ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #13

[Arnie M]

I think everyone who is so certain that someone SHOULD have remembered seeing DeOrr in the store (IF he was even there?) should give themselves that same test. Look back over the last 3-4 days at all the places you went and see if you remember just anyone (not someone who stood out for a particular reason). We just returned from an 11-day vacation to seven states and LOTS of places and I don't remember anyone that we didn't directly engage with.

Not sure why the store topic is brought up again . It turns out to be irrelevant . If you listen to the latest Crime-radio interview with the sheriff he made it clear the child was in the campground , was seen by all 4 people , then went missing.

 

[ReadySet]

THANK YOU !!!! ... the other day I was trying to make that point too ... children who are "runners" will go and go and go if they get the chance.

DeOrr had 1 or 2 hours head start by the time all the searchers arrived. They did not find him so he had 6 to 8 hours of daylight to keep going if he had the energy and did not stop for a nap.

ps: you asked about bringing in other search dogs etc .... the sheriff said after the first day they brought more than 18 different dogs with handlers there , so at least that much was done.

Well...the parents never called Deorr a "runner" afaik. They said he was a mover and a goer. That's open to interpretaion I guess. They also said he doesn't go away from them, which could be interpreted as he would want to stay close to them and not run away. Again, I think those terms are open to interpretaion. JMO

ETA: And if he was a "runner," the parents would know that, and I would think they would take care that whoever was supervising him could handle that.

 

[Mickshawn]

Those of you with runners, how far do you think a two year old could get? Iirc the sheriff said they only searched 2 miles of the Creek. How far would you search?

And it was near his 2 p.m. naptime....I bet anything he got sleepy and did NOT just keep on trucking.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Well...the parents never called Deorr a "runner" afaik. They said he was a mover and a goer. That's open to interpretaion I guess. They also said he doesn't go away from them, which could be interpreted as he would want to stay close to them and not run away. Again, I think those terms are open to interpretaion. JMO

ETA: And if he was a "runner," the parents would know that, and I would think they would take care that whoever was supervising him could handle that.

I'm inclined to agree with your comment. I get the feeling he is maybe like my darter, who'd dart off briefly, realize we weren't right with him and dart right back. Even today, he's an active kid who is always on the move, but he checks in with us pretty frequently to make sure we're still where we're supposed to be.

 

[Arnie M]

Well...the parents never called Deorr a "runner" afaik. They said he was a mover and a goer. That's open to interpretaion I guess. They also said he doesn't go away from them, which could be interpreted as he would want to stay close to them and not run away. Again, I think those terms are open to interpretaion. JMO

ETA: And if he was a "runner," the parents would know that, and I would think they would take care that whoever was supervising him could handle that.

Same think .... the kid was not one to sit still .... and yes , he liked to stay close to his parents .... and he probably went running to find them.

It appears he did not find them. He probably spent the rest of the daylight hours looking for them.

 

[ReadySet]

I think everyone who is so certain that someone SHOULD have remembered seeing DeOrr in the store (IF he was even there?) should give themselves that same test. Look back over the last 3-4 days at all the places you went and see if you remember just anyone (not someone who stood out for a particular reason). We just returned from an 11-day vacation to seven states and LOTS of places and I don't remember anyone that we didn't directly engage with.

I agree with you to a degree. But if you were asked the same day, or the day after if you remembered a specific person with a specific description, or shown a picture of them, would you be more likely to remember? I don't know, maybe not. Maybe.

 

[Little Ol Me]

SB Now I’m not sure…I don’t recall her saying specifically that she remembered the child She remembered them talking about their child, and they bought some candy and some other items, and we have a dated and time-stamped receipt, so we know they were in the store. And someone while they were fueling up said they thought they saw a child in the back seat, but that hasn’t been ever positively stated that there was a child there, but ya’ know at this point, I’m believing the family!

I don't have the impression that SB inquired of any community members if they saw D.Jr. in the store.
He says that he can't even recall if the salesperson specifically said she saw him, or not.
It doesn't seem important to him whether D.Jr was in the store or not.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

I think everyone who is so certain that someone SHOULD have remembered seeing DeOrr in the store (IF he was even there?) should give themselves that same test. Look back over the last 3-4 days at all the places you went and see if you remember just anyone (not someone who stood out for a particular reason). We just returned from an 11-day vacation to seven states and LOTS of places and I don't remember anyone that we didn't directly engage with.

I agree that generally and for the majority that is probably true and was the case here for the clerk until a visual aid in the form of the parents visiting (or being taken back by LE) the store several days later triggered her memory.

The clerk not only then immediately recognises them, she remembers details like they were talking about Deorr.

Also I have to point out the staring man in/at the store. Not mentioned at the beginning but remembered weeks? later. And although SB has let the parents produce a sketch, he has limited it to showing locals only so far which doesn't show he has much confidence in it for some reason. Call it a gut feeling but something tells me that this episode isn't the parents fault though.......

 

[ReadySet]

Same think .... the kid was not one to sit still .... and yes , he liked to stay close to his parents .... and he probably went running to find them.

It appears he did not find them. He probably spent the rest of the daylight hours looking for them.

Maybe. But if he was trying to find them, you would think he would be calling and crying. But, the noisy creek and all that.

 

[ILOKAL]

Not sure why the store topic is brought up again . It turns out to be irrelevant . If you listen to the latest Crime-radio interview with the sheriff he made it clear the child was in the campground , was seen by all 4 people , then went missing.

Well "I" realize that, but some still question if he was ever there while others don't believe he ever made it to the store.

