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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Bessie, I did catch that in the interview. What I mean is that there is no way to know for sure that IR is indeed telling the truth, or that his memory might have been impaired for some reason that day, or that his memory wasn't "influenced" by something or someone. So I am taking his @1:00pm sighting with a grain of salt at this point until we learn more.
I know, July. ;)

I understood your point, and your questions. MY point is that, as far as we know at this point in time, there are no valid reasons to dispute IR's account. SB has read the polygraph reports, and the FBI behavioral analysts' findings. If he's comfortable with IR's version of events, then I'm not inclined to dispute his opinion sans legitimate evidence to the contrary.
 
polygraph interpretation is a tool. it is not evidence -for or against a person.

we need to have solid evidence re: a particular person before the person is named a suspect.

yep, im aware of that. and it sounds to me like the sheriff was not going to name them suspects if not for the FBI's opinion on the polygraphs.
 
I'm somewhat confused because when Tricia asked Sheriff Bowerman when DeOrr was last seen by someone other than his parents he said:

"To the best of my knowledge, from the time that they left Idaho Falls on July 9th, which was in the early afternoon or early evening, we have not had a confirmation, an absolute 100% positive that someone saw DeOrr, but I still feel that he was at the campsite. I'm just not sure the timeline now."

Wouldn't this mean IR is not 100% sure?

The question begins at the 4:08 mark.

I don't understand this either. Did Isaac see DeOrr or did he not see DeOrr? It shouldn't be that hard of a question - they were together at the campground one night and half of the next day. Is the sheriff implying that Isaac is not a reliable witness, and if so, why? Does the sheriff think Isaac could be mistaken or confused?

I didn't come away from the interview with much confidence of there being any sort of verifiable sighting of DeOrr. I'm not sure the 1:00/1:15 sighting should be used in the timeline unless Isaac is 100% sure he saw DeOrr...

MOO.
 
Food for thought.
IR's poly was inconclusive, but was expected to be so due to his condition. So how would you know if he was lying or not?
 
I just want to clarify why i used "weird" to describe the interview... it did not sound to me that the Sheriff would even be considering them suspects if not for the FBI telling him that they are being deceptive on a few questions on the polygraph. Did he even mention anything about inconsistent or changing stories? It seems like he might have mentioned inconsistent once but I dont remember the context, going to listen to it again.

This might help clarify.

Starting around the 13:52 mark of the interview, Tricia asked "Sheriff Bowerman, when did you first suspect that the parents may be involved or that they weren’t being truthful? Did you kind of suspect it all along or did you feel that, you know, they were okay until all the information came about the polygraph?"

SB responded: "You know, they’ve been very cooperative, they’ve been very willing to talk to me and my office and my detectives down in Bonnyville County. Not until the first polygraph came and there was some indication they were being less than truthful. At that time I was somewhat suspicous, but willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; so you know just more recently, once the FBI concluded theirs, and they said beyond any doubt, they have knowledge, and they are being less than truthful."
 
Food for thought.
IR's poly was inconclusive, but was expected to be so due to his condition. So how would you know if he was lying or not?

Exactly! And if his word can't be considered valid on a polygraph due to his "condition" then how can his word that he saw DeOrr at the campground at 1:00pm be considered valid? Keep in mind that I'm not saying that IR is being intentionally deceptive.

imo
 
No, respectfully, I don't think so. If anything the timing makes the hot car death theory more credible, at least in my opinion.

Consider that the parents mentioned it being close to Deorr's nap time in one of their initial interviews. Most toddlers I know nap sometime between 1pm and 3pm. 1:00pm would be the time of day when the temperature was close to its peak. Even though it wasn't a scorching day, research was shared on earlier threads stating that a young child could die in only 20 minutes if locked in a vehicle in sun on a 60 degree day. JM may not have even thought about the truck getting too hot as it wouldn't have seemed overly warm outside. The truck would seem to be the logical, most comfortable, and safest place to leave Deorr to sleep.

I think it is very possible that after the trip to the store, where Deorr jr ate his fries (his lunch), he was put down for a nap in the truck. While he is napping, this would be the ideal time for the parents to get away for some alone time and do some exploring of the creek (maybe they were doing something illegal during this time so lied about it, IDK). Either way, I think they would be more likely to leave baby Deorr alone with ggpa if they thought he was sleeping safely in the truck, than if he running around the campfire. Otherwise it makes no sense, because JM was supposedly on the camp trip to take care of ggpa. Why would she leave her toddler with him if he himself needed a caregiver?

