ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #3

[rkf]

Probably more like 1000x that number reached. I agree. :sigh:

I agree. I was trying not to exaggerate.

 

[Elainera]

Apart from the silence in msm, I'm also surprised by the silence on the help Find Deorr fb page today. It hasn't been updated in almost a week, and accusatory comments are not deleted. It looks as if the person/s who started the page have not been there for days. This too I have not seen in a missing child's case. Usually these pages are updated frequently, so followers see the face of the child in their newsfeed often and keep sharing it.

If the parents or family started the page I can only assume they have come to the conclusion that Deorr has not been abducted and is not out there, and there is no point to tell people to keep looking for him. jmo

 

[sarx]

I understand that and I am not blaming them for not having the experience. Regardless of experience and expertise, with such little available manpower, they probably have way less people working on it than a larger LE office would.

Totally get it, I am right there with you. I am sure they are working their tails off but this just isn't something most departments are prepared for. A lot of departments don't even know the external resources that are available to them. It is sad and frustrating.

 

[Elainera]

I thought it was run by a family member. The open group only has 6,383 likes (which is not the same as views or shares, but is still quite low). They could reach 100 times that number in a five minute satellite interview.

respectfully snipped

Facebook pages can rake up the numbers too quite a bit. For example, the first post has more than 300 shares. If everyone who shared it has 100 friends (which is the average on fb I think) about 30,000 people will have seen the post.

However as I said above, if they don't keep updating the page it's not much use.

And yes, they would reach far more people on TV.

 

[gitana1]

The parents have said they think Deorr was abducted, the media is offering to have them on their shows, there is no reason for them to not take the opportunity. Besides, most of the interview offers probably came in during the beginning of the case, so even if they no longer believe he was abducted, that's no excuse for why they didn't do the interviews.

They already have given a quite extensive interview. I'm sure by this time, the reality has totally set in that it is unlikely they will ever see their son alive again. Can we give these people a break? Not one person here actually knows how they would react under such circumstances. And besides, I see nothing odd about how they've reacted- full cooperation with authorities, polygraphs, a lengthy media interview, etc.

 

[Donjeta]

I can totally understand why the parents of a missing child might not feel up to the interview circuit but if the abduction angle is to be taken seriously it seems like some more media attention on Deorr's pictures wouldn't hurt. Maybe they could enlist a relative or a spokesperson to spread the word? A tip from a person who recognizes the child with an abductor seems like the only thing that could solve an abduction case in which no one saw anybody at the abduction site.

But it's possible that they now think that it's probable that Deorr died in that wilderness and putting out more posters and media wouldn't help.

 

[steelman]

I live in Idaho and have been wanting to post regarding predators in this area, but felt I needed to comb all the threads prior to commenting. Thus it seems discussion on wild animals has faded, but I still feel my insight might be beneficial.

I hunt specifically for predators (Bears and Wolves) in an area very close to this one. Idaho has all three previously mentioned predators bears, wolves and Mt. Lions. We have a very large and healthy bear population, but our Mt. Lion and wolf populations are significantly smaller. In fact depending on what study you chose to believe there may be as few as 2500 wolves in all of Idaho.

In my efforts to hunt, it is by design and effort that I place myself in proximity to the animals. Despite the animals being around and statistically numerous it can be and is incredibly hard to encounter them in the wild (garbage dumps around town they always seem to be available.) I will spend weeks and countless miles hiking. I use knowledge of the area I am in and knowledge of were the resources available to the animals are and still struggle to encounter an animal. Surely it is possible an encounter occurred, but from my experience very near this area it is highly unlikely. Further most kill sights I encounter while in pursuit leave reasonable evidence of a predation.

In my experience in the terrain around this area it is also very possible that poor DeOrr could be tucked under a brush knot or a rock pile and without painstaking effort to crawl in and around it, be undiscovered. I am sure SAR has put a great deal of effort into exploring every possible place he could be hidden, but from my experience there are so many brush knots and rock piles it is possible some have been overlooked.

I hope this poor little boy is found and this is not a case where the family is left forever wondering the fate of their poor little boy.

You're right on the money. He crawled up under something or is wedged somewhere in an attempt to protect himself from the elements, but also because he was scared out of his mind. Kids are afraid of the dark. I imagine that first night alone was the worst for him. I can easily see him finding a good "hiding spot", especially at night.

By day two or three he had wandered so far out of the search zone that all he could probably hear in the
distance was the faint sound of helicopters, but at three years old, he probably didn't realize all that commotion was for him.

By day three or four, hunger would have definitely begun to be a huge problem, and unless he stayed close to the creek or the reservoir (which he obviously didn't), then dehydration would also be playing a huge role in his demise. He would have gotten weaker and weaker with each day.

The worse scenario I can imagine is one where he was deliberately hiding from the searchers out of fear of strangers and the loud noises involved with them. All of those strange noises and sounds may have been terrifying to him, so he moved further away from them, or he hid from them. Imagine a child hiding under the bed.

He was 2 1/2 to 3 years old, his sense of danger is much different than an older child, and totally different than an adult. When and if they ever do find him, I imagine your synopsis is going to be accurate, he'll be hidden in a crevice between some large rocks or some sort of shelter he found where he felt safe and protected from all the scary things. The entire concept of being rescued may have been lost on him, all he really wanted to do was find his parents.

 

[wondering25]

Ok, let's think about this. The only vehicle I have heard mentioned is the father's black truck. Can 4 adults and a 2 year old fit safely in a truck? 4 seatbelts for adults and place for cars eat for Deorr? I am going to go with my original premise posted yesterday.. 2 vehicles.. truck and car.. baby somehow crawled into the trunk of the car and trunk was slammed shut by accident.. the car is sitting in a garage or parked in a driveway for the last 2 weeks and no one has looked in the trunk. And on another note.. just because no person of interest has been named doesn't mean the LE doesn't have one. 2 weeks are a long time.. their perspective may have changed considerably..JMHO

 

[SleuthMom]

Emmett Trapp's mom refused to talk to anyone from the media at all when her son went missing. She even begged a reporter who called to not report on her missing son. She did not kill him. (He wandered out of the house and died in the desert). I haven't found that willingness to talk or not talk to the media or frequency of interviews etc, necessarily bears a relation to guilt or innocence. To me, the number one sign of parental involvement is refusing to cooperate or speak to LE and lawyering up at once.

I think people are looking at this at a different angle or perhaps some of you are reaching the wrong conclusion? This isn't about judging why they do not want to talk to national media and make our own conclusions of whether they are "guilty" or "innocent", not at all. We are saying the greater chances they will have (if they use it) in having little Deorr's face out there in the spotlight and greater chances of people looking at the pictures and providing tips, etc and most importantly, keeping the story alive. Sharing the pic on FB in your own page will not reach the desire audience. I do not think anyone could deny that and it is definitely not a criticism or judgement but an observation/suggestion that could help the family.

 

[wondering25]

According to the people magazine article I posted yesterday the mother's grandfather was on the trip.. So, that is the 4th person? http://www.people.com/article/missing-boy-idaho-grandfather-speaks

The elder Kunz says the boy's parents were setting up camp and assumed Mitchell's grandfather, who was also on the trip, was watching the boy. The grandfather assumed the boy's parents were watching him, says Kunz.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

According to the people magazine article I posted yesterday the mother's grandfather was on the trip.. So, that is the 4th person? http://www.people.com/article/missing-boy-idaho-grandfather-speaks

The elder Kunz says the boy's parents were setting up camp and assumed Mitchell's grandfather, who was also on the trip, was watching the boy. The grandfather assumed the boy's parents were watching him, says Kunz.

He was never identified and therefore we must not acknowledge his existence here at Websleuths.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I also agree with the poster who said its not the name of GG's friend that is so important, but WHY the name is not being mentioned in the press (misspelled comments not included) or by the police.

Have I ever mentioned that one of my favorite quotes is, "People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing"? I just felt like sharing that this morning.

 

[Mountaingazer]

I contacted some of the Idaho media outlets who have covered this case with the rumors of the friend's identity plus some other facebook rumblings. Their reply was that they are aware of Grandpa's friend's identity and background and they look forward to sharing it with their viewers in the future.

So the media does know, they are not sharing it now for some reason.

 

[Donjeta]

The greatgrandfather being there has never been a secret in any of these threads I think.

