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

[ILOKAL]

Honest question: Don't you think LE would need a little more than just their "opinion" before they name somebody as a suspect and state right out that they know the suspect is lying? That sounds like fact, not opinion, to me. IMO

Although LE has stated as fact that they "know" the suspects are lying, in reality, I don't think it's even possible. Sure, it sounds like "fact" when it's said, but to "know" something it actually has to be based on facts, yet it seems to me that the "knowledge" LE professes to have is based on less than facts. IMO, what we really have are just more opinions . . . . Opinions from higher authorities.

I don't think Bowerman would have labeled the parents suspects when he did had Klein not jumped the gun. JMOO

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Of course LE "could" have more but IMOO it doesn't appear they do. And now it seems as though Klein has muddied up the investigation and has embellished any statements previously made by Bowerman which has, IMO, caused some to question EVERYTHING that has been alleged.

I totally get what you mean, they have not publicly told of any physical or irrefutable evidence. But Dennis Kunz (VDKs dad) told where blood was found without LE even saying there was any found, so that proves at least one thing we wouldn't / shouldn't have known about unless someone blabbed.

We also must consider (and I've said this several times) that SB/LE/FBI/Vilt/Klein/behavioural analysts have spent HOURS with these people and come to the conclusion they're fibbing. They haven't just based it on a handful of polygraphs and a funny feeling.

Out of genuine interest, and as I asked Gia (and got a very honest answer), what do you think happened to DeOrr?

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

If I remember well, Vernal said in the first TV-interview "they decided to call/make the call/make a call". It seems they had something like a debate before a call was done, by 1, 2, 3 members of the camping event. That says a lot if not all, IMO.

And, if we are to believe JM (cough cough), she told 911 that DeOrr had been missing for ONE HOUR before making THE call.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

Here we go again...

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

I feel the same way.
I'm sure SB has good reason to make the statements he has. I'm sure he has certain facts and or evidence that lead him to make the statements he has.
My issue is, I don't know his reasons/facts/evidence.
What we have been told thus far by SB is not enough for me personally to judge them guilty of anything more than what we've told. I just have to follow my own conscience, as I'm sure everyone does.

I have nothing at all against others expressing their opinions, thoughts, and theories about the case. If I did I wouldn't be here.

We were told they are lying and they know where he is. So, you believe that, correct?

 

[ILOKAL]

Here we go again...

I think this is the very thing Butler has referred to. IMO

 

[Butler]

Me too. If SB hadn't said all that I wouldn't be so sure something's up. And then there's Klein, hired by family to find DeOrr and help prove the parents innocence, and despite that he couldn't / wouldn't / didn't because, he too, came to the conclusion LE have.

The jury-in-my-head is out on Klein, I don't always like they way he does things but I honestly believe he is party to some of the "evidence" that LE has. Even if he isn't I doubt he'd call the parents big fat liars if there was any doubt, especially when you'd think he'd be on their side.

If he was a lawyer out to win a case he might be more minded to sweep any anomalies under the carpet, because lawyers are often less than truthful when defending the accused. Interesting article here basically stating that a lawyer may suspect (or know fine well) their client "did it". Their job is NOT to get all moral and ethical about it, their job is to disprove the prosecution.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html

This is how it is in the US. Not sure if it is different in the UK. A defense attorney's job is to protect the rights of the accused and ensure they get a fair trial. In the US there are two sides of attorneys working on a court case, the prosecution and defense, and to get very specific, the judge in any case is always an attorney.

I realize popular media and MSM make it appear the job of an attorney is to do whatever it takes to prove a case or disprove a case but all attorneys take an oath to uphold the law. There are bad shyster lawyers out there and there are good honorable lawyers out there. I believe it's unfair to claim a lawyers is a shyster (or some equivalent) based on a stereotype. In my work, defense lawyers were never the favorites but I was able to separate who they were from what they did. I disagreed with many lawyers in my day and many of them disagreed with me, but at the end of the day I knew they were just people like me doing their job.

