ID - DeOrr Kunz, Jr., 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #26

[giagreen]

BBM and in response to your options:

A) I would much prefer that DeOrr did in fact just wander off and fall asleep somewhere (a la Noah Chamberlin), rather than suffer at the hands of someone he loved. I think if SB hadn't named them suspects and outright liars then that's the theory I'd be going for. I just think SB knows something tangible enough to call them out.

B) I've also thought all along that if there was an incident/accident then GGP could be the one. I agree he's the most likely of the four that everyone would cover for. If we put the rumours together a reversing vehicle accident is possible.

Either way, whatever happened, little DeOrr's body is somewhere. And yes, I do believe he's dead. Until he's found it's going to be tricky to prove anything.

I agree about SB calling them suspects. It's put a road block up on the idea of him wondering off for me.
I actually like SB. He seems to have a kind and gentle way about him. I don't think he would take a chance at hurting two innocent parents unless he truly beleived they were involved.

But for all the cases I've followed there is something with this one that just isn't letting me feel okay with believing the parents did this.
I don't know why. I've read so many horrible things parents have done to their children. It isn't unbelievable that not one but both parents would/could hurt and hide their child. I could be wrong...no doubt.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[giagreen]

I've been a member here for three years now I think. And before that I read along for ever. It was only when one of my favorite threads went to the parking lot or basement where it was privet I had to make an account. I love ws for very good reasons.* One of those reasons is after many of cases I've followed I've seen first hand how rummors or assumptions start to get to be facts.* And how newspaper and reports either leave out facts or is outdated.

And fb yeah it can be used as a "tool" but from what I've seen is mostly one untruthful comment and others believing it to be fact. Then developing the man pack mentality and going on a witch hunt.* Another thing about fb. Is a few years back right here on ws a woman was murdered. Her fb was found. A guy on her friends list was found who everyone beleive had killed her.* The dude was judged, called creepy, said to be suspicious, and many other insulting things. It turned out he had nothing to do with nothing.* Just an innocent dude who got ripped apart for nothing. So yes fb can be a "tool" but just like with any tool if you don't know what your doing with it then your using it wrong and could potentially hurt innocent people with it.


But here at ws they are pretty damn good at keeping facts straight and getting right to the point.
I've one other time followed along with a case kinda like this one. Where the media was going nuts and everyone had an opinion. What I learned is that is when you need to step back and figure it out on your own and decide who's important and who isnt.

With that said that's why I say forget Klein.* I have read all he has to say, and the other PI, and the rest of the world also. I'm going with what SB says.* He's the only person imo in this case that has nothing to gain from any of this.* And I trust Bessie and Tricia with their intentions of their interview with SB. And kept the questions and answers very clear imo. So I'm going with that.

In the last interview with SB here is the question and answer about the dogs. I beleive SB. I don't think there was really a hit. I think Klein went off in left field and was trying to make the parents crack.*

Bessie: Right, I remember you telling us the last time.* One of the other questions that comes up a lot is about the dog searches and the cadaver dogs, and we know that they were thrown off by the cremains in the reservoir, but before or after that did the…did either the scent dogs or the cadaver dogs alert or show any, you know,* find anything that was relevant?

SB:You know, we had a couple alerts you know that were just* kind of, we consider nothing major, but um a dog reacts unusual in a certain area and so we put more dogs in there and none of the other dogs alerted so, um…you know.* Actually, it’s been not real positive from having those dogs in there.* We didn’t have anything that really led us to a certain place within our 3 mile radius.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[eileenhawkeye]

That's the thing though, there are thousands and thousands of cases where someone abuses their kid to death, and then calls 911. Even vile, sadistic child abusers usually call 911 when they realise they've gone too far and the kid is dead or dying. You've got to be a special kind of person to go a stage further and hide a dead body, then lie about it to everybody for months... A special kind of evil.

But do they call 911 because they have a conscious or because they think they can outsmart police? How many of them truly believe that LE will think it was an accident? Or maybe in their head, they think ok i didn't plan to kill the kid, just a punishment, and they think LE will agree? So many of those cases are the mom's boyfriend, very young, probably use to always getting his way in life.

 

[Hippie Heart]

Here's the 911 link (below) that I listened to (the audio of 14:28 time stamped 911 call), but I can't hear the "what's your name." Do you know what time that was that you heard it, or do you have a different better quality 911 tape?

I'm not sure if you were saying the dispatch operator is asking Vernal what his name is. I did hear a dispatch operator ask Jessica "What's your son's name," but not one asking Vernal.

