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

[Hatfield]

From my understanding, it's pretty well nigh impossible to do a successful home cremation.

On another case I had described how I once had a huge burn pile going to burn some tree limbs up and I also had found a dead possum that I had to get rid of and so I threw it in the fire.

I was surprised how it really did burn up bones and all after about an hour. This was a huge hot fire I had going and I had placed it in the hottest part of the fire and I stirred it around.

It surprised me that the bones disintegrated into nothing but ashes.

It was the first time I became convinced that if someone had a big enough and hot enough fire that they could get rid of most all of a body. But it would take some work.

The large fire that I had going to burn tree brush would stay hot for days.
Even 3 days later I would go out and stir the ashes and there was still heat at the bottom. So it was a really large fire pit.

A small campfire would not be near hot enough to get rid of everything unless it was a very large fire with lots of wood.

 

[ILOKAL]

On another case I had described how I once had a huge burn pile going to burn some tree limbs up and I also had found a dead possum that I had to get rid of and so I threw it in the fire.

I was surprised how it really did burn up bones and all after about an hour. This was a huge hot fire I had going and I had placed it in the hottest part of the fire and I stirred it around.

It surprised me that the bones disintegrated into nothing but ashes.

It was the first time I became convinced that if someone had a big enough and hot enough fire that they could get rid of most all of a body. But it would take some work.

The large fire that I had going to burn tree brush would stay hot for days.
Even 3 days later I would go out and stir the ashes and there was still heat at the bottom. So it was a really large fire pit.

A small campfire would not be near hot enough to get rid of everything unless it was a very large fire with lots of wood.

Wouldn't there be an odor? I couldn't do that even though the animal was dead. Did it bother you at all?

 

[Hatfield]

Wouldn't there be an odor? I couldn't do that even though the animal was dead. Did it bother you at all?

Not really since the smoke from all the wood burning was over powering everything else.

The fire I had going at the time was extremely large. It was roughly 10 feet diameter across and about 4-6 feet high of wood. It was huge. I had chainsawed up some fallen trees and was cutting them up and using the fire to get rid of them.

It was so hot that you really couldn't get too close to it. You could run up to it on the upwind side to stir it real quick and then had to run away. LOL

 

[ILOKAL]

Not really since the smoke from all the wood burning was over powering everything else.

The fire I had going at the time was extremely large. It was roughly 10 feet diameter across and about 4-6 feet high of wood. It was huge. I had chainsawed up some fallen trees and was cutting them up and using the fire to get rid of them.

It was so hot that you really couldn't get too close to it. You could run up to it on the upwind side to stir it real quick and then had to run away. LOL

That's one big fire! Hope you had a hose nearby.

 

[ILOKAL]

I am still not able to figure out what the COD could be, per Klein's thoughts. I am at a loss, honestly. I feel like I'm missing something, I guess.

I understand he could possibly have been buried quickly. But being buried doesn't give me any ideas of what COD could have been.

Keep in mind, it has to be some way that works for both accidental and intentional, unless Klein's blowing more smoke than Hatfield's fire.

 

[Hatfield]

That's one big fire! Hope you had a hose nearby.

Yea. We live rural and hose is always rolled out and close by when burning like that.

 

[desert-blue]

NO! Don't go googling! . I'm not trying to be complicated and I didn't google COD and I don't think Klein did either. IMO, because of a fairly short timeframe if, indeed, Klein's "speculation" on what happened is correct (I think DeOrr wandered away) and No evidence was found and DeOrr wasn't found, then DeOrr, IMO, had to have been buried right away. Would you agree? So although I realize certain bodily fluids exit the body upon death, I don't "think" it happens immediately. Having said that, it would have to be a COD that left no "other" evidence during the commission. I eliminated drowning because I believe it has already been eliminated. When I conclude that this COD would, IMO, eliminate two of the POI's it's because IMO, there are some COD's that are more easily carried out by some than by others. This has nothing to do with the specific POI's in this case but is rather a matter of statistics, I think. I have eliminated an injury occurring elsewhere since Klein seems to have done the same. The only reason I gave this any thought and came to the conclusion I have come to is because no matter WHAT Klein wants "me" to believe he KNOWS about the "how", I know that without a body and without any evidence it has to be a COD that he concluded based the on absence of evidence. I could only think of one. Gee, I hope I'm making some sense. IMO

ETA: I hope we're not the only ones who KNOW that there is NO WAY Klein could possibly KNOW the "how" without a body. After all, he's not a visionary nor does he have a crystal ball. I think many of our thoughts could come closer in line with each other ("our" being a general term) if this was realized. He has "deduced" the COD and I have no problem with that (beyond not agreeing that DeOrr was either killed accidentally or intentionally). IMO

EETA: I forgot to mention that since, according to Klein, little DeOrr was either killed accidentally OR intentionally, the COD would have to apply to EITHER.