 

[Dee10]

Both mine were runners, very strong and fast. My son in particular, at aged 2 going on 3, could easily run for a mile without thinking about it, he's still like a little dynamo. However, on rough terrain he would likely have taken a little fall at some point, and cried when he realised he couldn't see me. How soon were the copters out looking for Deorr?

"Then later that evening we had a helicopter up with a FLIR, which is a heat seeking source. They identified every animal that was in the region and if that child was in the that 3-mile radius, we would have found him," said Bowerman.

http://m.localnews8.com/news/3-mont...=social&utm_source=facebook_KIFI_Local_News_8

 

[ReadySet]

Not sure why the store topic is brought up again . It turns out to be irrelevant . If you listen to the latest Crime-radio interview with the sheriff he made it clear the child was in the campground , was seen by all 4 people , then went missing.

Yes, if you take the interview and what the parents told LE at face value, than that would be true.

 

[ILOKAL]

I agree with you to a degree. But if you were asked the same day, or the day after if you remembered a specific person with a specific description, or shown a picture of them, would you be more likely to remember? I don't know, maybe not. Maybe.

If she didn't see DeOrr (which is what she said, I believe), then no amount of recollecting or looking at pictures will trigger her memory. She remembered the parents because she visited with them.

 

[ILOKAL]

I agree that generally and for the majority that is probably true and was the case here for the clerk until a visual aid in the form of the parents visiting (or being taken back by LE) the store several days later triggered her memory.

The clerk not only then immediately recognises them, she remembers details like they were talking about Deorr.

Also I have to point out the staring man in/at the store. Not mentioned at the beginning but remembered weeks? later. And although SB has let the parents produce a sketch, he has limited it to showing locals only so far which doesn't show he has much confidence in it for some reason. Call it a gut feeling but something tells me that this episode isn't the parents fault though.......

No question that she recalled seeing the parents in the store because she visited with them. That's not what is being questioned though. She doesn't recall having seen DeOrr. Of course, if she didn't see someone then there's nothing that will cause her to remember what she didn't ever see in the first place.

 

[Groundwork]

I apologize for the randomness of the contents of this post; I I really enjoy reading all the different thoughts that occur to everyone, so I thought I'd share my own.

It may simply be the way he speaks, but I continue to be a little alarmed by the way the sheriff comes across in his in-person interviews. I believe he is sincere and intelligent, but some of his comments leave me scratching my head...

(These are from the radio transcript)
"I'm not sure if we ever determined who took [the EMT bag] or what the circumstances were surrounding that."

"[The other couple staying at the campground] ...disappeared before we got a chance to interview them."

"Now I’m not sure…I don’t recall [the store clerk] saying specifically that she remembered the child."

(This is from the picnic bench interview transcript)
"I don’t know that we’ve confirmed who that individual is [older staring man]."


The EMT bag being stolen from a vehicle at the campsite *during the search* is troubling enough, but to not investigate the theft (or not really know if it was investigated) seems odd at best.

Then, not only did someone enter the area and scatter cremains *during the search,* but this information was not communicated by the BLM ranger to the search team until AFTER the team had expended huge resources re-scouring the reservoir! (Picnic table interview)

During the radio interview, the sheriff said the parents, ggp and friend are POIs "only because they were at the scene," but wouldn't the other people at the campground (the older couple that "disappeared" during the search) be POIs as well then?


BTW, does anyone know what the dimensions of the EMT bag were? *Could* a toddler be hidden inside?

 

[ILOKAL]

"Then later that evening we had a helicopter up with a FLIR, which is a heat seeking source. They identified every animal that was in the region and if that child was in the that 3-mile radius, we would have found him," said Bowerman.

http://m.localnews8.com/news/3-mont...=social&utm_source=facebook_KIFI_Local_News_8

I read an article today by a husband and wife wildlife photographer team. They were trying to "capture" all eight of the world's big cats in one year. The most difficult was, of course, the cougar because of its solitary and elusive behavior. They had with them virtually every type of instrument and equipment imaginable, including a FLIR which they ended up ditching (not literally) because it couldn't even begin to outline the image of a mountain lion but rather just produced a moving blob.

 

[Arnie M]

"Then later that evening we had a helicopter up with a FLIR, which is a heat seeking source. They identified every animal that was in the region and if that child was in the that 3-mile radius, we would have found him," said Bowerman.

http://m.localnews8.com/news/3-mont...=social&utm_source=facebook_KIFI_Local_News_8

Yes , but there are a lot of variables at play which need to be considered. In order for FLIR to detect the heat emitted from the child it requires a cooler background , which in this case would be the ground , trees and rocks

The terrain must first cool down , which means after sundown plus several hours for everything to cool off . Once the ground cools a head would produce the best heat source , and clothing would block a lot of the rest of body heat , esp jackets.

It is a good system but if the child is deceased by late evening it will not show up (no heat being produced) , or if the child is under a big log it could block the heat , and of course anything under water would not show up.

But yes , if the boy was alive and not hidden by debris or terrain the helicopter should have found him.

 

[ILOKAL]

Yes, if you take the interview and what the parents told LE at face value, than that would be true.

Didn't SB also say that the GGPA and IR also confirmed having seen DeOrr at the campsite?

 

[giagreen]

Same think .... the kid was not one to sit still .... and yes , he liked to stay close to his parents .... and he probably went running to find them.

It appears he did not find them. He probably spent the rest of the daylight hours looking for them.

That's so sad because that's true. He would of been looking for them

 

[Groundwork]

How could he say they identified every animal in the area? They could not have known that.