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

[kammiemc]

I have no idea. I'm not saying this actually happened. I'm only suggesting how it could happen that IR and ggp didn't see DeOrr but would assume he was there. It doesn't take long to move a sleeping child from a truck to a Suburban and if ggp and IR were otherwise occupied, the parents could have moved DeOrr back and forth without DeOrr being seen at the campsite. I think it's unlikely DeOrr would sleep so much that he would never set foot on the ground at the campsite, but I'm trying to find a way that dogs would not find his scent. It's not clear to me if dogs followed his trail to the reservoir or were attracted there by the cremains. IR wasn't very convincing about seeing DeOrr at the campsite ("as far as I know") and we don't have ggp's direct statement - only others telling us what ggp said. We don't have any information about how the family spent Friday morning. Did they have breakfast with ggp? Take a walk to the reservoir? Until very recently, it was assumed they arrived on Friday morning, so those hours would have been spent driving. How did they spend that time instead? JMO

I agree that the dogs thing is still murky. But I am kind of leaning to the fact that if they were indeed tracking dogs (as the sheriff stated) they followed the scent to the reservoir. For one thing, I can't think of why they would have started the dogs at the reservoir with his scent instead of the campsite, where he was reportedly last seen. And if the dogs came back to the campsite that makes me think his scent was somewhere--but I don't know how focused they can get. Would have DeOrr's scent on mom and dad's stuff and in the car be enough to get their attention? We know his blanket was somewhere at the scene per the parents., and apparently a diaper. Maybe that and any other clothing items/toys are what the dogs were responding to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

You're welcome!!! By the way, in the little box where we write things, is there a way to enlarge it?

You're asking me? I'm lucky I know how to reply, LOL

 

[rkf]

JMO. Maybe out there all alone they had a false sense of security or false sense of having a hold on the kid situation. Their guard was down. If in fact it turns out the child was abducted. I'm thinking this frame of mind was their downfall sadly. :facepalm: I'd too like to know if they camped often and what their internet searches were in the days before.

I agree about the false sense of security, except that DK mentioned that he was concerned about the creek so close to the campsite. Even when you're watching them diligently, two-year olds can slip out of sight in an instant. I wouldn't be able to enjoy exploring with my mate unless I was sure my son was safe and well-supervised. Still, I'm not sure I would be able to relax unless I could see my child, but I'm super paranoid about water and small children. It's not yet clear if the parents and ggp both knew ggp was in charge of DeOrr. The parents have not said that they told ggp they were going exploring and leaving him in charge of DeOrr. If they did, they left that information out of their interview.

It wouldn't enter my mind at that campsite that someone might kidnap my child, but the creek (and even bears, wolves or mountain lions) would keep me from thinking my child would be safe left unattended for 10 minutes or more. JMO.

 

[ILOKAL]

I don't buy the "Deorr wasn't ever there" theory. I don't know why but it just doesn't feel right for me.

It's hard to sleuth when no information is coming out. I wonder if the local sheriff really has any clue? Bringing in the FBI makes it feel like a crime, but then the sheriff doesn't think that there was an abduction and there is no suggestion that the parents have hurt Deorr. There are no positive signals being thrown out.

Although no one has suggested it, it's possible the sheriff asked for the FBI's assistance because he doesn't have a clue.

 

[ILOKAL]

Didn't IR ride with ggp? If DK and JM slept in ggp's Suburban, while ggp slept in the camper pulled by the Suburban and IR slept in a tent, ggp and IR would have had to arrive at or before Thursday night.

Do we know for a fact those were the sleeping arrangements? We still have people questioning if they were at Timber Creek Thursday night or another camp site or parked on the side of the road somewhere.

