ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #9

[Onebest]

Great info. I know you can't say for certain, but based on the tracking dogs going to the reservoir, would it be reasonable for LE to surmise that the toddler had been to the reservoir (and perhaps back to the campsite) at some point?

Yes, reasonable in my opinion to utilize that information.

 

[rkf]

Wait a second. Boy I sure do hate to question you Claire because you have all the 'right' info.

But didn't the sheriff say he was 'good' with them in the beginning and then later say all four were 'POI's?

That to me kind of changes the picture.

I could be wrong and look to you to straighten this out. TIA

Wasn't it Chief Deputy Penner who said he was "good with them"?
I'd never seen this clip before - it's from July 16th on KTVB. http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/16/deorr-kunz-missing-family/30239047/
The reporter asks: "You guys have cleared the family of everything, is that right?"
Penner responds: "Um. (5 second pause) We've interviewed the family. Um, (2 second pause) and the information they've provided us, my office, myself, we're good with that."

This was a "yes or no" question. Penner didn't answer the question. He gave a statement instead.

The first mention of people at the campsite being POIs I've found was this article from July 17th. It was updated on July 31st, so I don't know if POI was included in the original article. http://www.khq.com/story/29571692/search-continues-for-missing-toddler-in-lemhi-county I've found numerous articles that included the POI information beginning July 20th.

 

[kammiemc]

I don't think we know what IR is saying to LE. We also have no idea what ggp is saying to LE, only what his relatives are saying he told them. GGP is a wild card, because he has been described as too mentally and physically unhealthy to be a POI, but later that changed to he is also a POI... I believe the sheriff made the change, only because people were asking why IR, DK and JM were POIs because they were at the scene, when ggp was also at the scene. It wasn't a ratcheting up of suspicion of ggp, so much as a way of implying that being called a POI is no big deal. Yes, there is no legal definition of POI, but there's some reason the four people at the campsite became POIs instead of remaining witnesses. AFAIK, witnesses can also "be there" and provide information about what happened surrounding a disappearance. If ggp says something that contradicts someone else's story, they can just say ggp has dementia and his memory can't be trusted.

I think the sheriff suspects foul play, and has since early in the investigation because:

1. Has anyone ever heard of someone being called a POI in a missing person investigation unless foul play was suspected?
2. Drones were used to take photos in case a criminal trial takes place.
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/lemhi-sheriff-on-deorr-kunz-we-do-not-suspect-foul-play/
3. The sheriff said investigators from Bonneville and Bingham counties have offered assistance in further follow-up investigations into any possible criminal histories of those involved.
http://lemhiweb.com/content/search-recap
4. The sheriff called the area where DeOrr disappeared a "crime scene".
[video=youtube;FV-h82eVQ1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M[/video]
5. The sheriff says abduction is the least likely scenario. He also does not believe DeOrr is in the creek or reservoir or was the victim of an animal attack.
Same link as above.

Until DeOrr is found, dead or alive, no one can rule out any scenario 100%, but I think it speaks volumes that the sheriff has stated publicly what he thinks did NOT happen. He must have some reasons for his beliefs. Unfortunately, we don't know what they are. I hope he's wrong and a nice couple like the one in "Gone, Baby, Gone" is loving and caring for DeOrr.

I think you are right on. I don't get the impression this sheriff is one for conspiracy theories; I think he is just looking at facts and they don't add up, except for foul play. There is, presumably, a reason that pretty much the only scenario he has not dismissed is foul play (and not abduction). And that is why he is so smart to turn it over to the FBI. People can think there is NO possibility that any of the POI's could be involved in any way. But I guess he doesn't have the luxury of assuming that to be true, based on what he knows.

 

[rkf]

I think you are right on. I don't get the impression this sheriff is one for conspiracy theories; I think he is just looking at facts and they don't add up, except for foul play. There is, presumably, a reason that pretty much the only scenario he has not dismissed is foul play (and not abduction). And that is why he is so smart to turn it over to the FBI. People can think there is NO possibility that any of the POI's could be involved in any way. But I guess he doesn't have the luxury of assuming that to be true, based on what he knows.