BBM: How do you know that Klein's conclusion is based solely on a lack of evidence? There may be a lot of evidence that we are not privy to. Maybe someone even told him how DeOrr was killed, for all we know? I am clearly not following your line of thinking.... (I'll keep trying, though).

 

[neesaki]

I finally went back and listened to Klein's interview for the first time. He does say "corroborating" which makes sense. But then he also says "axillary", oh well. I am in agreement with previous posts that the people who came forward regarding auxillary issues on the mountain that day may account for the "previously withheld" information. I think it might be the family camping in the upper campground, unless there were others visiting Deorr's group that we don't know about. Or, IMO, it could also be GGP. I think someone mentioned that possibility earlier as well.

I do wonder about those auxillary issues on the mountain that day. JMHO

ETA: An update would sure be nice... Mr. Klein, Sheriff B. ???

 

[neesaki]

Hi Hatfield! :wave: That sure was one big fire you had! LOL

 

[ILOKAL]

BBM: How do you know that Klein's conclusion is based solely on a lack of evidence? There may be a lot of evidence that we are not privy to. Maybe someone even told him how DeOrr was killed, for all we know? I am clearly not following your line of thinking.... (I'll keep trying, though).

Because Klein and LE have stated there is no evidence. Over and over again. The same "no evidence" that has been used to eliminate certain other possible theories. Because if there IS the type of evidence that would be required for some COD's, that very same evidence could also indicate other eliminated theories should not be excluded. Can't have it both ways. IMO

 

[desert-blue]

Assuming one agrees with Klein's assessment, it would seem that the COD must be something that could be accidental or intentional (since he doesn't know if there was intent). Drowning, gunshot, drug overdose, shaking/hitting/slapping, falling/being pushed into the campfire are ones that come to mind that could be either. Things like heatstroke in the car or being run over with a vehicle would seem to be exclusively accidental so perhaps those CODs can be eliminated. I don't think that any COD would leave NO evidence and that's where I'm getting confused. I think a lack of evidence being found at the campsite could indicate a lot of other things. Also, I don't necessarily know that there is NO evidence (maybe just not enough to "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt). So, that gets me pretty much nowhere.... other than I think (I hope) that Klein's assessment is based on more than a lack of evidence.... MOO.

 

[neesaki]

Now I'm rethinking the other camping family that was there as the source of this new information. This because Sheriff B. had already tracked them down and talked to them. Why wouldn't they have told him anything they might have witnessed at that time instead of waiting until now?

 

[desert-blue]

Because Klein and LE have stated there is no evidence. Over and over again. The same "no evidence" that has been used to eliminate certain other possible theories. Because if there IS the type of evidence that would be required for some COD's, that very same evidence could also indicate other eliminated theories should not be excluded. Can't have it both ways. IMO

I think LE is just saying there is no evidence of such and such to help the public eliminate some of the possibilities. I don't think LE is going to come right out and say we have a bit of evidence that would point to homicide so we think that's what happened. It could jeopardize their case, among other things. I think that is why LE has kept a lot of their theories to themselves, for now. MOO.

 

[Lilibet]

I finally went back and listened to Klein's interview for the first time. He does say "corroborating" which makes sense. But then he also says "axillary", oh well. I am in agreement with previous posts that the people who came forward regarding auxillary issues on the mountain that day may account for the "previously withheld" information. I think it might be the family camping in the upper campground, unless there were others visiting Deorr's group that we don't know about. Or, IMO, it could also be GGP. I think someone mentioned that possibility earlier as well.

I do wonder about those auxillary issues on the mountain that day. JMHO

FWIW "Axillary" refers to the armpit or in botany to a bud from which something grows. I suppose he could be using the word loosely to imply issues that grew from one issue.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axillary

There is also the word "ancillary" which means subordinate or subsidiary, supplementary or auxiliary and takes us full circle.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ancillary

I wonder if he's combining the meaning of all three words. Auxiliary means providing help or assistance (in this case, to the main issue).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/auxiliary

 

[Hatfield]

I just read the 14 QA with Klein and I find it interesting at the very end he says:

"verifying the testimony of the people that were on the mountain that day as well as the axillary issues and some physical evidence that has been discovered."

