ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #18

[Sillybilly]

In the initial interview JM said she called 911 at 2:36. At the time I didn't think much about it other than it just happened to be the time of the call. Today I started to wonder if anything could have prompted the call to happen when it did . . . so I checked the weather.

and I can't help but wonder if they felt they really had no choice once it started to rain. They had no way of knowing it was just going to be a light rain lasting about an hour.

Could you please provide a link to the chart Aeronomy so we can see what the headings are for the last two columns on the right (i.e. first line, was it "thunderstorm" or "clear" at 1:42)?. Also to see what it was like earlier during the time they were driving to and from the store and arriving back at the campsite.

Thanks !!

 

[bluesneakers]

Why do you think she corrected DK by saying she called at 2:36 during the interview? It's such a precise time.

Not pinpointing you, just trying to get thoughts about that.

I think she must have looked at her phone and saw the time when she called 911.

 

[desert-blue]

Let's see. Bowerman has the time-stamped receipt from the store. According to Bowerman, Jessica states they returned from the store at 1:10. Bowerman accepts that as close enough (because he has the receipt) and puts their return time anywhere from about 1 - 1:30. Jessica called 911 at 2:28 and told dispatch they had searched for about an hour. In the first interview, Jessica states they were at the creek for about ten minutes. So, let's add it up. They leave DeOrr with GGPA at about 1:15, return ten minutes later and discover DeOrr is missing at 1:25, they search for him for an hour, which brings us to 2:25, and she calls 911 at 2:28. Anything missing?

Just DeOrr.


In their first interview, they said it was almost 2:00 (DeOrr's nap time) when they left to go exploring. That doesn't work well if they were gone for any period of time, searched for anywhere close to an hour, and then called 911 at 2:28. I've never been able to make sense of that.

 

[Sleuth YaYa]

I never thought of that, but I have certainly noticed that they rarely use his name... Personally, I find all the "Lil man!" stuff nauseating.

Plus they never bothered to change the false information that he had blue eyes, and they never publicised his birthmark... They never sought out the national press, and they never bothered to arrange for billboards to be put up.

IMO....Those are the things that you don't bother doing when you know your child is already dead.

 

[persimmon]

The only specifics or use of concrete language seems to occur with reference to numbers....2:36 called 911....50 yards away....10 mins...etc. However, the rest of this camping trip seems so abstract to me and neither JM nor DK ever offers any description of what exactly everyone was doing. I would find it relevant to know what DeOrr was doing before the trip to the store. Young children generally wake up early so what was going on all morning? What seemed to grab DeOrr's attention? Was he interested in wandering toward the creek? Was he playing all alone? Why didn't they explore in the morning? What was happening during this trip? I find the absence of any description disconcerting. It adds to the collective skepticism about whether DeOrr was even present at the campsite. Jmo

 

[ILOKAL]

Why do you think she corrected DK by saying she called at 2:36 during the interview? It's such a precise time.

Not pinpointing you, just trying to get thoughts about that.

She probably thought she did call at 2:36 and thought it was important, at least to her at the time, to give the correct time. I don't think there's anything TO that eight minutes.

 

[neesaki]

My position is that little DeOrr wandered off and is out there, probably in the area already searched. I want nothing more than for this sweet little boy to be found so that his family can give him a proper burial and for them to have some degree of closure to this madness. I simply do not agree that for DeOrr to have wandered off unseen, those there would need to have been under the influence for that to have happened, and there are plenty of prior and similar cases to prove it, the most recent one being little Noah Chamberlin and just before that, little Jerold in Arizona.

Of course, I didn't mean to imply that they HAD to be under the influence of anything, perhaps they weren't. Let's just say it's a possibility. On the other hand, it could be nothing more than they were gone away from Deorr significantly longer than they claimed and don't want to own up to it. It could be that there was an accident caused by someone else at the campsite and they're protecting him.

What leads me to believe it's more than they just left their child for 17 minutes with GGP by the fire, and suddenly he wasn't there, is their ever changing stories and timelines and specifics of what went on up their, as according to Sheriff B. Though I agree Deorr could have wandered off, I don't see the circumstances as being that similar to Noah's or Jerold's case in other ways, IMO.

 

[ILOKAL]

It just seems so strange that the very second they return from the store they go down to the creek and that just so happens to be when DeOrr disappears. I don't know what I think of it, I just know that it's weird.

I'm not following. Most children who go missing while camping, hiking, scouting, etc. do so because they wandered away when others were preoccupied. In this case, they went to the creek to fish. Would it change that weirdness had they gone for a bike ride, gone for a swim, went for a walk in the forest?

