You know they have dragged the creek, right? They have searched it several.times and said he is not there.
ID - DeOrr Kunz, Jr., 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #28
- Thread starter 0101ABA
- Start date
- Status
You know they have dragged the creek, right? They have searched it several.times and said he is not there.
The problem is that JA has said.many things. You can't trust in that moment that it's true. Sure in this video she says Deorr was on the bank when GGP saw him. She also says "playing with the dirt on his SHOES". What about his "too big" boots?? But they have also said GGP wasn't even aware he was there. That he thought Deorr wandered after his parents. Now she is saying he definitely stayed at the site but that was a different story back in the first few months of the search. They have also told the story that IR thought V and J were both following him when they first left the site but when he turned back it was only J. But now J says she stayed and asked grandpa and DeOrr Jr many times if he was okay there and her story says she was the last to leave the campsite, not V.
You'll need to watch and read all their statements they have given to the media and stuff, they all contradict each other. You csnt piece together three sentences from 3 different stories and think they explain what happened to him. If it was that easy this would be an open and shut accidental death investigation.
ETA: let's not forget the original.story and the infamous "minnows"... what happened to that story to evolve to Jessica fishing alone in the Centre of the creek?
Or the fact J and V were convinced he was abducted because his monkey and blanket weren't with him and he always has them, yet Jessica has also stated that she had put the monkey and blanket in GGPs vehicle that morning because Deorr kept tripping on them. She also stated originally about IR disappearing.... yet in this story, here he is, fishing at the creek...
Things that make you go... huh?!?
A problem I'm realizing is that a lot of the discrepancies In the timelines have also been things JA and family Members have commented on Deorr FB pages. As that stuff is against TOS here, anyone who is only following here.mosses a lot of the inconsistencies.
Is it possible a body could be actually buried in the creek (there was a shovel at the site) with rocks placed on top, making it incredibly difficult for a cadaver dog to scent due to the movement of the water?
I'm looking at consistencies which fit together, not the inconsistencies in the sequence of events.
The fact that GGP was pacing along the ridge suggests that he believed Deorr may have gone over that way, It would seem he didn't originally know that IR was allegedly beneath the site, fishing. I'm not sure just how mobile GGP was at that time, but if he needed oxygen I assume he couldn't move around the site too quickly. Therefore, if he was alerted by either VK or JA to Deorr being missing it would be reasonable to assume he only made his way to the closest spot he last saw him or the nearest place where viisibility would be lost.
I understood that IR was missing for an hour after Deorr was discovered missing. If he went up to the reservoir to search, as he stated, that would have taken at least an hour.
Could be a possibility. But no one of them could have done something like that alone according to the timeline so that puts it back to being two or.more people. I can only imagine how hard it would be to dig and then place and bury a body in moving water... it would take a good chunk of time and whoever did it would be muddy and sopping wet upon their return.
But according to Jessicas story on Klein's new video it doesn't fit with IR saying Bob was pacing at the Ridge. Her story is that Vernal called to her that Deorr was missing and that happened immediately after she says IR joined her back at the creek. So if she could hear Vernal yelled to her then #1) that discredits IR saying tr creek was so loud he didn't hear anything but saw Bob pacing, and #2) it raises questions because if IR was at the creek with Jessica surely he heard Vernal yell to her and watched her freaK out and frantically scramble back across the creek to the campsite.
And the people who said IR was missing was J and V... again, what are we to believe? Because the new story posted doesn't line up to that old story.
Sheriff Bowerman said that the creek was literally ripped apart for miles in his interviews. He was positive baby Deoor wasn't there. If you listen to VK blab in his very first interview with Nate he confirms that and talks about the wonderful job that was done by the search teams in the water, Personally, I dont think there is a single prayer they missed him in that creek.
