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

[Mickshawn]

I just listened to the Unedited interview (at least that part) again.

At 8:50

D. Sr.: "He was playing with grandpa. He was getting ready for a nap."

J: "He was with my grandpa"

9:03

D. Sr.: He was gonna be good with grandpa by the campfire.

At 9:29:

D. Sr.: "He (grandpa) immediately shocked", then says that grandpa said "(I thought) he came up to you."

Doesn't sound at all like Ggrandpa put him anywhere for any nap.

Ooops...forgot the link:

[video=youtube;mwM1oG3z358]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwM1oG3z358[/video]

 

[kammiemc]

Doesn't anyone have any thoughts on my morning post?

Well, the parents said that the toddler was playing in the dirt when they left and that it was getting close to nap time. At least from what we know (and that is not much for sure) no one has indicated that leaving him in the car or camper is a possibility. Although putting a kid down for a nap in the camper would make sense. I'm not exactly sure why they would lie about that. (Are you thinking they would be worried it would somehow make them look bad?)

ETA: oh sorry, you might have meant GGP put him down for a nap! GGP didn't seem to be aware he was ultimately left alone with the toddler (based on miscommunication, lack of direction or letting the toddler try to go catch up with his parents) so....I am not thinking it's likely that GGP put him down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal47]

Sounds like we are chewing on the same old bone. Nothing new. DeOrr still missing. Sigh.

 

[LookingForClues]

We so desperately need some movement on this case. Where is this poor little boy?

 

[Rayemonde]

All this chatter about whether there was direct communication between the parents and GGP such as "watch Little DeOrr while we are gone" is meaningless.

GGP knew he was the only adult at the campsite with the child, he knew the parents walked away because he stated that he thought the child was walking to where the parents were as he disappeared over the bank.

Does it take direct instructions and agreement for someone to watch over a 2 year old when no one else is around? No. Anyone would know to keep an eye on the child. The responsibility arises out of the circumstances even if GGP wasn't directly asked to watch the baby.

That's why I assumed that they *didn't* ask GGP to watch Deorr, they just assumed he knew he was watching him. If they'd asked GGP to watch Deorr whilst they went exploring, GGP wouldn't have let him follow the parents, he would have called him back.

So Deorr is toddling after his parents, and GGP assumes that they realise Deorr is following them. He looks away (or steps into the camper for a moment??), looks back, and Deorr is gone. He assumes that Deorr caught up with his parents. 4 minutes later the parents come back to GGP because they want to show Deorr some minnows, but Deorr is gone.

 

[Mickshawn]

That's why I assumed that they *didn't* ask GGP to watch Deorr, they just assumed he knew he was watching him. If they'd asked GGP to watch Deorr whilst they went exploring, GGP wouldn't have let him follow the parents, he would have called him back.

So Deorr is toddling after his parents, and GGP assumes that they realise Deorr is following them. He looks away (or steps into the camper for a moment??), looks back, and Deorr is gone. He assumes that Deorr caught up with his parents. 4 minutes later the parents come back to GGP because they want to show Deorr some minnows, but Deorr is gone.

4 minutes is SO brief....!!

 

[kammiemc]

That's why I assumed that they *didn't* ask GGP to watch Deorr, they just assumed he knew he was watching him. If they'd asked GGP to watch Deorr whilst they went exploring, GGP wouldn't have let him follow the parents, he would have called him back.

So Deorr is toddling after his parents, and GGP assumes that they realise Deorr is following them. He looks away (or steps into the camper for a moment??), looks back, and Deorr is gone. He assumes that Deorr caught up with his parents. 4 minutes later the parents come back to GGP because they want to show Deorr some minnows, but Deorr is gone.

I agree. One would think that if GGP knew he was watching the toddler he would have stopped him from going to the parents or at least he made sure they connected. The one variable is ggp's faculties. Clearly the parents thought he was in good enough shape to watch over the toddler, but the fact that he was originally not included as a POI due to declining mental and physical health certainly does open it up as a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

That's why I assumed that they *didn't* ask GGP to watch Deorr, they just assumed he knew he was watching him. If they'd asked GGP to watch Deorr whilst they went exploring, GGP wouldn't have let him follow the parents, he would have called him back.

So Deorr is toddling after his parents, and GGP assumes that they realise Deorr is following them. He looks away (or steps into the camper for a moment??), looks back, and Deorr is gone. He assumes that Deorr caught up with his parents. 4 minutes later the parents come back to GGP because they want to show Deorr some minnows, but Deorr is gone.