 

[ILOKAL]

Just DeOrr.


In their first interview, they said it was almost 2:00 (DeOrr's nap time) when they left to go exploring. That doesn't work well if they were gone for any period of time, searched for anywhere close to an hour, and then called 911 at 2:28. I've never been able to make sense of that.

I'd have to look at what was said. I don't remember exactly what it was.

 

[ILOKAL]

The only specifics or use of concrete language seems to occur with reference to numbers....2:36 called 911....50 yards away....10 mins...etc. However, the rest of this camping trip seems so abstract to me and neither JM nor DK ever offers any description of what exactly everyone was doing. I would find it relevant to know what DeOrr was doing before the trip to the store. Young children generally wake up early so what was going on all morning? What seemed to grab DeOrr's attention? Was he interested in wandering toward the creek? Was he playing all alone? Why didn't they explore in the morning? What was happening during this trip? I find the absence of any description disconcerting. It adds to the collective skepticism about whether DeOrr was even present at the campsite. Jmo

I'm sure that information was given during their many interviews. Isn't that where Bowerman said there were some discrepancies? In those little things?

 

[ILOKAL]

Of course, I didn't mean to imply that they HAD to be under the influence of anything, perhaps they weren't. Let's just say it's a possibility. On the other hand, it could be nothing more than they were gone away from Deorr significantly longer than they claimed and don't want to own up to it. It could be that there was an accident caused by someone else at the campsite and they're protecting him.

What leads me to believe it's more than they just left their child for 17 minutes with GGP by the fire, and suddenly he wasn't there, is their ever changing stories and timelines and specifics of what went on up their, as according to Sheriff B. Though I agree Deorr could have wandered off, I don't see the circumstances as being that similar to Noah's or Jerold's case in other ways, IMO.

Well actually, the rumors started spreading likewise in both those cases, so others DID find them similar, I guess.

 

[desert-blue]

The only specifics or use of concrete language seems to occur with reference to numbers....2:36 called 911....50 yards away....10 mins...etc. However, the rest of this camping trip seems so abstract to me and neither JM nor DK ever offers any description of what exactly everyone was doing. I would find it relevant to know what DeOrr was doing before the trip to the store. Young children generally wake up early so what was going on all morning? What seemed to grab DeOrr's attention? Was he interested in wandering toward the creek? Was he playing all alone? Why didn't they explore in the morning? What was happening during this trip? I find the absence of any description disconcerting. It adds to the collective skepticism about whether DeOrr was even present at the campsite. Jmo

Yes, these are the type of details I would have expected to hear in their interview on July 13th - what DeOrr had been doing up until the point when he disappeared, i.e. what time he woke up, what they did in the morning, what they did for breakfast, etc. I also would have expected for them to give a brief timeline, including when they arrived at the campground, and who all was there (they made no reference to IR at all). I would be wrong to expect any of that, though, because none of it was mentioned.

 

[bluesneakers]

Yes, these are the type of details I would have expected to hear in their interview on July 13th - what DeOrr had been doing up until the point when he disappeared, i.e. what time he woke up, what they did in the morning, what they did for breakfast, etc. I also would have expected for them to give a brief timeline, including when they arrived at the campground, and who all was there (they made no reference to IR at all). I would be wrong to expect any of that, though, because none of it was mentioned.

We heard a lot about all kinds of stuff that didn't matter.

 

[persimmon]

I'm sure that information was given during their many interviews. Isn't that where Bowerman said there were some discrepancies? In those little things?

If they were, I missed them.

 

[ILOKAL]

If they were, I missed them.

Interviews with LE. They're not published.

 

[persimmon]

We heard a lot about all kinds of stuff that didn't matter.

Agreed. It would seem with the passing of time some of the more important details might surface, but none have. This is why early on many people thought they had just arrived that afternoon.

 

[persimmon]

Interviews with LE. They're not published.

Yes, I'm sure they have provided more details to LE but even that seems questionable and vague.
If you compare it to the recent case in TN, we knew the details...what few there were since it was a simple nature walk. Nonetheless, I could form a clear image in my mind unlike this case. Jmo

 

[Sleuth YaYa]

None of the "clues" seem to add up to a "lost" child. That only seems possible if you leave some of the "clues" out of the equation. The most important information in this case is the timeline and the events as they happened. Basic information is missing here, that's why we can't begin to solve this mystery. You just keep going around in circles.

These are some things that I've been wondering about, and I will list them. I'm in no way trying to pin this on anyone in particular, at this time. I'm just trying to throw my thoughts down in writing. I remember this story in the news back in July 2015, but I haven't kept up with the case until this week. I've read through most of the threads, and watched or read the transcripts of interviews.