I also hear a different female dispatch in the background saying, "Vernal" at 2:22. It's hard (for me) to know "when" exactly VDK phoned in. (I didn't hear a phone ring but could have missed it). It almost sounded to me like the other operator was already speaking with someone when Jessica called in. Again, I could be wrong. Just wanted your interpretation.

Oh, the dispatch tells Jessica to hold on as she turns to someone behind her and starts talking - and you can hear a female (dispatch?) and a male (Sheriff or staff)?

A couple sentences before the background operator says, "Vernal?" at 2:22, you hear a male in the background (male) say:

Background: Pardon me? We’re working on an emergency right now.

That led me to believe that someone (VDK) made contact before Jessica (just how I interpreted it) because Jessica's dispatch was still getting information from her.

Thoughts?

http://assets.eastidahonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/15153620/Deorr-Kunz-911-Call.mp3

Thanks for posting this. I didn't know there was an extended version and always wondered why the first one sounded so chopped up.

At the beginning of every 911 call they ask your name. I believe when we heard the dispatcher in the background say "Vernal?" It was because she probably put him on hold to talk to another dispatcher and/or start to alert SAR and said "Vernal?" When she came back on to confirm he was still on the phone.

That's really confusing, at least to me. If he went "hauling down the road" to get service and was " blessed that Jessica got through" it doesn't make sense.

I always picture her standing there starting the 911 call while he got in his truck and drove away which means there's no way he could've gotten through first IMO. He said he was driving to get down to a better service area. And saying "blessed" is weird because at the time of the interview he knew that BOTH of them had made successful calls. And if his did indeed come in first, why was he blessed that she got through?! Something is very, very off.

 

[giagreen]

But do they call 911 because they have a conscious or because they think they can outsmart police? How many of them truly believe that LE will think it was an accident? Or maybe in their head, they think ok i didn't plan to kill the kid, just a punishment, and they think LE will agree? So many of those cases are the mom's boyfriend, very young, probably use to always getting his way in life.

I've always felt that when people call 911 to cover their own...they do it because they think it makes them look less suspicious by calling for help.


Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[Hippie Heart]

I've always felt whatever happened was somehow more JM centered, and primarily I'd say it's a gut instinct. However, the initial interview is where that feeling originated based on their behavior, body language, and emotion. Nonetheless, VDK is now equally guilty in my mind (that is if my gut is even right) because he has lied and assisted her in perpetuating this imaginary drama without regard for his own son. Baffling.

If I'm properly picking up what Klein is putting down, then it seems to indicate VDK is likely the MORE guilty of the two. He's the leader. Klein is very subtle in this, but I have picked up on a few suggestions and a one comment that boosting the notion that JM is victimized by fear. He doesn't make clear what she might have to fear but I get the sense his finger points at VDK.

To me VDK seems the more emotional, warm, and simple of the two. I don't read him as manipulative or cunning. His excessive talking is indicative of that. An unskilled liar will say way more than necessary and elaborate on trivial minutia to somewhat avoid lying (even when they are lying) because they are so aware of their transgression. JM seems more a rehearsed manipulator who shows no fear...and actually demonstrates her disdain for people who she has judged as stupid enough to fall for her untruths. My guess is she's done a lot of lying and she's learned to keep quiet and not show your cards. She deflects by focusing on how others are accusing her of lying. Right out the gate, she's playing the victim card. Literally, as soon as DeOrr disappears, she's introducing the idea that people don't trust her somehow. I'd say it's partly driven by her subconscious but maybe moreso it's a deliberate tactic used to solicit sympathy and to show that she doesn't fear the side eyes because she's innocent. She immediately establishes that bully people just gossip..she wraps her arm in his blanket for show expecting everybody will think.. look....she cannot part with his blanket...and she is too distraught to talk....she's the mama and mamas don't hurt their babies.

Ok, I've rambled long enough and not sure I even stayed the course of your questioning post. Jmo on all this and it doesn't lead me to any feasible scenarios so I'm as confused as others.

Great post!

 

[cantkeepquietanymore]

I've been a member here for three years now I think. And before that I read along for ever. It was only when one of my favorite threads went to the parking lot or basement where it was privet I had to make an account. I love ws for very good reasons.* One of those reasons is after many of cases I've followed I've seen first hand how rummors or assumptions start to get to be facts.* And how newspaper and reports either leave out facts or is outdated.