So I take that to mean that some new physical evidence may have been uncovered. Not sure what it could be but maybe that has pointed him in a certain direction along with whatever witness has given more information.


http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...s-to-ask-the-deorr-kunz-private-investigator/

 

[neesaki]

FWIW "Axillary" refers to the armpit or in botany to a bud from which something grows. I suppose he could be using the word loosely to imply issues that grew from one issue.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axillary

There is also the word "ancillary" which means subordinate or subsidiary, supplementary or auxiliary and takes us full circle.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ancillary

Personally, I think he meant auxiliary, but it's interesting to look at other possibilities too.

Good point, he very well could have meant ancillary, that actually makes more sense now that I think about it. Thanks Lilibet.

 

[ILOKAL]

Assuming one agrees with Klein's assessment, it would seem that the COD must be something that could be accidental or intentional (since he doesn't know if there was intent). Drowning, gunshot, drug overdose, shaking/hitting/slapping, falling/being pushed into the campfire are ones that come to mind that could be either. Things like heatstroke in the car or being run over with a vehicle would seem to be exclusively accidental so perhaps those CODs can be eliminated. I don't think that any COD would leave NO evidence and that's where I'm getting confused. I think a lack of evidence being found at the campsite could indicate a lot of other things. Also, I don't necessarily know that there is NO evidence (maybe just not enough to "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt). So, that gets me pretty much nowhere.... other than I think (I hope) that Klein's assessment is based on more than a lack of evidence.... MOO.

Remember, Klein isn't saying he's offering a "theory" on "HOW" little DeOrr was killed, he SAYS he KNOWS HOW he was killed (COD) and goes on to state the COD was either accidental or intentional. Whatever it was, it has to have happened within a brief timeline because everyone there was in very close proximity to each other. As far as NO evidence, Klein and SB can recant that without putting some theories back on the table, but they haven't. So for now, they're stuck with it. Of course, we have no reason to believe LE HAS taken other theories off the table. Klein clearly stated that HE has. Behind a tree, a person "could" quite quickly kill a small child without being seen and immediately dig a grave below the leafy forest floor and leave NO evidence that ANY injury to DeOrr occurred. That SAME injury could have been the result of an accident, and if discovered quickly enough it too would leave no evidence. Only by process of elimination based on the lack of evidence can Klein, IMO, state that HE "knows" HOW little DeOrr met his death.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Assuming one agrees with Klein's assessment, it would seem that the COD must be something that could be accidental or intentional (since he doesn't know if there was intent). Drowning, gunshot, drug overdose, shaking/hitting/slapping, falling/being pushed into the campfire are ones that come to mind that could be either. Things like heatstroke in the car or being run over with a vehicle would seem to be exclusively accidental so perhaps those CODs can be eliminated. I don't think that any COD would leave NO evidence and that's where I'm getting confused. I think a lack of evidence being found at the campsite could indicate a lot of other things. Also, I don't necessarily know that there is NO evidence (maybe just not enough to "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt). So, that gets me pretty much nowhere.... other than I think (I hope) that Klein's assessment is based on more than a lack of evidence.... MOO.

Smothering/suffocation could also be accidental or intentional and may leave little evidence behind.

 

[flourish]

I don't think Klein knows much of anything, honestly. This vague and poorly worded game of inferences is attention- seeking for Klein, imo, and getting more attention to the case is a side effect of that.

If you really know enough to definitively state all the stuff you're definitively stating, then the actual police case would be going somewhere, a body, an arrest, increased police activity at locations, etc.

Dude needs to step back out of the limelight, and enroll in some ethics and writing classes, imo.

I still think this poor child died from an actual accidental injury or animal attack and hasn't had human eyes laid on him since he wandered off. This was a tragic accidental death in the wilderness, imo, and nature is the culprit, not a human.

 

[Lilibet]

Good point, he very well could have meant ancillary, that actually makes more sense now that I think about it. Thanks Lilibet.

Word use is so interesting! I added the definition of auxiliary to my post and wondered if he's sort of blending the meanings together.