ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #16

[ILOKAL]

Or not using certain words. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall Klein ever saying the words campsite/campground and wonder why he avoids the use. He keeps using the general "on the mountain" or "near the mountain". The problem is though that if Deorr wasn't ever specifically at the Timber Creek campground then that would mean all POI's have lied and that just doesn't make sense.

Then again Klein has said (paraphrasing) you think you've seen it all and then a case like this comes along.

Of course, I can't help noticing that too. Unfortunately, I would venture a guess and say the reason has more to do with Klein than it has to do with DeOrr. If he doesn't confine his "theory/ies" to the campsite it gives him much more leeway. We KNOW (basically) what areas were searched and that nothing was found (from what we've been told early on). He wants to come across as having knowledge that was not previously known, but if he sticks to just the campsite area, he limits himself because he really doesn't, IMO, have any actual knowledge. Not at all sure if I've made that clear. If, after all is said and done it turns out LE believes there is no case to file murder charges or charges for concealing an accidental death, Klein can easily, IMO, weasel his way out by claiming the reason DeOrr hasn't been found is because the proper areas "on the mountain" were not searched but that's out of his control. Actually, it's kind of what psychics (IMO) do. A little knowledge, a little voodoo, and some believers. IMO

 

[ILOKAL]

This is just my take, fwiw. Klein is reluctant to say DeOrr was at the campsite itself, because no one outside of the four POI's claim to have seen him there. I believe there are others ("auxiliary/ancillary" eyewitnesses) who did see DeOrr, but in locations outside of the campsite proper. He's satisfied with their accounts because presumably, those individuals are objective third parties. Therefore, he's comfortable with saying DeOrr was "on or near the mountain". And as I've said previously, to reach the conclusion that DeOrr's remains presently are "on or near the mountain", Klein first must have been convinced that DeOrr was there prior to being reported missing.

It's similar to Sheriff Bowerman saying that he is 99% certain DeOrr was at the campsite. Obviously, he's reached that conclusion based on some evidence, whether it be eyewitness accounts or otherwise. But, short of having seen him with his own eyes, 99% is the highest level of certainty he can assign to the fact.

JMO

Then I guess that would mean it's all a big conspiracy and all four POI's are involved. At least that's the conclusion one would reach (IMO) from your post.

 

[kammiemc]

This is just my take, fwiw. Klein is reluctant to say DeOrr was at the campsite itself, because no one outside of the four POI's claim to have seen him there. I believe there are others ("auxiliary/ancillary" eyewitnesses) who did see DeOrr, but in locations outside of the campsite proper. He's satisfied with their accounts because presumably, those individuals are objective third parties. Therefore, he's comfortable with saying DeOrr was "on or near the mountain". And as I've said previously, to reach the conclusion that DeOrr's remains presently are "on or near the mountain", Klein first must have been convinced that DeOrr was there prior to being reported missing.

It's similar to Sheriff Bowerman saying that he is 99% certain DeOrr was at the campsite. Obviously, he's reached that conclusion based on some evidence, whether it be eyewitness accounts or otherwise. But, short of having seen him with his own eyes, 99% is the highest level of certainty he can assign to the fact.

JMO

That is my take too. Also, given that he said he is concerned that the dogs found no scent of DeOrr at the campsite and said they were not distracted, it seems like he just can't say for sure whether he was there. I guess he could possibly have some info to say that the little guy was never at the campsite, but I think it's probably just that he can't say for sure--so he uses "on the mountain" purposefully.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[desert-blue]

. Oh, I realize that, but with any other COD there would have been blood, there was NO blood, so it makes his HOW pretty easy for him to figure out, the same way "we" figured it out. IMO

Unless the death took place somewhere else (not at the campsite).

 

[kammiemc]

Unless the death took place somewhere else (not at the campsite).

Wait, we figured out how the death occurred? Who is "we"? How did it occur? I missed something. I have no idea how it occurred and am waiting patiently (who am I kidding--impatiently) for the investigators to tell us. Does whoever "we" is know who is responsible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[iluvmua]

Do you all think this case will be solved before the 1st anniversary?

 

[ILOKAL]

Unless the death took place somewhere else (not at the campsite).

Yes. But given the information "we" have and the limited amount of time and the large areas that were searched and finding it hard to believe that all four are involved, that option doesn't really seem likely, IMO.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

I don't know what to think. Klein has, without proof, publicly declared a death, states he believes charges will be brought and talked about the case going to the "prosecutorial phase".

But he can't bring himself to state straight out that Deorr was or wasn't at the campground. IMO this is odd.

I just hope it isn't too long for the next update and/or real clarification.

 

[TeaTime]

As I have written before, since Klein said he knows HOW but not WHY, I think eliminating accidental death is the course to take. Clearly, the 'how' or manner of death is homicide (death caused by another) or there is no reason to ask 'why'. What is not known is the COD, the actual injury causing death. So I disagree with ILOKAL who believes that Klein is referring to the COD when he states he knows HOW.

COD is specific; 'blunt force trauma', 'stabbing', 'gunshot wound to the chest', 'suffocation' are all examples. Klein is not stating that he knows the COD because it is impossible for him to know this with any degree of certainty even if he was told by someone else. Klein is stating that he knows the manner of death; how the child died (homicide) and since there is the 'why' factor, I can not logically think 'accident' and make sense of what he has stated.

Klein can state that he knows how by process of elimination which he has concluded by rejecting animal or human abduction. This would leave accident or intentional death. By stating he wants to know 'why', the idea that the child wandered off is eliminated because 'wandering off, getting lost and succumbing to the elements' is an answer to 'why?' And as I have stated numerous times, there is no reason to answer 'why' if there was an accident. The only conclusion is intentional homicide.

 

[ILOKAL]

Do you all think this case will be solved before the 1st anniversary?

Not unless DeOrr is found before then. I pray that he is found well before the next organized search. Hunters are still out there.

 

[ILOKAL]

As I have written before, since Klein said he knows HOW but not WHY, I think eliminating accidental death is the course to take. Clearly, the 'how' or manner of death is homicide (death caused by another) or there is no reason to ask 'why'. What is not known is the COD, the actual injury causing death. So I disagree with ILOKAL who believes that Klein is referring to the COD when he states he knows HOW.

COD is specific; 'blunt force trauma', 'stabbing', 'gunshot wound to the chest', 'suffocation' are all examples. Klein is not stating that he knows the COD because it is impossible for him to know this with any degree of certainty even if he was told by someone else. Klein is stating that he knows the manner of death; how the child died (homicide) and since there is the 'why' factor, I can not logically think 'accident' and make sense of what he has stated.

Klein can state that he knows how by process of elimination which he has concluded by rejecting animal or human abduction. This would leave accident or intentional death. By stating he wants to know 'why', the idea that the child wandered off is eliminated because 'wandering off, getting lost and succumbing to the elements' is an answer to 'why?' And as I have stated numerous times, there is no reason to answer 'why' if there was an accident. The only conclusion is intentional homicide.

Except, Klein has stated unequivocally that the manner of death was EITHER accidental or intentional. He leaves no doubt that it is either one or the other. There is also a POI he has not spoken to. I can think of "accidents" that might require a why question. Why was DeOrr where he was when the accident happened? Why did the responsible party/parties not realize he was in danger? And we don't know if "why" it happened (as in motive) is necessarily what he means.

 

[TeaTime]

In the 14 Q&A interviews, first he refers to "a witness" and later he refers to "witnesses".

Previously withheld information can be found documents, found pictures, or anything that could have been found that would provide information. That it was withheld would just mean it wasn't turned over during the investigation. It could also be the forensic evidence Klein referred to.

ILOKAL- the types of "withheld' information you describe do not just fall out of the sky and the fact that it was withheld requires that someone withheld it. Evidence can not withhold itself. Therefore it was withheld by someone and that someone is, ipso facto, a witness.

Perhaps I should have originally written "{h}ow can you get information that was preciously withheld in any form other than through a witness?" but I thought 'in any form' was sufficient and the word withheld so obviously presumes a person doing the withholding that it wasn't necessary and perhaps redundant.

Even you admit 'that it was withheld would just mean it wasn't turned over during the investigation' and I suggest that also presumes SOMEONE withheld it. Said 'someone' is a witness by virtue of the fact that they held, possessed or had knowledge of said information and did not disclose it. Forensic evidence is equally included in this analysis as whatever it was, it was withheld.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[TeaTime]

Except, Klein has stated unequivocally that the manner of death was EITHER accidental or intentional. He leaves no doubt that it is either one or the other. There is also a POI he has not spoken to. I can think of "accidents" that might require a why question. Why was DeOrr where he was when the accident happened? Why did the responsible party/parties not realize he was in danger? And we don't know if "why" it happened (as in motive) is necessarily what he means.

Klein's conclusion based on reasonable deduction leaves accidental death or intentional death but he clearly further deduces this with the 'how' and 'why' statement. As I said, the 'why' eliminates accident.

It is my opinion, your may differ, but mine is correct. LOL

 

[Dee10]

If there was truly an accident, 'why' cover it up? Covering up an accident suggests negligence at the very least IMO.

 

[Trident]

If there was truly an accident, 'why' cover it up? Covering up an accident suggests negligence at the very least IMO.

He may not be referring to the parents, or any of the 4. It's possible someone else was involved who caused the HOW, but the WHY is still in doubt.

:cow:

 

[TeaTime]

If there was truly an accident, 'why' cover it up? Covering up an accident suggests negligence at the very least IMO.

This is not, in my opinion, the 'why' that Klein poses.

 

[Dee10]

This is not, in my opinion, the 'why' that Klein poses.

Sorry TeaTime I'm not following the "why" then, can you help a girl out? I'm interested in your opinion.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Hi all. Been absent all day and struggling to catch up as I keep getting interrupted with phone calls!

What's the latest, anything concrete??

 

[TeaTime]

He may not be referring to the parents, or any of the 4. It's possible someone else was involved who caused the HOW, but the WHY is still in doubt.

:cow:

Trident - are you suggesting that there was a 6th person at the campsite that none of the 4 POI ever mentioned as being there? This 6th person who killed DeOrr and left the area (maybe with the child's body) and the others covered for him or her? Who could such a person be? Who would all 4 POI protect to their own detriment? Although I think this is extremely unlikely and can not imagine someone that even IR, who is unrelated to any of the family members, would protect - it is an interesting tidbit of a theory. I just do not think it is so.

 

[MBK]

He may not be referring to the parents, or any of the 4. It's possible someone else was involved who caused the HOW, but the WHY is still in doubt.
:cow:

But then, if it was someone else, then there would have to have been an abduction, I would think. And Klein has stated that there was no abduction. Maybe I'm not taking into account other scenarios.