ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #19

[pepelepolecat]

They both said they were together the whole time... but did that bear out on the polygraphs? They said in the original interview they were together.. who knows what the TRUTH is?

That's a great point. But why oh why would any parent cover for their partner if they believe their partner did something absolutely unforgivable? I know the answer to that ... but I still will never understand it.

 

[charminglane]

Last night I was thinking that maybe DeOrr was hiding under the truck.
They can't find him. Dad jumps in truck to find him. Baby is run over.
Actions afterward don't make sense, though.

Why hide him? Why?
We have to think harder.

 

[renarde]

That's a great point. But why oh why would any parent cover for their partner if they believe their partner did something absolutely unforgivable? I know the answer to that ... but I still will never understand it.

The strangest thing for me about that first interview with Nate ... is how they kept IR so completely out of their narrative. Why?

 

[wondering25]

They werent both together the whole time. VDK "hauled up the road for better cell signals". What happened during that 1/2 mile trip? Why go 1/2 mile? Was there something magical about 1/2 mile? I would be pausing at each little spot...I dont think that baby made it back from the store... i am not sure he even went with them to the store"as a family". Verbiage was odd then and still is odd. JMO

 

[Canadian4]

I just rewatched the video and it looks like at 3 20 minutes Mom does something with her cell phone without checking it. Did it ring? I didn't hear it but I would have looked at it. It could have been the call or text that little DeOrr was found.

 

[neesaki]

Brought this quote over by from previous thread.

Quote by Sleuth YaYa Post # 518:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...round-10-July-2015-18&p=12320732#post12320732
SBM

6) Why were the parents perturbed by a witness putting a blacktruck 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?

Regarding this black truck and the filthy bawling baby, the demeanor and Vernal's nervousness struck me as very off when I first saw the interview and it's stayed with me since. Instead of thinking it might be a sighting of a man in a black truck with an 'abducted' Deorr, they were concerned that the store clerk reported the wrong time, Friday night around 6 pm, and that he drives a black truck. They stated they were at the store with Deorr on Friday morning - noon, which they were.

Maybe they were actually at the store on Thursday evening with a filthy bawling Deorr, and their return trip to the store on Friday morning was for damage control. Buy things for Deorr, talk to the clerk about him, tell her that he was out in the truck in his car seat, and make it appear that everything was just fine...because it really wasn't.

As several here have posted, I've also been on the fence about the parents and in spite of having my suspicions all along have tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a terrible thing when we find ourselves in the position of suspecting parents of harming a precious child. Anyway, this is just a theory, something I usually try to avoid posting. But this has been nagging at me so here it is. I do hope it's wrong.

 

[LookingForClues]

They werent both together the whole time. VDK "hauled up the road for better cell signals". What happened during that 1/2 mile trip? Why go 1/2 mile? Was there something magical about 1/2 mile? I would be pausing at each little spot...I dont think that baby made it back from the store... i am not sure he even went with them to the store"as a family". Verbiage was odd then and still is odd. JMO

I know that when my husband and I are in wilderness areas (which we frequently are), one of the first things we do is find out where we will get cell coverage if we have an emergency. This is common for people who spend a lot of time in areas like this. The half mile doesn't make me suspicious. I figure he already knew he got coverage there. At this point, he had traveled that road on the way in the night before, and on the round trip to the store that morning. They probably checked each time through to note the closest spot to the campsite where they could get coverage. They were in the mountains, it is not unusual to have to drive that far for a signal. For instance, we live in the mountains in Vermont and don't get coverage at our house. We have to drive a mile to get it.

 

[Paulas88]

When the parents got back from the store, they asked IR to show them where he had caught his fish. That means IR (I think GGF was with IR) and GGF were fishing before the 11:30 trip to the store. So the parents and DeOrr were alone at the campground. Could DeOrr have been injured while IR and GGF were off fishing?

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

The outstanding issue for me right now is the ~1.5 hours between the 2:28PM 911 call and first LE on scene (if no Park Ranger got there first).

Klein has said his team are working on the timeline so I hope we get more information on this period that I feel could be very important.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Last night I was thinking that maybe DeOrr was hiding under the truck.
They can't find him. Dad jumps in truck to find him. Baby is run over.
Actions afterward don't make sense, though.

Why hide him? Why?
We have to think harder.

This has occurred to me, too, but wouldn't there be a lot of physical evidence of such a thing?

 

[Rayemonde]

They both said they were together the whole time... but did that bear out on the polygraphs? They said in the original interview they were together.. who knows what the TRUTH is?

