ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #15

[Little Ol Me]

From the radio show:

SB: And they turned and looked at their son and asked him if he wanted to stay with Grandpa or go with them, and he said, “Grandpa,” and started walking towards uh Grandpa. So, mom and dad go down over the creek with…with the friend. They start doing some fishing. Grandpa says he’s watching the child. He’s looking at him momentarily. He looks away, when he looks back the child is gone, and he assumes that the child has gone back down to mom and dad, because it’s just over…just over the hillside, just a little ways.

So according to SB, GGP is watching Deorr, looks away form him momentarily, and didn't see where he went, but "assumes" he went towards his parents.

 

[iluvmua]

Did the father of the mother's other two other children (who has full custody?) ever come out with a statement of support? Have we heard from him lately?

1. not that I know of
2. I don;t think we have heard from him at all.

 

[neesaki]

Sorry Arnie, I don't understand. What I posted about is what SB himself has said on camera/radio. Nothing to do with Nate Eaton or anybody else!?

Thanks for clarifying TheTruth, I thought that's what you meant.

And FWIW, I think that the misinformation being spread was a result of unclear and/or confusing statements from LE, MSM's poor reporting, and then also from FB rumors which have run rampant and fueled by all the vitriol that is spewed over there. All we have done here is repeat / discuss what has been reported publicly, as FB rumors aren't allowed here. I actually remember us discussing and blasting Nate for the errors he made in his NG interview.

Maybe the best thing would have been a correction of the misinformation by LE early on. I suppose that maybe they don't have the time or staff for what I'm sure they consider nonsense, but it's unfortunate in a case like little Deorr's that has garnered so much public interest. jmo

 

[MBK]

1. not that I know of
2. I don;t think we have heard from him at all.

His silence says volumes.

 

[ILOKAL]

Klein has 90% of the timeline locked down. I assume the timeline starts the day prior when they all left, there's nearly 24 hours to figure out. 90% of that would still leave about 2 hours unaccounted for. That's a huge amount of time considering there would be up to 3 other people to vouch for your whereabouts. What does it take for a timeline to be deemed accurate? If all 4 adults were to say the exact same thing, would that be accurate enough for LE? Or would they have to have things like receipts or video?

I still think IR is innocent in the disappearance, my mind hasn't changed since the beginning. I think he might know more than lead to believe. My best guess is he doesn't want involved in anything concerning LE or the investigation. Every thing he says could be misconstrued or used against him. If something happened and he wasn't involved, no matter who he points fingers at, he's risking the loss of his friendship with GGP. I still keep wondering why he asked the reporter if they had talked to GGP yet. That was the moment I really started believing that there was more to it than just a little boy wandering off when someone looked away for a brief moment.

I do have another question as well. If something like this were to happen and negligence was the cause of the disappearance, who could be charged with negligence? My gut says a non-parent shouldn't be held legally responsible, but at the same time, I feel like any adult should be capable and willing to make sure the child is safe and cared for.

I'm not sure what "this" refers to, but assuming you mean if DeOrr lost his life due to something other than murder or any coverup, would his parents be charged with negligence? No, nor should they be. Nor should the grandpa be. Nor IR. IMO. I can't even imagine why anyone would even think there should be charges of negligence. Another example (there are many) is accidentally running over your child in the driveway. Imagine if every time a tragedy happened (without intent and not during the commission of a crime) everyone was charged with some type of negligence.

 

[Arnie M]

Sorry Arnie, I don't understand. What I posted about is what SB himself has said on camera/radio. Nothing to do with Nate Eaton or anybody else!?

OK ... I misunderstood .... been a while since I watched the Nate / SB interview but I think he was peppered with various questions and was tossing out answers without being precise. It can be frustrating because LE knows the facts better than anybody , but they are cautious to reveal very much and sometimes hedge their answers.

Edit to add ..... I think on the Trish Radio show he had the time to answer more precisely about the minutes surrounding the disappearance.

And darn it anyway .... Vilt and the family reenacted everything at the campground but we have not been told any of those details either.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Once a person has stated they are represented by counsel, no further questions can be asked. Contact must only be made to the attorney. The client nor attorney can be made to come in for an interview. If there is probable cause that the client has committed a crime, that probable cause must be presented to a judge who will then decide if, indeed, there IS probable cause, and if so, will issue an arrest warrant.