And maybe also based on years of experience. It's hard for us non-LE people to believe that anyone would ever harm their child or cover up an accident, for example. But I imagine the sheriff has seen some very nice people do some very bad things in his years in LE. I saw an article about a sheriff's deputy from Lemhi county who was investigated because a bunch of weapons went missing from the department and turned up at his house. He hadn't bothered to create a paper trail and said he planned to take the guns back to the department later. It's hard for me to imagine that a deputy in a relatively unpopulated area would do something either so criminal or so stupid, when there would be only a limited number of people who had access to the weapons. And yet it happened. If you can't trust your own deputies, criminal behavior in the general population is probably a lot less surprising.
http://evidenceblog.iape.org/2010/10/investigators-release-findings-into-missing-lemhi-co-guns/

 

[kammiemc]

Wasn't it Chief Deputy Penner who said he was "good with them"?
I'd never seen this clip before - it's from July 16th on KTVB. http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/16/deorr-kunz-missing-family/30239047/
The reporter asks: "You guys have cleared the family of everything, is that right?"
Penner responds: "Um. (5 second pause) We've interviewed the family. Um, (2 second pause) and the information they've provided us, my office, myself, we're good with that."

This was a "yes or no" question. Penner didn't answer the question. He gave a statement instead.

The first mention of people at the campsite being POIs I've found was this article from July 17th. It was updated on July 31st, so I don't know if POI was included in the original article. http://www.khq.com/story/29571692/search-continues-for-missing-toddler-in-lemhi-county I've found numerous articles that included the POI information beginning July 20th.

I think the sheriff said that the parents and family were cooperating and giving him everything he needed and so he felt real good about them. Oddly, he was actually far more profuse in his appreciation for IR's truthfulness and help. (And even more oddly, the edit of the interview reversed things and didn't give NE's question, so it appeared that the sheriff was more skeptical of IR. That was not the case at all.)

IMO, cooperating is a fairly low bar to hold people up to when their friend or loved one is missing--certainly, it would be the least I could do. If someone wasn't cooperating, that would be a HUGE problem.

 

[ClaireNC]

Wait a second. Boy I sure do hate to question you Claire because you have all the 'right' info.

But didn't the sheriff say he was 'good' with them in the beginning and then later say all four were 'POI's?

That to me kind of changes the picture.

I could be wrong and look to you to straighten this out. TIA

They are using the term POI to mean just somebody that was there and has information. The term does not mean they are suspects, just that they are interested in what they might know. The sheriff has been using that term for several weeks now. I think it started when they shifted the focus from a search and rescue to a wider investigation.

 

[kyrarose]

Peter Hyatt in Statement Analysis says many times a given will be leaked through language. (This is not an exact quote of his words.) Since reading this from the beginning of this case and having watched the parents interview, Snake River has jumped out at me as the leaked given since Deorr Sr. repeated it several times. Is this where little Deorr is?

While giving the interview about his missing son, Deorr, Sr. wanted control of that time so badly, why would he slip up and mention a river that had nothing to do with his missing son? Not once, but several times. Why was Snake River so strongly on his mind when his baby was missing?

My opinions only ... where is little Deorr?

I attributed it to the fact that Idaho Falls utilizes Snake River Search and Rescue.

http://www.snakeriversearch.org/index.php/about-us/our-leaders

 

[ClaireNC]

I attributed it to the fact that Idaho Falls utilizes Snake River Search and Rescue.

http://www.snakeriversearch.org/index.php/about-us/our-leaders

Oh Kyrarose, Thanks for that. It very well could be why Deorr said Snake River instead of Salmon and clears up something a lot of people have speculated about.

 

[1&2&3]

I have added my thoughts in color to kammiemc's excellent post.

You could be 100% right! But, just for consideration, it takes money to lawyer up. And I'm not sure, especially in the sheriff's mind, that cooperation equals exoneration. I would be surprised if there were only one interview with each POI in this case. It could be the case, but we certainly have not been told anything like that, or anything about the investigation.

Totally agree. I think the parents want to appear to be totally innocent, thereby not needing a lawyer.[/B]

We do know at least that IR went twice to the campsite with the sheriff. Was that a "grilling"? Kind of doubting that's the sheriff's style. But the sheriff was obviously interested in what IR had to say and likely asked lots of questions for clarification.

The sheriff does not come off as the tough type. He strikes me as being the type to be "your buddy", to get more info. With IR and the impression we had, Sheriff probably wanted to see if IR's story remained the same in what he pointed out at the campsite.

It's interesting about the polygraphs. I am worried that LE is holding back the results because they are not exonerating, and they don't want to fuel any fire in the public speculation of the POI's. I know, in at least some missing persons cases, it is made public when family members pass polygraphs--like, let's just get that out of the way.

I'm not assuming the results were negative, or even suspect, but I am definitely not thinking that because we have not been made aware of the polygraph results, or been privy to the number of interviews held with each the POI's, that the obvious conclusion is that the sheriff thinks they're clear.

The parents were so adamant about being willing to take a polygraph, I do not think they passed it. Usually on missing children, LE will announce if the parents pass it so they and the public can get off the parents and go forward. If it comes up inconclusive, I remember cases where LE have said they passed just to make them think they were clear and then put a tail on them. With GGF and IR, who knows if they are mentally able to pass a polygraph? Not being snarky.

He has pretty much taken every possibility off the table except a crime, not involving an abduction. (Not pleased to say that, but can't ignore it either.)

The Sheriff has called the campsite a crime scene. That in itself says quite a bit.

Why does the Sheriff volunteer the information that he is 99% sure that Deorr was at the campsite? Is this a question he has been asked many times?

 

[Cardinal47]

Oh I am familiar with the term POI but my question was when did it appear in this case. I believe after the 'I'm good with them'.

For anybody unfamiliar with the term I offer this.

Person of interest
This article is about a law enforcement term. For other uses, see Person of interest (disambiguation).

"Person of interest" is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. It has no legal meaning, but refers to someone in whom the police are "interested", either because the person is cooperating with the investigation, may have information that would assist the investigation, or possesses certain characteristics that merit further attention.

While terms such as suspect, target, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[1] Unsub is a similar term which is short for "unknown subject" (used often, for example, in the TV show Criminal Minds). Person of interest is sometimes used as a euphemism for suspect, and its careless use may encourage trials by media.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_interest

 

[Cardinal47]

It seems like early on somebody gave us a great list of different cases where POI's were named.

Anybody happen to remember? TIA

 

[gliving]

I think the sheriff may be Colombo reincarnated. :thinking:

Yeah, I loved how he did the interview sitting at a picnic table under a shade tree. So very casual.

 

[kammiemc]

It seems like early on somebody gave us a great list of different cases where POI's were named.

Anybody happen to remember? TIA

Sparky gave a ton of links.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I attributed it to the fact that Idaho Falls utilizes Snake River Search and Rescue.

http://www.snakeriversearch.org/index.php/about-us/our-leaders

Except they weren't in IF, and didn't use Snake River S&R lol. As much gushing (and gushing) as he did about how amazing the search team was, I find it hard to believe he said the wrong name. More than once. It's odd. Maybe it was just nerves.

 

[neesaki]

Peter Hyatt in Statement Analysis says many times a given will be leaked through language. (This is not an exact quote of his words.) Since reading this from the beginning of this case and having watched the parents interview, Snake River has jumped out at me as the leaked given since Deorr Sr. repeated it several times. Is this where little Deorr is?

While giving the interview about his missing son, Deorr, Sr. wanted control of that time so badly, why would he slip up and mention a river that had nothing to do with his missing son? Not once, but several times. Why was Snake River so strongly on his mind when his baby was missing?

My opinions only ... where is little Deorr?

I've been thinking about that and think it's just that the Snake River runs through Idaho Falls, so it's an understandable mistake to make. They may go camping somewhere along that river as well. jmo

 

[sonj]

Assuming that the Sheriff actually has reasons for saying the things he did (beyond mere gut feeling or hunch), imo it would not be irrational to conclude that this "kid wanders away from campsite" is in fact something far more sinister. Sheriff says Deorr was at the campsite (although couldn't confirm, that's how I understood the "99% sure"). Sheriff says Deorr was not abducted, wasn't attacked by wildlife, and didn't drown or in some way end up in the creek or reservoir. There is no scent found of Deorr outside the campsite. It seems unclear whether his scent was even found at the campsite, but the sheriff must have a reason for being so sure Deorr was there.