Why do you figure the parents would have just "assumed" that GGPA knew he was watching Deorr? I don't think most people in the same situation would make that assumption, so why would they? What seems more likely (to me) is that GGPA did know he was watching Deorr. GGPA needed to step inside for just a minute and he told Deorr to stay right there and he (GGPA) would be right out. When he came out (of the camper) he saw Deorr going toward his parents and since they were so close (seemingly) he thought it would be okay and they would see or hear him. JMO, but it makes sense, to me.

 

[ILOKAL]

I agree. One would think that if GGP knew he was watching the toddler he would have stopped him from going to the parents or at least he made sure they connected. The one variable is ggp's faculties. Clearly the parents thought he was in good enough shape to watch over the toddler, but the fact that he was originally not included as a POI due to declining mental and physical health certainly does open it up as a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Declining mental health might be depression.

 

[Dee10]

All this chatter about whether there was direct communication between the parents and GGP such as "watch Little DeOrr while we are gone" is meaningless.

GGP knew he was the only adult at the campsite with the child, he knew the parents walked away because he stated that he thought the child was walking to where the parents were as he disappeared over the bank.

Does it take direct instructions and agreement for someone to watch over a 2 year old when no one else is around? No. Anyone would know to keep an eye on the child. The responsibility arises out of the circumstances even if GGP wasn't directly asked to watch the baby.

Although I totally agree with you, in this case with a missing child & trying trying to figure out timelines, where everyone was etc. this will be something that the FBI will be seriously focusing on if everyone tells the same story, if the story has changed etc. and it seems to be raising a red flag to many people who are following this case here and elsewhere. All JMO.

 

[kammiemc]

Declining mental health might be depression.

Sure, or one of the many conditions that are lumped together under dementia. I have no idea, but it seems like a mental health condition that affects memory or cognitive function might be relevant in determining whether someone could be held accountable as a POI. The word "declining" makes me think it pertains to something that seems progressive, maybe related to aging. But sure, it could be depression, anxiety, bi-polar disorder or many other things. Not sure if LE even had an official diagnosis or if GGP even has an official diagnosis. My dad doesn't have an official diagnosis (some kind of dementia) but it wouldn't be hard for anyone to ascertain that he forgets things and mixes things up after talking to him for 5 minutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kammiemc]

Although I totally agree with you, in this case with a missing child & trying trying to figure out timelines, where everyone was etc. this will be something that the FBI will be seriously focusing on if everyone tells the same story, if the story has changed etc. and it seems to be raising a red flag to many people who are following this case here and elsewhere. All JMO.

I have to agree. I think there is hardly anything in this case that is meaningless just because the idea of the little toddler disappearing for good when he was seemingly being watched for all but as few as four minutes (but possible 40) is hard to reconcile, so we're trying to make sense of it. Although it's all the same old info.

I will say, if I left my son with my dad, he would honestly have no clue he was watching him unless I told him directly. But even if I told him he was in charge while I was gone, he might get distracted or fall asleep, and he also might inaccurately assume that my son could catch up to me on a walk. I couldn't really blame him. He just doesn't think as clearly as he used to. I still wouldn't think that my son could go missing under his watch for a short time. (But the sad truth is, he could.)

Of course my mom would be all over it, whether I asked or not! She watches the kids way better than anyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[haven71]

I just keep wondering why IR has retained a lawyer. In an interview with Sheriff Bowerman, the sheriff says he feels that IR has been "VERY truthful" with him. But when mentioning the parents in that same interview, he did not use the word truthful at all.

Just based on the sheriff's statement, I would've thought IR would be the last one to retain a lawyer, not the ONLY one (so far).

 

[BlkMtnGirl]

I just keep wondering why IR has retained a lawyer. In an interview with Sheriff Bowerman, the sheriff says he feels that IR has been "VERY truthful" with him. But when mentioning the parents in that same interview, he did not use the word truthful at all.

Just based on the sheriff's statement, I would've thought IR would be the last one to retain a lawyer, not the ONLY one (so far).

If I were the outsider, with a criminal record, I'd certainly hire a lawyer, even if I was completely innocent. Too easy of a target.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I'd hire a lawyer, too. Especially if I was completely innocent. As the only unrelated member of the party, he needs a lawyer more than any of them. IMO

 

[iamnotagolem]

I have to agree. I think there is hardly anything in this case that is meaningless just because the idea of the little toddler disappearing for good when he was seemingly being watched for all but as few as four minutes (but possible 40) is hard to reconcile, so we're trying to make sense of it. Although it's all the same old info.

