ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #6

[ILOKAL]

Things I'd love to know "unanswerables, per se":

How long was the family planning on staying at the campsite?

How many diapers did they have with them (for lil Deorr)?

Why was lil Deorr wearing pajama pants? Did he have them on for his so-called "nap"? How many other changes of outfits did he have? Did he have on a top other than a jacket? If not, why not?

How much food did they have with them, and what was it?

And, as others have asked, was this a last-minute trip?

If Deorr, Sr. had to call in sick to his job on Friday, when did he do so?

The bottoms Deorr was wearing have also been described (can't recall the exact description) but like sweat pants. I saw a picture of Deorr wearing a camo "jacket" and it appeared to be lightweight fleece. I read somewhere, don't remember where, that they had planned the camping trip for about a week.

 

[ILOKAL]

ILOKAL.. I absolutely admire your tenacity! You are convinced of a mountain lion attack ( or some 4 legged predator) and cannot be swayed! You certainly have done your homework and your research is compelling!!! IMO, this entire search was mishandled.. dogs not coming until 3 days later.. people all over the campground searching.. no mention of securing the campsite immediately, FBI called after 3 weeks..etc. LE doesnt agree with you.. but it is hard to believe what LE is saying since they are ambiguous at best. jmo

I keep finding more and more information that would explain and answer some of the questions, such as, blood. Mountain lion attacks, especially on smaller prey, leave very little, if any, blood because of the type of bite to the neck. Also, lions often lick up and blood. In several cases the lion carried or dragged its prey "up" to a cliff above and away from the capture site. I doubt the searchers would have had that in mind.

 

[catswhiskers]

ILOKAL.. I absolutely admire your tenacity! You are convinced of a mountain lion attack ( or some 4 legged predator) and cannot be swayed! You certainly have done your homework and your research is compelling!!! IMO, this entire search was mishandled.. dogs not coming until 3 days later.. people all over the campground searching.. no mention of securing the campsite immediately, FBI called after 3 weeks..etc. LE doesnt agree with you.. but it is hard to believe what LE is saying since they are ambiguous at best. jmo

And there are many, many posters who tenaciously hold on to the theory that somehow the parents organised an elaborate ruse to somehow make their own little boy disappear - either before or during the trip.

I've appreciated all your research ILOKAL - it shows that there are other viable possibilities out there.

 

[Trident]

I keep finding more and more information that would explain and answer some of the questions, such as, blood. Mountain lion attacks, especially on smaller prey, leave very little, if any, blood because of the type of bite to the neck. Also, lions often lick up and blood. In several cases the lion carried or dragged its prey "up" to a cliff above and away from the capture site. I doubt the searchers would have had that in mind.

And that is why Paulides, author of the Missing 411 books says that many missing persons, especially children, go UP instead of DOWN like SAR postulates. However, even though Paulides says SAR should perhaps rethink their parameters, he is very willing to go along with them that there is no evidence such as blood, drag marks, clothing, etc found to indicate a cougar attack. So, he lets it go at that and wella! we have a mystery that sells books.

I have a lot more to say on this topic, but for now I want to say a big "THANK YOU" to Dave Paulides for bringing this phenomenon of missing persons to public attention, and for a damned good bit of reading. I feel his books are well worth the money if only to get people thinking outside the box, and for sheer hair-raising stories.

There are, in my opinion, a lot more pertinent details to some of these cases, and disappearances in general, but that is for another time.

:cow:

 

[Trident]

And there are many, many posters who tenaciously hold on to the theory that somehow the parents organised an elaborate ruse to somehow make their own little boy disappear - either before or during the trip.

I've appreciated all your research ILOKAL - it shows that there are other viable possibilities out there.

I also appreciate ILOKAL's tenacity and research. However, there is some precedence for possibly suspecting the parents. More times than I care to remember I have defended parents in some of these cases and ended up with enough egg on my face to eat for a week.

Whether or not Deorr ever got to the camp is a good question. Whether or not a cougar took him is a good possibility. Whether or not he crawled under a downed log is another possibility that has defeated SAR in the past. I'm not sure whether the new hi-tech helicopter the father praised could find him or not, but in the past they were defeated by a log or a thick forest.

I believe we need to keep our minds open to ALL possibilities. Sorry for the rant, but great kookamooga, never before have I encountered a case where someone was spreading cremains around the area where a child has gone missing.