Unless they decide to impanel a Grand Jury to secure an indictment. A person can't hide behind an attorney since they are not allowed to be inside (person can consult with the attorney in the hallway), but can plead the Fifth. If the Grand Jury indicts, an arrest warrant is issued.

 

[katydid23]

From the radio show:

SB: And they turned and looked at their son and asked him if he wanted to stay with Grandpa or go with them, and he said, “Grandpa,” and started walking towards uh Grandpa. So, mom and dad go down over the creek with…with the friend. They start doing some fishing. Grandpa says he’s watching the child. He’s looking at him momentarily. He looks away, when he looks back the child is gone, and he assumes that the child has gone back down to mom and dad, because it’s just over…just over the hillside, just a little ways.

So according to SB, GGP is watching Deorr, looks away form him momentarily, and didn't see where he went, but "assumes" he went towards his parents.

That^^^^ explanation from GGP just really irks and annoys me.

If I am watching my grand baby out in the wilderness area, and the baby toddles off over an embankment, am I going to 'assume' the baby found his parents? Shouldn't I call out to them and follow the toddler to make sure? :sigh:

 

[Hoosier952]

I'm not sure what "this" refers to, but assuming you mean if DeOrr lost his life due to something other than murder or any coverup, would his parents be charged with negligence? No, nor should they be. Nor should the grandpa be. Nor IR. IMO. I can't even imagine why anyone would even think there should be charges of negligence. Another example (there are many) is accidentally running over your child in the driveway. Imagine if every time a tragedy happened (without intent and not during the commission of a crime) everyone was charged with some type of negligence.

"This" wasn't pointed at this case specifically, just in general. There are certainly cases where children have been injured or killed due to negligence by those who were supposed to be taking care of them. All are tragedies, but bad decisions led to those tragedies and sometimes I think there should be charges for those involved.

So instead of this, let's say there is a big party going on at the Johnson's house. There are a dozen or so adults there all under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. The Johnson child is playing in their room with the Thompson child. No one hears the children leave over the music and everyone is having such a good time, no one notices the children are missing. They are later found in the neighbors' pool. I'd certainly call that negligence. Definitely a tragedy. Who's responsible? The parents? The Johnsons because it's their home? The Taylors because they brought the drugs? The Kellers because they brought the alcohol? Everyone who was there because they are all adults who are capable of watching the children? No one because it's a tragedy?

*Not saying bad decisions are to blame here at all. This is a hypothetical question.

 

[Mickshawn]

Did the father of the mother's other two other children (who has full custody?) ever come out with a statement of support? Have we heard from him lately?

I remember seeing him in one of the earliest videos...He was helping search...(I'd never be able to find the link to that...sorry!)

 

[Mickshawn]

From the radio show:

SB: And they turned and looked at their son and asked him if he wanted to stay with Grandpa or go with them, and he said, “Grandpa,” and started walking towards uh Grandpa. So, mom and dad go down over the creek with…with the friend. They start doing some fishing. Grandpa says he’s watching the child. He’s looking at him momentarily. He looks away, when he looks back the child is gone, and he assumes that the child has gone back down to mom and dad, because it’s just over…just over the hillside, just a little ways.

So according to SB, GGP is watching Deorr, looks away form him momentarily, and didn't see where he went, but "assumes" he went towards his parents.

Hmmm...The campsite wasn't RIGHT NEXT TO (as in a couple of feet) from the embankment/creek, so looking away "momentarily"...(if that's what was said by GGP) doesn't really jive.

 

[Mickshawn]

OK ... I misunderstood .... been a while since I watched the Nate / SB interview but I think he was peppered with various questions and was tossing out answers without being precise. It can be frustrating because LE knows the facts better than anybody , but they are cautious to reveal very much and sometimes hedge their answers.

Edit to add ..... I think on the Trish Radio show he had the time to answer more precisely about the minutes surrounding the disappearance.

And darn it anyway .... Vilt and the family reenacted everything at the campground but we have not been told any of those details either.

..and in Vilt's "reenactment", he went into the camper and came out and poof! Child is gone...Does that mean that GGP went into his camper or did he just look away? That one was never clear to me.

