ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #7

[BlkMtnGirl]

I apologize in advance if this has been theorized, as I've had trouble keeping up with all the posts. I've been watching this case from Day 2. Here's a family-friendly abduction scenario:

This is PURE SPECULATION on my part!
The family goes camping. A FB lurker knows all about it beforehand because they post all about where they're going; how it's a special trip with GGPa. FB lurker goes to the area and lies in wait (or finds them once they're there.) Abductor sees his chance and takes it. [I read a first-hand account somewhere - sorry, no link - where you can be in a nearby camping spot there and not know there is anyone around.] He drives away, and at some point around 6pm ends up at the convenience store to buy a candy bar where the clerk remembered a filthy, bawling kid. Meanwhile, the search begins. [Remember, all pure speculation.] The sheriff's office receives a call (or perhaps one of the parents, but they don't have very good cell service, and it's unlikely a random abductor would have their number) from the abductor saying he has baby DeOrr, and they had better come up with some money. Abductor instructs the parents to do a media interview to steer the abduction theory away from the actual truth. They need to explain why the clerk thought he/she saw DeOrr at 6pm. Explain the mysterious EMT bag that fell out of the abductor's truck [Remember, all pure speculation.] The abductor doesn't want the general public looking for him. Dad is in control of the interview, but is obviously trying to not give something away. Mom is too afraid to open her mouth and say the wrong thing to upset the abductor. The abductor starts getting more and more unstable, with demands that cannot be met. The Sheriff's office is trying to control the situation, but is starting to lose it. Their story changes because of pressures from the public. ("There's no abduction; wait, we can't rule it out.") They have to make a big show of having search and rescue out there to appease the abductor (who doesn't want the public to start looking for him), but there's no point in having civilians running around up there with the possibility of them getting hurt, because they know he's not up there. Meanwhile, the FBI comes in and is trying to reason with or find the abductor.

Does this fit the facts in this case? Not sure how cremains end up in the scenario.

 

[ClaireNC]

Didn't GGF say he was playing in the DIRT?
Im so very confused!

GGP never said anything to the media. He never gave an interview. Anything that you think GGP said, came from second hand information. I don't know where this "GGP said he was playing in the dirt" statement came from and I've seen it brought up a few times.

 

[Trident]

I dont recall about that but you could be right.

This case is troublesome in so many ways. It can head in so many directions.

As for right now, and this is JMO, I dont think a random stranger took the boy and I dont think the boy walked off or drowned or was picked up by an animal. Thats about all I feel at this point. I dont know what happened but I am starting to eliminate some things I at first thought was possible.

I agree that Deorr probably didn't walk off or was taken by a random stranger. Drowning is looking less and less of an option. I do, however, still feel the cougar is a viable possibility.

My opinion only

 

[Eileen730]

GGP never said anything to the media. He never gave an interview. Anything that you think GGP said, came from second hand information. I don't know where this "GGP said he was playing in the dirt" statement came from and I've seen it brought up a few times.

Been reading it here!
And it would make sense!

 

[Hatfield]

I apologize in advance if this has been theorized, as I've had trouble keeping up with all the posts. I've been watching this case from Day 2. Here's a family-friendly abduction scenario:

This is PURE SPECULATION on my part!
The family goes camping. A FB lurker knows all about it beforehand because they post all about where they're going; how it's a special trip with GGPa. FB lurker goes to the area and lies in wait (or finds them once they're there.) Abductor sees his chance and takes it. [I read a first-hand account somewhere - sorry, no link - where you can be in a nearby camping spot there and not know there is anyone around.] He drives away, and at some point around 6pm ends up at the convenience store to buy a candy bar where the clerk remembered a filthy, bawling kid. Meanwhile, the search begins. [Remember, all pure speculation.] The sheriff's office receives a call (or perhaps one of the parents, but they don't have very good cell service, and it's unlikely a random abductor would have their number) from the abductor saying he has baby DeOrr, and they had better come up with some money. Abductor instructs the parents to do a media interview to steer the abduction theory away from the actual truth. They need to explain why the clerk thought he/she saw DeOrr at 6pm. Explain the mysterious EMT bag that fell out of the abductor's truck [Remember, all pure speculation.] The abductor doesn't want the general public looking for him. Dad is in control of the interview, but is obviously trying to not give something away. Mom is too afraid to open her mouth and say the wrong thing to upset the abductor. The abductor starts getting more and more unstable, with demands that cannot be met. The Sheriff's office is trying to control the situation, but is starting to lose it. Their story changes because of pressures from the public. ("There's no abduction; wait, we can't rule it out.") They have to make a big show of having search and rescue out there to appease the abductor (who doesn't want the public to start looking for him), but there's no point in having civilians running around up there with the possibility of them getting hurt, because they know he's not up there. Meanwhile, the FBI comes in and is trying to reason with or find the abductor.

Does this fit the facts in this case? Not sure how cremains end up in the scenario.

