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

[bessie]

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.

Then with all due respect, you are mistaken. Any investigator worth his salt will remain objective. Therefore, from Klein's POV, ALL statements from the four adults are suspect until the truth is known. Until that time, he would be remiss -- and quite foolish, frankly -- to state a conclusion based on the claims of any one or more of the four.

 

[iluvmua]

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

How would the why eliminate accident?

As in "Why would someone kill an innocent kid"?

 

[bessie]

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..

From Tricia's interview with Sheriff Bowerman:

10:12
TG: Okay, thank you, and I certainly understand why you can’t comment, but I have to ask or people get mad at me, you know how that goes. Okay! Sheriff Bowerman, uh this is something I have not heard of, but in our chatroom, uh one of our members brings it up, Steelman85901 asks, uh, to ask you about the EMT bag that was mentioned during the parents’ interview and then never mentioned again. Do you know what that is about by chance?

10:37
SB: You know I believe that one of the uh volunteers was up in the area and their vehicle was broke into. It might have been left unlocked, but something…an EMT bag was…was taken from them

10:53
TG: Mmm hmmm

10:53
SB: while they were up doing the search and uh

10:56
TG: So…but it wasn’t anything to do with
SB:
I’m not sure if we ever determined uh who took it or what the circumstances were surrounding that.

11:02
TG: Right. And so there’s no reason to even believe it had anything to do with Deorr’s case or his

11:07
SB: Not at the time, no.

 

[MBK]

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.

In an article I read recently, Klein says that "forced abduction" is a term "we" use, meaning his firm. I find that a bit confusing . . . as I guess you would say the term abduction, if used in a court of law, wouldn't require the qualifier "forced."

I thought it was 17 minutes (????)

Was it specified that little Deorr was indeed spotted by a witness? We have Klein saying he was "on the mountain", but I'm not sure if he spelled that out. Can the family's campsite be seen directly from the higher campsite, where the older couple was camping?

 

[Trident]

From Tricia's interview with Sheriff Bowerman:

10:12
TG: Okay, thank you, and I certainly understand why you can’t comment, but I have to ask or people get mad at me, you know how that goes. Okay! Sheriff Bowerman, uh this is something I have not heard of, but in our chatroom, uh one of our members brings it up, Steelman85901 asks, uh, to ask you about the EMT bag that was mentioned during the parents’ interview and then never mentioned again. Do you know what that is about by chance?

10:37
SB: You know I believe that one of the uh volunteers was up in the area and their vehicle was broke into. It might have been left unlocked, but something…an EMT bag was…was taken from them

10:53
TG: Mmm hmmm

10:53
SB: while they were up doing the search and uh

10:56
TG: So…but it wasn’t anything to do with
SB:
I’m not sure if we ever determined uh who took it or what the circumstances were surrounding that.

11:02
TG: Right. And so there’s no reason to even believe it had anything to do with Deorr’s case or his

11:07
SB: Not at the time, no.

"Not at THE TIME, no."

I wonder about now, at THIS TIME?

:cow:

 

[Dee10]

Sheriff B. broke the news of the family camping Thurs. July 9th, the night before Deorr went missing on the 10th

- Dated Aug. 18th http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/lemhi-sheriff-opens-up-about-deorr-kunz-case/


From TxJan1971 Transcript - Dated Aug. 18/15 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Media-Timelines-and-Maps-**NO-DISCUSSION-quot

Nate Eaton:
“Bowerman is opening up about the case that has so many unanswered questions. He says late on Thursday, July 9th, not Friday, Deorr, his parents, great-grandfather and a friend of grandpa named Isaac Renwand arrive at Timber Creek. The next morning Bowerman tells me Deorr goes with his parents to a store in Leadore, about 20 minutes from the camp site.”

----------------

Wonder when & how the Sheriff found out this bombshell???

 

[TeaTime]

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

An SDT requires a witness, the one gathering the information, who will be able to testify as to the authenticity of the information gathered. Documents that came into LE's possession through 'a company' equally requires a person (witness) to gather and authenticate the documents. A company cannot gather or authenticate anything, it requires a person, i.e., a witness.

Now, I am going to cite Black's Law Dictionary for the definition of 'withhold', despite it not being a legal citation from a court, as it seems to be quite clear:

WITHHOLD: To retain in one's possession that which belongs to or is claimed or sought by another. To omit to disclose upon request: as, to withhold information. To refrain from paying that which is due.


Save the last sentence, which is inapplicable in the instant cause, I think this definition is crystal clear.

'Withholding' implies willful retention of possession of the thing requested, not a mistake. One can not withhold something unless it is known to exist. Stumbling upon additional information/documents that satisfies the request is not withholding, it is supplemental.

It is just my interpretation, yours may differ, but I prefer mine. LOL

 

[Trident]

How would the why eliminate accident?

As in "Why would someone kill an innocent kid"?

Accident? Shut him up? Keep him quiet for some reason? We've seen and heard all of that before.

:cow:

 

[bessie]

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.

I thought it was made clear with this statement.

XXXX XXXX: Does the information you received this weekend affirm the direction you were going with the investigation or change it?
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:02pm

Klein Investigations and Consulting: Neither. It is information gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all of the publicity on the case. We are vetting the information and it will take us a few days to do it - then compare it to what we have. Good question.
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:03pm

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/posts/937132659702652

 

[iluvmua]

There are LOT of things with this case in regards to the parents that do not make any sense to me.

jmo

 

[DexterMorgan]

Only a local would break into someone's car at a campsite during a search. Jmo

 

[Trident]

I thought it was made clear with this statement.

XXXX XXXX: Does the information you received this weekend affirm the direction you were going with the investigation or change it?
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:02pm

Klein Investigations and Consulting: Neither. It is information gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all of the publicity on the case. We are vetting the information and it will take us a few days to do it - then compare it to what we have. Good question.
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:03pm

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/posts/937132659702652

"It was information GATHERED by a witness that was scared to come forward. . .

Interesting that a witness "gathered" information.

:cow:

 

[iluvmua]

Of course nothing in this case makes sense to me. jmo

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

I thought it was made clear with this statement.

XXXX XXXX: Does the information you received this weekend affirm the direction you were going with the investigation or change it?
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:02pm

Klein Investigations and Consulting: Neither. It is information gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all of the publicity on the case. We are vetting the information and it will take us a few days to do it - then compare it to what we have. Good question.
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:03pm

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/posts/937132659702652

I thought this was clear as well regarding a witness. Maybe ILOKAL and TeaTime are discussing other information then?

And we've speculated on whether the information was gathered "by" the witness or they actually meant "from" the witness...

 

[gliving]

In an article I read recently, Klein says that "forced abduction" is a term "we" use, meaning his firm. I find that a bit confusing . . . as I guess you would say the term abduction, if used in a court of law, wouldn't require the qualifier "forced."

I thought it was 17 minutes (????)

Was it specified that little Deorr was indeed spotted by a witness? We have Klein saying he was "on the mountain", but I'm not sure if he spelled that out. Can the family's campsite be seen directly from the higher campsite, where the older couple was camping?

The 20 to 45 minutes is a statement by Bowerman. I've heard a range of time from others but moo I'll stick with the sheriff's version as the correct time.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/2...yield-no-clues-in-hunt-for-idaho-toddler.html

"What happened during the 20 to 45 minutes the child was alone is a mystery to authorities, said Bowerman, who noted "all possibilities" are being investigated."

 

[OSpyder]

Sheriff B. breaks the news of the family camping Thurs. July 9th, the night before Deorr went missing on the 10th

- Dated Aug. 18th http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/lemhi-sheriff-opens-up-about-deorr-kunz-case/


From TxJan1971 Transcript

Nate Eaton:
“Bowerman is opening up about the case that has so many unanswered questions. He says late on Thursday, July 9th, not Friday, Deorr, his parents, great-grandfather and a friend of grandpa named Isaac Renwand arrive at Timber Creek. The next morning Bowerman tells me Deorr goes with his parents to a store in Leadore, about 20 minutes from the camp site.”

----------------

Wonder when & how the Sheriff found out this bombshell???

Recent transcript?

 

[Dee10]

No, the transcript was done Aug. 18th as well. Jan is GREAT at transcribing for all of us. I should have added the date & link, I will go back & edit ~ thanks.

 

[Little Ol Me]

"It was information GATHERED by a witness that was scared to come forward. . .

Interesting that a witness "gathered" information.

:cow:

Yes!. For some reason the *gathered information* stood out to me as soon as I read the comment.
It still nags at me. I'm not sure why.

 

[redheart]

Yes!. For some reason the *gathered information* stood out to me as soon as I read the comment.
It still nags at me. I'm not sure why.

Yes, the "gathered" is weird. Sounds like a witness talking to one of the POI, for eg., and learning something - but that would be hearsay, not direct evidence. So what can this witness have "gathered"? Very strange wording, but that seems to be par for the course for Klein.

 

[TeaTime]

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

I think this earlier reply to Tapa explains my reasoning.

Tapa - I have ruled accident out from Kleins' words. He said "we know HOW. We want to know WHY." (emphasis mine) The only way this makes sense is that it was not an accident for if it was there is no reason to ask 'why".

In my opinion, it makes no sense to state, for instance "we know he accidentally ingested some drugs and died, now we want to know why he ingested the drugs" or "we know he was accidentally run over by a vehicle, now we ant to know why he was run over". To me, since he knows 'how', the 'why' tells us it was not accidental but rather an intentional act.

Of course some could argue that the 'why' refers to 'why was the accident hidden", but this argument makes no sense when we look at the words Klein selected. If Klein knew it was an accident, he could simply say "we know he died accidentally but we want to know why it was covered up" and this would not interfere with LE's investigation. The reason he didn't elaborate on the 'how' is because it was murder and he is unwilling to say this before LE is ready to act.

I hope this made sense. It does to me.​