My opinion only

 

[SweetT]

I live out in Montana and have been in the area of the lost boy..not exactly that campground but close. We also do a lot of camping/hiking etc and I also feel that a mountain lion is the culprit. I think the atv's and commotion scared the mountain lion off. JMO In the area I live I have seen bear scat, wolf and coyote scat along with wild cat scat. I have had bears outside in my back yard nearly every night last summer. They are stealthy for being so big, but you would have signs and know if they were around. I have seen the wolves/coyotes etc but the mountain lion to me is the most stealthiest and quickest and they do stalk. I asked a neighbor why they had virtually no plants in their yard and they said they didnt want to give the mountain lions any place to hide.
I have seen foxes carrying off Marmots and you would not see blood etc. Just my two cents. I would be very afraid to have my grandkids out and about where the mountain lions were. I keep a very close eye on them even in my yard, and now with this little boy missing it just raises my levels of awareness even more. Because most the time mountain lions are not seen.

 

[ILOKAL]

And that is why Paulides, author of the Missing 411 books says that many missing persons, especially children, go UP instead of DOWN like SAR postulates. However, even though Paulides says SAR should perhaps rethink their parameters, he is very willing to go along with them that there is no evidence such as blood, drag marks, clothing, etc found to indicate a cougar attack. So, he lets it go at that and wella! we have a mystery that sells books.

I have a lot more to say on this topic, but for now I want to say a big "THANK YOU" to Dave Paulides for bringing this phenomenon of missing persons to public attention, and for a damned good bit of reading. I feel his books are well worth the money if only to get people thinking outside the box, and for sheer hair-raising stories.

There are, in my opinion, a lot more pertinent details to some of these cases, and disappearances in general, but that is for another time.

:cow:

Trident, in your opinion, in THIS case, why would these parents want their precious little boy to disappear? I don't think I've read any "reasoning" by posters who believe this to be the case.

 

[Eileen730]

And there are many, many posters who tenaciously hold on to the theory that somehow the parents organised an elaborate ruse to somehow make their own little boy disappear - either before or during the trip.

I've appreciated all your research ILOKAL - it shows that there are other viable possibilities out there.

I think... if LE ruled them out we.could move on.
Many if not most cases these little ones are never found and were last in the company of their parents. I know I can't move on to someone till this last seen with the child are ruled out of give an explanation of why it could be for.some other reason.
I do not for one moment think a wild animal took this baby.
To me its ome of these 4 ppl last see with littleDeorr. Jmo

 

[ILOKAL]

I think... if LE ruled them out we.could move on.
Many if not most cases these little ones are never found and were last in the company of their parents. I know I can't move on to someone till this last seen with the child are ruled out of give an explanation of why it could be for.some other reason.
I do not for one moment think a wild animal took this baby.
To me its ome of these 4 ppl last see with littleDeorr. Jmo

My question IS, WHY do you think one of these four people took Deorr? Help me to understand your "reasoning"! TIA

 

[Trident]

Trident, in your opinion, in THIS case, why would these parents want their precious little boy to disappear? I don't think I've read any "reasoning" by posters who believe this to be the case.

I don't believe in THIS case, or most of the others I've read, that the parents really want their child to disappear. That said, sometimes stuff happens when parents are under the influence, and/or possibly lose it. If that were to become known, jail time/societal outrage/lose of family would possibly follow. I believe some parents may find the disappearance of a child in a primitive setting to be much preferable than living in jail, or as outcasts.

In THIS case, however, we have the sheriff vouching for the solidity of the parents, and even though they are POIs, along with GGP and IR, we have to view them as victims, and that is the right thing to do because so many lives have been destroyed from "suspicion" in cases like this - take the stepfather in the Jaycee Duggar case. His life was just about ruined from suspicion and he really was innocent. No one should have to live like that. I believe it is better to think it than to point a finger.

My opinion only

 

[wondering25]

I think... if LE ruled them out we.could move on.
Many if not most cases these little ones are never found and were last in the company of their parents. I know I can't move on to someone till this last seen with the child are ruled out of give an explanation of why it could be for.some other reason.
I do not for one moment think a wild animal took this baby.
To me its ome of these 4 ppl last see with littleDeorr. Jmo

I agree with Eileen..LE has not come out and said the 4 at the campsite have been ruled out.. I want to hear the words.. not the double talk of solid.. good with me.. then POI then qualifying the POI.. tap dancing..imo

 

[1&2&3]

I think... if LE ruled them out we.could move on.
Many if not most cases these little ones are never found and were last in the company of their parents. I know I can't move on to someone till this last seen with the child are ruled out of give an explanation of why it could be for.some other reason.
I do not for one moment think a wild animal took this baby.
To me its ome of these 4 ppl last see with littleDeorr. Jmo

I have to agree! Parents/family have always been the first ones looked at. In this case, with the exception of GGF, the three humans with little Deorr have been ruled POI. In other cases, that put one at a high level of suspicion without calling them a suspect. For some reason, that I am not questioning, just do not understand, POI has a different meaning in Deorr's case.

