ID - DeOrr Kunz, Jr., 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #28

[TheTruthWillOut]

Does anyone know the size and type of the camping trailer? It was pulled by a Chevy Suburban which is not a pickup truck, therefore the camper can't be a fifth-wheel trailer and can't be a slide-on. So it's towed with a normal towball. It must be fairly small because only one person out of the party 5 of slept in it. It probably doesn't have a toliet (see video of V stating he could hear camper door when B was getting up in night). So it's a probably a 1 bedrooom camping trailer? Are there any photos of it?

Hi koios.

If you know where and what to look for there are images available but I'm not sure posting a link is within the rules. It is publicly available and not SM but it is still a grey area.

I'm still unclear on what vehicle GGP used to tow the trailer/caravan after all this time.

 

[Hoosier952]

They have since split up. Why would either protect one or the other? Unless they both played a part in his disappearance. JMO

They also share an attorney. No attorney would ever let one client talk if it incriminated the other. Even if one of the two were responsible for Deorr's death, the other is on the hook for covering up the death, lying to investigators, tampering with evidence, etc.

I think if one person was more innocent than the other, they would have had two separate attorneys. I don't see JM taking an (assumed) free attorney in exchange for the label of homicide suspect. They've both got something major to hide that would put them both away for a long time.

MOO, of course.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I think it's more likely that Deorr rode off on an elephant than his parents being innocent.

Ah, the famous Idahoan Mountain Elephant. Known for rescuing children from less than truthful parents. Eats wellies and toy cars.

I'm not ruling it out.

 

[DatelineFan]

Ah, the famous Idahoan Mountain Elephant. Known for rescuing children from less than truthful parents. Eats wellies and toy cars.

I'm not ruling it out.

They are very sneaky, I hear.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[desert-blue]

I would rule out those 3 in a hypothetical situation where one person acted alone without the knowledge of the others.

Why do the other 3 seem to have so much trouble telling the truth then?

 

[DatelineFan]

Why do the other 3 seem to have so much trouble telling the truth then?

Because they are lying liars who lie, and likely guilty of something.

 

[misty48]

We have been told that they are liars but not what the lies are. Proof of lies can only be established when the truth is uncovered.
It is easier to stick to a script than keep reliving a traumatic event.

Who services the Outhouse at the campground?

 

[Sillybilly]

We have been told that they are liars but not what the lies are. Proof of lies can only be established when the truth is uncovered.
It is easier to stick to a script than keep reliving a traumatic event.

<rsbm>

from:
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...s/news-story/2bdcd8daafeb4d338d92f21a6ca53eb3

&#8220;They&#8217;re not able to tell the same story twice because they&#8217;ve told so many stories,&#8221; County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman told KTVB-TV. &#8220;We&#8217;re getting changes in the stories all the time.&#8221;

 

[neesaki]

We have been told that they are liars but not what the lies are. Proof of lies can only be established when the truth is uncovered.
It is easier to stick to a script than keep reliving a traumatic event.

Who services the Outhouse at the campground?

According to Sheriff B their stories are always changing, so it doesn't sound like they're sticking to any type of script. And from what's been reported thus far, they've lied about things such as when they arrived at the campground, to what they were doing when and where, and who was where when little Deorr disappeared. Why can't they get it straight? Why do they always change the story? Two possible reasons come to mind at the moment:

1. Heavily under the influence / illegal drug use to the point they don't even know what happened
2. Cover up of a criminal act or negligent homicide

ETA: Just summarizing since the details as we know them are available on the media thread to read and/or link.

 

[koios]

Hi koios.

If you know where and what to look for there are images available but I'm not sure posting a link is within the rules. It is publicly available and not SM but it is still a grey area.

I'm still unclear on what vehicle GGP used to tow the trailer/caravan after all this time.

Thanks TTWO. Both V and J refer to GGP vehicle as a Suburban.
"Deorr and my Grandpa set up the camper off the Suburban" (J handwritten).
"the trailer's hooked on to the Suburban" (V spoken).
Source for both is the KIC video titled "Once again ---".