 

[giagreen]

From what I read on Kleins FB page plus the articles, it sounds like IR lawyered up after LE interviewed him the 1st time. I think LE has not told anyone that he won't come back in. To me, it is sounding like something happened to DeOrr while IR & grandpa were watching him. Possible grandpa doesn't even know; but I think IR is looking like the one to solve this.

Okay. So I'm not the only one who is picking up on the fact that IR and ggp were possibly the last two with DeOrr.
Not only just comments I've read by family and friends but in the first interview I'd never have guessed JM DK had gone with IR to a fishing spot.
When Nate asked IR about it I got the impression IR amd ggp where with DeOrr while the parents went off. The only time I've heard that was from the sheriffsheriff's interview. And maybe he had reasons to not tell the full truth. Idk I could be way off to...

 

[katydid23]

Okay. So I'm not the only one who is picking up on the fact that IR and ggp were possibly the last two with DeOrr.
Not only just comments I've read by family and friends but in the first interview I'd never have guessed JM DK had gone with IR to a fishing spot.
When Nate asked IR about it I got the impression IR amd ggp where with DeOrr while the parents went off. The only time I've heard that was from the sheriffsheriff's interview. And maybe he had reasons to not tell the full truth. Idk I could be way off to...

Good questions. there seems to be a discrepancy in that story. One version is that IR went off with the parents. But when interviews by the reporter he seemed to say he was with GGP when the child took off. Very confusing, imo.

 

[helenlouise426]

Did the father of the mother's other two other children (who has full custody?) ever come out with a statement of support? Have we heard from him lately?

In the beginning I remember seeing several comments made by him in her defense. IIRC- He said he did not take custody but she was a good mother who saw he was more stable at the time. He said she sees the other children regularly and they get along well. He said everyone (including himself) adore baby Deorr. He defended her 100% on social media.

 

[SweetT]

That^^^^ explanation from GGP just really irks and annoys me.

If I am watching my grand baby out in the wilderness area, and the baby toddles off over an embankment, am I going to 'assume' the baby found his parents? Shouldn't I call out to them and follow the toddler to make sure? :sigh:

Last I knew GGP had never said that...He had never been interviewed last I knew..

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

I think he has been interviewed, I just don't think there has ever been a quote from him in MSM.

 

[ILOKAL]

Unless they decide to impanel a Grand Jury to secure an indictment. A person can't hide behind an attorney since they are not allowed to be inside (person can consult with the attorney in the hallway), but can plead the Fifth. If the Grand Jury indicts, an arrest warrant is issued.

Whoa, that's a different topic altogether. I covered taking the fifth in another post. The ongoing discussion is regarding interviews. SOMETHING has to be filed before it goes to the GJ? Once before the GJ, the 5th Amendment can simply be invoked?

 

[ILOKAL]

"This" wasn't pointed at this case specifically, just in general. There are certainly cases where children have been injured or killed due to negligence by those who were supposed to be taking care of them. All are tragedies, but bad decisions led to those tragedies and sometimes I think there should be charges for those involved.

So instead of this, let's say there is a big party going on at the Johnson's house. There are a dozen or so adults there all under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. The Johnson child is playing in their room with the Thompson child. No one hears the children leave over the music and everyone is having such a good time, no one notices the children are missing. They are later found in the neighbors' pool. I'd certainly call that negligence. Definitely a tragedy. Who's responsible? The parents? The Johnsons because it's their home? The Taylors because they brought the drugs? The Kellers because they brought the alcohol? Everyone who was there because they are all adults who are capable of watching the children? No one because it's a tragedy?

*Not saying bad decisions are to blame here at all. This is a hypothetical question.

IMO, if anyone there was committing a crime, they would be charged with that offense. IMO, no one would be charged with negligence unless it was offered in a plea deal in lieu of a greater offense. Something similar happened in Nevada. IIRC, the parents and friends were doing drugs, a neighbor snuck in and took the daughter, murdered her, and drove with her dead body in his camper to the strands. I don't think the parents or anyone in that home were charged with anything. Don't you think the pain and suffering involved with tragically losing your child might be punishment enough? JW

 

[bessie]

Whoa, that's a different topic altogether. I covered taking the fifth in another post. The ongoing discussion is regarding interviews. SOMETHING has to be filed before it goes to the GJ? Once before the GJ, the 5th Amendment can simply be invoked?

Here, I just found this link. It should clear up a lot of questions.

https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf