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

[MBK]

I believe it IS possible, but I'm not sure of the whys or wherefores. It is much easier to believe in the cougar.

I don't believe in the cougar, but there would be no malice there. No evil intent. It's hard to fathom anyone purposefully killing a defenseless toddler. It's hard to fathom a child dying "accidentally" and then having his own family covering it up . . . So yes, in a sense the cougar would be preferable . . .

 

[MBK]

2) The team has ruled out a forced abduction of DeOrr Kunz, Jr. - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to support this theory whatsoever.
(my note: The opposite of forced is voluntary. Thus it could be a willing abduction (ie someone DeOrr Jr or his family knew and something that was arranged))

a. Investigators have determined beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no evidence to support the sighting of a black Rubicon Jeep.
(my note: It wasn't a stranger in a black Jeep)

Love your list. But to make it stronger, what I'm reading is - - - THERE WAS NO BLACK JEEP. Not just that the guy in the black jeep didn't do it . . . . THERE WAS NO JEEP. Huh.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Great post, PurplePixii - just one question - where does the "17 minutes" come from? It's very specific, how have they worked that out?

 

[Purplepixii]

Great post, PurplePixii - just one question - where does the "17 minutes" come from? It's very specific, how have they worked that out?

Hey CMC - how's the snow up there? I have no idea how they've worked out 17 minutes but here's the Q&A:
Q. It has been said that the parents were off fishing/ exploring anywhere from 10 minutes to 40 minutes. I would assume you have narrowed this timeline. Can you tell us a more definitive amount of time that Deorr jr. was out of their sight?
A. Klein Investigations and Consulting: 17 Minutes as has been already given to the media.

 

[Paulas88]

It's not an "unrelated third party" though (see number 1/ below). Whilst looking for the quote about who the informed source is I pulled out a lot of info, partly to help me get my thoughts in order and partly for those who don't access FB. I believe the following is allowed as KIC is a legitimate FB site akin to a legitimate LE page which is allowed. Hopefully this helps someone else too.


From the Q&A session held by Klein Investigations & Consulting on FB on 11/01/16:

1/ Re the witness that came forward over the weekend of 09/10th January 2016: "A person with direct knowledge. Not heresay." (my note: this means it is one of the four persons present as, legally, anything else would be considered hearsay).

2/ The information received from the witness neither affirms nor changes the direction KIC were going with the investigation. The information was gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all of the publicity on the case.

3/ In response to being asked how KIC / LE know DeOrr Jr was at the campsite "There is a reason why LE and our team is not giving the public any evidence at this time"

4/ The scent dog was thrown off by the spreading of cremains (which have nothing to do with this case)

5/ Q - Was there ever video that places Deorr in that truck on that day riding to the campground? A - We will not comment on video that was found. (my note: so there IS video as this is usual "speak" when wishing to neither confirm nor deny).

6/ If the campsite had been secured from the start KIC think that it could have helped with finding DeOrr Jr

7/ The parents were away from the campsite for a total of 17 minutes (during which time DeOrr allegedly disappeared)

8/ Scent dogs did not detect DeOrr Jr's scent at the campsite (my note: kids don't shed as many skin cells as adults & are kept "too clean" these days anyway)

9/ When asked if KIC believed that DeOrr Jr was at the campsite (the word campsite is specifically used), the response was that KIC believe he was "on the mountain"

10/ The previous criminal history re drugs is not pertinent to this case

11/ Cell pings pertinent to this case have been obtained


From the statement issued by Klein Investigations & Consulting 15/01/16:

1) The team has ruled out any attack by a wild animal - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to support this theory whatsoever.
(my note: It wasn't an animal)

2) The team has ruled out a forced abduction of DeOrr Kunz, Jr. - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no evidence to support this theory whatsoever.
(my note: The opposite of forced is voluntary. Thus it could be a willing abduction (ie someone DeOrr Jr or his family knew and something that was arranged))

a. Investigators have determined beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no evidence to support the sighting of a black Rubicon Jeep.
(my note: It wasn't a stranger in a black Jeep - there was NO black Jeep)

b. Investigators have determined beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no secondary party in the immediate proximity of the Timber Creek campground that has not been vetted and cleared that could have participated in a forced abduction.
(my note: It wasn't a stranger at or near the TC campground)

3) The team has NOT ruled out this case as a death - either accidental or with intent.
DeOrr could be alive
DeOrr could be dead


Other pertinent FB postings by KIC:

16/01/16 @ 01:35 - KIC advise that there has been a request to delay publishing statement for 12-24hrs

16/01/16 @ 13:51 - KIC publish the statement

16/01/16 @ 15:40 - KIC state "this case is very very fluid at this time, and investigators have been working 24 hours a day over the past three days regarding “information” that has been provided to them."




