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

[Jules71]

So was it a strategic move to release the PI interview on the same day it was reported everything was being turned over to the FBI? Doesn't seem like anyone is talking much about that. Was that the plan? And interesting to note, they used East Idaho News and Nate Eaton again.

Bowerman said Tuesday that everything has been turned over to the FBI, which includes interviews, recordings and physical evidence.

http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/DeOrr-Kunz-Missing-Idaho-321484631.html?mobile=y

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[LayzeeDayzee]

Just to play the devil's advocate, just because LE tells a caller that they had no idea about info that's being reported, like in the case here about the 2 local RSO's, one being the lady who was recently interviewed by media, that doesn't meant that they truly weren't aware. It would make sense to me that LE isn't going to discuss info that's called into them with respect to them knowing such info. I would think, and this is only my opinion, but it would be in LE's best interest to "play dumb" when receiving tips.....for 2 reasons: so that the tip caller doesn't inadvertently leave out info they've come to know/heard/seen because they assume "oh, well guess LE knows all of this." If a person thinks they have some hot info that might help LE and they get the courage to call it in and LE tells them "oh yeah, we're already aware" then that person might assumes LE knows ALL of the info they're calling in and therefore feel foolish and not bother to share all of that info...............and also I just think it's in LE's best interest not to divulge to a caller/public what they know/have investigated.

If one looks at the various local news articles of late, there are many locals (including on the Lemhi Sheriff County FB page) who have been very 'vocal about the female RSO's criminal history, some even posting screenshots of her RSO info. Obviously locals picked up on, very quickly, what her background is. Clearly if they know, LE knows. JMO

Originally Posted by wondering25
Yikes, thanks..ok..so what is being done about it.. does LE know? I hate to ASSume anything. The bottom line is, we cannot solve anything here.. it makes for great online conversation but honestly..who here has ever called in a tip to Idaho? IF you ( everyone here) feel this is a huge bit of info that should be brought to the forefront then call the FBI or the Lemhi Sheriff. Discussing it, wondering about it, theorizing who knows what, is not productive unless you are willing to take your mental packet of info to the authorities. A tip is a tip..Sometimes the most obvious thing has been overlooked thinking someone else surely must be aware of it and KNOWS. JMO

I just notified them. They didn't have a clue about any of this.

 

[GoBison]

Unless they're the microwave or frozen kind. Most kids aren't too picky. It will be very interesting to see where they bought his fries and if they also bought him candy and if he was filthy and bawling and what time it was...

Do you have children? Most are "picky" about what they prefer to consume. Have you ever fed your child their first jar of baby food? I have... if they didn't like it there was a squishy face and a bunch of no no head shakes. Some parents think the right thing to do is force their children to like it and be grateful. Tiny learning humans have minds of their own and they are all like snowflakes. Just because you prefer a certain preference does not mean you should force them to like what you like. and you have never been the parent of a two year old have you... They stay two forever and a day. Or at least that is what it feels like. I was not the type of parent to raise a drone. In kindergarten my youngest brought home a "what am I thankful for on Thanksgiving paper" He said he was thankful for Mom Dad and Toast. I was horrified because some breaking news had stated a parent was being investigated for neglect for only feeding their child bread. He would only eat toast for many years. Not because that is all I had to provide, but it was all he wanted. I even spoke with my family MD and others about it. I was told as long as he was consuming something all was good. He moved on to only wanting cheeseburgers and I would drive 120 miles away from home just to make sure he ate something. One of my other children loved Broccoli and other vegetables so much I made sure it was available at every meal. The bottom line is this... every case is like a snowflake. No two are the same just like freethinking people. You cant just jump to conclusions because it is something that happened before. <modsnip>

 

[LayzeeDayzee]

I too find it odd that this 'info' is only coming out now. And it makes little sense to me that the family drove about 2 hours from their home, arriving at the campground Thursday evening.....planning a weekend of camping.......yet the next day, Friday, they drive 40 minutes to the store to "buy groceries"? Most people going camping for a weekend bring everything they're going to need for the weekend........due to the fact that they don't want to be 2 hours away from home and missing an important food item, also not knowing if any local convenience type store is going to even sell what they need/forgot, plus most convenience stores are pretty pricey even for the basics. Weird to take your little boy camping then drive 40 minutes each way once at camp, to get groceries and get your kiddo french fries.

the bit about the man staring at little Deorr sounds like bunk to me. Sounds like made-up or embellished info simply to support the family's longstanding assertion that he was abducted. And if this was true, why didn't Dad mention this during the interview?.......wouldn't it have been critical for the description of this creepy man to be divulged ASAP? Sorry, not buying any of it for one minute.