Let's be frank, Deorr is not alive. He may not have even made it to the campsite alive, which would explain the lack of scent (eg, he was in a vehicle). What scenarios are left? GGP is from most accounts severely physically handicapped. IR, although the interview raised eyebrows, in a sense, and this is just my opinion, worked in favour of his non-involvement. Basically he came off as a complete drunk/drugged dummy, simply not capable of making Deorr disappear, literally without a trace, within the very narrow window of opportunity described by the parents. Which leaves?

Well it leaves Mr and Mrs Kunz.

All of this is just my opinion, which rests on the assumption that the sheriff has reasons for his beliefs beyond mere gut feeling or hunch. There is no (concrete) evidence (that we know of) (so far) of the parents involvement.

But hypothetically if they are guilty of something, then what? Perhaps the parents 'walk/exploration' actually involved a car.. A car which could of taken Deorr well outside of the search radius (was it 3 or so miles?), and made it back within the hour that the parents reported he had been missing.

Just thinking out loud here, nothing more than my own idle musings.

 

[ILOKAL]

Exactly, why not clear them up if they passed the lie test? Especially when Chief deputy himself said it would be nice if the innuendo on SM would stop.

"And I know there's a lot of innuendo out on social media and a lot of stuff going out there and it would be nice if it would stop and let them have a little peace. They're solid." http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/16/deorr-kunz-missing-family/30239047/

The Sheriff might suspect one of the POI's so he may not want to reveal poly results of the others just yet. He may not want a particular "POI" to realize he/she is in LE sights by revealing the others had passed their polys. Like others have said, LE doesn't want anyone to lawyer up just yet. IMO.

(For clarification, I don't suspect little Deorr's family of any wrongdoing and there isn't enough available information about IR to lead me in that direction either).

ETA: I just noticed I'm celebrating my 1,000th post! Hurray!

 

[wondering25]

Why hasn't the family "lawyered up?" There are plenty of attorneys who would take this case pro bono..grieving parents, FBI crawling all over the place...unsophisticated POI... Let's say the 4 poi are totally innocent, their probable lack of financial resources make them vulnerable to a law enforcement entity that could be looking nowhere else.. that is taking advantage of their eagerness to cooperate and be twisting things. I am not saying that is what is happening.. i am saying these things happen. A lawyer, eager to help or make a name for himself, might jump in and offer to assist the family. No one has come forward that we know about. IF the family is watching the sheriff on the news and hears what he has eliminated ALMOST 100% (abduction, drowning, wild animals) what is left? Who is advising these people? The PI? YIKES! I hope their "cooperation with LE" and lack of legal representation doesn't come back to bite them. JMO

 

[Hoosier952]

The Sheriff might suspect one of the POI's so he may not want to reveal poly results of the others just yet. He may not want a particular "POI" to realize he/she is in LE sights by revealing the others had passed their polys. Like others have said, LE doesn't want anyone to lawyer up just yet. IMO.

(For clarification, I don't suspect little Deorr's family of any wrongdoing and there isn't enough available information about IR to lead me in that direction either).

I think at least one POI would have to have an inconclusive or failed poly for the sheriff not to release the information. In the beginning, he stated he wanted the SM speculation and rumors to stop. It seems releasing 4 passed polygraphs would curb a lot of speculation from the public. It might be the first straight answer this investigation has seen.

 

[relay]

I think the sheriff said that the parents and family were cooperating and giving him everything he needed and so he felt real good about them. Oddly, he was actually far more profuse in his appreciation for IR's truthfulness and help. (And even more oddly, the edit of the interview reversed things and didn't give NE's question, so it appeared that the sheriff was more skeptical of IR. That was not the case at all.)

IMO, cooperating is a fairly low bar to hold people up to when their friend or loved one is missing--certainly, it would be the least I could do. If someone wasn't cooperating, that would be a HUGE problem.

I got the sense that he truly did feel good about the parents but that he was speaking even more positively about the friend in order to maintain a dialogue and to maintain trust. I could be wrong, of course.