ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #17

[neesaki]

Vilt's thinking is that she legally adopted out her son in a state that doesn't inform bio dads. This has never made sense to me. Why would she bother going through a legal process to completely disregard the law and fake his disappearance? As awful as the other alternative scenarios are, at least they have happened before in the world. They are known behavior--as shocking as it is. But has anyone ever heard of a case where someone legally adopts out a child and then fakes that child's disappearance? I did a super lame cursory search awhile back and could find nothing.

I was thinking the same thing. It would make no sense. If something like this did take place, not that I think it did, there would be no reason to hide it if it had been done legally.

 

[Midge Montana]

Yes, but large rewards can be a double-edged sword.

Yep. To each their own I guess. The refusal alone *might* not sway my mind one way or another in trying to figure out what happened to this toddler. In conjunction with the rest of the things that make me go hmmm, it just seems odd to me.

 

[Bootsctr]

Nate Eaton: Alright, so Frank, this letter that has been going around the internet. It looks like you wrote back in September.

Frank Vilt, PI: Basically, because of circumstances beyond my control dropping them as clients because of a breech of trust on their part because they didn't seem to trust me with what I wanted to do, and what I mean by that I wanted to go public. I wanted to go National/Public and I wanted to advertise and have this little missing boy we'd having more eyes and ears to find this little missing boy. I offered a $20,000 reward and they did not want me to offer the reward. They said that the sheriff did not want it. They said the sheriff did not want to go public, and the sheriff never mentioned that to me. And so I started finding little things that they were inconsistent, their stories did not jive. One was the timeline and there was some over-emphasis of Jessica stating that she knew the boy was in the campground because she kept looking back, "I kept looking back," "I kept looking back," and it seemed like this was an overkill. Why would she keep saying this over and over and over again? She wanted to establish that the boy was in the campground. And this was after they came back from town, and they saw some fish that Isaac and Bob, the grandfather, caught and so DeOrr said, "Well show me where those fish are, "Where'd you catch those fish?" and so they went off with Jessica, DeOrr, and Isaac went off to the creek where they caught the fish supposedly and Jessica said, "I kept looking back to make sure Little Man was there. I kept looking back. I kept looking back." And why did she over-emphasize that? And that was kind of one of the things, and she could not answer my question as to why she kept saying that, why she wanted to establish like an alibi that the boy was there, and some other things that were just inconsistent and did not want to *unintelligible* "They just were hiding things, like they were not coming forth with the truth. Another thing, the timeline did not make sense."

NE: When the news came out earlier this week, the sheriff is naming them as suspects, were you surprised?

FV: No, I was not surprised at all and a lot of reasons for that is the Sheriff is not just going to make wild accusations. They are not going to do anything until they have some evidence. There is always Double Jeopardy involved too, so they name them as suspects and, uh, they are not going to make an arrest and most of all, unfortunately, the sheriff is not going to make an arrest until they have the evidence to do so because it is Double Jeopardy. You don't want to make an arrest and then the charges are dismissed with prejudice when they know they have suspects

 

[bessie]

Yep. To each their own I guess. The refusal alone *might* not sway my mind one way or another in trying to figure out what happened to this toddler. In conjunction with the rest of the things that make me go hmmm, it just seems odd to me.

I guess that was my point. If I were drawing up a list of reasons to suspect the parents, the reward would be at the very bottom, or not included at all. It's a non-issue, in my view. And just to add, I remain unconvinced, undecided, and pretty squarely on the fence.

 

[Groundwork]

I just want to say that I really appreciate all the thoughtful, insightful and well-spoken (written?) thoughts, questions and opinions that are being shared tonight. It feels very safe for discussion; even potentially charged topics have been dealt with so respectfully and clearly. I just am really appreciating it, on a day when we are all wrapping our brains around so much.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

.

Here I go again

I must point out some things from the VILT interview that may not be as bad as they look

Vernal is baby DeOrr's father's name and I am to use that from now on

--- Vernal is camping and DeOrr goes missing
--- Vilt said he knew Vernal from fixing his car in an autobody shop
--- Vilt said he liked Vernal and it was Vilt that approached Vernal
--- Vilt said he would only charge expenses and not for the hours he spent investigating
--- Vernal says yes , based on knowing $1,900 had been raised via go-fund
--- Vernal finds out the $1,900 has been absconded by the person who raised it on go-fund
--- Vernal is now expected to pay Vilt himself and I doubt he could afford it
--- Vilt also wants to offer a $25,000 reward
--- Vernal does not want him to offer a reward.
--- Makes sense to me , where was Vernal going to come up with all that money ?
--- as it turns out Vilt did not get paid by Vernal
--- I dont think Vernal would have said yes to use Vilt except for knowing the $1,900 was available
--- We cannot blame Vernal for the $1,900 disappearing , nor blame him for not paying it himself
--- I dont think Vernal initially suspected abduction ... no need for nation wide reward
--- Remember it was Vilt who proposed the abduction - black Rubicon - theory which was proven false

Sorry Vilt , you lose that round and Vernal remains standing , at least to me.

I am not saying Vernal is innocent , just saying he is not guilty of these invented fictions and scenarios.

It appears Vilt approached Vernal as a friend and walked away as a non-friend , and Vilt complains of an unpaid bill

Vernal needed help , called the sheriff and searchers , and they came , without requiring payment

Mr Vilt seems like a nice guy and I wish him well , but if he tries to play victim here I think that is wrong

Whether Vernal is involved in DeOrrs disappearance or not , is beside the point

thanks.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/former-kunz-p-i/
.
.

Hmmm...no. I think whether DeOrr Kunz Sr. is responsible for his son's disappearance and probable death IS the point!

It is obvious to me the reason Vilt is speaking out now is to salvage his reputation as a PI. He knows Klein has come in and done everything he did not or could not do, imo. While I do not consider Vilt as a victim, I do believe in a way he was duped by DK and JM. This does put him in a very precarious position with his client, paid or not.

Putting up a reward is tricky business. The wording of a reward is what is important. I have seen rewards put up by the FBI and rewards put up by well-meaning people who only want to bring attention to cases. The devil, however, is in the details. Some have a limited time for the offer. Others require certain criteria to be met such as the safe return of a person or the conviction of the perp in order to be paid out. Vilt putting up money doesn't mean he would be losing it so for him to make such an offer isn't an enormous risk especially if he thought he was going to make a name for himself, imo. Self-serving? Possibly.

The entire scenario with the abduction and pushing the adoption theory now really tells me a lot about Vilt and how he works. He either cannot buy a clue or he has some far out ideas when it comes to this case in particular (imo). He knows they were lying to him and to LE, imo, yet he cannot see the reason why? It never entered his mind they could have murdered their own child and lied about it by setting up this seemingly foolproof ruse? He honestly cannot believe it is because they sold or gave him away. The logic of that scenario is simply ridiculous. It is also my opinion the reason the parents did not want to go national with this case is because they thought they were smarter than LE in their state and the FBI. (They were wrong.)

 

[lexycat]

I guess that was my point. If I were drawing up a list of reasons to suspect the parents, the reward would be at the very bottom, or not included at all. It's a non-issue, in my view. And just to add, I remain unconvinced, undecided, and pretty squarely on the fence.

I have been reading the last few threads and I feel the same as you do.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

So anxious to hear Tricia's interview with Sheriff Bowerman.

The PIs are annoying static. I really don't want to hear anything more from them. Their 15 seconds are up.

I want to go back and listen to the bill of goods SB sold everyone on the last interview so I can compare notes. I was annoyed after that interview because he weaved and bobbed with misdirection away from the parents. smh

 

[ReadySet]

Time for a map:
Here is the site I posted a few days ago. It is a trail bike site; this time I'm posting the "Tour" part of the site. This will take you on a cool tour of road 172, which is the road on the east side of the campsite, that goes up past the reservoir. You can play with the distance, tilt, and speed to get different perspectives. Posters have noted that the campsite is in a "bowl" type of area enclosed by steep sides. I haven't been able to confirm this, but I think road 172 is the road Vernal referred to, when he was talking about being able to see down into the campsite.
For those unfamiliar with the map, when the Play tab gets to about the middle, you will see the clearing where the campsite is.

http://www.trailforks.com/trails/stone-reservoir-road-172/tour/

 

[neesaki]

If I had to guess, I would say for the same reason you would praise a search and rescue team that had not found you missing son... this was an answer to why say no to the $20,000 reward...

Also, I saw in the "re-enactment video" that dad had a holstered sidearm. Surely he would have also worn it camping. And if so, surely he would have had it while the three slept in the back of the Suburban and surely would have taken it off. Did he have a lockbox? Has this been checked or discussed? Was it checked to see if it had been fired by LE?

I'm not suggesting the child might have gotten a hold of it, because then you'd have to haul to town to try to get him to a doctor. Unless it was too late, then you might need to haul to a store to get something to clean any blood, something that wouldn't be questioned for having blood on it like, I don't know, female items? Then haul all the way back to clean the Suburban.