Here is my list, if I am to believe what the parents are saying:


1) First and foremost, as a parent, if my child went missing on a camping trip with only ONE stranger nearby, guess who I'd be suspecting? I'd be Screaming it to the high heavens, especially if my child wasn't found in a short time once searchers arrived. It wouldn't matter at the time if IR were innocent, because that is what normal parents would do, period!

2) Who, as a parent, with a stranger among them, would blame it on an abduction when nobody was around them when this happened?... No traffic, no other people or wild animals seen. Suspecting an abduction could only come into a parent's mind once the "stranger", IR, was TOTALLY cleared first! Why? Because he was a stranger to them and their child! It is the only logical thing that would keep popping into any parent's mind if no traffic, people, or wild animals were seen when Deorr went missing. Especially after hunting for him for hours with no luck.

3) Maybe the parents keep failing the two parts of the polygraph that ask, "Where is Deorr?", and "What happened to Deorr?", because the parents do suspect IR and don't really know what happened? If this is so, then why aren't they screaming for the authorities to investigate IR more thoroughly? They aren't. Know why? Because they either know he didn't do anything, or they know he helped them cover this crime up.

4) These parents want the spotlight off of all four of the adults that were at that campground. Why? Is it because IR, even if he's innocent, might remember details that put them in a bad light? Is it because IR really didn't see Deorr at the campground that day? Is it because they all had a part in Deorr going missing? I don't believe they are trying to protect Grandpa or IR. No, it seems they are trying to control the investigation. Anyway, who would protect someone for an accident and risk going to prison themselves? Especially if it were your child that was missing or killed?

5) I don't want to think the parents did something to Deorr, but yes, I have to go there. The word "NAP" that the dad used during the interview made me wonder about something. Notice that he mentioned "nap", but never talked about any of them actually putting him down for a nap. Why skip that? Why mention nap at all? I think dad did that unintentionally. He mentioned it because Deorr was cranky and possibly something happened that pertained to a nap. Parents all know that nap time is hard enough without being somewhere new and exciting. Maybe Deorr was fighting his sleep while trying to get him to nap? Maybe Deorr was especially cranky because he didn't sleep well in the SUV the night before? Maybe Deorr woke up very early that morning and didn't go back to sleep? Maybe Deorr wouldn't nap, so they did something about it...meds?...or worse?

6) Why were the parents perturbed by a witness putting a black truck at the store around 6pm instead of at the time they said they went to the store earlier in the day? Why so important to them? They would have certainly been around the authorities and searchers at that time, so that wouldn't have mattered. UNLESS the timing of the store visit is VERY important to them. Why? And why go back to the store and try to make the cashier REMEMBER them? They weren't suspects at this time. Why did the store visit have to be precise unless you were a suspect? Also, if it were important to you for a cashier to remember you during your visit, wouldn't you think up something that would have made that more likely to happen, like spill a drink, or talk about something easily remembered by the cashier? This leads me to believe that the store was not part of the plan. I think a receipt had to be provided because they mentioned the store. Maybe the store receipt unexpectedly hemmed them in to a tighter timeline, and now they can't get their stories precise?

I'm sorry for rambling on, but no matter what I try to think, I keep coming back to the parents. They have to be involved some sort of way, whether they did the deed or not. This was no abduction. If it were, the parents would have gone about doing things much more differently.

 

[Hexe]

IMO....Those are the things that you don't bother doing when you know your child is already dead.

If they sold DeOrr they wouldn't want to publicise the identifying marks neither. And they wouldn't mind a fake info being spread. So I am on the fence between these two hypothesis. That they killed him, or sold him.

 

[persimmon]

None of the "clues" seem to add up to a "lost" child. That only seems possible if you leave some of the "clues" out of the equation. The most important information in this case is the timeline and the events as they happened. Basic information is missing here, that's why we can't begin to solve this mystery. You just keep going around in circles.

These are some things that I've been wondering about, and I will list them. I'm in no way trying to pin this on anyone in particular, at this time. I'm just trying to throw my thoughts down in writing. I remember this story in the news back in July 2015, but I haven't kept up with the case until this week. I've read through most of the threads, and watched or read the transcripts of interviews.

Here is my list, if I am to believe what the parents are saying:


1) First and foremost, as a parent, if my child went missing on a camping trip with only ONE stranger nearby, guess who I'd be suspecting? I'd be Screaming it to the high heavens, especially if my child wasn't found in a short time once searchers arrived. It wouldn't matter at the time if IR were innocent, because that is what normal parents would do, period!

