ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #22

[jnblsm]

I am just noticing in the first picture, baby Deorr has very red eyes! I don't know if it's just a bad picture, but I don't think so. He looks drugged in my opinion. I wonder about that redness around his mouth, it doesn't look right either.

Imo, his lips don't look strange to me. Possibly the redness you're seeing could possibly look like they're merely chapped. I honestly don't know, but he's seemingly a rambunctious, normal, toddler boy.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[jnblsm]

The bruises on this baby's head are in the shape of an adult size large left hand. The most prominent bruise resembles an index finger and swelling is evident where the thumb would be on the baby's right temple. The other bruises clearly show finger marks.
This injury would have happened by slapping downward with the hand and then squeezing...or basically grabbing him by the head from above.

Always..JMO

I don't like this picture of him, I think his eyes look sad. I can't stand the thought of anyone hurting a child so I hope that isn't the case.

Why would a parent allow a picture of definite abuse to be posted anywhere? I doubt an abusive parent would even take a picture of their child with proof of abuse. DeOrr appears to be a normal toddler little boy. Again, my opinion.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[Rayemonde]

It does look like it might be a handprint. I wasn't going to say because we don't know the parent's explanation for the apparent bruising on DeOrr's face. Maybe they have a perfectly innocent explanation.

None of us are qualified to diagnose abuse from photos, but photos of bruises are definitely used in trials to build a case for abuse. And not just photos taken by doctors, but random family photos where any bruises can be seen. If anyone knows any members of websleuths who is verified to provide an expert opinion on such a matter, please ask them to take a look at the picture and let us know what they think

 

[bessie]

I never worried or wondered about cat pee. However, in other cases bleach and a few other things were discussed as lighting up the room when luminol was used. I just hoped you might have a link for that statement, but if not, I can/will research it further for myself. Thx.

I'm sorry. I missed this yesterday. I apologize if I misunderstood what you were asking, Trident. The post I quoted provided a link to an article which said that substances other than blood will react with luminol. I responded by saying that would fool the eye, but lab analysis would identify the source. In other words, if an investigator swabs an area of a crime scene that glowed under luminol, an analysis of that swab will distinguish between blood or some other substance. I didn't think that required a link because it's so obvious. But, the article actually says the same.

Therefore Luminol is not suitable for use at a scene where it is suspected that bleach has been used to clean the scene, and any positive result must be taken as a presumptive positive and followed up by analytical tests to confirm the presence of blood.
http://the-gist.org/2011/03/seeing-red-–-presumptive-tests-for-blood/

According to this article, testing might take place even before a sample is collected.

The light, or luminescence, emitted in the luminol reaction is thought to result when an oxidizing agent, such as blood, catalyzes the oxidation of luminol by hydrogen peroxide in a basic solution. The reaction is not specific to blood, however, as other oxidizing agents such as sodium hypoclorite (bleach), certain metals, and plant peroxidases may also cause luminescence with luminol. Because the reaction is not specific to blood, a follow up presumptive test, such as phenolphthalein, is typically run on potential samples prior to collection.
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bc...es/forensic-programs-crime-scene-luminol.aspx

So, blue glow from luminol always equals blood, right? Wrong! Unfortunately, there are several other substances that are capable of catalysing the oxidation of luminol. It can also be oxidised by the chemicals in bleach, such as sodium chlorate; low levels of blood in urine can also trigger the reaction. Additionally, enzymes can also lend a hand. Peroxidase enzymes found in faeces can set off the chemiluminescence, and, more strangely, horseradish also contains peroxidase enzymes that can cause a false positive. Admittedly, the likelihood of a crime scene having been smeared in horseradish is pretty low, but it illustrates some of the drawbacks of relying on luminol as a clear-cut indicator of the presence of blood.
http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/10/17/luminol/

I don't know the year of this paper, but it's definitely worth a read.

Luminol and the Crime Scene
Robert Grispino, FBI Serology Unit

 

[Rayemonde]

Why would a parent allow a picture of definite abuse to be posted anywhere? I doubt an abusive parent would even take a picture of their child with proof of abuse. DeOrr appears to be a normal toddler little boy. Again, my opinion.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

I've only seen pictures of DeOrr with very faint bruises, as if the parents avoided taking or releasing photos that had obvious bruises on them (not necessarily suspicious imo because I'm sure that even an innocent parent wouldn't want to release photos that might cause suspicion or speculation against them).