Its an interesting theory however if there was an abductor trying to get ransom I dont think LE would have released any information or even let the father do an interview in the first place.

The cremains part I am still bothered by too.

There is 1 simple question I would like to have answered by the Sheriff. Are the people that left the cremains related to the Deorrs in any way ? Were they acquantancies, friends, family?

I think it was mentioned it was unrelated however that doesnt answer the question. I want to know specifically if those people that left the cremains knew them at all? And I would like to know who and how many there were that left cremains.
And whether they were camping too or not.
When did they come and leave

 

[Eileen730]

I apologize in advance if this has been theorized, as I've had trouble keeping up with all the posts. I've been watching this case from Day 2. Here's a family-friendly abduction scenario:

This is PURE SPECULATION on my part!
The family goes camping. A FB lurker knows all about it beforehand because they post all about where they're going; how it's a special trip with GGPa. FB lurker goes to the area and lies in wait (or finds them once they're there.) Abductor sees his chance and takes it. [I read a first-hand account somewhere - sorry, no link - where you can be in a nearby camping spot there and not know there is anyone around.] He drives away, and at some point around 6pm ends up at the convenience store to buy a candy bar where the clerk remembered a filthy, bawling kid. Meanwhile, the search begins. [Remember, all pure speculation.] The sheriff's office receives a call (or perhaps one of the parents, but they don't have very good cell service, and it's unlikely a random abductor would have their number) from the abductor saying he has baby DeOrr, and they had better come up with some money. Abductor instructs the parents to do a media interview to steer the abduction theory away from the actual truth. They need to explain why the clerk thought he/she saw DeOrr at 6pm. Explain the mysterious EMT bag that fell out of the abductor's truck [Remember, all pure speculation.] The abductor doesn't want the general public looking for him. Dad is in control of the interview, but is obviously trying to not give something away. Mom is too afraid to open her mouth and say the wrong thing to upset the abductor. The abductor starts getting more and more unstable, with demands that cannot be met. The Sheriff's office is trying to control the situation, but is starting to lose it. Their story changes because of pressures from the public. ("There's no abduction; wait, we can't rule it out.") They have to make a big show of having search and rescue out there to appease the abductor (who doesn't want the public to start looking for him), but there's no point in having civilians running around up there with the possibility of them getting hurt, because they know he's not up there. Meanwhile, the FBI comes in and is trying to reason with or find the abductor.

Does this fit the facts in this case? Not sure how cremains end up in the scenario.

Don't you think abductions are by opportunity and easy access to a child? A child left alone in a walmart toy department or a child left alone on a street or on bike? Why go to a campground and take a 2 yr old baby?

 

[pepelepolecat]

GGP never said anything to the media. He never gave an interview. Anything that you think GGP said, came from second hand information. I don't know where this "GGP said he was playing in the dirt" statement came from and I've seen it brought up a few times.

I could have sworn this was repeated in a news story, but after some intense googling, I found it. It was yet another social media report from the alleged grandma/Facebook page.

How did so many social media statements get mixed into the known facts of this case?

 

[Hatfield]

In some new story.. it may have people magazine.. it was said Deorr was playing in the dirt near the grandfather on Friday then disappeared. SO, The bawling dirty baby on Friday at 6pm could have been the perp.. What DOESN'T compute is that the clerk has not mentioned seeing this family in his store at any time.

Someone may have made a leap from the sighting in the store about the dirty child and may have assumed he had to have been playing in the dirt while at the campground.

The grandfather or Great Grandfather could have made that leap without it actually happening too. Its an easy thing to assume after hearing about the store story.

 

[Trident]

Don't you think abductions are by opportunity and easy access to a child? A child left alone in a walmart toy department or a child left alone on a street or on bike? Why go to a campground and take a 2 yr old baby?

Unless it was THIS particular 2 yr old baby. Who, indeed, would want to hurt the parents enough to take the child?

:cow:

 

[Hatfield]

I could have sworn this was repeated in a news story, but after some intense googling, I found it. It was yet another social media report from the alleged grandma/Facebook page.

How did so many social media statements get mixed into the known facts of this case?

Thanks for finding that.

JMO
I am going to chalk it up to people using the clerks story of the sighting of the dirty child and then assuming the boy had to have been playing in the dirt in the campground.

 

[ClaireNC]

In some new story.. it may have people magazine.. it was said Deorr was playing in the dirt near the grandfather on Friday then disappeared. SO, The bawling dirty baby on Friday at 6pm could have been the perp.. What DOESN'T compute is that the clerk has not mentioned seeing this family in his store at any time.

The People magazine article was an interview with DeOrr sr.'s father. He was not at the campground so anything he said was second hand. We don't know if the clerk confirmed that the family was at the store at any time. The clerk was never interviewed by the media.