Does anyone know how far these little cabins/fire-lookouts (whatever they are called) are from Deorr's campsite?

I find it odd that all of a sudden they are saying they bought French fries and a man was looking at Deorr. That has never been said before. Wouldn't that have been in the interview?

I keep seeing "IIRC", what does that mean?

Thanks so much!

 

[GoBison]

I too find it odd that this 'info' is only coming out now. And it makes little sense to me that the family drove about 2 hours from their home, arriving at the campground Thursday evening.....planning a weekend of camping.......yet the next day, Friday, they drive 40 minutes to the store to "buy groceries"? Most people going camping for a weekend bring everything they're going to need for the weekend........due to the fact that they don't want to be 2 hours away from home and missing an important food item, also not knowing if any local convenience type store is going to even sell what they need/forgot, plus most convenience stores are pretty pricey even for the basics. Weird to take your little boy camping then drive 40 minutes each way once at camp, to get groceries and get your kiddo french fries.

the bit about the man staring at little Deorr sounds like bunk to me. Sounds like made-up or embellished info simply to support the family's longstanding assertion that he was abducted. And if this was true, why didn't Dad mention this during the interview?.......wouldn't it have been critical for the description of this creepy man to be divulged ASAP? Sorry, not buying any of it for one minute.

<modsnip>
The media has been the only one that said "camp" It is summer up north. We go to the lake, take campers with us if we can, everyone has at least 1 tent in their garage. (I have 5 but have never slept in one ground tent, but my kids did when they were young) We would roast marshmallows and make smores over the fire. Going to the river, lake, reservoir, Park is just what we do up North when we have time off. It is not "nefarious" in anyway... My friends down south also enjoy the outdoors but go to the beach. I have a tent made to order that fits in the bed of my pickup so I do not have to sleep on the ground. But that is only because I might be into comfort. The young ones yearn for adventure. But our families get outside every chance we can up here. We fish, We Hunt, We have Boats campers , tents and guns. (of course not everyone does have this stuff because they are unable to afford it due to relocation) And they are the ones that scare us. <modsnip>

 

[Trident]

The parents interview was on Monday. In their interview they discussed the rumor of a gentleman and a young boy matching their description of their son who was filthy and bawling buying candy at 6 pm in a black truck. They said they went to the store earlier that day as a family and hadn't left the campground since 1 pm (so it couldn't be them at 6 pm). They did not confirm they bought candy - just that they went to get some things (I know TBC said they bought candy for Jr and ggf). They did not confirm Deorr Jr was filthy or bawling. They stated the problem was Deorr sr drives a black truck. They did not mention French fries. They did not mention a man staring at Jr and that Jessica thought it was eerie.

And I still want to know where the light blue 80's-90's Chevy/GMC came from that Jessica's sister wanted everyone to look out for because her nephew had been abducted.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

It seems to me several people involved/close to family are throwing "stuff" against the wall to see what sticks. I wonder why. I believe we almost have enough red herrings for a picnic lunch.

My opinion only

 

[wondering25]

The P.I has cleared the family.. LE has said they are not suspects.. sounds to me the parents both passed their polygraphs. jmo

 

[Trident]

The P.I has cleared the family.. LE has said they are not suspects.. sounds to me the parents both passed their polygraphs. jmo

Well then, as long as the PI the family hired has cleared them, and LE is only calling them POI and not suspects, and it sounds to some as if the parents passed their polys, we're good to go, right?

I don't profess to have the truth, 'ell I don't even have any real suspects, but the above line of reasoning confuses me.

 

[Hatfield]

I am so confused. Starting around 7:45, this is the conversation:

PI: As an example, we're trying to find a lead at the Stage Stop. Uh, when they went into town, uh, the morning after they arrived to pick a few groceries up, they bought some french fries for Deorr Jr. and there was a man who was staring at this little boy. And this made Jessica feel kind of eerie that this old man was staring at the boy. That's unusual. But we haven't found who this person is yet.

NE: And this was up in Lemhi?
PI: Yes up in Lemhi.
NE: They stopped for french fries
PI: Yes
NE: And there was an old man staring at their child
PI: Just staring at their child

So, now they were at the Stage Stop the morning after they arrived and were buying french fries and not candy? This contradicts everything we've been told: their date of arrival at the campground, the timing of their trip to the store, and also what they bought for Deorr (french fries instead of candy). The other thing that is very strange is that they keep saying Lemhi, when I think they mean Leadore. There is a town called Lemhi but the Stage Stop is in Leadore. Lemhi is up the road about 18 miles from Leadore. They keep saying, "up in Lemhi" so maybe they did go to Lemhi? From the campground, I would say they went "down" to Leadore, not up. I am so confused and I really don't understand why the timeline is totally different from what has been released from day 1.

ETA: I forgot to mention that I am referring to the conversation/interview between Nate Easton and the private investigator that was released today: http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/kunz-family-investigator-everything-points-to-an-abduction/

Thanks for pointing out the discrepancies. I agree these are really good questions.

There is so much confusion with this case on some of the simplest things that should not be confusing IMO.

French Fries VS Candy

Day and Time of Arrival

I keep going back to the main thing I saw in its entirety which is the main interview. For as long as that interview lasted, there was very little substance or things that could help understand exactly what happened.

It was all way too generic and so much of the interview was not helpful. We needed the FACTS. And there was very little of that. Like exactly who arrived and when. How many vehicles arrived and left and dates and estimated times. More description of campsite layout. Was there tents setup. Was there a fire going.

The whole interview was so long and we didnt hear nearly enough that could help understand what happened.

And now with this PI interview I am really getting confused because some of this seems to not match.

Why are things so confusing when it doesnt need to be.

I commend the PI for trying to help. It would be helpful if he addressed why certain things dont seem to match the original interview.

This does not bode well for the boy IMO. I am glad the FBI has the case. I hope they have success.

 

[Mickshawn]

If they went to the store on Friday morning and it was the morning after they arrived, they would have arrived on Thursday. Otherwise, it should say they went to the store the morning they arrived. JMO

I agree....That's how I would have said it....Just keeping all options open in my mind since there seem to be so many discrepancies...

On another note, I had this thought upon waking....When Mom and Dad returned from the creek looking for Little DeOrr and GGP said something like ...I thought he went up to you (does anyone remember the exact wording?)...I wonder if someone else (another adult) was at the campground, saw DeOrr wanted to go be with his parents and offered to walk with him to find them??

 

[wondering25]

Well then, as long as the PI the family hired has cleared them, and LE is only calling them POI and not suspects, and it sounds to some as if the parents passed their polys, we're good to go, right?

I don't profess to have the truth, 'ell I don't even have any real suspects, but the above line of reasoning confuses me.

WHAT'S CONFUSING? What else ya got? Hey, I could speculate and say the P.I. was hired to find a perp to take the heat off of family or friends..but at this moment no one is publicly calling anyone a suspect. LE has said the family is solid and the P.I. says he cleared them. Sounds to me like the polys were passed and while they are not 100% everyone is either saying abducted or vanished. JMO

 

[Hatfield]

He states: "I feel he was abducted". "Everything points to a abduction".

And

"Everything lends to the theory it could've been a abduction"

I have to ask how it is possible a month later that two fundamental points can be changed...time of arrival and Jessica witnessing a man staring at Deorr?

It also doesn't inspire confidence if it is true that local LE have handed the whole investigation over to the FBI. Suggests they have done all they can and are stumped?

I am having a lot of trouble with this just coming out now too from the PI. The original news interview was intended to clear up as much as possible and now there is earth shattering news about a person who was staring at the boy.

I am sorry but this is very important and there is no way that should have been left out of the first news interview.

 

[wondering25]

Maybe we could talk about other cases where children were missing and found deceased and what the reasoning was for someone killing a child.

Pedolphila, new love interest, kids are "in the way", finances, parental strife, thrill kill. Accident and covered up..I have tried to apply all of these..NO ONE HEARD OR SAW ANYONE OR ANYTHING AT THE CAMPGROUND. Even if someone snatched the baby the oversized boot may have come off. Grab child ..one hand over mouth.. other hand/arm holding child and u are running.. someone may just have committed the perfect crime here..unless this was a drowning or animal which so far are not LE's scenarios of choice. The convenience store has not reported seeing the family buying groceries.... just a man in a black truck with a bawling filthy baby at 6pm on Friday which doesnt fit the parent's timeline and doesnt include the mom in the store. jmo

 

[ClaireNC]

I am so confused. Starting around 7:45, this is the conversation:

PI: As an example, we're trying to find a lead at the Stage Stop. Uh, when they went into town, uh, the morning after they arrived to pick a few groceries up, they bought some french fries for Deorr Jr. and there was a man who was staring at this little boy. And this made Jessica feel kind of eerie that this old man was staring at the boy. That's unusual. But we haven't found who this person is yet.

NE: And this was up in Lemhi?
PI: Yes up in Lemhi.
NE: They stopped for french fries
PI: Yes
NE: And there was an old man staring at their child
PI: Just staring at their child

So, now they were at the Stage Stop the morning after they arrived and were buying french fries and not candy? This contradicts everything we've been told: their date of arrival at the campground, the timing of their trip to the store, and also what they bought for Deorr (french fries instead of candy). The other thing that is very strange is that they keep saying Lemhi, when I think they mean Leadore. There is a town called Lemhi but the Stage Stop is in Leadore. Lemhi is up the road about 18 miles from Leadore. They keep saying, "up in Lemhi" so maybe they did go to Lemhi? From the campground, I would say they went "down" to Leadore, not up. I am so confused and I really don't understand why the timeline is totally different from what has been released from day 1.

ETA: I forgot to mention that I am referring to the conversation/interview between Nate Easton and the private investigator that was released today: http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/kunz-family-investigator-everything-points-to-an-abduction/

The investigator clearly says that the incidence with the man staring at DeOrr was took place at the Stage Stop. When the interviewer said "This was up in Lemhi", he was referring to Lemhi county. I get the feeling he said Lemhi, when he meant to say Leadore. It sounds like the interview took place in Bonneville county, and they are referring to things that happened at the camp/Leadore in general as "up in Lemhi." That wasn't the investigator twisting things, it was the reporter causing confusion.

There is no indication that they went to the town of Lemhi, anywhere. If you go back and relisten to the long version of the interview with the PI, just before the report asks that question "This was up in Lemhi" The investigator clearly says the incident happened at Stage Stop.

 

[ClaireNC]

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]

 

[Hatfield]

Maybe we could talk about other cases where children were missing and found deceased and what the reasoning was for someone killing a child.

Pedolphila, new love interest, kids are "in the way", finances, parental strife, thrill kill. Accident and covered up..I have tried to apply all of these..NO ONE HEARD OR SAW ANYONE OR ANYTHING AT THE CAMPGROUND. Even if someone snatched the baby the oversized boot may have come off. Grab child ..one hand over mouth.. other hand/arm holding child and u are running.. someone may just have committed the perfect crime here..unless this was a drowning or animal which so far are not LE's scenarios of choice. The convenience store has not reported seeing the family buying groceries.... just a man in a black truck with a bawling filthy baby at 6pm on Friday which doesnt fit the parent's timeline and doesnt include the mom in the store. jmo

Since now there seems to be some of us thinking they arrived on Thursday, then maybe the clerk did see the father with the boy at 6 PM on Thursday.

This is what is so hard with this case. Nothing is clear because so many things contradict. The clerk was saying it was 6 PM on Friday but the parents were sure that she was mistaken and had to be earlier that afternoon.

But if it was an honest mistake that the clerk made and it was Thursday night then maybe they would both be right. Parents may have just forgot about the Thursday stop and Clerk may have got the days confused.

Regardless of the time and day of that sighting. What has me concerned the most is that the clerk made a point to say the boy was very dirty. That bothers me because it means to me that the boy was extremely dirty in order for the clerk to mention that. I know kids play in the dirt and especially at camping near water he could have gotten pretty dirty but usually parents will wipe off a child before going to a public store.

I kind of believe the clerk about this story and I am worried about the boy being very dirty and I am not sure who she saw with the boy or what day it was. I do think she had the time right at 6 PM though because she would remember that I think.

So if we make some assumptions. Someone was with the boy at 6 PM at the store and he was dirty. It was either Thursday or Friday. Doesnt help much does it. Grrrrr

 

[Eileen730]

Since now there seems to be some of us thinking they arrived on Thursday, then maybe the clerk did see the father with the boy at 6 PM on Thursday.

This is what is so hard with this case. Nothing is clear because so many things contradict. The clerk was saying it was 6 PM on Friday but the parents were sure that she was mistaken and had to be earlier that afternoon.

But if it was an honest mistake that the clerk made and it was Thursday night then maybe they would both be right. Parents may have just forgot about the Thursday stop and Clerk may have got the days confused.

Regardless of the time and day of that sighting. What has me concerned the most is that the clerk made a point to say the boy was very dirty. That bothers me because it means to me that the boy was extremely dirty in order for the clerk to mention that. I know kids play in the dirt and especially at camping near water he could have gotten pretty dirty but usually parents will wipe off a child before going to a public store.

I kind of believe the clerk about this story and I am worried about the boy being very dirty and I am not sure who she saw with the boy or what day it was. I do think she had the time right at 6 PM though because she would remember that I think.

So if we make some assumptions. Someone was with the boy at 6 PM at the store and he was dirty. It was either Thursday or Friday. Doesnt help much does it. Grrrrr

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

 

[wondering25]

Since now there seems to be some of us thinking they arrived on Thursday, then maybe the clerk did see the father with the boy at 6 PM on Thursday.

This is what is so hard with this case. Nothing is clear because so many things contradict. The clerk was saying it was 6 PM on Friday but the parents were sure that she was mistaken and had to be earlier that afternoon.

But if it was an honest mistake that the clerk made and it was Thursday night then maybe they would both be right. Parents may have just forgot about the Thursday stop and Clerk may have got the days confused.

Regardless of the time and day of that sighting. What has me concerned the most is that the clerk made a point to say the boy was very dirty. That bothers me because it means to me that the boy was extremely dirty in order for the clerk to mention that. I know kids play in the dirt and especially at camping near water he could have gotten pretty dirty but usually parents will wipe off a child before going to a public store.

I kind of believe the clerk about this story and I am worried about the boy being very dirty and I am not sure who she saw with the boy or what day it was. I do think she had the time right at 6 PM though because she would remember that I think.

So if we make some assumptions. Someone was with the boy at 6 PM at the store and he was dirty. It was either Thursday or Friday. Doesnt help much does it. Grrrrr

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.

 

[Hatfield]

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

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.

 

[pepelepolecat]

I too find it odd that this 'info' is only coming out now. And it makes little sense to me that the family drove about 2 hours from their home, arriving at the campground Thursday evening.....planning a weekend of camping.......yet the next day, Friday, they drive 40 minutes to the store to "buy groceries"? Most people going camping for a weekend bring everything they're going to need for the weekend........due to the fact that they don't want to be 2 hours away from home and missing an important food item, also not knowing if any local convenience type store is going to even sell what they need/forgot, plus most convenience stores are pretty pricey even for the basics. Weird to take your little boy camping then drive 40 minutes each way once at camp, to get groceries and get your kiddo french fries.

the bit about the man staring at little Deorr sounds like bunk to me. Sounds like made-up or embellished info simply to support the family's longstanding assertion that he was abducted. And if this was true, why didn't Dad mention this during the interview?.......wouldn't it have been critical for the description of this creepy man to be divulged ASAP? Sorry, not buying any of it for one minute.

This is exactly how we camp (only we usually try to get there on a Monday when there are less likely to be other people there). We drive to a place about three hours away, set up camp and then head to the grocery to get supplies because dragging multiple ice-filled coolers all that way is just a pain. It's much easier to drive back to the grocery, get what we need and load up the camper's fridge, ime.

As for the creepy man, I don't know what to think. I think lots of things are strange with this case and have been from the start, but I also think it's natural for panicky parents to latch on to every little detail, important or not. Maybe an unkempt/rugged-looking man was hanging around the store and said hi to the little guy, and this has been built up in their minds to be much more frightening than it was at the time.