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Thanks TTWO. Both V and J refer to GGP vehicle as a Suburban.
"Deorr and my Grandpa set up the camper off the Suburban" (J handwritten).
"the trailer's hooked on to the Suburban" (V spoken).
Source for both is the KIC video titled "Once again ---".

I know all family refer to a Suburban but we haven't actually seen it. In the images available for the trailer I mentioned previously it is shown with a mid 70's Chevy C20 pick-up with a camper shell on the back and I'm sure I saw pictures on TBC's FB of a camping trip a few months before Deorr went missing (now gone) showing the same combo in use. Of course GGP could simply have scrapped the pick-up and bought a Suburban SUV but the interesting thing for me is that the C-20 pick-up and Suburban SUV are related vehicles and I wonder if calling it a Suburban is out of habit?

 

[KatieLiz]

They also share an attorney. No attorney would ever let one client talk if it incriminated the other. Even if one of the two were responsible for Deorr's death, the other is on the hook for covering up the death, lying to investigators, tampering with evidence, etc.

I think if one person was more innocent than the other, they would have had two separate attorneys. I don't see JM taking an (assumed) free attorney in exchange for the label of homicide suspect. They've both got something major to hide that would put them both away for a long time.

MOO, of course.

Exactly. And I think that's why Klein is releasing these snippets of them accusing each other. He is trying to get jessica to get so mad at Vernal that she gets her own lawyer and then one of them might start talking, IMO.

 

[koios]

But even if that happened- from what I understand about your hypothesis you mean what if Deorr wandered away, fell asleep in some grass, and when VDK drove to look or call 911 he hit him with the truck and chose to hide it from the other 3 adults-- let's say that happened, then HOW in such a short time Does Vernal wash the truck and dispose of the body as well as concoct a story and head back to the campsite? He had to hide the body so well it still hasn't been found to this day. How can that be accomplished in, say, 20 minutes?

Not to mention we already know (?) Vernal didn't drive down the road for signal and was beside Jessica when she called 911... right?

Any other possible scenario won't fit the story/stories given by any of the people involved....

Hi KatieLiz I was not talking about any named person I was talking about a hypothetical person because its easier to concentrate on logistics that way. Imagine 4 adults A B C and D. If you conclude that it was impossible for A with use of a vehicle to hide something, in the time available, so well that it wasn't found, then it would also be impossible for B or C or D, or any combination of them, or a stranger, or a wild animal, to hide something so well in the available time. So that leaves a choice of one theory, of a conspiracy between all of A B C and D to pretend a child was with them at the campsite. Just my opinion, but that last theory is not realistic. So by a process of elimination, it must have been possible for someone to do it in the time available, just an opinion.

 

[koios]

Please can anyone confirm, is this the "diaper" tree?
Source is youtube video h8RrEX5Kknc at 3 minutes

 

[KatieLiz]

Hi KatieLiz I was not talking about any named person I was talking about a hypothetical person because its easier to concentrate on logistics that way. Imagine 4 adults A B C and D. If you conclude that it was impossible for A with use of a vehicle to hide something, in the time available, so well that it wasn't found, then it would also be impossible for B or C or D, or any combination of them, or a stranger, or a wild animal, to hide something so well in the available time. So that leaves a choice of one theory, of a conspiracy between all of A B C and D to pretend a child was with them at the campsite. Just my opinion, but that last theory is not realistic. So by a process of elimination, it must have been possible for someone to do it in the time available, just an opinion.

What I am hypothesizing is that one of A B C or D couldn't have acted alone based on the timeline those 4 give. But TWO of them could have acted together. A and B took a trip to Leadore without C and D, remember?! ALSO, C and D were supposedly in a bar alone the night before. So IF Deorr was at the campsite ever, this seems to be the only Opportunity that all 4 of A B C and D weren't together. In the given timeline there is zero instance of anyone being alone with Deorr until he is supposedly left with GGP- who is not physically capable of.disposing of him alone. Therefore either the timeline is a lie (which is likely is) and someone is covering for.someone else, or more than 1 person is involved. According to A B C and D there is no time frame in which someone was alone and had enough time to do this. Again, I hypothesize there is absolutely no way only 1 person is involved without the knowledge of at least a 2nd person, otherwise we would have 3 adults saying 1 was alone with Deorr and had enough time to carry this out. The other adults would not just return to a missing child and be okay with that. There would be accusations and non stop questions...

