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

[CoverMeCagney]

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.

No, we can't rule out a third party, aside from the question of WHY they would withhold information.? It seems unlikely that anyone would keep quiet unless they were afraid of the consequences.

Maybe someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time, saw something they shouldn't.
Maybe a friend / neighbour / colleague of any of the four has reported something they saw or heard.
Maybe somebody reported a previous incident relating to one of the four.
Maybe one of the four has been so terrified of any fall out, and is now starting to crack.

Lots of maybes. Feels like something's gonna come out soon. Hope so anyway!

 

[Purplepixii]

Legal explanation of hearsay is "the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

Thus, in my opinion, it has to be one of the 4 because information coming from anyone else is second-hand and thus hearsay.

 

[LookingForClues]

Legal explanation of hearsay is "the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

Thus, in my opinion, it has to be one of the 4 because information coming from anyone else is second-hand and thus hearsay.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

I am not talking about anyone repeating someone else's words. I specifically said hearsay means it could not be any relative repeating what they were told ( which many people are taking as "truth" when discussing this case). I may not have been clear, my point is that the witness had to be one of the four, OR someone who SAW something. We can't rule out that a third party came forward with something they observed.

 

[Onebest]

ILOKAL?? does he really say this? Tell me what you read. I was thinking there might have been another person up there, we just don't have the info? Is it not possible?

 

[Mickshawn]

I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the sanity and interesting & intelligent thinking/commentary of the members of this group. Thank you for being here...This is my first WS experience. This case is like being in the middle of a tornado in other places..just unbelievable...So, thank you!

 

[Onebest]

Why would whoever it was be afraid to come forward?

Someone who didn't want to face the media mob mentality maybe??

 

[Mickshawn]

ILOKAL?? does he really say this? Tell me what you read. I was thinking there might have been another person up there, we just don't have the info? Is it not possible?

Yeah, why couldn't another person have come up to visit or something? Entirely possible!

 

[Mickshawn]

Someone who didn't want to face the media mod mentality maybe??

Media "mob"?????

 

[Onebest]

Media "mob"?????

Fixed, lol.

 

[ILOKAL]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

I am not talking about anyone repeating someone else's words. I specifically said hearsay means it could not be any relative repeating what they were told ( which many people are taking as "truth" when discussing this case). I may not have been clear, my point is that the witness had to be one of the four, OR someone who SAW something. We can't rule out that a third party came forward with something they observed.

And, it doesn't mean it has to be something a witness observed that day. Someone might have observed blood on clothing worn by one of the four while camping or may have observed something in the possession of one of the four, like a toy truck. There are many possibilities besides hearsay. It might also be an excited utterance by one of the four to a witness, which is an exception to the hearsay rule.

 

[ILOKAL]

ILOKAL?? does he really say this? Tell me what you read. I was thinking there might have been another person up there, we just don't have the info? Is it not possible?

Onebest, I'm lost by your question. Please forgive me. I don't know what post of mine you're referring to. Please clarify. TIA

 

[Onebest]

Onebest, I'm lost by your question. Please forgive me. I don't know what post of mine you're referring to. Please clarify. TIA

No problem! it was this one. I keep thinking someone we don't know about might have been there so I am wondering how Klein ruled it out?

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

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

No problem! it was this one. I keep thinking someone we don't know about might have been there so I am wondering how Klein ruled it out?

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

I don't think they ruled out anyone else being in the area. I understood them to mean they ruled out anyone else in the area participating in DeOrr's disappearance.

 

[ILOKAL]

No problem! it was this one. I keep thinking someone we don't know about might have been there so I am wondering how Klein ruled it out?

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

Okay, I didn't know

It's # 2b in the Klein statement. It says everyone who had been around had been cleared and vetted. Maybe someone will post the exact quote for discussion.

 

[Little Ol Me]

"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.

I'm wondering,...what do others think?...about the bolded part of this sentence.
Was the information given to KIC, *gathered* by the witness, as in the witness gathered info,..or...did KIC gather info from the witness?

 

[ILOKAL]

I don't think they ruled out anyone else being in the area. I understood them to mean they ruled out anyone else in the area participating in DeOrr's disappearance.

It basically said they had cleared and vetted those known to have been in the area.

 

[Deleted member 718]

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.

What about clergy, doctors, nurses, therapists, social workers, etc? This wouldn't change the direction of the investigation, only add to the foundation of LE's case. And I could understand why a professional may hesitate to come forward and breech their client's trust.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/privileged+communication

 

[LookingForClues]

Random thought: When considering why someone might not want to come forward with information, it might be useful to remember that many people who live in less populated areas do not trust law enforcement and the government, preferring instead to remove themselves from interaction with those who are not like-minded.

 

[ILOKAL]

"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.

I'm wondering,...what do others think?...about the bolded part of this sentence.
Was the information given to KIC, *gathered* by the witness, as in the witness gathered info,..or...did KIC gather info from the witness?

I take that to mean another witness (not the foursome) gathered a piece of evidence. Not necessarily a "tangible" piece of evidence.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

"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.

I'm wondering,...what do others think?...about the bolded part of this sentence.
Was the information given to KIC, *gathered* by the witness, as in the witness gathered info,..or...did KIC gather info from the witness?

I also wondered about this, it may just be badly worded (their spelling and grammar isn't the best) but I initially read it as in "a witness did the information gathering" and immediately thought a wider family member had got something out of grandpa.

Alternatively the witness could be IR, who, confused by the whole mess (we still don't know if he definitely saw Deorr) has slowly put the pieces together and reported the tiniest nugget of info to the PI/police.