2) Who, as a parent, with a stranger among them, would blame it on an abduction when nobody was around them when this happened?... No traffic, no other people or wild animals seen. Suspecting an abduction could only come into a parent's mind once the "stranger", IR, was TOTALLY cleared first! Why? Because he was a stranger to them and their child! It is the only logical thing that would keep popping into any parent's mind if no traffic, people, or wild animals were seen when Deorr went missing. Especially after hunting for him for hours with no luck.

3) Maybe the parents keep failing the two parts of the polygraph that ask, "Where is Deorr?", and "What happened to Deorr?", because the parents do suspect IR and don't really know what happened? If this is so, then why aren't they screaming for the authorities to investigate IR more thoroughly? They aren't. Know why? Because they either know he didn't do anything, or they know he helped them cover this crime up.

4) These parents want the spotlight off of all four of the adults that were at that campground. Why? Is it because IR, even if he's innocent, might remember details that put them in a bad light? Is it because IR really didn't see Deorr at the campground that day? Is it because they all had a part in Deorr going missing? I don't believe they are trying to protect Grandpa or IR. No, it seems they are trying to control the investigation. Anyway, who would protect someone for an accident and risk going to prison themselves? Especially if it were your child that was missing or killed?

5) I don't want to think the parents did something to Deorr, but yes, I have to go there. The word "NAP" that the dad used during the interview made me wonder about something. Notice that he mentioned "nap", but never talked about any of them actually putting him down for a nap. Why skip that? Why mention nap at all? I think dad did that unintentionally. He mentioned it because Deorr was cranky and possibly something happened that pertained to a nap. Parents all know that nap time is hard enough without being somewhere new and exciting. Maybe Deorr was fighting his sleep while trying to get him to nap? Maybe Deorr was especially cranky because he didn't sleep well in the SUV the night before? Maybe Deorr woke up very early that morning and didn't go back to sleep? Maybe Deorr wouldn't nap, so they did something about it...meds?...or worse?

6) Why were the parents perturbed by a witness putting a black truck at the store around 6pm instead of at the time they said they went to the store earlier in the day? Why so important to them? They would have certainly been around the authorities and searchers at that time, so that wouldn't have mattered. UNLESS the timing of the store visit is VERY important to them. Why? And why go back to the store and try to make the cashier REMEMBER them? They weren't suspects at this time. Why did the store visit have to be precise unless you were a suspect? Also, if it were important to you for a cashier to remember you during your visit, wouldn't you think up something that would have made that more likely to happen, like spill a drink, or talk about something easily remembered by the cashier? This leads me to believe that the store was not part of the plan. I think a receipt had to be provided because they mentioned the store. Maybe the store receipt unexpectedly hemmed them in to a tighter timeline, and now they can't get their stories precise?

I'm sorry for rambling on, but no matter what I try to think, I keep coming back to the parents. They have to be involved some sort of way, whether they did the deed or not. This was no abduction. If it were, the parents would have gone about doing things much more differently.

As a parent, my initial thought would have been that he wandered off and got lost. However, I cannot imagine allowing for a child to get too far before I sounded a major alarm. But, I would have immediately headed for any nearby water. The water has all been thoroughly searched to no avail.

My next thought would be the stranger in the group and I too would go slightly mad until all aspects of that theory were exhaustedly investigated. That person would not have a chance to wander off for an hour. I would be hyperconscious of everybody's behavior.

If my child disappeared at a campground...I'm afraid I would be living there and using every possible momemt to search myself. I would not be deterred by LE or weather...I just would not be capable of functioning at home or in reality. I know that something like that is stronger than me....and I would effectively be lost with my child.

If I believed my child had been abducted, I would use media to the fullest in hopes of helping my plight to find him/her. In my mind, LE would be a tool but I would conducting my own investigation and pursuing any possible thread. I have not felt that the parents have committed themselves in the way a parent should. They have battled against media exposure, waged petty sm wars, and continually focused on their egos. Persusing Facebook is not going to help them find their child so perhaps getting off SM unless its productive and utilizing time and resources wisely would aid them. But, I lean toward thinking they are involved. No I dont believe they would cover for another individual. They seem far too self centered.

I find this case bizarre. Period. The behavior is likewise bizarre and I can imagine a few reasons for that.

Finally, I have always been confused by their strong reaction to the black truck sighting. I reasoned much like you that it was likely a different black truck and maybe since abduction is on the table it should be investigated and embraced as a possible sighting. Like everything else, it's bizarre and illogical. Much like the assertion that somebody did this to them. A comment that was made in the same initial interview. That struck me as insanely paranoid and self centered since its DeOrr who is the victim not them.

Jmo and responses to some of your thougts.
Time for sleep.