As for the bawling filthy child comment. I think it was really just a manor of speech, the clerk over exaggerated the words for dramatic effect. Did you see the interview with the lady from the restaurant? She seemed like hardened country folk to me. A bit rough around the edges, not proper grammer, not highly educated etc. It is pretty safe to assume that other folks living or working in this small town are of the same ilk. I'm trying to be delicate in my wording, makes me think of people who frequent biker bars.

 

[Hatfield]

Unless it was THIS particular 2 yr old baby. Who, indeed, would want to hurt the parents enough to take the child?

:cow:

In order to answer IMO, I have to go back to the clerks story about the dirty child.

Maybe someone who felt they were "saving" the boy from what they felt were unfit parents.

Sorry that I am so hung up on that clerk's story today. LOL

 

[Eileen730]

The People magazine article was an interview with DeOrr sr.'s father. He was not at the campground so anything he said was second hand. We don't know if the clerk confirmed that the family was at the store at any time. The clerk was never interviewed by the media.

As for the bawling filthy child comment. I think it was really just a manor of speech, the clerk over exaggerated the words for dramatic effect. Did you see the interview with the lady from the restaurant? She seemed like hardened country folk to me. A bit rough around the edges, not proper grammer, not highly educated etc. It is pretty safe to assume that other folks living or working in this small town are of the same ilk. I'm trying to be delicate in my wording, makes me think of people who frequent biker bars.

But IMO he is repeating what was told to him!
Little by little I think we will see information leaking out!

 

[Hatfield]

The People magazine article was an interview with DeOrr sr.'s father. He was not at the campground so anything he said was second hand. We don't know if the clerk confirmed that the family was at the store at any time. The clerk was never interviewed by the media.

As for the bawling filthy child comment. I think it was really just a manor of speech, the clerk over exaggerated the words for dramatic effect. Did you see the interview with the lady from the restaurant? She seemed like hardened country folk to me. A bit rough around the edges, not proper grammer, not highly educated etc. It is pretty safe to assume that other folks living or working in this small town are of the same ilk. I'm trying to be delicate in my wording, makes me think of people who frequent biker bars.

I agree with you. The only thing I have to add is the clerk did make a point of bringing that out as extra information so it was important to her. It was something that stuck out as a little unusual to her. So to me, he must have been more dirty than usual. Like very filthy and dirty.

Why am I making that leap? Because he could have been clean and she would not have mentioned it otherwise.

Then again, it could just be me that is making a big deal of it. LOL

 

[ClaireNC]

I could have sworn this was repeated in a news story, but after some intense googling, I found it. It was yet another social media report from the alleged grandma/Facebook page.

How did so many social media statements get mixed into the known facts of this case?

Oh thanks for that pepelepolecat! People grab onto little bits of info without questioning the source. Like that old game of telephone, the stories get warped as they are passed on.

 

[Dee10]

from People Magazine:

"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."

"There's a four-minute window where no one had an eye on him," says Kunz, 70. "My grandson is paying the ultimate price for this."

Also of interest from this article (July 17th):

The Lemhi County Sheriff's Department received a 911 call at about 2:30 p.m. after the boy had been missing for an hour. "We've had people out there since this first started," says a spokesman for the department. "Every avenue is being investigated."

http://www.people.com/article/missing-boy-idaho-grandfather-speaks

 

[ClaireNC]

Something the PI said in the interview caught my attention. He made a point of explaining that crimes are often done by somebody that knows the family - a friend of a friend, etc. I wonder if they might have their eye on somebody in particular. Either somebody that knows DeOrr and Jessica or maybe of friend of IR. He could have told somebody about them going camping and that person took advantage of the situation. The fact that there is another road (SR 105) that is only 1/2 mile from the campsite keeps sticking in my mind.

Or somebody could have been at the Stage Stop at the same time and overheard them say where they were camping.

 

[BlkMtnGirl]

Unless it was THIS particular 2 yr old baby. Who, indeed, would want to hurt the parents enough to take the child?

:cow:

Exactly. I thought Dad's wording in the interview regarding a possible abduction was just plain strange. Almost like a double negative.

 

[ClaireNC]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. It seems like one of the main purposes of the interview with the PI was to get the word out that they now have a nationwide toll free number for tips. I hope that means that they will be getting some more national media coverage.

 

[JadeSLeuth]

For those just joining this morning, here is a link to the long version of the interview with the PI.
[video=youtube;-78P5ayOlRc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-78P5ayOlRc&feature=iv&src_vid=hjTsIZOVWvs&annotation_id=annotation_2122308307[/video]

I don't feel satisfied with this interview. I do think this gentleman has much to offer (his background and experience) however, I just didn't get much of what I'd hoped for from this. I like fact-based communication and information, such as "here is a whiteboard and the facts and times according to my clients are clearly laid out for us to discuss". I suppose his goal was to spread awareness and not lay out info to be dissected; but wouldn't a simple 60 second review of the key basics have been wonderful?
Also, near the beginning, when he mentioned the name Isaac, it seemed to me that either there was an edit in the video or there was an awkward and abrupt change of subject. MOOOOOOO!