 

[ClaireNC]

According to the people magazine article I posted yesterday the mother's grandfather was on the trip.. So, that is the 4th person? http://www.people.com/article/missing-boy-idaho-grandfather-speaks

The elder Kunz says the boy's parents were setting up camp and assumed Mitchell's grandfather, who was also on the trip, was watching the boy. The grandfather assumed the boy's parents were watching him, says Kunz.

The mother's grandfather is DeOrr's great grandfather. We all know he was on the trip. His name has not been published.

Who is who?
On the camping trip were:
DeOrr jr.
Mom - Jessica, JM
Dad - DeOrr sr, DK
Maternal Great Grandfather – name unpublished
Great Grandfather's friend - male, name unpublished.

Interviewed by the news reports were:
Maternal Grandmother, Jessica's mother - Grandma - was not at the campground. Refers to the grandpa on the camping trip as her Dad.
Paternal Grandfather, also named DeOrr, - was not at the campground. He is the one that said little DeOrr lived with him for the last year and a half.

 

[wondering25]

He was never identified and therefore we must not acknowledge his existence here at Websleuths.

He was identified as Jessica's grandfather by People magazine. The reporter was gathering information. That information is no more or less reliable than the reporters who appear on TV. We get to decide as amateur sleuths what we think is relevant. The LE always asks for people to report to tip lines. That is info also.. some good, most well meaning but useless. BUT they have to vet each one. I don't really care why this name isnt out there.. I really don't. Just a point of interest that the 4th person has been identified as Jessica's grandfather by a REPORTER. If you think the LE isn't combing social media you are mistaken. A person cant get a job today without giving their screen name/email address. Do you really think in a case where they cant find a missing 2 year old and they have all but ruled out wild animals and drowning that they are not looking for information from whatever source? If nothing else it gives them another direction to pursue.

 

[wondering25]

I thought both the father's grandfather and the mother's grandfather were on the trip. That is how I read it.

 

[Mountaingazer]

He was identified as Jessica's grandfather by People magazine. The reporter was gathering information. That information is no more or less reliable than the reporters who appear on TV. We get to decide as amateur sleuths what we think is relevant. The LE always asks for people to report to tip lines. That is info also.. some good, most well meaning but useless. BUT they have to vet each one. I don't really care why this name isnt out there.. I really don't. Just a point of interest that the 4th person has been identified as Jessica's grandfather by a REPORTER. If you think the LE isn't combing social media you are mistaken. A person cant get a job today without giving their screen name/email address. Do you really think in a case where they cant find a missing 2 year old and they have all but ruled out wild animals and drowning that they are not looking for information from whatever source? If nothing else it gives them another direction to pursue.

Yes we all agree that Jessica's grandfather was there. The fourth person is his friend who has no blood relation to any of the people on the trip.

There were four adults present. The parents, the great grandpa (Jessica ' s grandfather), and this unnamed friend.

 

[teeandcee]

My memory is not great right at the moment so although I read the threads I don't recall concrete stats about anything. And I'm not going to wade through a whole thread and 50 pages of posts to find them! If anyone can repost?

The stats are that less than 30 (can't remember exact number) people have been fatally wounded by cougars in North America. What those stats don't cover are those that have been stalked, harassed, or attacked/survived nor do they account for all the missing children who are never found.

Before or after they shot it?

Oh, I understand your point and agree, but there is no easy or pleasant answer to a situation like this. Forestry personnel don't get into that career to kill off animals. Since wolves are rare I'm assuming it was the only animal hanging around the area. But I haven't read any more so I could be wrong about that.

 

[bessie]

Good morning.

The thread will be closed for 10-15 minutes so I can clean up the gossip.

I apologize for the inconvenience. Apparently, my communication skills are lacking because, despite the numerous warnings and explanations of the rules, I continue to read posts which say words to the effect of:

"I read on such-and-such social media page that blah, blah, blah. Sorry, I can't post the link because I don't want to break the rules".

"Facts" must be supported by links. Therefore, if you cannot link it, you cannot post it.

If a website, blog, or social media page, etc. is off limits, then everything posted on that particular site is also off limits.

I'm truly at a loss on how to state the point more clearly.

For crying out loud, if you're going to try to get away with alluding to a rumor, then by all means PLEASE include a link so others can go and read the gossip for themselves. Either way you run the risk of losing your posting privileges.