ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #12

[JadeSLeuth]

WOW just WOW! Did they get fuel twice???


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Timelines-and-Maps-**NO-DISCUSSION-quot/page2
[QUOTE]

Nate Eaton:
“Did they stop any other places on their way up to Leadore?”

Sheriff Bowerman:
”appears” to shake his head no but says nothing.

Deputy Penner:
“Yeah. They stopped to get diesel.

[/QUOTE]

First thing that lept off the page for me as well, Dee10. Thanks for pulling up the references and links.

 

[scmom]

Am I right that there have been zero positive/confirmed sightings of Deorr on the way to or at the campsite, aside from what his parents have said? Did either IR and GGP say he'd been there? There seems to be a lot of confusion about whether people at gas stations and shops saw him for definite. And no trails picked up by dogs.

So who WAS the last person to see Deorr, apart from his mom and dad??

That is the key question.

 

[haven71]

The comment about the diaper was made on FB by someone posting under DeOrr's grandmother's name. It probably was the grandmother, but since it was FB, we can't be sure. In any case, the post referred to a trash bag used by church members who were searching at the camprgounds. The poster said she deposited the diaper in the trash bag, and the information was provided to LE. No one drove anywhere to throw away a diaper.

As for the parents arriving Thursday night, we don't know when LE obtained that information. An error in the initial MSM reports which said Friday night is a definite possibility. It's also not out of the question that LE initially provided incorrect information to the media. (BTW, the same FB poster who posted about the diaper said the family arrived on Thursday night at 9:30 P.M.)

Can anyone provide a quote from the parents which says they arrived on Friday, and not Thursday?

Thanks for clearing up the diaper incident.

AFAIK no direct quote was obtained from the parents regarding when they arrived at the campground. But we didn't learn they arrived at camp Thursday night for several days, when the sheriff said he learned during the investigation that they arrived Thursday. Maybe the statement is completely innoculous. The fact is, even if the sheriff knew immediately that they'd arrived Thursday night, it was not mentioned on MSM for DAYS. Anyway you slice it, whether it was an oversight or not, the public should've been well aware when the family arrived at the campground. That's critical information IMO. If they thought Deorr had been abducted then of course the public should've been made aware of the arrival date from Day One. Even if the sheriff screwed up and forgot to mention it, you'd think the family would immediately ensure that that possibly critical information would be released.

I don't know what day we found out they were there Thursday night. I've got to figure out how to navigate this forum, so I can find a date. It doesn't matter to me whether it was a simply an oversight. I believe that the public's perception (both on here and other discussion sites) was that they arrived Friday. Honest mistake? Could be. But a potentially costly oversight nonetheless IMO.

 

[TeaTime]

I recall similar statements from LE and TES when multiple sonar searches failed to locate Terrilynn Monette's car in a New Orleans bayou. It took a diver using a portable sonar device to hit on the car.

"EquuSearch said they have the ability to look through up to 1000 feet of water - much like they did in the Natalee Holloway case in Aruba. According to Tim Miller, founder of Texas EquuSearch, the company has looked through a number of bodies of water in City Park and they have ruled out the possibility of a vehicle being in those waters."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/terrily...r-in-new-orleans-expands-to-ponds-and-bayous/

"But her mind then turned to how much time had passed between her daughter's disappearance and her apparent discovery on Saturday by an off-duty policeman from Slidell. It also remains a mystery why Monette's car was overlooked during repeated searches of the bayou."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/06/search_for_terrilynn_monette_m.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Ms. Monette and her car were found in the bayou, next to a bridge. The water on one side of the bridge was searched - I assume the right hand side as it would be the direction of travel. She had gone off the road on the left hand side which was not originally searched.

 

[kammiemc]

I asked the same thing. Why are they doing a sketch then? Just in case?

IMO, because the parents can't go back on their word that there was a man staring at DeOrr just hours before he went missing and so the only course of action for them that would make sense is to try to identify him. JMO.

 

[kammiemc]

Here is the link to the story:
http://www.localnews8.com/news/3-months-still-no-sign-of-missing-toddler/35762562

It sounds to me like the filthy, bawling toddler sighting at the store in Leadore either didn't happen (or wasn't Deorr).

From the article:
'A receipt and cashier proves the parents trip to the only convenience store in town, but was the toddler with his mother and father?

"Somebody said they thought they saw a child in the vehicle while they fueled up, but they're not positive," Bowerman said.

The family went back to camp and a few hours later the mother called 911 saying her son was missing.'

I thought (was been the PI who said it? I'll try to go back and see) that the man was staring at DeOrr while they ate fries. Now, it seems that DeOrr was never even reportedly seen by a clerk or other person outside of the car? (Just maybe someone thought they saw him inside the car but weren't sure, while they were filling up.) So did the staring man instead come up to the window and leer at DeOrr for an extended period? Was the mom in the car too? This is, unfortunately, making no sense. I have fallen off the fence too and landed on the wrong side.

 

[TeaTime]

Wondering25, you don't think that DeOrr returned from the store to the campground on Friday. Do you think he was there before the trip to the store? If so, then what do you think happened to him between the store and the campsite?

I can not wrap my head around the parents killing him, disposing of his body and then returning to the campsite to prepare for the 'baby is missing' scene, including IR and GGP as witnesses. I can not wrap my head around them just putting him out of the truck and leaving him alone to wander off and die either. And how could there have been a fatal accident, caused by the neglect of the parents, inside the truck while driving?

Further, LE is saying they must go back to square one now that the FBI report is in which tells me that the polys and behavioral analysis support that the parents and 2 witnesses told the truth.

I am sticking with abduction by a human.

 

[pepelepolecat]

I'm with you on all this - no idea how a man could be staring at the child if the child wasn't in the store. I guess we are to assume the man was staring at Deorr while he was in the back of the truck at the store (not IN the store)? From the statements, I assumed the child was in the store. Weird.

Kunz's mother recalls seeing the man at a store in Leadore the morning of her son's disappearance. http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2015/09/15/deorr-kunz-missing-lead/72298848/

“When [the family] went into town the morning after they arrived, they picked a few groceries up and bought some French fries for DeOrr Jr.,” Vilt said. “There was a man who was staring at DeOrr and this made Jessica feel kind of eerie. I’m looking into it.”http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/kunz-family-investigator-everything-points-to-an-abduction/

Unless DeOrr was left in the truck and the creepy guy was staring at him while he was in the truck. (speculation alert) I'd think that most passers-by these days *would be concerned about a kid left in a car even if the weather's nice, and likewise, I think most moms would be unnerved by someone staring at their kid in the car.

Or did she specifically say the guy was staring at DeOrr IN the store?

 

[neesaki]

Unless DeOrr was left in the truck and the creepy guy was staring at him while he was in the truck. (speculation alert) I'd think that most passers-by these days *would be concerned about a kid left in a car even if the weather's nice, and likewise, I think most moms would be unnerved by someone staring at their kid in the car.

Or did she specifically say the guy was staring at DeOrr IN the store?

The PI stated the guy was staring at Deorr AT the store.

 

[kammiemc]

I never thought Deorr made it back from the trip to the store in Leadore. That has been my position from the beginning. I always thought that when IR was questioned by the reporter and his flat affect suddenly perked up when IR said "have you talked to grandpa"..he was really saying..grandpa will tell you the baby wasnt there in the afternoon either.. of course this is just my impression..

That whole remark about "we went to the store as a family" by DK sounded contrived. IMO

The PI now is also missing. Quite frankly, I think the guy tried..and in fairness he brought some attention to the case.. the creep in the jeep, the reenactment and now the there is a documentary being done. His involvement didnt hurt, imo.

Anything i write is just my opinion

I have a mostly unfounded hunch that there is something significant about Thursday night. I think, IMO, JMO, there might be a reason why the parents either told LE they arrived Fri AM, or let LE believe that, to the point that they didn't bother clarifying in their interview, or in SM, and LE had to find out during the course of the investigation otherwise.

Without even knowing much about the case, when I saw the parents' interview with NE, I got the feeling that DK used the opportunity Nate gave him to address any rumors to point out the rumor that a clerk had seen them at the store (but it was the wrong time). I wondered, out of all the terrible rumors, why address that one? It seemed like it was really important for DK to explain that they WERE at the store with DeOrr. (I also think that later adding that there was a man staring at DeOrr at the store added more detail to make it even more sure he was there.)

So, why is being seen at the store with DeOrr on Fri so important to the parents? Is it because IR did not see the toddler at the campsite on Fri and so the parents needed proof otherwise that DeOrr was in Leadore before he went missing? Is it because LE told them that no one in the store recalled seeing DeOrr with them? What was happening Thurs night at that campsite? Does GGP remember the last time he saw DeOrr? When did IR last see him, or see him at all?

I wonder if the FBI are re-interviewing the POI's or if that was just their suggestion to LE. It seems the case is still going in a particular direction but there is not enough to go on to conclude anything definitively or press charges.

 

[haven71]

I have a mostly unfounded hunch that there is something significant about Thursday night. I think, IMO, JMO, there might be a reason why the parents either told LE they arrived Fri AM, or let LE believe that, to the point that they didn't bother clarifying in their interview, or in SM, and LE had to find out during the course of the investigation otherwise.

Without even knowing much about the case, when I saw the parents' interview with NE, I got the feeling that DK used the opportunity Nate gave him to address any rumors to point out the rumor that a clerk had seen them at the store (but it was the wrong time). I wondered, out of all the terrible rumors, why address that one? It seemed like it was really important for DK to explain that they WERE at the store with DeOrr. (I also think that later adding that there was a man staring at DeOrr at the store added more detail to make it even more sure he was there.)

So, why is being seen at the store with DeOrr on Fri so important to the parents? Is it because IR did not see the toddler at the campsite on Fri and so the parents needed proof otherwise that DeOrr was in Leadore before he went missing? Is it because LE told them that no one in the store recalled seeing DeOrr with them? What was happening Thurs night at that campsite? Does GGP remember the last time he saw DeOrr? When did IR last see him, or see him at all?

I wonder if the FBI are re-interviewing the POI's or if that was just their suggestion to LE. It seems the case is still going in a particular direction but there is not enough to go on to conclude anything definitively or press charges.

I don't know if you saw my recent posts from last night and today about the Thursday arrival not being made known til days (IIRC) after Deorr's disappearance. Something is WRONG here.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

I don't know if you saw my recent posts from last night and today about the Thursday arrival not being made known til days (IIRC) after Deorr's disappearance. Something is WRONG here.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here but as I recall it goes like this:

Facebook comment Sometime in July
PI Vilt 11th August
Sheriff Bowerman 18th August

Confirmation of the Thursday arrival only came on 18th August to the public.

 

[Morag]

If the baby was asleep in the car, he couldn't have eaten fries. If the baby was awake in the car, why wasn't he taken out? I'm pretty sure a toddler who had just spent an hour in a vehicle on a rough road would insist on getting out to see things. Parents of former or current toddlers- what do you think?

 

[kammiemc]

I'm with you on all this - no idea how a man could be staring at the child if the child wasn't in the store. I guess we are to assume the man was staring at Deorr while he was in the back of the truck at the store (not IN the store)? From the statements, I assumed the child was in the store. Weird.

Kunz's mother recalls seeing the man at a store in Leadore the morning of her son's disappearance. http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2015/09/15/deorr-kunz-missing-lead/72298848/

“When [the family] went into town the morning after they arrived, they picked a few groceries up and bought some French fries for DeOrr Jr.,” Vilt said. “There was a man who was staring at DeOrr and this made Jessica feel kind of eerie. I’m looking into it.”http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/kunz-family-investigator-everything-points-to-an-abduction/

I just watched the new video (I had only read the article before). Hearing the sheriff's intonations, it sounds like it was the person at the Stage Shop who was filling up when thought they might have seen DeOrr in the family truck. By only first reading the sentence in the article, I thought it meant that parents were filling up their truck when DeOrr was maybe seen in the truck.

Maybe the person filling up was the staring man in the Rubicon! I mean, how many other customers and cars showed up at the Stage Shop while the parents picked up some items there. I wonder how much traffic that place normally sees on a Fri mid morn.

 

[KYPastTracker]

If the baby was asleep in the car, he couldn't have eaten fries. If the baby was awake in the car, why wasn't he taken out? I'm pretty sure a toddler who had just spent an hour in a vehicle on a rough road would insist on getting out to see things. Parents of former or current toddlers- what do you think?

My niece who just turned three a couple days ago would throw a fit and would wake up as soon as the car stopped. If left alone, I am sure she would be screaming her head off which would draw attention for sure. In fact the whole of tiny little Leadore would hear her if that was the case! But she would NEVER be left alone anyway.

 

[giagreen]

Did DK and JM really did hear a rumor about the clerk seeing a man with a filthy, bawling baby driving a black truck? If so, who told them that? Or, did they just create the rumor to make folks think Deorr was at the store? It would be interesting to know if the clerk at the store actually reported seeing a man and baby (and it turned out to not be Deorr) or if the whole thing was made up? Those are kind of the only two options, right? Either it wasn't Deorr or it didn't happen at all?

I don't think they did. I got the impression they were trying to clear up that rumor and were annoyed by it.

 

[Morag]

I don't think they did. I got the impression they were trying to clear up that rumor and were annoyed by it.

As I recall, they were very insistent that a blonde crying toddler at 6PM Friday couldn't be their child because they were there earlier in the day. Instead of saying, OMG, that sounds like DeOrr with a kidnaper, take action, please!, they just chose to deny it could have been them because they were with the Search and Rescue at that time...

 

[KYPastTracker]

I don't think they did. I got the impression they were trying to clear up that rumor and were annoyed by it.

That may be true, but IMO the problem with that is, we wouldn't have even known about that rumor if they hadn't brought it up in the first place.

 

[giagreen]

If the baby was asleep in the car, he couldn't have eaten fries. If the baby was awake in the car, why wasn't he taken out? I'm pretty sure a toddler who had just spent an hour in a vehicle on a rough road would insist on getting out to see things. Parents of former or current toddlers- what do you think?

Todllers are truly a hit or miss. Its hard to say one would act any certain way.
We have driven 3 block to the gas station while my two year old sat in the car screaming the whole time his dad went into pay. Other times he has sat and waited patiently even after a 45 min drive. I don't know about other parents but my child is truly unpredictable in this way. And if he was sleeping that doesn't nassesraly mean they wouldn't still buy him fries. Especially if they had to drive back. You'd want to have something ready for when he woke up.

 

[kammiemc]

If the baby was asleep in the car, he couldn't have eaten fries. If the baby was awake in the car, why wasn't he taken out? I'm pretty sure a toddler who had just spent an hour in a vehicle on a rough road would insist on getting out to see things. Parents of former or current toddlers- what do you think?

My toddler was by my side at ALL times. He would have most likely awakened and gone into the store with us, or stayed back in the car with one parent. Wouldn't have left him alone, but people do leave toddlers in cars while they run in for an errand. (And they get in trouble for it!)

I guess DeOrr could have gotten out of the car without any clerk or customer seeing him. Although it seems like the clerk would remember seeing him in the store if she remembered one or both of the parents. (Toddlers usually make themselves known. And DeOrr is super-extra cute.)

I don't think there is a any way for someone to say for sure that he WASN'T at the store or in the truck unless there is video pointing at the door and parking lot. It's hard to prove a negative.

At least we now know the fries were bought at the Stage Shop. It's hard for me to see if the Stage Shop has seating out front. Otherwise, fries to go and eaten in the car! (here is a street view link--hope it works)

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6805611,-113.3578514,3a,37.5y,47.53h,82.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjhHlUwOB-NpATtJEqdd1Lg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.680...lUwOB-NpATtJEqdd1Lg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!6m1!1e1