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

[eileenhawkeye]

Ok I've seen quite a few posts that speculate Jessica is guilty whereas Vernal didn't know anything? Is this a reason why only she is being blamed?

 

[neesaki]

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!".

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.

Oh, I see. Yes, very helpful. Thank you, SS and MM.

 

[Rayemonde]

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.

Yes, I can't remember if it was reported in msm yet but the family said that LE confiscated the guns when they got there just in case things got heated since everyone was so stressed about DeOrr being missing... I always thought that was a bit strange...

 

[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

Sorry about that sillybilly, I didn't realize. :blush:

 

[Midge Montana]

So, when did Vilt's opinion change so drastically? I was searching for video of the reenactment and saw a news clip dated September 15 of him pushing pretty hard that it was an abduction and that the parents had nothing to do with it.

When did he offer the reward and was turned down, which is one of the big reasons he now states is what made him suspicious?

He wrote his letter on September 25, so it seems he had a complete change of heart within 10 days, am I right?

Also, I've tried to find a video of the reenactment but can only find a short clip of Vilt talking. Is there a video that shows more out there?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Ok I've seen quite a few posts that speculate Jessica is guilty whereas Vernal didn't know anything? Is this a reason why only she is being blamed?

I can only take a wild guess it is because so many believed him during the interviews and maybe didn't get the same vibe from her. Maybe not, but it is only what I recall from reading posts early on. People seemed to honestly buy what he was selling (and I was way over on the other side).

Can I ask why people are calling him Vernal instead of DeOrr Sr.?

 

[Rayemonde]

I have my own opinions about Vilt and have from the start, but we weren't allowed to post them or sleuth him at the time. Disagreeing with what he said is fine, but calling him "despicable" and making him out to be dishonest or money-grubbing?? It's going too far IMO. IMO we should just move on from Vilt and his theories and speculations rather than vilifying him for them. He's not the suspect in this case, after all.

 

[kammiemc]

Shannon Lee Dedrick is another case where the mother passed the baby off to someone else and pretended she was missing. Turned out the baby was at a neighbour's house, hidden in a box under the bed. The plot thickened when it turned out that the neighbour had been suspected of murdering one of her own stepchildren years before - so she definitely did *not* take the baby for altruistic motives. Absolutely fascinating case though, IMO, with the most amazing happy ending the sheriff actually brought the little girl out at a press conference and surprised everyone! And the websleuthers had figured it out before everyone else, because they had sleuthed away and found out about this neighbours past.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91020

Ack! Too many crazies in this world. I am working backwards from the most recent posts so just seeing this. Apparently the parents would not be breaking new ground to fake disappear their son for dough, then later try to reappear him. That doesn't sit right in my gut as what happened. But I am not on the investigation team!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rayemonde]

I can only take a wild guess it is because so many believed him during the interviews and maybe didn't get the same vibe from her. Maybe not, but it is only what I recall from reading posts early on. People seemed to honestly buy what he was selling (and I was way over on the other side).

Can I ask why people are calling him Vernal instead of DeOrr Sr.?

Bowerman called him Vernal in his last interview with Tricia. It's his first name - DeOrr is his middle name. I find it useful as it distinguishes him from the two other DeOrr Kunzs connected to the case.

 

[mrjitty]

I also heard about this theory on SM weeks ago. Vilt was actually telling it to sleuthers who e-mailed him about the case (which I thought was v unprofessional). He thought jessica might have actually arranged for a distant relative to come to the campsite and abduct Deorr, maybe without Vernal knowing, then raise him in another state.

I think it's a ridiculous idea...

Remember we are already dealing with unlikely outlier events here.

In the Matthews case it did turn out that a different family member had indeed hidden the child (alive) in collusion with the mother.

There really are only two possibilities now with abduction ruled out.

1. The father has hidden the body outside the search area using the truck

2. A 3rd party has picked the boy up and taken him away with collusion of parent(s)


What i do think is you can see grief in the mother - so I think the child is dead.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Remember we are already dealing with unlikely outlier events here.

In the Matthews case it did turn out that a different family member had indeed hidden the child (alive) in collusion with the mother.

There really are only two possibilities now with abduction ruled out.

1. The father has hidden the body outside the search area using the truck

2. A 3rd party has picked the boy up and taken him away with collusion of parent(s)


What i do think is you can see grief in the mother - so I think the child is dead.