Consider also that Deorr jr's blankie was found in the truck, the truck seemed to be a sensitive issue for Deorr Sr in his interviews, and JM's mom was cleaning out the truck when LE/Search and Rescue arrived. Although there might be some saliva or vomit with a hyperthermia death, his diaper would have caught most of the bodily fluids expelled. There would be no blood evidence, and it would be normal to find Deorr's DNA all over the carseat/truck as he had slept and ate in there and maybe even drooled or been carsick in there before. Any evidence could be easily explained.

If the parents got back from their walk to the creek around 1:30ish, Deorr could have already perished in the little amount of time they were gone. Why they would not just call 911 for help is difficult to explain (perhaps panicked or were involved in something illegal or negligent at the campsite). My theory is maybe they gave him some meds to help him settle down for his nap and were worried they caused his death, making them responsible and subject to prosecution if an autopsy were performed on the body. If they found him by 1:30pm but did not call for help until about 2:30pm it means they had a full hour to dispose of his body and concoct their story about him wandering away. And then maybe another 2-3 hours before LE arrived on scene, to clean up and dispose of evidence.

GGpa would have to be covering for the parents to make this theory work, as he stated that he saw Deorr go towards his parents down to the creek. I'm not sure what to make of his health or mental state, so it is hard to judge if he could be manipulated or coerced into believing something that wasn't true. He may just have felt guilty that Deorr died on 'his watch', even though he wasn't directly involved, so he offered to help with the cover up. Knowing that nothing would bring his great-grandson back, he might have felt it important to protect his grand-daughter, especially if she's had custody issues or trouble with the law before.

Hot car death was my first thought on this case, way back on day two or three. There are so many possibilities and theories, especially when we don't really know for sure if his death was accidental or homicide, so I'm trying not to get stuck on one theory. But I really can't discount it either.

So, it does seem DeOrr was alive after the store? I guess that means I give up the hot-car idea.
 
The timeline isn't making any sense to me... surely they had everything taken care of before they called 911 - no way they'd risk having an official who happened to be in the area show up quickly. I can't think that the hours after the 911 call were used for a cover-up - they would have been too concerned that someone would show up any minute, right? Unless the 911 operator told them it would be a few hours and so they decided they had extra time to better cover their tracks or get rid of evidence or whatever. Anyway, I'm really confused about how something could happen in such a short window of time.... guess I'll mull it over some more.
 
I'm somewhat confused because when Tricia asked Sheriff Bowerman when DeOrr was last seen by someone other than his parents he said:

"To the best of my knowledge, from the time that they left Idaho Falls on July 9th, which was in the early afternoon or early evening, we have not had a confirmation, an absolute 100% positive that someone saw DeOrr, but I still feel that he was at the campsite. I'm just not sure the timeline now."

Wouldn't this mean IR is not 100% sure?

The question begins at the 4:08 mark.
I don't know if this changes anything, but fwiw.

Sheriff Bowerman: "Bonneville County detectives have followed up on that part of the investigation. But to the best of my knowledge, from the time that they left Idaho Falls on July 9th, which was in the early afternoon, or the early evening, ya know... we have not had a confirmation, an absolute 100% positive, that someone saw DeOrr. But I still feel, ya know, that he was at the campsite. I'm just not sure of the timeline now. Do we have 45 minutes from the time he disappeared until they called in? Do we have an hour-and-a-half? And when you start to figure out the length of time it took search and rescue and my office to get there -- we're talking about a remote area -- it was almost three hours total. The new private investigator's saying he thinks there's a four hour window there. I think it's closer to three, but it's a long time, ya know, so... But no, nobody's seen him prior to him going to Leadore.
 
I'm somewhat confused because when Tricia asked Sheriff Bowerman when DeOrr was last seen by someone other than his parents he said:

"To the best of my knowledge, from the time that they left Idaho Falls on July 9th, which was in the early afternoon or early evening, we have not had a confirmation, an absolute 100% positive that someone saw DeOrr, but I still feel that he was at the campsite. I'm just not sure the timeline now."

Wouldn't this mean IR is not 100% sure?

The question begins at the 4:08 mark.
I don't understand this either. Did Isaac see DeOrr or did he not see DeOrr? It shouldn't be that hard of a question - they were together at the campground one night and half of the next day. Is the sheriff implying that Isaac is not a reliable witness, and if so, why? Does the sheriff think Isaac could be mistaken or confused?

I didn't come away from the interview with much confidence of there being any sort of verifiable sighting of DeOrr. I'm not sure the 1:00/1:15 sighting should be used in the timeline unless Isaac is 100% sure he saw DeOrr...

MOO.

I don't think IR is certain or either the sheriff may not be certain of IR's recollection. IR may have been the most consistent, but we don't really know if any part of his inconsistency had to do with that particular time. The fact that Sheriff Bowerman ended the statement with "but I still feel he was at the campsite. I'm just not sure of the timeline now" stands out to me.
 
What did Bowerman mean when he said they tried to get food? Did I hear that right?
 