And fb yeah it can be used as a "tool" but from what I've seen is mostly one untruthful comment and others believing it to be fact. Then developing the man pack mentality and going on a witch hunt.* Another thing about fb. Is a few years back right here on ws a woman was murdered. Her fb was found. A guy on her friends list was found who everyone beleive had killed her.* The dude was judged, called creepy, said to be suspicious, and many other insulting things. It turned out he had nothing to do with nothing.* Just an innocent dude who got ripped apart for nothing. So yes fb can be a "tool" but just like with any tool if you don't know what your doing with it then your using it wrong and could potentially hurt innocent people with it.


But here at ws they are pretty damn good at keeping facts straight and getting right to the point.
I've one other time followed along with a case kinda like this one. Where the media was going nuts and everyone had an opinion. What I learned is that is when you need to step back and figure it out on your own and decide who's important and who isnt.

With that said that's why I say forget Klein.* I have read all he has to say, and the other PI, and the rest of the world also. I'm going with what SB says.* He's the only person imo in this case that has nothing to gain from any of this.* And I trust Bessie and Tricia with their intentions of their interview with SB. And kept the questions and answers very clear imo. So I'm going with that.

In the last interview with SB here is the question and answer about the dogs. I beleive SB. I don't think there was really a hit. I think Klein went off in left field and was trying to make the parents crack.*

Bessie: Right, I remember you telling us the last time.* One of the other questions that comes up a lot is about the dog searches and the cadaver dogs, and we know that they were thrown off by the cremains in the reservoir, but before or after that did the…did either the scent dogs or the cadaver dogs alert or show any, you know,* find anything that was relevant?

SB:You know, we had a couple alerts you know that were just* kind of, we consider nothing major, but um a dog reacts unusual in a certain area and so we put more dogs in there and none of the other dogs alerted so, um…you know.* Actually, it’s been not real positive from having those dogs in there.* We didn’t have anything that really led us to a certain place within our 3 mile radius.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

Yes, I agree. This is how I feel as well. I trust what sb says. In my opinion Klein hasn't released anything more than sb, but he has taken that info and "went off in left field" with it. Sb mentions one dog hitting, but the others did not, so they didn't consider it to be really a hit. Klein says they hit!

Another thing that bothered me was ( and I'm sorry I can't find the link, I've been looking) is I remember sb being asked why he used the words "less than truthful". He answers saying (paraphrasing here)it's because not all of their polygraph showed deceit, some aspects were fine. But in some of their answers there was deceit. So he didn't want to insinuate that everything was a lie.
But then Klein says (again paraphrasing,sorry) that they lied. They failed their polygraph worse than any fail he's seen. They couldn't even pass the simple will you be telling the truth today question.

These are the reasons I put my trust in ONLY what sb has to say. He is the one with the evidence. I don't believe Klein would have access to what sb has. I don't believe klein was there for any of the polygraph. And I don't believe klein was there for any of the dog searches. Anything klein has is from talking to others. Second hand info. IMO

 

[Mickshawn]

Yes, I agree. This is how I feel as well. I trust what sb says. In my opinion Klein hasn't released anything more than sb, but he has taken that info and "went off in left field" with it. Sb mentions one dog hitting, but the others did not, so they didn't consider it to be really a hit. Klein says they hit!

Another thing that bothered me was ( and I'm sorry I can't find the link, I've been looking) is I remember sb being asked why he used the words "less than truthful". He answers saying (paraphrasing here)it's because not all of their polygraph showed deceit, some aspects were fine. But in some of their answers there was deceit. So he didn't want to insinuate that everything was a lie.
But then Klein says (again paraphrasing,sorry) that they lied. They failed their polygraph worse than any fail he's seen. They couldn't even pass the simple will you be telling the truth today question.

These are the reasons I put my trust in ONLY what sb has to say. He is the one with the evidence. I don't believe Klein would have access to what sb has. I don't believe klein was there for any of the polygraph. And I don't believe klein was there for any of the dog searches. Anything klein has is from talking to others. Second hand info. IMO

What exactly does this even mean? They couldn't even pass the simple will you be telling the truth today question.

Does it mean they were asked "Will you be telling the truth today?" and they answer "no" or "maybe" (NOT Yes?).

 

[giagreen]

Yes, I agree. This is how I feel as well. I trust what sb says. In my opinion Klein hasn't released anything more than sb, but he has taken that info and "went off in left field" with it. Sb mentions one dog hitting, but the others did not, so they didn't consider it to be really a hit. Klein says they hit!

Another thing that bothered me was ( and I'm sorry I can't find the link, I've been looking) is I remember sb being asked why he used the words "less than truthful". He answers saying (paraphrasing here)it's because not all of their polygraph showed deceit, some aspects were fine. But in some of their answers there was deceit. So he didn't want to insinuate that everything was a lie.
But then Klein says (again paraphrasing,sorry) that they lied. They failed their polygraph worse than any fail he's seen. They couldn't even pass the simple will you be telling the truth today question.

These are the reasons I put my trust in ONLY what sb has to say. He is the one with the evidence. I don't believe Klein would have access to what sb has. I don't believe klein was there for any of the polygraph. And I don't believe klein was there for any of the dog searches. Anything klein has is from talking to others. Second hand info. IMO

I think this is the part of the interview your talking about.
I agree with you. And also what bothers me deeply is SB made it clear for us that they didn't pass two questions. Those questions being what happen to DeOrr and where DeOrr is. I just don't beleive those questions where asked yet none on if they were directly involved in an accident that killed DeOrr.

Just bouncing off all this. SB says that about the polygraphs. And he also says that IR says he seen DeOrr after the store trip. When I put two and two togeather I do beleive that something happen during that time the parents went with IR and it makes the rest make sense imo.


TG: Exactly! One of our members said, “I noticed in your first comment this week, regarding the parents, you originally said they had been deceptive and then you changed that to less than truthful.* Can you explain the reason for that change in wording?” Now, there could be absolutely no reason but that’s our Websleuths members, they get right down to the nitty gritty and really want the littlest details.

SB: Absolutely.* I didn’t want them to think their whole polygraph was deceptive.* It wasn’t.* They passed portions of it, but the portions on whether they knew where Deorr was or knew what happened to him, they were not being…they were being less than truthful .* So that’s why I changed it.* I didn’t want them to think…normally you think when someone is deceptive everything they told you is a lie but that’s not the case.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[zencompass]

Yes, I agree. This is how I feel as well. I trust what sb says. In my opinion Klein hasn't released anything more than sb, but he has taken that info and "went off in left field" with it. Sb mentions one dog hitting, but the others did not, so they didn't consider it to be really a hit. Klein says they hit!

Another thing that bothered me was ( and I'm sorry I can't find the link, I've been looking) is I remember sb being asked why he used the words "less than truthful". He answers saying (paraphrasing here)it's because not all of their polygraph showed deceit, some aspects were fine. But in some of their answers there was deceit. So he didn't want to insinuate that everything was a lie.
But then Klein says (again paraphrasing,sorry) that they lied. They failed their polygraph worse than any fail he's seen. They couldn't even pass the simple will you be telling the truth today question.

These are the reasons I put my trust in ONLY what sb has to say. He is the one with the evidence. I don't believe Klein would have access to what sb has. I don't believe klein was there for any of the polygraph. And I don't believe klein was there for any of the dog searches. Anything klein has is from talking to others. Second hand info. IMO

BBM I absolutely agree!

 

[zencompass]

Welcome cantkeepquietanymore ! :welcome6:

 

[Butler]

I could go with this theory. This is one of the very very few theories imo where most of the other pieces would fall into place then.

I would have to go back and look to what was exactly said. But from what I took from what SB said they both only failed the two questions that only suggest they new were DeOrr was. That's bothered me. I don't doubt they asked them if they were directly involved in an accident that caused their child's death also.

I think the theory you suggest could be the most likely. I beleive IR seen DeOrr after they got back from the store. I beleive IR is smart enough to know what time it was about without looking at a clock. I also beleive if IR seen DeOrr only sleeping that the parents would of been named suspects way sooner.

I think based on what IR has said. And a few comments from SB that either A) Deorr did wonder off. And he will be found this spring. (I know nobody agrees with me but I still think this is a possibility)
Or B) all 4 know something. If all 4 know then it's ggp they are covering for. IR has no reason to lie for VDK or JM as they don't have a reason to lie for him.

And that concludes my Saturday morning ramble. [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

BBM - I agree with you on this. I doubt IR would cover for two people he didn't know regardless of how close he was to GGP.

In addition I just listened to the 911 tape again and I hear real fear in her voice. Not fear as in "I've done something to my son and need an alibi" but "We've looked and can't find him" fear. I know people are caught up on VDK's use of the word "hauled" in his interview but it's just not the big deal many think it is. There are still areas, large areas of Idaho where cell service is spotty. When I lived in Eastern Idaho we would spend weekends camping in an area very similar, in geography and location, to Timber Creek. We had zero cell service at our camp site, but if we "hauled" down the road we could find service. It's possible he & JM had service with different carriers. I know my cell service carrier has better coverage than others.