Sounds pretty out there. I'm grasping at straws. If some crazy, unthinkable thing like that happened, imagine what other campers would thing seeing a truck haulin' all over the place, and how surprised you would be to find out there were traveled roads above, that you could clearly see the whole campsite from.

Has this been discussed? I will now go back to keeping my opinions to myself.

No, don't keep your opinions to yourself, that's what the forum is for. And this is as good a straw to grasp at as any, imo. I honestly don't remember noticing that in the re-enactment video so thanks for pointing it out. And I'm completely for 2nd Amendment rights but with children safety precautions are essential, so a good question.

And now this has me thinking about those "auxillary / ancillary" issues that Klein mentioned were going on at the campground. This case kept me awake last night, I guess it will tonight too.

 

[ReadySet]

I want to go back and listen to the bill of goods SB sold everyone on the last interview so I can compare notes. I was annoyed after that interview because he weaved and bobbed with misdirection away from the parents. smh

Maybe his goal in that regard was to keep the parents talking by expresssing trust in them, instead of directing toward them.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I just want to say that I really appreciate all the thoughtful, insightful and well-spoken (written?) thoughts, questions and opinions that are being shared tonight. It feels very safe for discussion; even potentially charged topics have been dealt with so respectfully and clearly. I just am really appreciating it, on a day when we are all wrapping our brains around so much.

And then I show up. LOL My posts do get a bit thought provoking and push buttons at times. I promise it is nothing personal to anyone here. It is always safe to post on WS. If I come across as harsh sometimes, it isn't on purpose. I simply don't beat around the bush and I call it like I see it.

 

[kammiemc]

RSBM - just trying to keep my recollections clear. Weren't Vernal and Jessica the ones to bring up abduction right off the bat before Vilt was ever even in the picture?

They didn't just bring it up, they "sold" the theory in their first interview IMO. It stopped me in my tracks when they said that they were worried that he was abducted because he wouldn't have wandered without his favorite items. I didn't believe that they believed what they were saying. It seemed planned and manipulative. What child would go to retrieve his items before chasing after mommy and daddy to do something as exciting as fishing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Maybe his goal in that regard was to keep the parents talking by expresssing trust in them, instead of directing toward them.

Ah, yes...that false sense of security.

It is like having someone try to convince me the sky is not blue when I can see it clearly and I know what the color blue looks like because I have seen it before so many times. People use the analogy, "If it walks like a duck..." often on this site. It is rather like that with someone in a position to know saying there is no duck, never was a duck and if there was one...the duck is a red herring. :banghead:

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Trying very hard to think of a plausible explanation for the parents not wanting Vilt to take this case nationwide for exposure and also why in God's green earth would they be against him putting up $20,000 of his own money as a reward?!?!

Can someone PLEASE help me out with that?

Because $20K would be quite motivating for a witness who has been hesitant to come forward. If you knew someone knew something, and were likely to keep quiet for whatever reason, but realize $20K would be enough to loosen their lips, you wouldn't want that to happen.

 

[kammiemc]

Maybe his goal in that regard was to keep the parents talking by expresssing trust in them, instead of directing toward them.

ReadySet, that is exactly what I felt, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neesaki]

<modsnip> Please forgive me for asking this dumb question, but I don't do FB or social media at all, so can someone tell me what that means, to "tag" someone on FB? I'm asking because I was just reading over there and saw it myself. TIA

 

[SeriouslySearching]

<modsnip> Please forgive me for asking this dumb question, but I don't do FB or social media at all, so can someone tell me what that means, to "tag" someone on FB? I'm asking because I was just reading over there and saw it myself. TIA

It means the post will pop up on that person's timeline for them to see. It is a way to get their attention like waving a little flag that says, "Look at this!".

 

[Rayemonde]

RSBM - just trying to keep my recollections clear. Weren't Vernal and Jessica the ones to bring up abduction right off the bat before Vilt was ever even in the picture?

Yes... Remember Jessica made those posters on Facebook of DeOrr photoshoppped with different colored hair, and said he could even be disguised as a girl.

 

[Midge Montana]

<modsnip> Please forgive me for asking this dumb question, but I don't do FB or social media at all, so can someone tell me what that means, to "tag" someone on FB? I'm asking because I was just reading over there and saw it myself. TIA

Tagging is often done to draw someone's attention to a post. Example: I see a recipe I might want to try. I might tag my husband, so he will be notified that he was tagged in a post. He can then click on that notification and take a look at the recipe and let me know if he wants me to make that for dinner.
Hope that helps.