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

[Mickshawn]

"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 read that as KIC gathered info FROM the witness...The witness gave KIC info.

 

[Lilibet]

I agree with both of you. Honestly, nothing makes sense, even my own attempts to make sense of this. So I can understand why you question my farfetched attempt to come up with a way for DeOrr to still be alive and not be deceased at the hand of a known person. What do we have left?

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'.

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.

 

[MBK]

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'.

From my understanding, Klein is saying that he believes Deorr WAS on the mountain, not that he's STILL "on the mountain".

By the way, does anyone have handy the time it took between the 911 calls by the parents and when the police got there? Did I read it was something like 1 1/2 hours?

 

[Lilibet]

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

You are right. Here is a copy of the press release so everyone can see the exact wording.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

From my understanding, Klein is saying that he believes Deorr WAS on the mountain, not that he's STILL "on the mountain".

By the way, does anyone have handy the time it took between the 911 calls by the parents and when the police got there? Did I read it was something like 1 1/2 hours?

We've never had a definite timeline of any of it really. The timings changed at the beginning (by a whole day) and nothing really got confirmed. That has been one of the oddest things for me about this case, usually the police are quite forthcoming about timelines but it's been a big blur of ambiguity and mystery. Frustrating!

(I'm saying this, perhaps I just missed it, if anyone has a decent timeline please post it!)

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Re: The KIC witness.

Is it at all possible this person could be PI Vilt?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Re: The KIC witness.

Is it at all possible this person could be PI Vilt?

Very good point, it could be... What happened with him anyway, wasn't he suddenly off the case? I wonder how much help he has been with Klein.

 

[Onebest]

Re: The KIC witness.

Is it at all possible this person could be PI Vilt?

IMO absolutely, anything atm possible..

 

[MBK]

Re: The KIC witness.

Is it at all possible this person could be PI Vilt?

Whoa. Wow. THAT's an idea!

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

Very good point, it could be... What happened with him anyway, wasn't he suddenly off the case? I wonder how much help he has been with Klein.

When asked if Klein had interviewed Mr. Vilt, they said they do not discuss interagency communications, but that Mr. Vilt is a very nice man.

Mr. Vilt left the case because he posted a $10,000 reward and the parents disagreed with that. The links are back a couple of pages here.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

When asked if Klein had interviewed Mr. Vilt, they said they do not discuss interagency communications, but that Mr. Vilt is a very nice man.

Mr. Vilt left the case because he posted a $10,000 reward and the parents disagreed with that. The links are back a couple of pages here.

OK... why on earth would the parents NOT want a reward to be offered? Was that ever explained?

I've just typed out my thoughts and ramblings about this case, but I'd probably get done, so I've deleted it and I'm putting mittens on for a bit.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Whoa. Wow. THAT's an idea!

Just something about the Jeep Rubicon 'lead' developed by Vilt now being sort of dismissed by KIC that made me think....Why mention that again now?

Or maybe the female witness of the Jeep has come forward with new information?

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

When asked if Klein had interviewed Mr. Vilt, they said they do not discuss interagency communications, but that Mr. Vilt is a very nice man.

Mr. Vilt left the case because he posted a $10,000 reward and the parents disagreed with that. The links are back a couple of pages here.

Any ideas as to why parents wouldn't have wanted him to post a reward? I don't understand that at all.

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

Any ideas as to why parents wouldn't have wanted him to post a reward? I don't understand that at all.

Nope, that was my original question back around post #230 on page 16 here. I thought maybe I had misread it because I didn't understand either.

 

[ClaireNC]

From my understanding, Klein is saying that he believes Deorr WAS on the mountain, not that he's STILL "on the mountain".

By the way, does anyone have handy the time it took between the 911 calls by the parents and when the police got there? Did I read it was something like 1 1/2 hours?

. I think you are right, The comment made by Klein was that Deorr was on the mountain, not is still there.

On your timing question of the day he went missing, I remember it being that the 911 calls were made about 2:30 and SAR arrived at about 4:00. So, yes it was about an hour and a half. Sorry I don't have a link.

 

[bessie]

When asked if Klein had interviewed Mr. Vilt, they said they do not discuss interagency communications, but that Mr. Vilt is a very nice man.

Mr. Vilt left the case because he posted a $10,000 reward and the parents disagreed with that. The links are back a couple of pages here.

Here's the link. It's not a direct quote, and even if it is accurate, we should keep in mind it's just one side of the story.

"Private investigator Frank Vilt, a retired U.S. Marshal who previously worked with the family, said he backed out of the case after offering a reward for information leading to DeOrr. Vilt said the family disagreed with posting a reward."
http://www.postregister.com/article...ation-continues-deorr-kunz-jr’s-disappearance

 

[kammiemc]

Just something about the Jeep Rubicon 'lead' developed by Vilt now being sort of dismissed by KIC that made me think....Why mention that again now?

Or maybe the female witness of the Jeep has come forward with new information?

Maybe he got a lot of people asking about the Rubicon guy and felt he needed to dispel that as an untruth.

Given that Vilt said in his interview (I take everything that was said in that interview with a grain of salt) that one of the parents said they saw a vehicle in the Stage Stop parking lot that matched the exact description of the new black Rubicon Vilt had just discovered was allegedly seen driven by a creepy guy in Swan Valley, maybe Klein felt he needed to address it.

I am having trouble copying the link to the interviews and article on my phone. Hold on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bessie]

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).

<rsbm>
Eyewitness testimony isn't hearsay, nor are photos, videos, documents. I could post several plausible scenarios where a third party could provide evidence that wouldn't be "hearsay". I'm not sold on the idea of a third party, but it is a possibility.

Thanks for bringing over some of the statements from the Q&A. I linked it the other night and suggested that members take a look. It was quite informative.

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/posts/937132659702652

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInves...3864945696095/939454592803792/?type=3&theater

 

[ILOKAL]

<rsbm>
Eyewitness testimony isn't hearsay, nor are photos, videos, documents. I could post several plausible scenarios where a third party could provide evidence that wouldn't be "hearsay". I'm not sold on the idea of a third party, but it is a possibility.

Thanks for bringing over some of the statements from the Q&A. I linked it the other night and suggested that members take a look. It was quite informative.

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/posts/937132659702652

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInves...3864945696095/939454592803792/?type=3&theater

I read some of the comments. If I'm reading them correctly, the person from Klein who is answering contradicted herself. She first said that the cremains distracted the scent dogs, not the cadaver dogs. Then, down thread, she says nothing distracted the dogs. Odd, IMO.

Interesting is she answered the question regarding if IR has been cooperative with an emphatic, "No, he lawyered up".

 

[BlkMtnGirl]

Okay, I am admittedly more confused than probably most of you. But this sticks out to me.

"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."

That's a double negative. That leaves open the possibility that there IS a secondary party who HAS BEEN vetted and cleared who could have participated in a forced abduction. Right?