I posted further back in the thread about Malik Drummond, whose stepmother admits you can see bruising from a past beating on Malik's missing poster photo.

Aliayah Lunsford is another that springs to mind... Her released photos had terrible bruises, and she looked completely miserable and scared, too. They break my heart In her case I suspect her family didn't have any photos of her that were free from bruising

 

[PainExpress]

I have 3 kids under 4. At least one of them has a bruise, cut or bite mark at any one time.

 

[Blue Skies]

In reference to the bruising, I am in no way defending the parents. I have believed them to be guilty of something since the very first interview; however, I think the area where the forehead is bruised is a pretty common place for babies to hit when learning to walk.

If that is a bruise and not just a dark area in the corner of his eye, I find that an odd place to have a bruise from playing. I also don't think it's likely that he hurt himself in the corner of the eye, the temple, AND the forehead all at the same time or at least close enough together to still have bruising in all three places. I suppose it is possible though.

I really wasn't looking closely at the pics for bruising until everyone started speculating here. That said, in the picture where he's standing by the water with the rash on his mouth, is that a bruise on the right side near his shirt neckline? Now THAT would be a really odd place for him to get hurt on his own.

I still believe there is a chance Deorr is alive. VDKs first interview reminded me so much of balloon boy's Dad. I still think they may have done something with Deorr expecting to get him back and something didn't go as planned. In the first interview, I felt as if maybe they actually thought there was a chance they would get him back even though I saw them as clearly guilty of something.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lillahazel]

Why would a parent allow a picture of definite abuse to be posted anywhere? I doubt an abusive parent would even take a picture of their child with proof of abuse. DeOrr appears to be a normal toddler little boy. Again, my opinion.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

I think visible bruises in public released photos is very plausible. Especially if there are any photos that were leaked by people who may not have know there was abuse. I'm not saying that's true with this particular photo or case but I don't think it's crazy to think they might exist.

 

[sirensong]

I don't think I was clear about which picture I was talking about. It is here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89593

Don't know how to put the picture here, so just linked it from Raymond ' s post.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I don't think I was clear about which picture I was talking about. It is here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=89593

Don't know how to put the picture here, so just linked it from Raymond ' s post.

That pic of little Deorr touches me; he is looking ill and sad.

 

[Blue Skies]

Hypothetically speaking, if DeOrr was deceased prior to the trip, I don't understand how on earth DK and JM thought they were going to pull off a camping trip/staged child disappearance with two other people present? They hadn't met IR (supposedly), so how could they have known what he was like and that they'd be able to "trick" him into thinking DeOrr was there??? Maybe they thought they could fool GGPA, but it seems like a huge risk for them to think another person (a stranger they'd never met) would be so oblivious that he wouldn't notice (and tell LE) that there was no child present. Did they plan to liquor them up in hopes they'd simply not remember anything? It seems to me that going camping with two other people and trying to stage an abduction/disappearance to explain your missing child (that wasn't there in the first place) doesn't make a lot of sense. If something happened to DeOrr in Idaho Falls prior to the trip, there are a lot of other ways they could have staged his disappearance that wouldn't directly involve other people (and risk being ratted out by one or both of them). I guess what I'm saying is that it seems more logical to me that DeOrr did set out with them on the camping trip (alive). I'm just not convinced he was ever out walking around at the campsite, though. What on earth happened to him? :-( ugh

Maybe they were under the impression (perhaps told to them by others) that IR was less competent than he actually is.

I personally don't think anything happened in IF. I'm just saying, if It did,this is one possibility relating to your question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rayemonde]

In reference to the bruising, I am in no way defending the parents. I have believed them to be guilty of something since the very first interview; however, I think the area where the forehead is bruised is a pretty common place for babies to hit when learning to walk.

If that is a bruise and not just a dark area in the corner of his eye, I find that an odd place to have a bruise from playing. I also don't think it's likely that he hurt himself in the corner of the eye, the temple, AND the forehead all at the same time or at least close enough together to still have bruising in all three places. I suppose it is possible though.

I really wasn't looking closely at the pics for bruising until everyone started speculating here. That said, in the picture where he's standing by the water with the rash on his mouth, is that a bruise on the right side near his shirt neckline? Now THAT would be a really odd place for him to get hurt on his own.