Yeah, but in that case one parent would be lying to cover up for the other one... Why would the innocent one lie if they really thought DeOrr had just wandered off?

 

[Mickshawn]

Did we ever learn what they needed diesel fuel for?

 

[bluesneakers]

That's a great point. But why oh why would any parent cover for their partner if they believe their partner did something absolutely unforgivable? I know the answer to that ... but I still will never understand it.

My first guess would be one partner is covering for an abuser. Isn't that what happened in the Hedda Nussbaum case? Although I'm sure it happens all the time that's a famous one.

 

[pepelepolecat]

When the parents got back from the store, they asked IR to show them where he had caught his fish. That means IR (I think GGF was with IR) and GGF were fishing before the 11:30 trip to the store. So the parents and DeOrr were alone at the campground. Could DeOrr have been injured while IR and GGF were off fishing?

The ride to the store would have given them plenty of time to talk without anyone accidentally overhearing them, and it would have given them a chance to assess the severity of his injuries and formulate a plan.

 

[byo]

My :twocents: :

When VDK told us the story of how DeOrr went missing, I was reminded of Mark Redwine who told us the story of when his son Dylan went missing. These dads didn't tell what happened. They told us the "story" of what happened. Big difference.

I've always felt that child "discipline" got out of hand:
if you don't stop crying, I'm going to duct taped your mouth?
or stuff you in a duffle bag/ empty ice chest?
and when they check 10 minutes later, their child is dead? Hence Jessica's firm : "It was ten minutes".

Or maybe an unhealthy dose of benadryl before the parents go "off to explore" with IR. When the parents return, Deorr is found face down in the shallow creek water, his too large boots are caught under a branch. Maybe he drown, but an autopsy would show the benadryl in his system.

Whatever, IMO, the parents got rid of the "evidence" because it was incriminating.

May angels comfort you, little DeOrr, where ever you are. :rose:

 

[Donjeta]

Wow I've been out of the loop for DeOrr's case, I didn't know the parents were named suspects.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I haven't been able to keep up, but my theory has always been that Deorr died in the truck or at the campsite, when "dad" went down the road to call 911 he disposed of the body. I always thought "mom" seemed sincere in the interviews, but "dad" talked over her and made the interview about himself, rather than finding Deorr. After following case after case where mom is involved, I'd not be surprised if Jessica knew/was involved.

 

[MistyM]

To be fair, no one here is saying the father is a guilty monster just because he drove down the road looking for signal. That's a straw man. It's everything together, all the little things that don't make sense, all the inconsistencies... I would never brand someone a guilty monster just because of a small thing like that. I've been on the fence for a long time, trying to give the parents the benefit of the doubt, but I think the most likely scenario is that they did something to Deorr and then covered it up. And as I've said before, it's not a decision I've come to lightly.

absolutely!!

 

[Beezneez]

I know that when my husband and I are in wilderness areas (which we frequently are), one of the first things we do is find out where we will get cell coverage if we have an emergency. This is common for people who spend a lot of time in areas like this. The half mile doesn't make me suspicious. I figure he already knew he got coverage there. At this point, he had traveled that road on the way in the night before, and on the round trip to the store that morning. They probably checked each time through to note the closest spot to the campsite where they could get coverage. They were in the mountains, it is not unusual to have to drive that far for a signal. For instance, we live in the mountains in Vermont and don't get coverage at our house. We have to drive a mile to get it.

I agree that the driving for signal itself doesn't strike me as off. Perfectly innocent scenario- mom remains at campground in case Deorr manages to show back up, dad drives to get service. Even though there potential to get through was at the campground I would feel better knowing my spouse was already on their way to better service if I got cut off.

 

[Beezneez]

What do we know without assumptions?
1. Family went camping on Thursday night
2. DK/JM went to the store Friday
3. DK/JM called to report Deorr missing
4. There is no evidence that Deorr was abducted (stranger, animal or otherwise)
5. There is no evidence that Deorr is located within the 3 mile search radius
6. According to Sheriff the camping set up looked like a legit camping set up
7. There is evidence to indicate the parents are not telling the truth in regards to their knowledge of their sons location
8. There is evidence to indicate criminal charges will be filed
9. The use of drones for the purpose of evidence gathering early in the search for Deorr
10. Law enforcement is striking a balance between serving the public interest (in speaking out about parents status and fundraising inquiries) while appearing to maintain a cooperative relationship with those on the trip.

These are just my observations- correct them, add to them, I certainly don't think I have a comprehensive list going here.