And for the record, scent rises in water. Rocks would not hold it down.
neesaki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,096
- Reaction score
- 49,832
Maybe you missed it, but that creek was searched extensively. They turned over every rock, log, etc., in that shallow creek. And, since then, it's been searched again. I don't see how he could not have been found if he was there. I mean, it was right there. It's not like it was miles away in a huge river or something. JMO
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant a shallow grave dug in the waterbed, recovered with soil/sediment & then covered with rocks. I know scent rises in water but were the cadaver dogs used in the early searches trained to detect underwater scent (it is a specialist discipline)
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,717
- Reaction score
- 119,405
Didn't Jessica say in the video that she & VK went further upstream because the water was running too fast to fish at the spot IR had shown them? Therefore it is possible that where Jessica was fishing in relative calm she could hear VK shouting but IR could only hear the rushing water where he was fishing.
neesaki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,096
- Reaction score
- 49,832
In saying this, I have to assume that you're implying that the timeline given by the suspects is untruthful, is that correct? If so, then I guess anything's possible, say for instance they had several hours or even a whole day to undertake this endeavor. Which means they would have to be lying about the timeline and the chain of events. If so, this scenario could be possible.
As is also possible that he was taken away from the area to dispose of him far outside of the search zone at any point in time.
Or, as is possible, that a mountain lion or other animal predator took him out of the area, if, and I say IF, no one was paying any attention at all to that little boy for a lengthy amount of time. For example, if they were doing drugs and were completely oblivious, as in passed out, to anything that was going on. I actually agree that this is a possibility that could explain why, if they have no clue, why they have no clue. And the amount of confusion and story changing, etc. Actually, the drug scenario could apply to almost anything that could have happened. jmo
MOO in the recording he is describing a real conversation accurately, except for understating his response to her reaction, but that leaks out clearly enough MOO.
To get things in context I listen first to the recording "Jan 11", and second to the recording "On or about Jan 12",
http://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/videos
I am very familiar with HRD K9 work and yes water is a specialized field. The dogs are trained to detect HR in rivers, ponds, creeks and also worked off boats riding the bow. A good water K9 will detect HR in many feet of water. The water is always moving and as it flows so does scent so a handler must also understand what water does with scent based on temperature, depth and distance of flow. And yes, we know that dogs trained in water cadaver were utilized in the early days of the search, because they hit on the cremains that were dumped in the reservoir. Remember that part of the story? AFAIK those dogs were working off boats in the reservoir.
We are talking about the creek in your question. Your scenario is not probable because the water is moving, thus moving freshly moved soil. If you want...try to dig a hole in a creek with moving water and see what happens. Not trying to be argumentative, your question is very valid. I hope my explanation is useful. JMO
Thank you for that. I did know about the cremains but assumed that they were deposited near the water's edge as the person was on foot rather than out in a boat. Are there any images in existence of the K9s in operation on the reservoir because I haven't seen any?
I understand what you are saying about the movement of fresh soil in a running creek, which is why I added the rocks to the scenario. That would disperse any rising odour which would then be further diluted by the current.
Watch it again. Jessica says she saw something move in the corner of her eye while fishing and looked.over and it was Isaac coming down stream to fish near her. Right after that she says Vernal yelled down that Deorr was missing.
Jessica goes on to say about throwing her pole and running to the campsite. Her description of getting to the fishing spot was having to cross a log and walking downstream and then crossing rocks into the middle island type area of the creek, where she began to fish. If she saw Isaac down from her right before Vernal yelled, then even if Isaac couldn't hear Vernal surely he saw Jessica throw her pole, scramble across the rocks, run downstream, climb back across the Log, and run back to camp yelling her sons name!!! If she saw him easily enough in her peripheral vision then he could see her. And it also means IR was accounted for when Deorr disappeared.
I saw pics at one point in time showing the Rez search with a dog in the boat. Honestly don't remember where but if I come across it again in the allowed media threads I will post it for you!
The scenario you describe would be quite the endeavour. Surely all 4 would have had to be involved in one way or another to accomplish that. Which kind of goes against everything you have posted thus far, so I am intrigued..
If there was a genuine accident, I compare the 4 examples you give
Fell in water; no direct culpability, (but possibly the indirect contribution of inadequate supervision)).
Fell in fire: same as above.
Fell: same as above.
Hit by vehicle: This is different, because it involves physical action by an adult (it can't happen unless an adult gets into the vehicle and starts it and makes it move) and so the level of culpability would depend on various factors, such as whether it was safe to use a vehicle, and whether the speed chosen was safe for a campground where it was known that a very small child could be anywhere around.
- Status