I don't trust Klein. This doesn't say I think all PI's are bad or good. I just don't care for Klein's methods. He may be a fine human being, I don't know that he's not, never met the guy. I admire SB and his handling of this investigation from start to finish. I know he knows far more than any of us on WS and I appreciate he is not playing this all out in MSM and SM.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

I think this is the very thing Butler has referred to. IMO

I'm tired of the bickering.

 

[ILOKAL]

I totally get what you mean, they have not publicly told of any physical or irrefutable evidence. But Dennis Kunz (VDKs dad) told where blood was found without LE even saying there was any found, so that proves at least one thing we wouldn't / shouldn't have known about unless someone blabbed.

We also must consider (and I've said this several times) that SB/LE/FBI/Vilt/Klein/behavioural analysts have spent HOURS with these people and come to the conclusion they're fibbing. They haven't just based it on a handful of polygraphs and a funny feeling.

Out of genuine interest, and as I asked Gia (and got a very honest answer), what do you think happened to DeOrr?

I don't have a complicated "theory" that has to be twisted and turned to fit with the none-facts that we know. I believe without a doubt that little DeOrr wandered into the tree line adjacent to the campsite. I think there's a strong possibility that evidence of this might be recovered during future searches providing they extend the searches beyond the original three-mile radius. I believe these parents are in pain and have been since the day their little boy disappeared. Based on their most recent interview, they seem stronger and more able to fight for the truth of their son's disappearance. It takes a while to get that strength, but when you finally do, it's very powerful. (I know) I pray each day that DeOrr will be found and that he can be properly put to rest.

 

[ILOKAL]

I'm tired of the bickering.

I believe each and every WS member should be able to offer their opinions, even if in a great minority, without any complaints or bickering or upset from some who don't share their opinions. IMO

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

I believe each and every WS member should be able to offer their opinions, even if in a great minority, without any complaints or bickering or upset from some who don't share their opinions. IMO

And at this point, I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind as to what they think happened.

 

[Little Ol Me]

We were told they are lying and they know where he is. So, you believe that, correct?

Yes, I believe that the parents have told differing accounts to SB. Yes, I believe that SB believes the parents know where Deorr is.
Heck I believe I could make a fair guess at where he may be.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

I don't know why kids do the things they do but if DeOrr did wander off into the woods, he could have been following their dog if the dog was left free to run. Do we know where the dog was when he went missing?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

This is how it is in the US. Not sure if it is different in the UK. A defense attorney's job is to protect the rights of the accused and ensure they get a fair trial. In the US there are two sides of attorneys working on a court case, the prosecution and defense, and to get very specific, the judge in any case is always an attorney.

I realize popular media and MSM make it appear the job of an attorney is to do whatever it takes to prove a case or disprove a case but all attorneys take an oath to uphold the law. There are bad shyster lawyers out there and there are good honorable lawyers out there. I believe it's unfair to claim a lawyers is a shyster (or some equivalent) based on a stereotype. In my work, defense lawyers were never the favorites but I was able to separate who they were from what they did. I disagreed with many lawyers in my day and many of them disagreed with me, but at the end of the day I knew they were just people like me doing their job.

I don't trust Klein. This doesn't say I think all PI's are bad or good. I just don't care for Klein's methods. He may be a fine human being, I don't know that he's not, never met the guy. I admire SB and his handling of this investigation from start to finish. I know he knows far more than any of us on WS and I appreciate he is not playing this all out in MSM and SM.

It's no different in the UK when it comes to criminal defence. Our powers of arrest are way looser than yours and these parents would have been nicked on suspicion of murder weeks ago. They may well have been released on bail as the prosecution gathered evidence before potentially being rearrested again, but they'd have faced 3 days of constant interrogation in a formal setting before that happened, which often seems to be enough time for someone to come clean.