 

[kammiemc]

I have no idea. I'm not saying this actually happened. I'm only suggesting how it could happen that IR and ggp didn't see DeOrr but would assume he was there. It doesn't take long to move a sleeping child from a truck to a Suburban and if ggp and IR were otherwise occupied, the parents could have moved DeOrr back and forth without DeOrr being seen at the campsite. I think it's unlikely DeOrr would sleep so much that he would never set foot on the ground at the campsite, but I'm trying to find a way that dogs would not find his scent. It's not clear to me if dogs followed his trail to the reservoir or were attracted there by the cremains. IR wasn't very convincing about seeing DeOrr at the campsite ("as far as I know") and we don't have ggp's direct statement - only others telling us what ggp said. We don't have any information about how the family spent Friday morning. Did they have breakfast with ggp? Take a walk to the reservoir? Until very recently, it was assumed they arrived on Friday morning, so those hours would have been spent driving. How did they spend that time instead? JMO

I honestly think that almost any theory is reasonable at this point. My gosh, even LE won't say for certain that the toddler was at the campsite. There is just not enough hard evidence to confirm anything.

I've noticed that there seem to be two ways to attack a case:
-decide who is and isn't involved, based on the first available info then reverse engineer every incoming fact and statement so that it supports your "position."

OR

-try to weigh each fact objectively and see if it shifts your viewpoint at all, or if some facts are conflicting, causing tension and need closer scrutinizing. I think that is what investigators do--at least good ones.

I appreciate the hypotheticals because they challenge us to accept or dismiss certain ideas, or to evolve our viewpoint.

Thx for your thinking!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

I don't buy the "Deorr wasn't ever there" theory. I don't know why but it just doesn't feel right for me.

It's hard to sleuth when no information is coming out. I wonder if the local sheriff really has any clue? Bringing in the FBI makes it feel like a crime, but then the sheriff doesn't think that there was an abduction and there is no suggestion that the parents have hurt Deorr. There are no positive signals being thrown out.

That's a good way to put it.
We are speculating mostly on the absence of facts and the murkiness of the ones we do have.
Does anyone know what happened to the PI, or why no one from the family has put out anything more in social media to keep the tips coming of a possible abduction (beyond the poster geared to hunters?) I can't make out why they would go silent when they have the Internet at their disposal (even if MSM won't pick up their story). Even if they have lost hope in finding him alive I would think they would to find the abductor and seek justice.

I haven't looked much on social media re this case, so please correct me if there is communication being delivered that I don't know about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rkf]

Listening and re-listening to the 911 call, myself I can't hear the mother say "half an hour" or "an hour". The sounds that I hear recorded are more like "around" or "about" " this ........."?

If LE have used their resources (or FBI) to clarify how long she says he has been missing, we haven't been informed.
I can fully understand she is in a state of panic and near despair, but I find it impossible to accept the "an hour".
All imo of course, but to me it raises a few questions. No disrespect to the parents or anyone here.

I agree it's impossible (for me) to understand what JM says when asked how long DeOrr was missing. Is that because of the quality of the recording? I'm wondering if the 911 operator could hear her much better than we can, and that's why she repeated "an hour" rather than half an hour or this morning.

 

[sunflowerchick]

I honestly think that almost any theory is reasonable at this point. My gosh, even LE won't say for certain that the toddler was at the campsite. There is just not enough hard evidence to confirm anything.

SBM and BBM

LE did say they are 99% sure he was at that campsite. IMO that's as sure as LE will ever get. They never say they are 100% sure of anything. Ever. They are merely investigators. The fact that he is 99% sure tells me they found enough to indicate that little DeOrr was there.

I still think that some poor hunter or scouting group will find his little body in that area. Who knows when but hopefully soon rather than later.

 

[rkf]

Where did you read or hear that the parents lied? The sheriff didn't EVER say that in his interview nor did he make an insinuation. To me it sounded like the detectives/investigators made the omission and then found out their own mistake and corrected it.

Are you saying that when the investigator spoke with the parents and asked them when they first arrived at the campground, the parents said "Thursday night", but the investigator wrote down "Friday morning"? And then either went back to the parents or the grandmother who posted on SM that they arrived on Thursday night, and realized they had written down the wrong arrival time? Or are you saying the investigator never asked the parents when they arrived, and just assumed the family arrived on Friday morning, then actually asked at a later time?

 

[Onebest]

I agree that the dogs thing is still murky. But I am kind of leaning to the fact that if they were indeed tracking dogs (as the sheriff stated) they followed the scent to the reservoir. For one thing, I can't think of why they would have started the dogs at the reservoir with his scent instead of the campsite, where he was reportedly last seen. And if the dogs came back to the campsite that makes me think his scent was somewhere--but I don't know how focused they can get. Would have DeOrr's scent on mom and dad's stuff and in the car be enough to get their attention? We know his blanket was somewhere at the scene per the parents., and apparently a diaper. Maybe that and any other clothing items/toys are what the dogs were responding to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no solid facts on this issue but from the information that has been provided in the news it appears to state that the tracking dogs followed the babies scent to the reservoir. In my opinion these tracking dogs were not cadaver dogs so the scent in the water was in all probability, a non issue for them but I have nothing, nada, no facts, to confirm that opinion on. jmo, the dogs sniffing IS murky and is going to stay that way because its all supposition....we do not have enough information.

 

[kammiemc]

I agree it's impossible (for me) to understand what JM says when asked how long DeOrr was missing. Is that because of the quality of the recording? I'm wondering if the 911 operator could hear her much better than we can, and that's why she thought she repeated "an hour" rather than half an hour or this morning.

Didn't JM agree and say "yes" when the operator confirmed "an hour?" I get a little hesitant to presume she was mistaken or meant something different. It's possible, , but I am more inclined to think she confirmed it was an hour (technically, about an hour) because that was the actual timeframe or at least she wanted the operator to believe it was. (So she'd be taken seriously, for example.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rkf]

What embankment? I missed that, as I only follow this story sporadically now due to all the confusion along w/ it. Maybe GGP thought the baby was with his parents because his parents took off that way? Not sure.

Either way, the "haven't left the campsite since 1pm" <modsnip>. Remember he went hauling off somewhere to make a phone call because he assumed (wrongly) that there was no phone service at the camp site and so he didn't even want to bother to try? And they DID leave the campsite when they went 50 yards, 10 minutes away. I consider a campsite the actual place that the camp is set up. Not the entire wilderness area around it.

That's the first time I realized the conflict between not leaving the campsite since 1 pm and driving off in his truck to make the 911 call. Could he have gotten in his truck to search before the call? Or for any other reason? I assumed he meant he hadn't left the campsite since returning from the store, but maybe he meant since LE arrived. But then, that would have been 3:30 or so, if it took an hour for LE to arrive after the 911 call. Sure would be nice if ggp would tell us what he knows. I know - not likely...

 

[Hoosier952]

SBM and BBM

LE did say they are 99% sure he was at that campsite. IMO that's as sure as LE will ever get. They never say they are 100% sure of anything. Ever. They are merely investigators. The fact that he is 99% sure tells me they found enough to indicate that little DeOrr was there.

I still think that some poor hunter or scouting group will find his little body in that area. Who knows when but hopefully soon rather than later.

But why did he even say 99% sure he was at the campsite? Why bring it up at all? It wasn't directly asked if he was at camp in the interview that I recall and it seems like leaving that 1% uncertainty in a case with so much SM speculation is just fueling more speculation.

Edited to add last statement.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Did I say old? I said elderly man ...I say 70 is elderly, its surely not a young spring chicken. Matter of opinion. My mother is 72 in great shape and no oxygen. Could she keep up with my daughters kids on a camp out? I doubt it but she might surprise me.

This is such a strange place for us to get sidetracked, but the World Health Organization agrees with you. (Although I think calling 60 elderly is a little much).

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/survey/ageingdefnolder/en/

That said, age alone isn't the issue here, imo. GGPA apparently has physical and mental disabilities/problems of some kind. This creates an image of frailty quite separate from his age. Many older adults are leading active, vibrant lives and entirely capable of doing just about anything they want to do. But this particular man seems to have health issues so profound that he was ruled out as a suspect nearly immediately.

 

[TeaTime]

Can we clear up some things?

1.) GGP did NOT see the child walk away. There is nothing that even suggests that GGP saw the child walking away from the campsite. The child was there, GGP turned his attention elsewhere for what GM says was 4 minutes and the child disappeared. GGP ASSUMED the child went over the bank after his parents but he didn't see it happen.

2.) They all arrived Thursday for a long camping weekend.

3.) The child WAS at the campground/campsite.

4.) There is at least one road above the campsite (172A or 172B) from which a 3rd party or 3rd parties could view the entire campsite without being noticed form below.

5.) GGP is not as physically impaired as some have speculated. He still drives.

<modsnip> his '4 minutes' could have actually been longer - or shorter - but would not impair his ability to watch a 2 year old or notice if the child walked away.

6.) Dog aren't infallible, but Sheriff said that with these dogs' records, the child should have been located.

Abduction by a human is still my opinion.

 

[ILOKAL]

Are you saying that when the investigator spoke with the parents and asked them when they first arrived at the campground, the parents said "Thursday night", but the investigator wrote down "Friday morning"? And then either went back to the parents or the grandmother who posted on SM that they arrived on Thursday night, and realized they had written down the wrong arrival time? Or are you saying the investigator never asked the parents when they arrived, and just assumed the family arrived on Friday morning, then actually asked at a later time?

I am commenting on what Sheriff Bowerman said in his interview with Nate. I would have no idea (nor would any of us) what questions, if any, were asked of the parents by detectives/investigators nor any idea what, if any, their answers would have been. I also would have no idea what, if any, assumptions were made by the detectives/investigators.

 

[Onebest]

Originally posted by sarx who is Verified Expert/Professional in SAR and K9SAR, it might help some folks asking questions about HRD K9's utilized with baby Deoor Kunz. I know its appropriate to post on WS because that is where I found it

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...)-dog-questions-and-answers-**NO-DISCUSSION**

As an aside, Obviously, I am a very strong proponent that K9's be utilized as a "resource" BUT, they are not the be all, end all to find a missing person. Human beings are in my opinion the number one resource because we have the brains. K9's work for us. Lots of good information on this WS site, thank you from me to all the hard workers maintaining it.

 

[kammiemc]

Can we clear up some things?

1.) GGP did NOT see the child walk away. There is nothing that even suggests that GGP saw the child walking away from the campsite. The child was there, GGP turned his attention elsewhere for what GM says was 4 minutes and the child disappeared. GGP ASSUMED the child went over the bank after his parents but he didn't see it happen.

2.) They all arrived Thursday for a long camping weekend.

3.) The child WAS at the campground/campsite.

4.) There is at least one road above the campsite (172A or 172B) from which a 3rd party or 3rd parties could view the entire campsite without being noticed form below.

5.) GGP is not as physically impaired as some have speculated. He still drives.

<modsnip> his '4 minutes' could have actually been longer - or shorter - but would not impair his ability to watch a 2 year old or notice if the child walked away.

6.) Dog aren't infallible, but Sheriff said that with these dogs' records, the child should have been located.

Abduction by a human is still my opinion.

I think the only thing I hesitate to believe is that #3 is a 100% true, indisputable fact.

I don't have any reason to doubt it's true. But the sheriff's statement is way open for interpretation. For instance, if he had said "I am 99% sure that the sky is blue" that would leave a sliver of possibility that it might not be the case. I would not think he meant that in his mind that was a concrete fact. JMO!

ETA: changed example to the sky so as not seem like I am creating a monster where one does not exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arnie M]

Sheeeeeesh

They did arrive at the campsite Thursday

They did arrive at the campsite Friday , after their trip to the store

I am amazed how folks try create a monster that does not exist.