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

[Dee10]

Unless IR had access to a vehicle, I can't really see it as I believe the searching was very thorough and the timeline fairly tight. However, from what we now know the parents made a two to 2 1/2 hour trip to a convenience store. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I find this new timeline very interesting.

 

[iluvmua]

Unless IR had access to a vehicle, I can't really see it as I believe the searching was very thorough and the timeline fairly tight. However, from what we now know the parents made a two to 2 1/2 hour trip to a convenience store. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I find this new timeline very interesting.

1. Yeah, I think GGP would have said something if he saw IR with Deorr.
2. two to Two and a half hours?????
3. it seems like every other day the timeline is getting changed.

JMO

 

[neesaki]

1. I think that If the parents suspected him (They did not know him) they would have thrown him under the bus every chance they got.

2. He's smart to get a lawyer regardless of guilt or innocence. He has a criminal background.

JMO

All I can say is that if my child was missing and he's the only person there I didn't know, I would automatically suspect him. And maybe he is just a really smart guy, is untrusting of LE, and has plenty of money lying around to afford a lawyer even though he's completely innocent. Hopefully we'll find out one of these days, but the way things are moving in this case, I wonder about that too. All just MOO.

 

[Onebest]

I just emailed the Sheriff with my suggestion/question (about draining the creekbed)....Will report back if he responds.

Excellent! Thank you!

 

[ClaireNC]

Unless IR had access to a vehicle, I can't really see it as I believe the searching was very thorough and the timeline fairly tight. However, from what we now know the parents made a two to 2 1/2 hour trip to a convenience store. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I find this new timeline very interesting.

There is no confirmation that they were gone 2 1/2 hours. It is just speculation based on the sheriff's statement "Friday morning, somewhere around 10:30 or 11 is when they went to Leadore," Bowerman said." and the comment that DK made in the long interview that they were back at the campground by 1:00 pm. Those times given by both the sheriff and DK were approximations, so they might have been gone only 1 1/2 hours and it would still be within the time-frame given within those two statements.

Source of sheriff's comment: http://www.localnews8.com/news/3-months-still-no-sign-of-missing-toddler/35762562

 

[Cardinal47]

Over three months and nobody has any idea what happened to the child.

Where is he? Nobody knows.
Where was he last seen? Nobody knows.
Whose searching? Nobody

This is unbelievable to me. Why aren't the good people of Idaho looking everywhere for this missing child.

Remember Dylan Redwine, Hailey Dunn and Kyron Horman. Folks searched and searched for them.

I think there was a woman maybe a month ago that set up a go fund me account and had somebody trained in searches flying in to conduct the search. All of a sudden money was refunded and the search called off.

Why? It's public land. Campers and hunters are using the land. Why can't people search for this missing child at the last place his parents say he was?

This little boy needs a hero. Somebody who against all odds will rise up and try to find him or some trace of him.

It breaks my heart nobody's even looking.

Talk is cheap and that's about all that's being done for missing DeOrr.

 

[giagreen]

So, ok, the sheriff is going back to square one and re-interviewing the parents. He is going to re-examine scat..per someone here.. i dont recall he said that but fine..

<modsnip>

"Bowerman told KTVB the grid search involved animal feces identification, also known as scat, to help rule out abduction by animal."

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2015...ssing-2-year-old-deorr-kunz-jr-case/73483858/

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

I do wonder if the reason LE hasn't released the results of the polygraphs is because one of the POI's didn't pass... just speculation and JMO. Another thought, I wonder if IR was missing during any or all of the time that little Deorr was missing, possibly even while the parents were searching for him before the 911 call. I know he was allegedly fishing down at the creek, but did anyone actually see him during that time? Perhaps the parents suspect him and that's why they didn't mention him at all during their interview. His name never came up, the elephant in the room. I realize he's still only a POI, but out of the four persons of interest I can't help but find him to be the more interesting. Also out of the four he's the only one with a lawyer and they don't come cheap.

We don't know that he's the only one with a lawyer. He's the only one that we were told has a lawyer. Guilty or innocent and no matter what Mark Klaas says, I think all POIs in circumstances such as this need to retain lawyers. Justice isn't always just.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

I just emailed the Sheriff with my suggestion/question (about draining the creekbed)....Will report back if he responds.

Thank you for suggesting these ideas to LE, Mickshawn!

:tyou:

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

1. Yeah, I think GGP would have said something if he saw IR with Deorr.
2. two to Two and a half hours?????
3. it seems like every other day the timeline is getting changed.

JMO

I respect your ideas...

but my big burning question is why we have not heard from GGpa AT ALL!

and he (IMO) seems to have a crucial part in the case as he was RIGHT THERE!

Sooo... I really wonder what he has... And hasn't... Said to LE/family/etc...

All...JMO...

 

[Rayemonde]

I'm not convinced that LE have called off any searches - or if they had, what their reasons would be. They have not said publically that they have called off any searches. I remember some members of the public were distrustful of the money raising for searches, because they said that genuine search and rescue organisations do not charge for their services, they volunteer. I don't know if that is true though. I do know that some of the people who have been searching have had their own agendas besides just wanting to find DeOrr's body.

I wonder if one or more of the polygraphs were inconclusive. Many factors such as dementia, drug use, mental illness and some physical illnesses can mean that polygraph results are inconclusive or can not be trusted. I do think that if everyone had passed we would have heard by now.

 

[desert-blue]

Am I missing something? Did the sheriff not say that the clerk in Leadore did not see Deorr in the store? DK and JM said that it was them (their trip earlier in the day to the store) - that they went to the store and Deorr was crying and the dad bought him candy and the clerk witnessed all this. DK said it was him, just that the time was off. But now the clerk says she did not see the boy - only the parents. I keep thinking about this and mulling it over and I find it very troubling. There was only one trip to the store and one clerk and she did not see Deorr, crying or otherwise. The only way I can explain this is that the parents either lied or were being very deceitful when they brought up that sighting and then said it was them (at a minimum, DK and Deorr) in the store. This led people to believe that they drove to the store as a family and that DK and little Deorr went into the store and DK bought the boy candy. There is no way anyone would interpret this to mean that they drove to the store as a family, left Deorr in the truck, and the parents went into the store without him. I'm having a lot of trouble digesting this new information... (and the story about JM seeing the man staring at Deorr was also presented as if they were IN the store - if he had been staring at Deorr in the truck, then they should have said he was staring at Deorr in the truck, not at the store.). If this is turning into a game of semantics to make sense of what was said and implied, then there may be a problem. MOO.

 

[ReadySet]

BBM I agree with the Sheriff believes the creek has been thoroughly searched. The creek is just not as deep, fast moving and filled with nooks and crannies as some people seem to believe. I have spoken to a few people who have been to the campground since Deorr went missing and there have been some times over the past three months when the creek has slowed to not much more than a trickle.

I agree that little Deorr falling in the creek is the most logical explanation for his disappearance, however, the officials are sure his little body is not in that creek.

While there have not been any organized searches recently, the family, friends and various small groups of caring non-related people have continued to search the area. There have also been local LE, the forest service and FBI personal at the site on several occasions. Pretty much every week somebody has been there looking.

Just for clarification purposes, there is no boat dock at the reservoir. There is a "hand launch for non-motorized boating". The campground is "light" usage, meaning that there are not many people that use it for camping. http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/scnf/recarea?recid=76098

Thank you for this excellent post. There is so much helpful information here.

Jumping off your post:
People also need to remember when researching that there are two Timbercreek campgrounds, and they're not that far apart as the crow flies.

I locate "our" campground on google map by remembering it is slightly south east of Gunsight Peak.

 

[iluvmua]

Am I missing something? Did the sheriff not say that the clerk in Leadore did not see Deorr in the store? DK and JM said that it was them - that they went to the store and Deorr was crying and the dad bought him candy and the clerk witnessed all this. They said it was them, just that the time was off. But now the clerk says she did not see the boy - only the parents. I keep thinking about this and mulling it over and I find it very troubling. There was only one trip to the store and one clerk and she did not see Deorr, crying or otherwise. The only way I can explain this is that the parents either lied or were being very deceitful when they brought up that sighting and then said it was them in the store. This led people to believe that they went to the store as a family and that at a minimum, DK and little Deorr went into the store and DK bought the boy candy. There is no way anyone would interpret this to mean that they went to the store as a family, left Deorr in the truck, and the parents went into the store without him. I'm having a lot of trouble digesting this new information... (and the story about JM seeing the man staring at Deorr was also presented as if they were IN the store - if he had been staring at Deorr in the truck, then they should have said he was staring at Deorr in the truck, not at the store.). If this is turning into a game of semantics to make sense of what was said and implied, then there is a problem. MOO.

1. DK said it was him just at a different time. It's in an interview.
2. That is what I remember.


I thought they said they bought him fries????

 

[desert-blue]

1. DK said it was him just at a different time. It's in an interview.
2. That is what I remember.


I thought they said they bought him fries????

The PI brought up the fries. The parents never said anything about fries, as far as I know, so who knows.

I agree with your recollection. I just watched the video again. He says, "It was me but they claim it was at 6:00 that evening." Maybe my post wasn't clear.... he is saying it was them at the store and the clerk saw him buying candy for Deorr (he doesn't mention JM being in the store so I guess that's open for interpretation, although how did she see the creepy man and did DK buy the feminine products for her?).

 

[kammiemc]

1. DK said it was him just at a different time. It's in an interview.
2. That is what I remember.


I thought they said they bought him fries????

I think the PI is the only one who has mentioned that they bought groceries and fries. (But presumably the parents told him that unless he was making stuff up.) DK didn't specify what they bought.

DK definitely said it was him the clerk saw, but earlier when they went as a family to pick up some things. He didn't say anything about the candy and filthy, bawling part. So hard to know whether he thought either of those things were correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[desert-blue]

DK definitely said it was him the clerk saw, but earlier when they went as a family to pick up some things. He didn't say anything about the candy and filthy, bawling part. So hard to know whether he thought either of those things were correct.

But, the whole story was in the context of the store sighting with the crying baby. If it was him, but the rest of the details didn't fit (like he didn't actually take Deorr into the store and/or if Deorr wasn't filthy and crying, why would he not say, "well, it could have been me - I did go into the store with Deorr, but I didn't buy him candy and/or he wasn't crying and/or he wasn't filthy.). He gave the impression it was him because it fit with the clerk's account of the store sighting as presented by JM moments earlier. He was agreeing to what she said about the store sighting - that yes, it was him, the only thing was that the time was off. I know we can't know for sure what he thought, we only know what he said, but I just don't see how that can be interpreted any other way.... MOO, of course...

ETA: adding link to interview http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/uncut-entire-interview-with-parents-of-deorr-kunz/

 

[Cardinal47]

LE never Called Off The Search. They searched for 10 - 15 days and that was it. They called off a planned search but not due to funds being used. The funds were to be used for expenses to bring in the searcher this person wanted to use.

Tim Miller of Texas Equusearch out of Texas would be a wonderful one for this job but it takes both LE and the family to request his services.

There are many search teams. Where are they? Why don't we see anybody searching for this little lost boy?

Why isn't the sheriff talking. Heck it's been three months. He can say what he has found. He doesn't have to incriminate anybody.

Has he asked for more help and additional searchers? Has he opened up to those wanting to search?

I swear this befuddles me. Neighbors lost their dog and they spent days passing out flyers, walking the streets, knocking on doors. Alerting police on patrol to be on the look out.

DeOrr...silence. Just the sound of silence and accusations with no proof to back any of them up.

It might have been this one or that one or an animal attack or a stranger.

Still no searching and no DeOrr.

Surely by now we could at least know if the little guy ate a french fry at the little store in Leadore! Sigh...

 

[desert-blue]

I guess the bottom line for me is - do DK and JM's comments in their interview about the store sighting make sense in light of the sheriff saying in regard to their trip to the store in Leadore, "Somebody said they thought they saw a child in the vehicle while they fueled up, but they're not positive."

 

[Rayemonde]

I guess the bottom line for me is - do DK and JM's comments in their interview about the store sighting make sense in light of the sheriff saying in regard to their trip to the store in Leadore, "Somebody said they thought they saw a child in the vehicle while they fueled up, but they're not positive."

I'm trying to make it fit, but I can' t think of a way...