I will say, if I left my son with my dad, he would honestly have no clue he was watching him unless I told him directly. But even if I told him he was in charge while I was gone, he might get distracted or fall asleep, and he also might inaccurately assume that my son could catch up to me on a walk. I couldn't really blame him. He just doesn't think as clearly as he used to. I still wouldn't think that my son could go missing under his watch for a short time. (But the sad truth is, he could.)

Of course my mom would be all over it, whether I asked or not! She watches the kids way better than anyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honestly, I wouldn't just assume anyone was watching my child even if they weren't of diminished capacity. If I'm at the park with my SIL & nieces/nephews and I need to take one of my kids to the bathroom, I don't assume she'll watch them. I point blank ask if she can watch the child that doesn't need the bathroom.

 

[Dee10]

I just keep wondering why IR has retained a lawyer. In an interview with Sheriff Bowerman, the sheriff says he feels that IR has been "VERY truthful" with him. But when mentioning the parents in that same interview, he did not use the word truthful at all.

Just based on the sheriff's statement, I would've thought IR would be the last one to retain a lawyer, not the ONLY one (so far).

My mind has gone around and around about that as well. I have a few theories (which requires total speculation) on that, but my long shot theory is he may have a lawyer to make make some kind of deal. I say long shot because if someone was giving something up that LE wants, would things move fairly fast? I have no idea, but I try to keep an open mind as we do not know the evidence including behavioral that was turned over to the FBI.

ETA - I always try (unemotionally) to listen/watch what LE does. But regarding the BBM it may be playing someone against another. Very hard to gauge. LE can lie to a suspect, but they are not suppose to mislead the public...however they certainly have their own ambiguous language.

 

[kammiemc]

I just keep wondering why IR has retained a lawyer. In an interview with Sheriff Bowerman, the sheriff says he feels that IR has been "VERY truthful" with him. But when mentioning the parents in that same interview, he did not use the word truthful at all.

Just based on the sheriff's statement, I would've thought IR would be the last one to retain a lawyer, not the ONLY one (so far).

Maybe he was advised to do so by a family member or former attorney. Honestly I would have an atty if I were being asked questions in a missing child case, especially if I were named aPOI, even if I were completely innocent. People do get wrongfully convicted of stuff and just treated unfairly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neesaki]

For me, it is the lack of anyone relaying what words were exchanged between the parents and GGP. I haven't seen anything that indicates any verbal communication between the two parties (such as GGP saying that he and Deorr would be fine, or asking them how long they'd be gone, or asking if he should put Deorr down for a nap, etc. - or anything from JM or DK to GGP telling GGP what they were doing, where they were going, asking if it was okay for them to leave, etc.). The absence of this leads me to believe they just quietly left, thinking Deorr would be okay. DK said they thought Deorr would be good with GGP by the campfire (I'm paraphrasing here). It's also been said that GGP looked away and Deorr was gone or that he watched him walk over the embankment (again, my recollection) but I haven't read anything that indicates a verbal exchange. So, it's just an assumption on my part... could be wrong, of course.

That's been a question of mine regarding little Deorr going over the embankment ... Nate E. brought to light in the video, just how steep that embankment down to the creek really is. If little Deorr had indeed gone over that steep embankment, he would have no doubt fallen / slid all the way to the bottom to the creek bank. That said, in the interview, GGpa stated he thought he had gone up to his parents. (paraphrased). Which makes me wonder what he actually meant as that seems contradictory to him going down the embankment. Hope this is making sense, it's really quite unclear to me.

 

[neesaki]

Thanks desert-blue. See, I've read what you also have read and I wouldn't expect to necessarily hear what verbal exchange took place and I have no reason whatsoever to think one DIDN'T take place. I'd have to take a HUGE leap in human nature to think an exchange did NOT take place. I also can't figure out that just because DK said we thought he'd (DeOrr) be good with Grandpa by the fire, that somehow indicates they (the parents) just left DeOrr with GGPA (unbeknownst to GGPA) and simply walked (or snuck) away. Even if I thought the parents had something to do with little DeOrr's disappearance (which I absolutely do NOT), I still would "see" no reason to believe they had not communicated with GGPA about leaving DeOrr with him and that GGPA agreed to it.

I'm wondering now if GGPA could be hard of hearing, maybe he misheard or misunderstood what was really going on.