I think it's significant there are three calls to 911, it's significant what is said on the two calls that weren't released, but it's not significant that VDK "hauled" down the road to make one of the calls.

Klein's statements about the 911 calls are one of the things that make me doubt him. We know when JM called because it's time stamped but Klein still gets the order of the calls wrong.

Klein also talks of dogs hitting on evidence but it is just a teaser, he doesn't give enough information to make it credible, only enough to make it frightening. We know these weren't Klein's dogs so he either got the information from a secondary source or he is making assumptions.

Just my opinion.

 

[cantkeepquietanymore]

I think this is the part of the interview your talking about.
I agree with you. And also what bothers me deeply is SB made it clear for us that they didn't pass two questions. Those questions being what happen to DeOrr and where DeOrr is. I just don't beleive those questions where asked yet none on if they were directly involved in an accident that killed DeOrr.

Just bouncing off all this. SB says that about the polygraphs. And he also says that IR says he seen DeOrr after the store trip. When I put two and two togeather I do beleive that something happen during that time the parents went with IR and it makes the rest make sense imo.


TG: Exactly! One of our members said, “I noticed in your first comment this week, regarding the parents, you originally said they had been deceptive and then you changed that to less than truthful.* Can you explain the reason for that change in wording?” Now, there could be absolutely no reason but that’s our Websleuths members, they get right down to the nitty gritty and really want the littlest details.

SB: Absolutely.* I didn’t want them to think their whole polygraph was deceptive.* It wasn’t.* They passed portions of it, but the portions on whether they knew where Deorr was or knew what happened to him, they were not being…they were being less than truthful .* So that’s why I changed it.* I didn’t want them to think…normally you think when someone is deceptive everything they told you is a lie but that’s not the case.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

Thank you for finding that! I don't think I've had enough coffee yet, I just couldn't see it anywhere.

 

[zencompass]

I have always felt that Klein said certain things like the dogs making hits because he wanted to make guilty parties feel that L.E. was on to them.

Perhaps in Klein's mind - if he could put pressure on the parents then they would tell the truth about what really happened. This is only my opinion - and - no I can't read minds - Klein's or others! I just feel there is a reason behind his statements.

 

[giagreen]

Thank you for finding that! I don't think I've had enough coffee yet, I just couldn't see it anywhere.

It's actually just really hard to find. Not so much the media thread but the transcript of the interview it's self is long to read threw. I'm just at the point where I've figured out what q&a are before or after other q&a to help me narrow the search down. Lol

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[cantkeepquietanymore]

Welcome cantkeepquietanymore ! :welcome6:

Thanks!

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

Does anyone know what trucking company VDK drives for and where he parks his rig when not on the road?

 

[cantkeepquietanymore]

I agree about SB calling them suspects. It's put a road block up on the idea of him wondering off for me.
I actually like SB. He seems to have a kind and gentle way about him. I don't think he would take a chance at hurting two innocent parents unless he truly beleived they were involved.

But for all the cases I've followed there is something with this one that just isn't letting me feel okay with believing the parents did this.
I don't know why. I've read so many horrible things parents have done to their children. It isn't unbelievable that not one but both parents would/could hurt and hide their child. I could be wrong...no doubt.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

I feel this way too ("something isn't letting me feel ok with believing the parents did this") and can't explain why.

At the beginning I felt it was a missing child. I didn't suspect anything. Then as it unfolded it seemed that clearly wasn't the case, but still, I feel there's something more than meets the eye here. I don't know what, and I could be way off (wouldn't be the first time!)
I just feel that there's a reason I can't beleive it was them (not saying that their not guilty of anything, just not entirely to blame for whatever happened. If that makes sense..)
I feel like their covering for something (someone else) for some reason.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

What exactly does this even mean? They couldn't even pass the simple will you be telling the truth today question.

Does it mean they were asked "Will you be telling the truth today?" and they answer "no" or "maybe" (NOT Yes?).

It would mean they were asked "will you be telling the truth today?" and answered "yes". But compared to their reactions to definite questions (like their name or address) the polygraph showed they were not being truthful, or wavering in their certainty.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

What exactly does this even mean? They couldn't even pass the simple will you be telling the truth today question.

Does it mean they were asked "Will you be telling the truth today?" and they answer "no" or "maybe" (NOT Yes?).

"Maybe" is not an acceptable answer to a poly question. It's either "yes" or "no."