On a tangent, a good friend of mine quit defence law after many years when he just got sick of defending scumbags. He was GREAT at his job, he got loads of criminals off the hook. But he did it purely because it was his job, not because he actually believed them and eventually he couldn't do it any more. He's still known as GTS (goody two shoes) by his law buddies.

 

[ILOKAL]

And at this point, I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind as to what they think happened.

Well see, I agree with you 100%!

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I don't have a complicated "theory" that has to be twisted and turned to fit with the none-facts that we know. I believe without a doubt that little DeOrr wandered into the tree line adjacent to the campsite. I think there's a strong possibility that evidence of this might be recovered during future searches providing they extend the searches beyond the original three-mile radius. I believe these parents are in pain and have been since the day their little boy disappeared. Based on their most recent interview, they seem stronger and more able to fight for the truth of their son's disappearance. It takes a while to get that strength, but when you finally do, it's very powerful. (I know) I pray each day that DeOrr will be found and that he can be properly put to rest.

Thank you for answering. For what it's worth (and again, I've said it several times) I think we'd all prefer that DeOrr did indeed just wander off like Noah and others did. Of course it's a better option that something awful happening and him being "dumped" somewhere.

So I guess the next question would be WHY would the parents be lying about things, why would their accounts of what happened that day not match the others, why would the story have changed?

PS I really hope nobody thinks I'm bickering or bullying, I'm really not!

 

[ILOKAL]

It's no different in the UK when it comes to criminal defence. Our powers of arrest are way looser than yours and these parents would have been nicked on suspicion of murder weeks ago. They may well have been released on bail as the prosecution gathered evidence before potentially being rearrested again, but they'd have faced 3 days of constant interrogation in a formal setting before that happened, which often seems to be enough time for someone to come clean.

On a tangent, a good friend of mine quit defence law after many years when he just got sick of defending scumbags. He was GREAT at his job, he got loads of criminals off the hook. But he did it purely because it was his job, not because he actually believed them and eventually he couldn't do it any more. He's still known as GTS (goody two shoes) by his law buddies.

Not all attorneys practice criminal law. Many restrict their practice to civil law only. Being a defense attorney is a difficult job for those with integrity, and not all attorneys have what it takes. It's the same with other professions. Not everyone can do the difficult tasks that are required while still being able to have a life outside of the profession. My opinion only.

 

[Lillahazel]

And at this point, I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind as to what they think happened.

I thought about this just yesterday while my 2 1/2 year old son was playing on my grandparents property (in Idaho of all places). Their little dog ran out of the house and he ran after it. Had I not been watching him and following him he would have gotten out of our line of sight behind one of the outbuildings. He also went up a fairly small hill that was uneven, tripped and tumbled down it. It made me think about little DeOrr because normally my son is a "mover and a goer" but on that terrain I would agree that he wouldn't be able to make it very far without stumbling and crying.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

Personally, I think the number one reason for the parents' changing stories is fear of prosecution because of negligence on their part, no matter how small that might have been. If they had their eyes on him or had been protective of him this would never have happened. His parents were his guardians and they messed up.

 

[ILOKAL]

Thank you for answering. For what it's worth (and again, I've said it several times) I think we'd all prefer that DeOrr did indeed just wander off like Noah and others did. Of course it's a better option that something awful happening and him being "dumped" somewhere.

So I guess the next question would be WHY would the parents be lying about things, why would their accounts of what happened that day not match the others, why would the story have changed?

PS I really hope nobody thinks I'm bickering or bullying, I'm really not!

I'm not certain (at all) that the parents have lied. To tell you the truth, it surprises me that most just willingly accept that they have. There are outright lies, there are various ways to present questions, and the outcome of polygraphs are not merely based on answers given, but are also based on the input that is given to the examiner. I don't particularly care to rehash the polygraph discussion since there is a plethora of material available online (much of which I have linked to previously), but if adequate facts and information were not provided to the examiner (because little concrete info was available), then that can certainly cause the test itself to be faulty. Having said that, I just don't believe the parents have outright lied. IMO