22 feet into a well shaft EIGHT inches (20 cm) wide. She was 18 months old. Deoor is 2 but small for his age according to Dad. Just for the sake of this example, add a couple more inches to the diameter. Can we only imagine how many 10 inches holes, rock crannies, animal dens or? are in the massive wilderness area he went missing? I can imagine.

Don't get me wrong. I am still praying he is alive. I am glad people are looking, putting up signs and supporting the family in this search effort. Are far as I can see they are practically comotose with pain. Some people can speak out in public. Others just cannot even if the rest of the world thinks they should.

I can totally understand how SB would think it was possible that Little Deoor got lost in that rugged country with dangerous animals and a million places to be concealed. Totally. JMO.
 
But didn't the reporter tell IR that it was him at the door? IOW didn't he know exactly who was there to ask him questions?
I might not have been happy to speak w/the news either were I in his shoes. I wouldn't have gone to the door.
Rude? I guess maybe so.
Reporters seek the answers we all ask them to try to get for us.
Mark Sievers was none to happy w/reporters either.
jmo
I got the impression he wasn't fully awake, and answered the door instinctively without thinking. "In his shoes", I would have been more than a little peeved. Furthermore, he's not obligated to be forthright with anyone other than LE and the child's family.

If you're suggesting Mark Sievers is guilty because he resented being harassed by reporters, then I'd have to disagree. Just recently, I saw a local newscast where a reporter stuck a microphone in the face of a woman who'd just found out her son was lying dead on the street only feet away from where she stood. She didn't like it, either.

I'm not defending IR, in general, but I don't find anything about that so-called interview indicative of guilt or innocence. It's a non-issue, imo.
 
I am in no way suggesting MS is guilty of anything other than having a longtime friend who has been arrested for the murder of his wife, Teresa.
jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
195
Guests online
1,728
Total visitors
1,923

Forum statistics

Threads
599,558
Messages
18,096,672
Members
230,879
Latest member
CATCHASE
Back
Top