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

[desert-blue]

Could he have gone home? He rode with ggp, so unless they hooked the camper up to the Suburban and they both went back to IF, I'd think IR would have had to stay in the area. If IR didn't help search when the parents started frantically searching for DeOrr, what does that mean? Did IR ever see DeOrr at the campground? If so, it seems odd that he wouldn't help look for the toddler. If he never saw him, would he decide right away that looking for a boy he had never seen would be fruitless? That seems kind of cold and calculating to me - he would either have to have believe the child was never at the campground or be completely unsympathetic to the parents' and his friend's plight. He was so uncommitted in his doorway interview, I can't tell what he actually saw/knows. Sounded like he was trying to stick to the "party line", but which party?

I haven't read or heard anything about this one way or the other. However, if great-grandpa's health wasn't that great and he was upset and shocked about the missing child, it is possible that he and IR headed back down to Idaho Falls on Friday. The family may have thought it was better for GGP to not be at the campground and search area if he was emotionally distraught. Just a thought - could be totally wrong.

 

[ILOKAL]

Hello, another Idahoan here; although I live in another part of the state. I don't really have anything to add, mostly I have questions

Are the parents, LE, and the public defining "abduction" the same way? To me, abductors could include anyone--strangers, people known to any of the POI, people the POI saw recently, etc. So when the parents say "abducted," maybe they don't mean an unknown person.

Another little vocabulary question: What is meant by a "camper?" To me, a camper is a simple or more extensive shell attached to the bed of a pickup. If it's something you're pulling, it's a trailer, or maybe a camp trailer. Was GGP pulling a little trailer?

I am still not sure how to post; apologies if I posted incorrectly!​

According to Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/camper

 

[rkf]

.

Allow me to drift off topic to this news report that has many similarities to this case

--- family and friends at the beach
--- several children and several parents all together
--- nobody noticed when a 4 year old "went missing"
--- frantic night-long search on land and in the water
--- fears of an abduction , amber alerts issued
--- witnesses report suspicious activity between a man and boy near the washroom
--- the mother handed out posters all over the area
--- a day later the child was found drowned 100 yards from shore
--- police believe the drowning was accidental

http://news.yahoo.com/missing-4-old-boys-body-found-san-diego-211444839.html

What makes this case so different is that days, weeks and months after thorough searches of a relatively still and shallow body of water, the baby's body has not been found. Nor did they find him in the creek for 2 1/2 miles. Drowning has always seemed like the most statistically likely scenario to me, but the absence of a body is what makes this case seem so mysterious. That, plus the family and PI's insistence that the child was kidnapped in a remote area (where it was impossible for a two year-old to go missing because of the closed-in area per DK) with one road in/out of the camp ground, by a stranger to be sold into the underground adoption market. If the parents said "We have no idea where he went. He simply vanished in the 4-10 minutes he was out of our sight.", I would assume DeOrr's little body would eventually be found somewhere in that wilderness.

IMO, the other mysterious part is that there was no way the adults could NOT have seen DeOrr in the area, yet there's no way the adults could have seen an adult kidnapper come into the area and abscond with DeOrr.

DK: I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

DK: ...it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out- I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are..."
NE: So they could've come to your...
DK: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.


DK: ...He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwM1oG3z358


BBM

Because there was no evidence of an abduction, nor any description of an abductor or vehicle, an Amber Alert was not issued for DeOrr. That has to be done within 12 hours, not days later. (I wonder if the man seen with Wesley was the other person found drowned.) They were able to issue an Amber Alert for Wesley because they had a "suspect" http://edis.oes.ca.gov/405250.xml Here is a link to the requirements for issuing an Amber Alert in Idaho: https://www.isp.idaho.gov/BCI/documents/AMBER ALERT ACTIVATION CHECKLIST update.pdf

 

[ILOKAL]

What makes this case so different is that days, weeks and months after thorough searches of a relatively still and shallow body of water, the baby's body has not found. Nor did they find him in the creek for 2 1/2 miles. Drowning has always seemed like the most statistically likely scenario to me, but the absence of a body is what makes this case seem so mysterious. That, plus the family and PI's insistence that the child was kidnapped in a remote area (where it was impossible for a two year-old to go missing because of the closed-in area per DK) with one road in/out of the camp ground, by a stranger to be sold into the underground adoption market. If the parents said "We have no idea where he went. He simply vanished in the 4-10 minutes he was out of our sight.", I would assume DeOrr's little body would eventually be found somewhere in that wilderness.

IMO, the other mysterious part is that there was no way the adults could NOT have seen DeOrr in the area, yet there's no way the adults could have seen an adult kidnapper come into the area and abscond with DeOrr.

DK: I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

DK: ...it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out- I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are..."
NE: So they could've come to your...
DK: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.


DK: ...He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him...
http://🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.blogspot.com/2015/07/🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬-deorres-parents.html
http://🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.blogspot.com/2015/07/part-two-of-deorre-analysis.html

BBM

Because there was no evidence of an abduction, nor any description of an abductor or vehicle, an Amber Alert was not issued for DeOrr. That has to be done within 12 hours, not days later. (I wonder if the man seen with Wesley was the other person found drowned.) They were able to issue an Amber Alert for Wesley because they had a "suspect" http://edis.oes.ca.gov/405250.xml Here is a link to the requirements for issuing an Amber Alert in Idaho: https://www.isp.idaho.gov/BCI/documents/AMBER ALERT ACTIVATION CHECKLIST update.pdf

I did some looking around and actually the person who drowned and was found along with Wesley was a 77 year old woman with dimentia who had gone missing September 8th.

 

[Rayemonde]

I thought it was interesting too that the parents have not said anything about IR. Perhaps the police have told them not to mention him, so he thinks he's not under suspicion. Or perhaps IR has secretly given evidence that implicated the family, and the police have told *him* not to say anything to the media!

IDK. In the William Tyrrell case at first the police led us to believe that there were no strangers in the area that day, and that WT had simply wandered off into the bush. But now a year later they are suddenly releasing details of suspicious cars seen hanging around near the house on the day he went missing! And they say they had "strategic reasons" for waiting a whole year to release this information. I wonder if there were actually more people around on the day that Deorr went missing, too.

 

[rkf]

A map would be great. There have been some posted but they didn't seem to lay everything out. I DO wonder though about the ridge (not sure if that's what it's called) that little Deorr would have had to (or perhaps DID) climb over and then go down to get to the creek where his parents were. If that is the case and his parents were down below, how could they see him and GGPA at the camp site and how could GGPA and little Deorr see the parents? Something is confusing and I'm not sure what it is. Also, just because the distance between all of the parties was not very far doesn't necessarily mean there was a clear view. I would like to see what obstacles were there. Hopefully the re-enactment will add clarity. I just think what we may be envisioning might not be the actual layout and that's why it is difficult to understand.

I agree - a flat map can't really do it justice. I'm trying to figure out how all the statements, that seem to conflict, could be true at the same time. It might involve some non-linear thinking, but it could help us figure out what direction DeOrr went.

If the parents and IR were down below, then it seems like they would not have been able to put eyes on DeOrr at any time, regardless of how enclosed or open the campground. They would have been on a different plane, but it would seem like if DeOrr headed for the creek, he would have crossed that plane so parents and child would have seen each other. Were the parents and ggp able to see each other the entire time? What about IR - could they see him and vice versa?

If you go to this map, you can hone in on the area. When you get really close, it's no longer very helpful for getting an idea of the terrain. http://www.idahogeology.org/webmap/?show=mines Combining this with Nate Eaton's closer look at the campground might help. http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/a-closer-look-the-campground-where-deorr-kunz-disappeared/

Here are some photos before it gets too blurry.
View attachment 81487View attachment 81488View attachment 81489

 

[rkf]

I haven't read or heard anything about this one way or the other. However, if great-grandpa's health wasn't that great and he was upset and shocked about the missing child, it is possible that he and IR headed back down to Idaho Falls on Friday. The family may have thought it was better for GGP to not be at the campground and search area if he was emotionally distraught. Just a thought - could be totally wrong.

Do you think he would have left before his daughter arrived? She got there at 4:28 pm, IIRC. I wouldn't be surprised if he went back to IF with his daughter if she went back that night. If ggp drove, he would have passed IR's town on the way back to IF, so he could have dropped him off. But I wonder if he was in any shape to drive at that point. So many unanswered questions...

 

[neesaki]

A map would be great. There have been some posted but they didn't seem to lay everything out. I DO wonder though about the ridge (not sure if that's what it's called) that little Deorr would have had to (or perhaps DID) climb over and then go down to get to the creek where his parents were. If that is the case and his parents were down below, how could they see him and GGPA at the camp site and how could GGPA and little Deorr see the parents? Something is confusing and I'm not sure what it is. Also, just because the distance between all of the parties was not very far doesn't necessarily mean there was a clear view. I would like to see what obstacles were there. Hopefully the re-enactment will add clarity. I just think what we may be envisioning might not be the actual layout and that's why it is difficult to understand.

This video shows the campsite, the creek and the steep hill that goes down to it. Also, Nate E. points out the area where the parents went off to explore away from the campsite. After reading that chilling post on the Idaho City-Data forum, I'm starting to lean more strongly towards him being taken by a cougar. Oh that poor baby. :cry:
[video=youtube;qvZbH7NSadA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvZbH7NSadA[/video]

 

[neesaki]

In this video Nate E. states the reservoir is above the campground about 1/4 mile away, and that the trail that leads to it is steep and rocky. A complete map would be great, or a very close up aerial view.
[video=youtube;izUz0Ul6N0g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izUz0Ul6N0g[/video]

 

[bakerlady]

DK: I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

DK: ...it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out- I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are..."
NE: So they could've come to your...
DK: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.


DK: ...He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him...
http://🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.blogspot.com/2015/07/🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬-deorres-parents.html
http://🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.blogspot.com/2015/07/part-two-of-deorre-analysis.html

I find the first statement very odd. Why would you choose a campsite based on how far a 2 year old could travel alone? Why would you even consider for one moment that the child would ever be left alone and wandering for that to be a concern? Yes, a lot of people are wondering how you could let a 2 year old out of your site. I didn't even close the door to the bathroom when my kids were 2. I wouldn't have even left them alone in our fenced in back yard.


If the main concern was the creek then why camp near a creek? Pick another spot further away from bodies of water.

This all stinks to high heaven.

 

[rkf]

This video shows the campsite, the creek and the steep hill that goes down to it. Also, Nate E. points out the area where the parents went off to explore away from the campsite. After reading that chilling post on the Idaho City-Data forum, I'm starting to lean more strongly towards him being taken by a cougar. Oh that poor baby. :cry:
[video=youtube;qvZbH7NSadA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvZbH7NSadA[/video]

When Nate points toward the vehicles at 1:22, is that toward the reservoir or toward Leadore? TIA

ETA: Nevermind. I think the vehicles are toward the reservoir, because the water seems to be running in the opposite direction.

ETAA:

Nate Eaton: “Where was Mr. Renwand during all of this?”
Sheriff Bowerman: (Using his hands to demonstrate) “He was in the same general proximity. The creek…it’s just over the bank. Um, he’s downstream, they’re upstream. Uh, they’re all within probably (head nodding left to right) 100 to 150 feet of each other."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M

So, it looks like the campsite would have been between the creek and 172A, since Nate is walking toward the reservoir with the creek on his right. If DeOrr took off in the direction opposite his parents, he would have headed toward Leadore, away from the reservoir. (The opposite of what I posted earlier.) Also, IR would have been on the other side of the parents from ggp and DeOrr if he was fishing downstream. If DeOrr headed toward his parents, it seems like he would have run into them before IR at the creek.

The red arrow represents Nate in the video, walking along the creek toward the reservoir.

 

[neesaki]

When Nate points toward the vehicles at 1:22, is that toward the reservoir or toward Leadore? TIA

ETA: Nevermind. I think the vehicles are away from the reservoir, toward Leadore because the water seems to be running in the opposite direction.

I just saw you had already posted the link to the video, sorry. It appears to be up creek from what I can tell, so it must be toward the reservoir, I think ?

 

[byo]

@ rfk; The water from the reservoir flows down into the creek that passes the campground; the water flows northeast. MOO

 

[wondering25]

Hello, another Idahoan here; although I live in another part of the state. I don't really have anything to add, mostly I have questions

Are the parents, LE, and the public defining "abduction" the same way? To me, abductors could include anyone--strangers, people known to any of the POI, people the POI saw recently, etc. So when the parents say "abducted," maybe they don't mean an unknown person.

Another little vocabulary question: What is meant by a "camper?" To me, a camper is a simple or more extensive shell attached to the bed of a pickup. If it's something you're pulling, it's a trailer, or maybe a camp trailer. Was GGP pulling a little trailer?

I am still not sure how to post; apologies if I posted incorrectly!​

I asked a similar question a few weeks back.. Is there a difference between abducted and kidnapped? There kind oif isnt.. but the preference of one word over another made me wonder. JMO

ab·duct
abˈdəkt/
verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important]past tense: abducted; past participle: abducted[/COLOR]

• 1.
  take (someone) away illegally by force or deception; kidnap.
  
  
  

 

[Rayemonde]

The PI says he's had a "solid tip" about a possible abductor and has passed it on to police.

Wasn't the re-enactment supposed to be today? In the article it says they don't know when it will be.

PI also says that an axe and the GGF's coveralls were taken from the campsite by the FBI - sounds bad, but i'm guessing it's just routine to seize anything like that, just in case. Don't know why the PI would release that info though, when it sounds so bad!

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/0...receives-solid-tip-on-toddlers-disappearance/

 

[shellbythesea]

The PI says he's had a "solid tip" about a possible abductor and has passed it on to police.

Wasn't the re-enactment supposed to be today? In the article it says they don't know when it will be.

PI also says that an axe and the GGF's coveralls were taken from the campsite by the FBI - sounds bad, but i'm guessing it's just routine to seize anything like that, just in case. Don't know why the PI would release that info though, when it sounds so bad!

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/0...receives-solid-tip-on-toddlers-disappearance/

It is a weird thing to seize

 

[ILOKAL]

It is a weird thing to seize

And where was this axe and overalls when the FBI seized them? The FBI didn't come on board for a month after little Deorr disappeared. Or had they previously been seized by local LE?

 

[giagreen]

There is nothing odd about that statement at all. I have a two year old right now and I'd think the same thing. Not because I planned on leaving my child alone but because I'd like to sit down at some point and not have to run after my two year old everytime he took an extra step to the right. Seriously these two year olds don't stop moving and if an area is not inclosed your gonna not even be able to enjoy your time there at all. DeOrr also says it was an enclosed area and you could see him. I think that was his point to all most everything he was trying to say.

I find the first statement very odd. Why would you choose a campsite based on how far a 2 year old could travel alone? Why would you even consider for one moment that the child would ever be left alone and wandering for that to be a concern? Yes, a lot of people are wondering how you could let a 2 year old out of your site. I didn't even close the door to the bathroom when my kids were 2. I wouldn't have even left them alone in our fenced in back yard.


If the main concern was the creek then why camp near a creek? Pick another spot further away from bodies of water.

This all stinks to high heaven.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Why only single out GGP and item of his seized? Is it because this is a strong hint or because all others items taken were more mundane?

Whatever the reason(s) it isn't good.

There now seems to be a bit more doubt on the reconstruction. I wonder if LE have "requested" they not do it? Can they stop them?

 

[wondering25]

Why only single out GGP and item of his seized? Is it because this is a strong hint or because all others items taken were more mundane?

Whatever the reason(s) it isn't good.

There now seems to be a bit more doubt on the reconstruction. I wonder if LE have "requested" they not do it? Can they stop them?

Maybe minds greater than theirs have advised them that it is a double edged sword..a "re-enactment" might point out where the players all were.. but it might point out inconsistencies, errors in judgment, and the reenactment isnt even close to authentic without a 2 year old running around, GGP and IR. ALSO, it could be used against them if there is ever an arrest or trial in this case. In other words, it might backfire down the line. JMO