Good observation. Exactly what I thought watching the interviews.

bbm

 

[mrjitty]

Re Occams razor - let's make sure we invoke it correctly!

<modsnip>

So for example, in the McCann case, invoking a gang of eastern europeans who steal children to order and ship them to wealthy families (or worse) violates the principle because there is no evidence such gangs exist. The theory is essentially founded on urban myth.

In the present case, the police sensibly start with the following theories.

1. Wandering

2. Occultation

3. Abduction

4. Animal attack.

The point of pursuing a "theory of the case" is that as evidence is gathered, a correct theory will be supported.

So theories 1 and 4 have been ruled out because evidence that should have been discovered was not discovered.

Theory 3 is difficult to disprove because of the difficulty of disproving a negative. Yet as no evidence of abduction emerges the theory is overtaken by theory 2.

We do have evidence of Occultation (apparently). So this is the "last theory standing".

So returning to Occam - Given Occultation - how can it have occurred?

A) In the truck. This is a good theory as it does not invoke anything extra. Also the fact that the child is missing supports the idea that a reason for occultation existed.

B) In a 3rd party's car. This theory of itself does not actually violate Occam. It's an efficient explanation for why the child is not in the search zone.

Also "if not in the truck" then theory B must be correct in the alternate.

The stuff about adoption I agree might amount to wild speculation, but I think the theory that someone else picked the kid up in collusion is not actually far fetched.

Reading between the lines my feeling is the Sheriff is saying that at least one other person in the extended family knows the truth.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

As with the most famous case that I won't mention, I tend to find these "search efforts" are often directed towards areas that can only draw a blank

Look in Morocco! Look in Australia! Look for a boy disguised as a girl!

 

[mrjitty]

Re the Truck

The combination of cadaver and blood dog place logical limits on disposal range / theories

Blood dogs hits are immediate. A decent dog will hit on bleed in the truck, even if cleanup is attempted.

Cadaver dog will reliably hit on a dead body around 90 mins from death - perhaps earlier.

This means that:

a) The body was removed from the dogs operation area inside 90 mins OR

b) the body never was inside the dogs zone of operation

If the boy died at camp - logically he cannot be more than say 60 mins drive away, allowing time for discussions etc. Otherwise I think the cadaver dog would hit on the truck.

However if the boy died somewhere else, logically the body could a lot further away. Say up to 60 mins drive from the point of death.

Or the body could near the point of death - and never was in the truck.

This makes LEF's job very hard - especially when you consider that in several cases bodies have been removed from temporary hiding places and deposited far far away.

 

[katydid23]

I don't think that he conclude that JM "planned an abduction" - he never said that. He said that he got the impression that Jessica didn't want kids, so much so that she gave up custody of her other two kids to their father and even went so far as to get her tubes tied after having DeOrr. Mr. Vilt said that because of the way the laws are in some states and even though Jessica and DeOrr aren't married, she couldn't LEGALLY give DeOrr up for adoption with his father's consent. Therefore, he thinks she MAY have adopted little DeOrr out without DeOrr Sr. knowing about it and that's when the whole "abduction" theory had been placed on the table. Mr. Vilt did not say anything about Jessica planning an abduction. I hope that clears things up for some folks.

It is not possible that she adopted him out legally without LE knowing about it. There would be obvious legal records and the social workers, courts and attorneys would know his name and come forward.

 

[crh8]

Re the Truck

The combination of cadaver and blood dog place logical limits on disposal range / theories

Blood dogs hits are immediate. A decent dog will hit on bleed in the truck, even if cleanup is attempted.

Cadaver dog will reliably hit on a dead body around 90 mins from death - perhaps earlier.

This means that:

a) The body was removed from the dogs operation area inside 90 mins OR

b) the body never was inside the dogs zone of operation

If the boy died at camp - logically he cannot be more than say 60 mins drive away, allowing time for discussions etc. Otherwise I think the cadaver dog would hit on the truck.

However if the boy died somewhere else, logically the body could a lot further away. Say up to 60 mins drive from the point of death.

Or the body could near the point of death - and never was in the truck.

This makes LEF's job very hard - especially when you consider that in several cases bodies have been removed from temporary hiding places and deposited far far away.