I don't know if this changes anything, but fwiw.

Sheriff Bowerman: "Bonneville County detectives have followed up on that part of the investigation. But to the best of my knowledge, from the time that they left Idaho Falls on July 9th, which was in the early afternoon, or the early evening, ya know... we have not had a confirmation, an absolute 100% positive, that someone saw DeOrr. But I still feel, ya know, that he was at the campsite. I'm just not sure of the timeline now. Do we have 45 minutes from the time he disappeared until they called in? Do we have an hour-and-a-half? And when you start to figure out the length of time it took search and rescue and my office to get there -- we're talking about a remote area -- it was almost three hours total. The new private investigator's saying he thinks there's a four hour window there. I think it's closer to three, but it's a long time, ya know, so... But no, nobody's seen him prior to him going to Leadore.

I wish that helped. It confuses me a bit more . . . "But no, nobody's seen him prior to him going to Leadore"
 
Food for thought.
IR's poly was inconclusive, but was expected to be so due to his condition. So how would you know if he was lying or not?

I think he's been forthcoming, cooperative and his story has been consistent and that's why SB believes him. If his polygraph overall were inconsistent due to a condition or medication that would be different than if it kept coming up "less than truthful" on specific questions which is what SB said was happening with the parents' polygraphs.

And even if IR's statements aren't truthful or if he's confused, whatever, it doesn't affect DeOrr's parents results.

JMO
 
WRT the shovel ... starting around 12:56:

Bessie asked about "we've heard there were some overalls, and maybe an axe, or a shovel that were seized. I don't know that that's a fact but that did come up. Is there anything you can comment on about that"

SB said " ... Yes, there was a shovel at the scene, somebody brought it out I believe from the camp trailer, and you know at one point we were told there was a human hair on that but when it was brought out and displayed it blew away in the wind, so you know we have several people that say they thought they saw a human hair but we haven't been able to corroborate that."
 
I don't think IR is certain or either the sheriff may not be certain of IR's recollection. IR may have been the most consistent, but we don't really know if any part of his inconsistency had to do with that particular time. The fact that Sheriff Bowerman ended the statement with "but I still feel he was at the campsite. I'm just not sure of the timeline now" stands out to me.

It's all so interesting...this is from the media thread...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...s-to-ask-the-deorr-kunz-private-investigator/
ational 8 Updated at 12:47 pm, January 21st, 2016
By: Nate Eaton, EastIdahoNews.com


"Eaton: Annalee asks, “I would like to know if Great Grandpa or Isaac actually saw DeOrr on Friday or if they just assumed he was there because they had seen him Thursday?

Klein: Again that goes into testimony and I’m not willing to answer but I will say is we have witnesses collaborating that he was on the mountain on that Friday."

Won't confirm it was ggp or IR, just "witnesses." Who else could it be?
 
Several people saying they saw a human hair on a shovel? That is very, very strange... Makes me wonder if someone was desperately trying to imply that someone did something with that shovel.

If you saw a hair on the shovel and thought it was important, wouldn't you be very careful to make sure that it didn't blow away? And if you thought your kid had wandered off or been abducted, why on earth would you see a hair on a shovel and think it was important?
 
So LE didn't tell the family not to offer a reward... But Vilt says that's what they told him. I haven't heard that story from the parent's mouths myself, but I have no reason to think Vilt would make that up. It does sound very suspicious to me... As if they were scared that the reward would prompt a witness to come forward.
 
I thought of something we should have asked the sheriff - did.anyone see the parents arguing that day? Cos if an accident happened after they got back from the shop, I think there would have been a bit of a scene... Yelling, blaming each other, saying what do we do now?? But maybe there was, and Isaac didn't hear because he was off fishing.
 
First-time poster, here, and certainly repeating what has likely been posted here many times. But wanted to weigh in: If any of the 4 adults killed the kid, I think the others would know. Hard for me to envision a scenario where the others would conspire w/ the killer to cover up the murder. However, if the kid got into drugs the others brought - and died of an overdose - I could see where they all might try to cover that up, fearing the prison sentences that would be coming. The biggest red flag is the father driving down the mountain to call 911 because he only had "one bar" of signal on his cell phone. Any person would have at least tried to call 911 first. That ride down the mountain was 1 of 2 things, imo: either dumping the kid's body elsewhere (and I doubt that), or ditching drugs, knowing that a big-time search was coming. My guess is the latter. I think the kid prolly drowned in the creek, and despite all the dive searchers and whatnot simply hasn't been found. The discrepancies in the parents' stories, imo, are prolly related to trying to cover up drug use/ditching of drugs on the camping trip.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
114
Guests online
1,642
Total visitors
1,756

Forum statistics

Threads
599,579
Messages
18,097,057
Members
230,887
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top