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

[Eileen730]

The interview with the PI says they got there on Thursday. It is the first time their arrival date was actually mentioned in a media interview. I think the Friday timeline was speculation by East Idaho News and all the other reporters just ran with it.

I am just frustrated that people are coming into the thread and dragging up old poorly written articles and interpreting them as new facts. I'll step away from the thread once again.

Sadly that's what we have! Poorly written articles.

 

[Karinna]

So who actually saw DeOrr last? I was reading comments under an MSM article earlier and a lady there said she was from around the area, and the place is inundated with Cougars.
My first thought were the little guy drowned, little ones that love the water are very attracted to it, and lots of little ones drown in the summer, have to be so careful with them around water, and a two yr. old can be very quick if they wander off.

 

[ILOKAL]

The interview with the PI says they got there on Thursday. It is the first time their arrival date was actually mentioned in a media interview. I think the Friday timeline was speculation by East Idaho News and all the other reporters just ran with it.

I am just frustrated that people are coming into the thread and dragging up old poorly written articles and interpreting them as new facts. I'll step away from the thread once again.

I took what the PI said to mean they went to the store in the morning after their arrival? I don't take that to mean they arrived on Thursday. I take it to simply mean they went to the store after they arrived which was in the morning. MOO

 

[ehg2001]

The interview with the PI says they got there on Thursday. It is the first time their arrival date was actually mentioned in a media interview. I think the Friday timeline was speculation by East Idaho News and all the other reporters just ran with it.

I am just frustrated that people are coming into the thread and dragging up old poorly written articles and interpreting them as new facts. I'll step away from the thread once again.

Oh, sad. I am *really* sorry if my post annoyed anyone. Can you at all recall what it was like to be new to this? I was simply trying to help by offering a thought. This is a very long thread and I've tried to read as much as possible. I was asking a question based on an article published in People Magazine. Forgive me for not assuming this was a poorly written article.

Anywho, I thought I'd spend some time trying to help this sweet family, so I'm going to keep doing it! Maybe be a little more forgiving to those of us that aren't pros at this yet. Just a thought.

 

[desert-blue]

The PI is talking about the various police departments that have been working on the case and then says "they initially suspect the parents." Then he goes on about how he knows Deorr from Montpelier and that he can't imagine him doing anything like that.

Interesting.

 

[Trident]

The interview with the PI says they got there on Thursday. It is the first time their arrival date was actually mentioned in a media interview. I think the Friday timeline was speculation by East Idaho News and all the other reporters just ran with it.

I am just frustrated that people are coming into the thread and dragging up old poorly written articles and interpreting them as new facts. I'll step away from the thread once again.

Don't step away because of me, I enjoy your posts - you're a thinker. I'll admit I'm a bit blunt, but that's how I talk in real life. Sorry if I offended you :truce:

 

[ILOKAL]

It always bothers me when stories change. This setting up camp is way different than going down to the creek to look around and leaving the baby by the fire with great grand pa. Setting up camp implies that they were at the camp site area. Maybe it's changed because the PI told them it looks less negligent if they were at the camp site? Also now the french fries, arriving the night before? Some old man may have been staring at the boy cause he looked like his grandson, who knows. But I am upset that the story has changed to me that is not a good thing.

One other thing, if they arrived the night before wouldn't camp already have been set up?

IIRC, the "setting up camp" DID come out by the parents early on, however, it was between the hours of approx 1:00 - 2:00 after returning from the store. THAT'S when they were setting up camp. This grandpa, who wasn't there, is just trying to recall what he was told and he innocently mixed it up a bit. No change in story, IMO

 

[Trident]

Duplicate post.

 

[Eileen730]

Oh, sad. I am *really* sorry if my post annoyed anyone. Can you at all recall what it was like to be new to this? I was simply trying to help by offering a thought. This is a very long thread and I've tried to read as much as possible. I was asking a question based on an article published in People Magazine. Forgive me for not assuming this was a poorly written article.

Anywho, I thought I'd spend some time trying to help this sweet family, so I'm going to keep doing it! Maybe be a little more forgiving to those of us that aren't pros at this yet. Just a thought.

Don't worry I started it with the dirt comment not your fault.

 

[Trident]

Oh, sad. I am *really* sorry if my post annoyed anyone. Can you at all recall what it was like to be new to this? I was simply trying to help by offering a thought. This is a very long thread and I've tried to read as much as possible. I was asking a question based on an article published in People Magazine. Forgive me for not assuming this was a poorly written article.

Anywho, I thought I'd spend some time trying to help this sweet family, so I'm going to keep doing it! Maybe be a little more forgiving to those of us that aren't pros at this yet. Just a thought.

Don't panic, God loves you and so do we :loveyou:

 

[Trident]

Don't worry I started it with the dirt comment not your fault.

Ah ha, now the true culprit comes out. :happydance:

 

[desert-blue]

I took what the PI said to mean they went to the store in the morning after their arrival? I don't take that to mean they arrived on Thursday. I take it to simply mean they went to the store after they arrived which was in the morning. MOO

This is what he said: "they went into town the morning after they arrived to pick a few groceries up"

"the morning after they arrived" not "IN the morning after they arrived" or just "in the morning" or "later in the morning"

The pharse "the morning after" means the next day.

There is no other interpretation, in my opinion.

 

[Eileen730]

IIRC, the "setting up camp" DID come out by the parents early on, however, it was between the hours of approx 1:00 - 2:00 after returning from the store. THAT'S when they were setting up camp. This grandpa, who wasn't there, is just trying to recall what he was told and he innocently mixed it up a bit. No change in story, IMO

Thimg is maybe he didn't get it mixed up maybe he said exactly what he was told . We really dont know. Jmo

 

[cobalt sky]

The interview with the PI says they got there on Thursday. It is the first time their arrival date was actually mentioned in a media interview. I think the Friday timeline was speculation by East Idaho News and all the other reporters just ran with it.

I am just frustrated that people are coming into the thread and dragging up old poorly written articles and interpreting them as new facts. I'll step away from the thread once again.

I understand your frustration, this is a very frustrating case! ullhair: But I don't think the media is all to blame for their "poorly written articles". The family, as well as LE, has had over four weeks to clear up any discrepancy as to what day and time the campers arrived. But they didn't, for whatever reason. Just saying. IMO.

 

[Eileen730]

Ah ha, now the true culprit comes out. :happydance:

Yep it was me.

 

[ILOKAL]

This is what he said: "they went into town the morning after they arrived to pick a few groceries up"

"the morning after they arrived" not "IN the morning after they arrived" or just "in the morning" or "later in the morning"

The pharse "the morning after" means the next day.

There is no other interpretation, in my opinion.

In a perfect world, yes, that's what it would mean. However, when speaking, we often mis-speak and what comes out isn't exactly what should have. So, to me it means we probably still don't know which day they arrived, but that's just my opinion.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Oh, sad. I am *really* sorry if my post annoyed anyone. Can you at all recall what it was like to be new to this? I was simply trying to help by offering a thought. This is a very long thread and I've tried to read as much as possible. I was asking a question based on an article published in People Magazine. Forgive me for not assuming this was a poorly written article.

Anywho, I thought I'd spend some time trying to help this sweet family, so I'm going to keep doing it! Maybe be a little more forgiving to those of us that aren't pros at this yet. Just a thought.

Well, MSM sources are really the only thing any of us have to go on. It's not your or anyone's fault if the article in question was written by someone who didn't do his/her homework. We have no way to know that unless a retraction has been printed -- and I haven't seen one -- or if someone else corrects it -- something I also haven't seen.

iow, you've done nothing wrong or offensive, imo. We're all just muddling through a case that is clear as mud trying to figure out where this little guy has gotten off to or been spirited off to.

 

[ILOKAL]

Thimg is maybe he didn't get it mixed up maybe he said exactly what he was told . We really dont know. Jmo

Why would the parents say one thing in the interview and then tell the grandpa something different? It simply makes more sense that the grandpa didn't have everything in the exact order and it really wasn't important anyway regarding the disappearance of his great-grandson. He was telling a story with second hand information. JMO

 

[wondering25]

The article from People magazine was an interview with the paternal grandfather. He was NOT AT THE CAMPGROUND. Anything he says is second hand information. This article has been discussed several times before. The 4 minute window has been discussed several times before. The "setting up camp" comment has been discussed several times before. It is old news and a poorly written article that keeps getting dragged into the discussion.

With all die respect.. I know this grandfather was not there.. HOWEVER, Jessica and Deorr and the baby live with him. Surely, this is being discussed in the home they all share. Would a lawyer/spokesperson for the family have any more credibility to you? For that matter, the P.I. wasn't there either..HE IS JUST REPEATING THE STORY ABOUT THE MAN LOOKING AT DEORR AND MOM FEELING EERIE!

Jurors arent at a crime either when a case is being tried.. All kinds of information is put out at a trial..who said what to whom, witness testimony, etc etc. In the end, it is all about who you think is credible and what makes your hinky meter go off. JMO

 

[desert-blue]

In a perfect world, yes, that's what it would mean. However, when speaking, we often mis-speak and what comes out isn't exactly what should have. So, to me it means we probably still don't know which day they arrived, but that's just my opinion.

True. I guess the PI's comment combined with the comments made by TBC lead me to believe that they did arrive on Thursday. I don't understand why it's a big deal and why it hasn't been clarified at some point in the past month. Maybe the dad called in sick for work on Thursday or something like that. The only other reasons for wanting to alter the timeline are probably sinister, IMO.