In addition to the above are some of my thoughts

An arranged "abduction" could be involved (if not abduction in the way we understand the word then an arrangement to have DeOrr Jr removed by persons known to the perpetrator)

It's not impossible that DeOrr Jr was never at the campsite - "on the mountain" and "at the campsite" are very different expressions

Who has the power to request / demand that the statement publication is delayed? LE? FBI? And why? I'd love to know if it was edited at the request of whoever before being published.

As of 11th January 2016 IR hadn't spoken to Klein Investigations. Between 11/01 - 15/01 it's not impossible contact was made, especially if there was a hint of a report being released.

We've still not heard publicly from GGPa - I wonder if he might be the witness that has finally come forward?

Thank you Purplepixii! This was so helpful. My mind is wondering, to rumors I believed were ridiculous at the time... hmmm.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Hey CMC - how's the snow up there? I have no idea how they've worked out 17 minutes but here's the Q&A:
Q. It has been said that the parents were off fishing/ exploring anywhere from 10 minutes to 40 minutes. I would assume you have narrowed this timeline. Can you tell us a more definitive amount of time that Deorr jr. was out of their sight?
A. Klein Investigations and Consulting: 17 Minutes as has been already given to the media.

Hi Pix, had a bit of snow last night, enough to make a snow man in the garden so the kids are happy! Hope the sunny south is ok!

I'd love to know how they worked out 17 mins, would phone pings be determinable even if they didn't go far from the campsite?

I have a feeling it could be grandpa who has spoken out, as someone upthread suggested. It would make sense - he may be easily confused, frightened, unsure in himself of what he saw/heard, afraid to get family/friend in trouble.

 

[Trident]

I agree, except if DeOrr was "abducted" (not forced but went willingly) by one of the foursome.

But, does it have to be one of the foursome? Here's where I get hung up.

 

[Lilibet]

But, does it have to be one of the foursome? Here's where I get hung up.

Not necessarily IMO. DeOrr could have gone willingly with anyone at first, but when he wasn't brought back it would become an abduction. Who that "anyone" could be is anyone's guess, and it seems farfetched. But I remember posting much earlier that if he had wandered off and been found by someone, it's possible they decided he was neglected and kept him. Again, it seems farfetched, but at least it leaves the foursome out of it and he might be alive and cared for.

 

[ILOKAL]

But, does it have to be one of the foursome? Here's where I get hung up.

Normally, no. However, Klein seems to have ruled out the possibility of anyone else being in the area.

 

[Deleted member 718]

But, does it have to be one of the foursome? Here's where I get hung up.

I'm hung up on the entire case. I really feel like I'm as confused today as when I first started following Deorr's case. I've considered every scenario offered as plausible giving the time constraints and feel no closer to an answer than I was in July.

Maybe we should take a poll. Just to see what the majority feel.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

I'm hung up on the entire case. I really feel like I'm as confused today as when I first started following Deorr's case. I've considered every scenario offered as plausible giving the time constraints and feel no closer to an answer than I was in July.

Maybe we should take a poll. Just to see what the majority feel.

Good idea, I love a quiz, do it!

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Not necessarily IMO. DeOrr could have gone willingly with anyone at first, but when he wasn't brought back it would become an abduction. Who that "anyone" could be is anyone's guess, and it seems farfetched. But I remember posting much earlier that if he had wandered off and been found by someone, it's possible they decided he was neglected and kept him. Again, it seems farfetched, but at least it leaves the foursome out of it and he might be alive and cared for.

Doesn't square with KIC's opinion/belief that Deorr is 'on the mountain', does it?

I can't see it being plausible that in 17 minutes (per KIC) that Deorr could get far enough away from the campsite to not be in the 'immediate proximity', bump into and be taken by someone not one of the four and then still be 'on the mountain'.

 

[ILOKAL]

Not necessarily IMO. DeOrr could have gone willingly with anyone at first, but when he wasn't brought back it would become an abduction. Who that "anyone" could be is anyone's guess, and it seems farfetched. But I remember posting much earlier that if he had wandered off and been found by someone, it's possible they decided he was neglected and kept him. Again, it seems farfetched, but at least it leaves the foursome out of it and he might be alive and cared for.

Personally, far fetched is an understatement. It's not like coming across a lost kitten with no collar. For someone to be at that exact location where DeOrr was when he wandered off and then for that same person to be so far out of his/her mind to think a lost child might be neglected and therefore they should keep him, is just beyond comprehension, IMO? Please tell me there really are no such horrible people.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

From Purplepixii...

Q&A session held by Klein Investigations & Consulting on FB on 11/01/16:

1/ Re the witness that came forward over the weekend of 09/10th January 2016: "A person with direct knowledge. Not heresay." (my note: this means it is one of the four persons present as, legally, anything else would be considered hearsay).

2/ The information received from the witness neither affirms nor changes the direction KIC were going with the investigation. The information was gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all the publicity on the case.

Why would a person with direct knowledge be afraid to come forward due to publicity? Throw some ideas this way, please. This isn't the Mafia or a drug cartel.

 

[LookingForClues]

From the Q&A session held by Klein Investigations & Consulting on FB on 11/01/16:

1/ Re the witness that came forward over the weekend of 09/10th January 2016: "A person with direct knowledge. Not heresay." (my note: this means it is one of the four persons present as, legally, anything else would be considered hearsay).

Thanks for such a comprehensive summary!

Respectfully snipped for focus.

When I read this, "not hearsay" means it did not come from someone who was not there, such as the paternal grandfather, the grandmother, the sister, etc. Many such relatives have been interviewed and their word taken as fact, when in truth, they are merely repeating what they were told by DeOrr's family members who were there when he disappeared.

"A person with direct knowledge" means someone who was present or someone who observed something. So it could have been GGP, one of the parents, or someone who saw this family during the trip. Maybe the store clerk saw something and told police, she would be a witness with direct knowledge. Maybe someone saw a person hand off DeOrr to another person, that would give them the status of being a witness with direct knowledge. Maybe one of the people there to spread the cremains saw something up at the reservoir, making them a witness with direct knowledge. Maybe a hiker passing through saw something, that hiker would be a direct witness. I don't think we can rule out a third party being the witness with direct knowledge.

All just my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Deleted member 718]

b. Investigators have determined beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no secondary party in the immediate proximity of the Timber Creek campground that has not been vetted and cleared that could have participated in a forced abduction.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

Thanks for such a comprehensive summary!

Respectfully snipped for focus.

When I read this, "not hearsay" means it did not come from someone who was not there, such as the paternal grandfather, the grandmother, the sister, etc. Many such relatives have been interviewed and their word taken as fact, when in truth, they are merely repeating what they were told by DeOrr's family members who were there when he disappeared.

"A person with direct knowledge" means someone who was present or someone who observed something. So it could have been GGP, one of the parents, or someone who saw this family during the trip. Maybe the store clerk saw something and told police, she would be a witness with direct knowledge. Maybe someone saw a person hand off DeOrr to another person, that would give them the status of being a witness with direct knowledge. Maybe one of the people there to spread the cremains saw something up at the reservoir, making them a witness with direct knowledge. Maybe a hiker passing through saw something, that hiker would be a direct witness. I don't think we can rule out a third party being the witness with direct knowledge.

All just my humble opinion, of course.

Why would whoever it was be afraid to come forward?

 

[ZooSleuth]

I don't think that this new witness necessarily has to be one of the four. They could have witnessed something suspicious prior to the camping trip, after it, or during that trip to the store. It's not specified what they have direct knowledge of.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Why would whoever it was be afraid to come forward?

Maybe they have a criminal record, or they were worried about how their relationship with (whoever) would be affected. Just speculating here ...

 

[LookingForClues]

Why would whoever it was be afraid to come forward?

Perhaps someone with a criminal record, who was afraid to become a suspect? Perhaps the registered sex offender in town, afraid to become the suspect? Just random guesses...