LE has not announced how the parents did on the polygraph tests. If IR took one, it would be real interesting to see what his results were since his reply to the reporter was "I was told he disappeared".

Prove to me the parents are 100% innocent before I accept a mountain lion took him. JMO.

 

[ILOKAL]

I agree with Eileen..LE has not come out and said the 4 at the campsite have been ruled out.. I want to hear the words.. not the double talk of solid.. good with me.. then POI then qualifying the POI.. tap dancing..imo

Does that mean but for those four persons being named Persons of Interest you wouldn't believe they had anything to do with Little Deorr's disappearance? Just trying to understand the reasoning.

 

[ILOKAL]

I have to agree! Parents/family have always been the first ones looked at. In this case, with the exception of GGF, the three humans with little Deorr have been ruled POI. In other cases, that put one at a high level of suspicion without calling them a suspect. For some reason, that I am not questioning, just do not understand, POI has a different meaning in Deorr's case.

LE has not announced how the parents did on the polygraph tests. If IR took one, it would be real interesting to see what his results were since his reply to the reporter was "I was told he disappeared".

Prove to me the parents are 100% innocent before I accept a mountain lion took him. JMO.

It makes NO sense whatsoever that any one much less ALL of these four were involved in the strange disappearance of Little Deorr. Make some sense of it! The reasoning here merely seems to be since others before them have been guilty therefore they must also be. It's like being stuck in a rut. Now you want ME to prove these four people 100% innocent BEFORE you consider a more sensible resolution that actually uses FACTS to arrive at such a conclusion. Personally I find that incredible, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Mountaingazer]

My question IS, WHY do you think one of these four people took Deorr? Help me to understand your "reasoning"! TIA

The reasoning and histories that cause people to draw this conclusion can not be discussed on this site yet due to the TOS. I do believe eventually we will be able to discuss them here and then you might understand why many are steering more towards foul play vs a tragic act of nature.

 

[white rabbit]

i agree with Eileen, wondering, et cetera.

I have no reasoning as yet.

 

[ILOKAL]

I don't believe in THIS case, or most of the others I've read, that the parents really want their child to disappear. That said, sometimes stuff happens when parents are under the influence, and/or possibly lose it. If that were to become known, jail time/societal outrage/lose of family would possibly follow. I believe some parents may find the disappearance of a child in a primitive setting to be much preferable than living in jail, or as outcasts.

In THIS case, however, we have the sheriff vouching for the solidity of the parents, and even though they are POIs, along with GGP and IR, we have to view them as victims, and that is the right thing to do because so many lives have been destroyed from "suspicion" in cases like this - take the stepfather in the Jaycee Duggar case. His life was just about ruined from suspicion and he really was innocent. No one should have to live like that. I believe it is better to think it than to point a finger.

My opinion only

Think it?! I can't even wrap by head around it, but that's just me.

 

[ILOKAL]

The reasoning and histories that cause people to draw this conclusion can not be discussed on this site yet due to the TOS. I do believe eventually we will be able to discuss them here and then you might understand why many are steering more towards foul play vs a tragic act of nature.

No, I don't think so. No one has read anything that I haven't read, and how ANYTHING so far would bring a reasonable person to think there was "foul play" in this case is simply beyond my comprehension. Sorry, and no one can even explain it to me except to say they added 3+2 together and got 4 so it simply MUST be!

 

[pepelepolecat]

Trident, in your opinion, in THIS case, why would these parents want their precious little boy to disappear? I don't think I've read any "reasoning" by posters who believe this to be the case.

Speaking only in generalities here, but is there EVER a good reason that ANY parents would want their children to disappear? I can't imagine one if there is.

 

[Eileen730]

i agree with Eileen, wondering, et cetera.

I have no reasoning as yet.

Because..... these are the last 4 ppl with him. Jmo