ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #14

[ILOKAL]

I will add that there's no way to know that the reporter's interpretation is flat out wrong for certain until it's clarified; I'm just taking it with a huge grain of salt because the wording seems a bit iffy. (But one thing I definitely don't see as a possible explanation for the reporter's wording is that SB would encourage his department to answer such questions with ambiguity because he is upset that a family member criticized an aspect of the search. That seems improbable, IMO. )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think (AT ALL) that SB instructed his office to answer questions with ambiguity, but like I DID say, since the article clearly states it was the Sheriff's OFFICE that stated they were unable to comment, might very well be because they (whomever that was) were not in a position (not an authorized spokesperson) to do so. Clarity rather than inference is always SO important!

 

[bessie]

I don't think (AT ALL) that SB instructed his office to answer questions with ambiguity, but like I DID say, since the article clearly states it was the Sheriff's OFFICE that stated they were unable to comment, might very well be because they (whomever that was) were not in a position (not an authorized spokesperson) to do so. Clarity rather than inference is always SO important!

Agreed. It could be as simple as the reporter calling the SO, and speaking with SB's assistant. Assistant says, "SB is tied up in meetings all day, and won't be taking calls from the media."

Or perhaps, SB is just plain tired of answering the same question over and over, so he instructed his assistant to blow them off with, "This is an active investigation, and we're not answering any more questions at this time." <<<---- This is what happened, IMO.

 

[kammiemc]

I don't think (AT ALL) that SB instructed his office to answer questions with ambiguity, but like I DID say, since the article clearly states it was the Sheriff's OFFICE that stated they were unable to comment, might very well be because they (whomever that was) were not in a position (not an authorized spokesperson) to do so. Clarity rather than inference is always SO important!

Agree. Sheriff's office is a broad term and I imagine very few are authorized to comment on the case. Someone could have just said "I'm not free to comment on that question. "That would have been a pretty cruddy thing for a reporter to twist that into "and they wouldn't EVEN comment" because of that implication. Then again I think using a subhead like "gone baby gone" is cruddy. So I can't say I would shocked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

Agreed. It could be as simple as the reporter calling the SO, and speaking with SB's assistant. Assistant says, "SB is tied up in meetings all day, and won't be taking calls from the media."

Or perhaps, SB is just plain tired of answering the same question over and over, so he instructed his assistant to blow them off with, "This is an active investigation, and we're not answering any more questions at this time." <<<---- This is what happened, IMO.

I am guessing something like this likely happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[giagreen]

I don't think (AT ALL) that SB instructed his office to answer questions with ambiguity, but like I DID say, since the article clearly states it was the Sheriff's OFFICE that stated they were unable to comment, might very well be because they (whomever that was) were not in a position (not an authorized spokesperson) to do so. Clarity rather than inference is always SO important!

I'll jump in here and say I agree also. Basically what you and a few others have said this is what I think.

 

[Rayemonde]

If that's what happened, that's disgracefully unethical journalism. Disgusting.

 

[Cardinal47]

If that's what happened, that's disgracefully unethical journalism. Disgusting.

It's been bad for a while now. We have all pointed out errors in reporting in varies articles about varies people.

Is it because they try so hard to be first or is it because they just don't care?

MOO

 

[ILOKAL]

It's been bad for a while now. We have all pointed out errors in reporting in varies articles about varies people.

Is it because they try so hard to be first or is it because they just don't care?

MOO

You know Cardinal, I was going to respond similarly. I think there is so much competition to be first to break a story and first to scoop any news that little, if any, thought is given to the veracity of the article anymore. Ethics are thrown to the wind as phrases and sound bites are taken out of context and re-presented then as "news". I have read that article a few times now and because we KNOW what information came out when and by whom, we can pretty much tell no interview was given for this story except, perhaps, Clegg's, IMO. The sheriff wasn't interviewed, the parents "refused" an interview, and the rest is just piecemeal from previously published stories. This "journalist" was given an assignment and this was the result. It just may be the writer was angered by the parents' refusal of an interview so he decided to take a little more liberty than he might have otherwise. I'm not saying that IS what happened, but it certainly might have been, IMO.

 

[haven71]

I found the article. To me it sounds like a compilation of "information" from previous articles/stories. Regarding the "no comment" it just states the Sheriff's "Office" was unable to comment. That might just mean that whomever The Journal spoke with was not in a position to comment (unauthorized to do so?). The wording, however, is deliberate yet could be entirely incorrect and misleading. JM's mother does, however, go after the Sheriff regarding the search. I think there may be some dissension between the family and SB because of some inadequacies of the search which must really sting SB.

I think so too. I wonder when things changed, because DK was very enthusiastic and seemed to have a lot of trust in the searchers in the beginning. Could've been when they "scaled back" the search, even though I read it wasn't really scaled back...just the general public made it too crazy up there. I wouldn't have guessed there might be something amiss between the family and SB til lately.

They say the family has gone up every weekend. Aren't LE still searching as well? I wonder when, how often, and if dogs were/are still being used. Does anyone know?

 

[haven71]

That article is just so all over the place. Poorly written, insinuations...I can't believe an editor would let this kind of "story" slide through.

 

[ILOKAL]

I think so too. I wonder when things changed, because DK was very enthusiastic and seemed to have a lot of trust in the searchers in the beginning. Could've been when they "scaled back" the search, even though I read it wasn't really scaled back...just the general public made it too crazy up there. I wouldn't have guessed there might be something amiss between the family and SB til lately.

They say the family has gone up every weekend. Aren't LE still searching as well? I wonder when, how often, and if dogs were/are still being used. Does anyone know?

DK's enthusiasm was Day Three from the day his baby disappeared. Those searching were their support and as far as he knew, everything was being done and that meant the world to him. Now I'm not saying everything wasn't done at the time based on what was believed to have happened to DeOrr. I'm sure it was based on a small child who wandered off in the wilderness and was lost. Time and hindsight seem to say perhaps more SHOULD have been done because we now know of the many possibilities that may have caused his disappearance. Should more directions have been pursued at the onset? I think so. But then again, we're on the outside looking in and really have no way of knowing why certain decisions were made. I can think of several more things I "think" should have been done early on, but we have a lot more information NOW than they had then. However, I can understand the family's disappointment (hardly the correct word) and even anger if they now believe there were several more directions the search and investigation should have gone which might have found their child. It's not a do-over, and they know it. -

 

[Rayemonde]

I'm guessing they feel like the abduction possibility was not taken seriously enough.

 

[ReadySet]

I have only seen criticism about what LE has done from the Grandma, not from any other family members. Has there been any from JM or DK?

I think so too. I wonder when things changed, because DK was very enthusiastic and seemed to have a lot of trust in the searchers in the beginning. Could've been when they "scaled back" the search, even though I read it wasn't really scaled back...just the general public made it too crazy up there. I wouldn't have guessed there might be something amiss between the family and SB til lately.

They say the family has gone up every weekend. Aren't LE still searching as well? I wonder when, how often, and if dogs were/are still being used. Does anyone know?

 

[ReadySet]

I asked this question months ago and I'm still confused by this. When the term "abduction" is used regarding this case, do posters mean taken by a stranger? Or by anyone? I think abduction is possible--if that means by a person known or unknown to the campers.

I'm guessing they feel like the abduction possibility was not taken seriously enough.

 

[Yvettea]

I asked this question months ago and I'm still confused by this. When the term "abduction" is used regarding this case, do posters mean taken by a stranger? Or by anyone? I think abduction is possible--if that means by a person known or unknown to the campers.

Abduction means to take someone unlawfully. If you have the legal right to take them it's not a problem unless you lied to the police about their whereabouts.

 

[Rayemonde]

Thanks for this! There is a great post by someone from a cold case investigation group, that while it only contains one new to me piece of information, it clarifies a lot of things that were murky and muddled before.

Yes, I don't know how accurate that is though. People have been making stuff up about this case on Facebook so take everything with a huge pinch of salt. Hopefully Jessica will be able to confirm that the information is accurate.

 

[sallye818]

I just wanted to pop in and say that I really appreciate you dedicated people on this thread who keep DeOrr's name on the front page. MANY children, even tiny ones like DeOrr, end up on the back pages and in the back of people's minds, even though they haven't been found. THANK YOU for caring so much about this little guy to take the time to read and post for him.

 

[Trident]

WS has gotten me to the point where I question everything on SM. I now question if that is even JM responding. Heck anybody could say they were JM and go back and forth with answers.

I used to believe about everything but now I seem to question everything.

The Ying and Yang.

Thank you for the link. Interesting to put it all together like that.

I used to be like you, believing, but from what I've seen on here, I'm not sure we can believe anything without a LOT of evidence. It's too bad we have had to come to that, but maybe for the first time, we are seeing the world as it really is.

 

[KYPastTracker]

I clicked on Stand Up's icon picture and it took me to the home page. I have an iPad.

ETA: I tried it more than once and it worked every time. I'll have to remember that for next time.

 

[desert-blue]

Thank you to all the posters who assisted with FB. I can read it now. Does anyone know if the large photo is of the creek as it flows into the reservoir?

I think it's the north end of the reservoir where it is dammed, so the creek flows out of the reservoir here (and down towards the lower campground).