What you are saying doesn't fit with anything we know so far, IMO.

 

[carbuff]

There's a joke that's been going around Facebook and other social media. It says, "If I ever have to hide a body, I'm going to bury it eight feet deep and bury a dead dog three feet deep above it. Then everyone will assume it's a false alarm!"

Which is, like, okay, back to the cremains. I'm sure the people who were scattering their loved one's ashes were in no way involved. But what if somebody had a body to dispose of, and heard about the remains being scattered, and thought of using them as cover? That might explain the hasty nature of the trip.

No, that really doesn't make any more sense than anything else.

 

[koios]

What I am hypothesizing is that one of A B C or D couldn't have acted alone based on the timeline those 4 give. But TWO of them could have acted together. A and B took a trip to Leadore without C and D, remember?! ALSO, C and D were supposedly in a bar alone the night before. So IF Deorr was at the campsite ever, this seems to be the only Opportunity that all 4 of A B C and D weren't together. In the given timeline there is zero instance of anyone being alone with Deorr until he is supposedly left with GGP- who is not physically capable of.disposing of him alone. Therefore either the timeline is a lie (which is likely is) and someone is covering for.someone else, or more than 1 person is involved. According to A B C and D there is no time frame in which someone was alone and had enough time to do this. Again, I hypothesize there is absolutely no way only 1 person is involved without the knowledge of at least a 2nd person, otherwise we would have 3 adults saying 1 was alone with Deorr and had enough time to carry this out. The other adults would not just return to a missing child and be okay with that. There would be accusations and non stop questions...
What you are saying doesn't fit with anything we know so far, IMO.

All of A B C and D say they saw E at the campsite after the shop trip. Therefore if E was not at the campsite after that trip, it would make A B C and D all absolutely complicit, which may appear to be a clever conclusion, but I think it's completely implausible MOO. There has to be a simpler answer in which at least 2 do not know, my opinion only.

 

[koios]

There's a joke that's been going around Facebook and other social media. It says, "If I ever have to hide a body, I'm going to bury it eight feet deep and bury a dead dog three feet deep above it. Then everyone will assume it's a false alarm!"

Which is, like, okay, back to the cremains. I'm sure the people who were scattering their loved one's ashes were in no way involved. But what if somebody had a body to dispose of, and heard about the remains being scattered, and thought of using them as cover? That might explain the hasty nature of the trip.

No, that really doesn't make any more sense than anything else.

I think that hit #3, 10ft east of campsite, may even be relevant. The buried dog and towel below the surface might be an irrelevant coincidence.
Also I think that hit #1, near a tree close to the campsite, may even be relevant. The fact that a diaper was later put in the tree might be an irrelevant coincidence.
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/07/private-investigator-issues-lengthy-report-deorr-kunz-case/

 

[carbuff]

I think that hit #3, 10ft east of campsite, may even be relevant. The buried dog and towel below the surface might be an irrelevant coincidence.
Also I think that hit #1, near a tree close to the campsite, may even be relevant. The fact that a diaper was later put in the tree might be an irrelevant coincidence.
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/07/private-investigator-issues-lengthy-report-deorr-kunz-case/

Hm. Coincidentally, you could be quite relevant in that observation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 102539]

All of A B C and D say they saw E at the campsite after the shop trip. Therefore if E was not at the campsite after that trip, it would make A B C and D all absolutely complicit, which may appear to be a clever conclusion, but I think it's completely implausible MOO. There has to be a simpler answer in which at least 2 do not know, my opinion only.

Maybe. Maybe too: 2 of them (C+D) "know" of something illegal (ie. secret adoption which isn't true and was "created" by parents A+B) and are lying, C because of family reputation (important to him) and D because of loyalty to elderly friend C (himself being quite indifferent re fate of child E).
??? :dunno: