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

[Trident]

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.

Wasn't there something about a missing EMT bag, or the contents therein?

 

[kammiemc]

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.

I agree, it kinda seems like some of the clarification just makes things a bit more ambiguous. We know a lot more than we used to, but I hope it all comes out soon.

So I had made a slightly different assumption than some others as to how to Klein might have landed on accidental death or homicide. And this doesn't mean that I am right--just my thinking:

I didn't for a moment think that it was deductive reasoning--as in, I didn't believe that it was a lack of evidence of wandering, animal, etc. that left Klein with just those two last scenarios. (To be honest that seems like it would be very flawed investigative work.)

For me, it seemed clear as day that between Klein and LE they have evidence (which of course they can't disclose) that points to that direction, a direction they apparently agree upon.

For instance, evidence pointing in that direction could be as simple as any info indicating efforts of a coverup of the truth by any number of the POI's: one, two, three or all. If someone is lying they are not covering for nature.

We know LE has some kind of evidence and we know Klein has some kind of evidence. I assume that evidence is in line with the direction the investigation is taking.

Maybe I am giving LE/FBI/Klein too much credit. But that's my two cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4senthia]

IF there was a 6th person there, IMO, they only came in to remove DeOrr's body. After an accidental death, I would suppose.
I hate typing that, but it's possible.
jmo

 

[Dee10]

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??

Nothing new today

 

[4senthia]

During the interview of the parents, the EMT bag was mentioned by someone near the interviewer, and it was picked up on the audio.
That person seemed very insistent about the bag, IMO.
IDK what happened, but I do not think DeOrr was abducted anymore.
jmo

 

[ILOKAL]

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.

Information can innocently have been withheld But you seem to refuse to agree. That often happens. If LE came across information from documents that came into its possession by way of a company, for example, and could be considered previously withheld even when that information was simply not known to exist. If it was not known to exist nor known to have had any value and an individual did not provide LE with the information from the document, then a witness would have not necessarily come forward. For example, a subpoena duces tecum instructs the possessor of the document (often a company) to present the document requested. There need not be a witness involved and in such cases, there usually isn't. IMO

 

[MBK]

IF there was a 6th person there, IMO, they only came in to remove DeOrr's body. After an accidental death, I would suppose.
I hate typing that, but it's possible.
jmo

But then, there would have been a phone call made. Phone call records have been examined. Of course, there is the possibility that a phone call was made could be made from a pay phone, either on the way TO the mountain on Thursday night, or during the store run on Friday morning.

 

[4senthia]

We are :websleuther:ing but none of us knows what happened to little DeOrr.
Logic means that the only one/s that do know were directly involved.
This investigator has more info than us, but until there is an arrest or indictment we won't know which way LE is going on this case.
:moo:

 

[4senthia]

But then, there would have been a phone call made. Phone call records have been examined. Of course, there is the possibility that a phone call was made could be made from a pay phone, either on the way TO the mountain on Thursday night, or during the store run on Friday morning.

I agree with this completely. Thanks for making the point clearer!
jmo

 

[4senthia]

I have always thought it seemed the parents did not want the public in general to know that they arrived on Thursday night instead of Friday.
It's bugged me to no end, and if it had been me I guarantee you the real timeline would have been given in my first interview.
The very first interview!
Why didn't they want it out there? Did they make a call when they stopped for fuel? Was there another vehicle that possibly followed them at least part of the way after a call from a store?
The glitch for me has always been Thursday night.
jmo

 

[4senthia]

IF there was another person in another vehicle, they would have had info from the start and "could have" just come forward with the information.
IMO that would fit with the investigator's line of thought. And what he has posted on his site.
jmo and hoping for real action on this case sooner rather than much later

 

[Trident]

I have always thought it seemed the parents did not want the public in general to know that they arrived on Thursday night instead of Friday.
It's bugged me to no end, and if it had been me I guarantee you the real timeline would have been given in my first interview.
The very first interview!
Why didn't they want it out there? Did they make a call when they stopped for fuel? Was there another vehicle that possibly followed them at least part of the way after a call from a store?
The glitch for me has always been Thursday night.
jmo

For me there are a lot of glitches: Thursday night; the unexplained EMT bag; not knowing IR was even there; gp never being heard from; the trip down the road to call 911; the extra trip to the store; the almost instant attack on SM; and a few other little things.

:cow:

 

[4senthia]

For me there are a lot of glitches: Thursday night; the unexplained EMT bag; not knowing IR was even there; gp never being heard from; the trip down the road to call 911; the extra trip to the store; the almost instant attack on SM; and a few other little things.

:cow:

Amen to all of that and then some!
jmo

 

[Trident]

Amen to all of that and then some!
jmo

And, let us not forget the cremains dumper who messed up the dogs.

:cow:

 

[OSpyder]

And, let us not forget the cremains dumper who messed up the dogs.

:cow:

I really have a hard time w/ that one too. LE doesn't think much of it from what I have seen, but talk about convenient, IMO.

 

[Trident]

I really have a hard time w/ that one too. LE doesn't think much of it from what I have seen, but talk about convenient, IMO.

The perfect storm.

:cow:

 

[OSpyder]

The perfect storm.

:cow:

Too perfect. All of it together. IMO

 

[Cricket99]

Wasn't there something about a missing EMT bag, or the contents therein?

I remember the EMT bag belonged to one of the searchers or to LE. It was brought up because people on Social Media were questioning it and JM just wanted to clear that up. I am pretty sure that was on the Sheriff's facebook but have no link so JMO..

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

Word choices are so tricky when we have very little else to go on. To me, "withheld" would imply someone was aware of the information, but chose not to supply it to LE. If they had said "previously undiscovered information", I could see it being some kind of document, file, record, etc. But we really don't know exactly what was meant by "previously withheld" and are left speculating, like so much of this case.

 

[gliving]

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.

Wasn't Klein's term "forced abduction"? As opposed to an "unforced abduction", whatever that is.

I wonder if Klein still holds to the 20-45 minutes window of opportunity that Deorr supposedly was without adult supervision. If he doesn't, then would that mean the parents told a fib?

And if Deorr was sighted by a witness as being on the mountain Friday, was that before or after the trip to the store?

So many questions and so few facts.