I still believe there is a chance Deorr is alive. VDKs first interview reminded me so much of balloon boy's Dad. I still think they may have done something with Deorr expecting to get him back and something didn't go as planned. In the first interview, I felt as if maybe they actually thought there was a chance they would get him back even though I saw them as clearly guilty of something.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to admit, the more I look at pictures of DeOrr the more bruises I see, but I'm not sure if it's just my imagination playing tricks on me! The pictures are mostly low resolution and some shadows could look like bruising. :dunno:

 

[Lillahazel]

That pic of little Deorr touches me; he is looking ill and sad.

This picture actually makes me a little sick to my stomach. He is such an angel but when I zoom into his red, sad eyes there's something painful about it to me. Hopefully it's just a distorted photo but it has bothered me from day one.

 

[persimmon]

Agree with the bolded, just don't think his face looks dirty, but rather angelic. ETA: I guess it could be dirt with a bluish tint.

This may not make sense to anybody else but I think a lot of toddlers and babies look somewhat bruised due to their thin skin. Additionally, their veins are often more visible in certain areas (especially around the face and forehead) creating a look of faint bruising. This is more visible in lighter complected children but not exclusive imo. Just a thought.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

His eyes were recorded as blue with the NCMEC for the first 90 days he was missing. This was very troubling for some websleuthers who repeatedly called the NCMEC to try to get it corrected because they believed the parents that their child might be abducted. And yet, the wrong color kept appearing on alerts and on the message if you called in.

It turns out that only LE and the parents could correct that info with the NCMEC. Multiple people in the public pleaded directly to the family to have it corrected. It was about the time that the family did the 411 doc that it was corrected. This was appalling to many that the parents had the time and inclination to address SM nonsense and to partake in a doc but did not have the time or inclination to correct something so significant in relation to helping their abducted child be identified.

It never really sent me off the wall, even though I always suspected the parents were lying, just because I could attribute it to not being on top of things. (After all, extended family had to have been aware of this mistake, yet nothing changed.)

Obviously (at least obviously to me!) the reason SB wouldn't care about making an effort to correct the info is because he knew DeOrr was not abducted and was not out living in the world to be seen by anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe this error and the fact, it wasn't immediately corrected by the parents, will count as evidence for non-abduction and 100% knowledge of non-abduction by the parents.

 

[Lillahazel]

This may not make sense to anybody else but I think a lot of toddlers and babies look somewhat bruised due to their thin skin. Additionally, their veins are often more visible in certain areas (especially around the face and forehead) creating a look of faint bruising. This is more visible in lighter complected children but not exclusive imo. Just a thought.

It makes perfect sense. My toddler is a towhead and his veins at his temple are very pronounced. He also gets heavy bags under his eyes when he's sleepy that in the right angle can almost look like bruises because of the shadows.

 

[Harleemama]

First time poster so hope I'm doing this right! My baby was born with the same type of birthmark that lil Deorr has on his neck which is referred to as an angel kiss and also has it on his forehead so I'm thinking that maybe the photos that look like bruising on lil Deorr's forehead may just actually be part of the "angel kiss". It is actually a light reddish color on my 15 month old but I've noticed in photos it looks darker like a bruise. Doctor said it could fade over time or may be there permanently...

 

[Rayemonde]

I tried increasing the contrast of the pic to see if it makes it clearer...

Increased contrast:


Even more increased contrast:

In this one I think his nose looks bruised! Just above that little cut...

Plus the outside of his nostrils have got red marks on them, as if someone has pinched his nose forcefully. But maybe he had a cold and the skin got chapped from someone blowing his nose a lot.

I looked up what bruising from a slap looks like, and it leaves a reverse image of the hand - the spaces in between the fingers and around the hand bruise.


https://www.netterimages.com/child-...rgency-medicinetrauma-john-a-craig-25740.html

 

[Rayemonde]

First time poster so hope I'm doing this right! My baby was born with the same type of birthmark that lil Deorr has on his neck which is referred to as an angel kiss and also has it on his forehead so I'm thinking that maybe the photos that look like bruising on lil Deorr's forehead may just actually be part of the "angel kiss". It is actually a light reddish color on my 15 month old but I've noticed in photos it looks darker like a bruise. Doctor said it could fade over time or may be there permanently...

:welcome:

Good thinking! You may be right, because there's a picture of DeOrr in the bathtub where the marks on his forehead look pink/red... I can't find a MSM link for that pic right now so if someone has one, please post it

 

[neesaki]

Just perusing the google images of Deorr and haven't found any others that show that same dark discoloration. I did find a larger one of that same pic, maybe that is dirt on his forehead. It's really hard to tell, imo.

https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads...09845d430e0ef02052bd8db70845c00d4405721_large