I have thought about the many places Deorr could possibly be. If he was never on the mountain or was only up there long enough for Isaac R. to see him then maybe the parents put his body in the EMT bag (that Jessica didn't want to bring up in the first interview) and then tossed it into a dumpster somewhere.

Very horrible but possible.

If one was going to bury a body, they'd have to dig 6 feet and then put the body in the ground.. (body's wrapped in plastic or non biodegradable containers would leave too much evidence if ever discovered.) A 6 foot deep hole is not easy to dig and would take some time. I think a cadaver dog would hit on the person that dug the grave and put the child in there. All of that would be difficult to do in 90 minutes before the body starts to decay enough for a cadaver dog to get a hit.. and presumably the dirt would get the truck dirty with earth. Even if the clothes the gravedigger were thrown out, I don't think washing could get the smell of decay off the skin in time. But then there weren't cadaver dogs up there the first day, correct?

One more thing, in the first interview Vernal misspoke and said "Snake" river before correcting himself to the Salmon river then he says snake and salmon search and rescue...The snake river runs right through idaho falls.

 

[Trident]

Re Occams razor - let's make sure we invoke it correctly!

<modsnip>

So for example, in the McCann case, invoking a gang of eastern europeans who steal children to order and ship them to wealthy families (or worse) violates the principle because there is no evidence such gangs exist. The theory is essentially founded on urban myth.

In the present case, the police sensibly start with the following theories.

1. Wandering

2. Occultation

3. Abduction

4. Animal attack.

The point of pursuing a "theory of the case" is that as evidence is gathered, a correct theory will be supported.

So theories 1 and 4 have been ruled out because evidence that should have been discovered was not discovered.

Theory 3 is difficult to disprove because of the difficulty of disproving a negative. Yet as no evidence of abduction emerges the theory is overtaken by theory 2.

We do have evidence of Occultation (apparently). So this is the "last theory standing".

So returning to Occam - Given Occultation - how can it have occurred?

A) In the truck. This is a good theory as it does not invoke anything extra. Also the fact that the child is missing supports the idea that a reason for occultation existed.

B) In a 3rd party's car. This theory of itself does not actually violate Occam. It's an efficient explanation for why the child is not in the search zone.

Also "if not in the truck" then theory B must be correct in the alternate.

The stuff about adoption I agree might amount to wild speculation, but I think the theory that someone else picked the kid up in collusion is not actually far fetched.

Reading between the lines my feeling is the Sheriff is saying that at least one other person in the extended family knows the truth.

This has been my theory since the beginning - after the cat - but could never express it. I'm not sure about adoption, but a friendly, non-forced abduction is not out of the question in my opinion.

 

[Rayemonde]

I have thought about the many places Deorr could possibly be. If he was never on the mountain or was only up there long enough for Isaac R. to see him then maybe the parents put his body in the EMT bag (that Jessica didn't want to bring up in the first interview) and then tossed it into a dumpster somewhere.

The bag went missing during the searches, so do you mean that they stole the bag to move the body? That would be very risky... Too much chance of someone seeing them wandering around with an EMT bag. Why wouldn't they just use one of their own bags, or take a friend or relative's bag, rather than breaking into a car and taking a very distinctive bag.

 

[Rayemonde]

If one was going to bury a body, they'd have to dig 6 feet and then put the body in the ground.. (body's wrapped in plastic or non biodegradable containers would leave too much evidence if ever discovered.) A 6 foot deep hole is not easy to dig and would take some time. I think a cadaver dog would hit on the person that dug the grave and put the child in there. All of that would be difficult to do in 90 minutes before the body starts to decay enough for a cadaver dog to get a hit.. and presumably the dirt would get the truck dirty with earth. Even if the clothes the gravedigger were thrown out, I don't think washing could get the smell of decay off the skin in time. But then there weren't cadaver dogs up there the first day, correct?

If the parents were unaccounted for for 4 hours though, that is plenty of time to dispose of a body far away, clean themselves up (maybe find somewhere to take a shower), change their clothes, dispose of any other evidence...

Plus we don't know that the cadaver dogs didn't hit on anyone or anywhere. Bowerman wouldn't tell us if they had, IMO.

 

[PainExpress]

If anything the adoption story should at least invoke a decent discussion between Mum and Dad.

If it doesn't - and surely people are listening - then that will answer alot of questions.