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

[Deleted member 718]

http://590kid.com/2015/09/18/tips-about-missing-toddler-forwarded-to-idaho-fusion-center/

This is a link to Frank Vilt, the previous PI, interview September 18, 2015. In part 3 at about 2:00 he says Isaac hired an attorney due to his past criminal record. Vilt goes on to say he did interview Isaac and was comfortable with his answers. So Isaac's hiring an attorney is nothing new to us. I would do the same thing and advise others likewise.

 

[iluvmua]

just speculation but maybe one of the reasons why the parents did not want a reward to be posted is because maybe they thought the reward money was too low or something???

jmo

but then I would think that any reward money is better than no reward money jmo

 

[SeriouslySearching]

LEMHI COUNTY CHIEF DEPUTY: “WE HAVE NEW LEADS IN DEORR CASE”

LEADORE — Investigators with the Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office say they have developed new leads in the case of missing Idaho Falls toddler DeOrr Kunz, Jr.

“The leads were obtained from previously withheld information,” Chief Deputy Steve Penner told EastIdahoNews.com late Saturday night. “The investigation is continuing.”

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/lemhi-county-sheriff-deputy-we-have-new-leads-in-deorr-case/

bbm

 

[SeriouslySearching]

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?

No. There is no one not vetted and cleared except the 4 people with little DeOrr. Everyone else has been given a pass and they know no one else was there. Little DeOrr was not kidnapped by anyone nor was he eaten by a mountain lion (Thank God we can put that to rest now). It is down to accidental or intentional death by 1 or all of the 4 people at the campsite...at least the way I read it. They have cleared every other way he could have left the area and are now focusing on the inner circle, imo.

 

[ILOKAL]

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?

I don't believe that's a double negative.

 

[EllieBee]

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

Does seem odd......

 

[TeaTime]

Okay, we are about to find out what really happened to DeOrr. The private investigators have ruled out animal or human abduction and the investigation is being directed to homicide, either accidental or intentional. DeOrr was on the mountain and a witness with direct knowledge as to what happened to DeOrr has come forward.

BTW this does not mean the witness has to be one of the 4 POI on the camping trip, but we can eliminate IR as he isn't cooperating with the private investigators by speaking with them nor is his lawyer.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Okay, we are about to find out what really happened to DeOrr. The private investigators have ruled out animal or human abduction and the investigation is being directed to homicide, either accidental or intentional. DeOrr was on the mountain and a witness with direct knowledge as to what happened to DeOrr has come forward.

BTW this does not mean the witness has to be one of the 4 POI on the camping trip, but we can eliminate IR as he isn't cooperating with the private investigators by speaking with them nor is his lawyer.

It is someone they have spoken to before...because they said the information was "previously withheld". I do believe it has to be one of the 4.

 

[Lilibet]

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?

I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's a double negative. Stated in a reversed way it makes more sense to me:
All secondary parties in the immediate proximity of the Timber Creek campground have been vetted and cleared and could not have participated in a forced abduction.

What jumps out at me is the phrase "secondary party in the immediate proximity" of the campground. As usual, I'm going to split semantic hairs and wonder if Klein is implying that a secondary party NOT in the immediate proximity of the campground could have participated in DeOrr's disappearance in some way. I have questions but no answers, and no opinion.

 

[Little Ol Me]

In regards to the Black Rubicon, it was mentioned in answer to a question


Question__Robin Halsted Fitzgerald Has the family camping at the site nearest to where Deorr went missing been found? It was said that they too saw the "Creepy guy". This time it was said he was driving a black rubicon. Was this claim substantiated both that this family existed and collaborated the claim.


Klein Investigations and Consulting Yes it has been found. There was no black rubicon.

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

It is someone they have spoken to before...because they said the information was "previously withheld". I do believe it has to be one of the 4.

Not trying to be picky towards you, the Q&A and statement from Klein sure did give us a lot to pick over though! The information being "previously withheld" could just mean the witness had not come forward before now, not that they had been interviewed and withheld information. Don't they say something like a witness that was too scared to come forward before now because of all the publicity?

 

[Sarg]

I still wonder about the store clerk. Wasn't there questions about her at one time?

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Not trying to be picky towards you, the Q&A and statement from Klein sure did give us a lot to pick over though! The information being "previously withheld" could just mean the witness had not come forward before now, not that they had been interviewed and withheld information. Don't they say something like a witness that was too scared to come forward before now because of all the publicity?

I was only going by what the deputy said and the Klein statement. I haven't seen the Q&A. They seemed to have cleared everyone else. To me, that indicates none of them had information because they were not involved in any way...including being a witness, imo. Someone among the four could have been afraid to speak up, however.

I still say "previously withheld" means they had talked to the person before and the information wasn't given at that time, but I could be wrong. They would say someone came forward instead if it was a person not known to them, imo.

 

[travelbug]

Okay, we are about to find out what really happened to DeOrr. The private investigators have ruled out animal or human abduction and the investigation is being directed to homicide, either accidental or intentional. DeOrr was on the mountain and a witness with direct knowledge as to what happened to DeOrr has come forward.

BTW this does not mean the witness has to be one of the 4 POI on the camping trip, but we can eliminate IR as he isn't cooperating with the private investigators by speaking with them nor is his lawyer.

BBM I'm not so certain we can eliminate IR. He may be "lawyered up", but he spoke with Vilt and Vilt was "satisfied with his answers". It's possible that Vilt spoke with Klein and shared the information from IR, therefore the comment of "previously withheld". jmoo

 

[Arnie M]

.

I read all the Q&A by Klein and no one even mentions the obvious .... maybe DeOrr simply ran off and got lost in the mountains

I think Klein.&.Co have done a good job of clearing up some of the trash rumors , but in reality all they are doing is reviewing information previously gathered and tidying it up a bit , plus some additional interviews.

At this time of the year nobody can do outdoor searches .... so is that why everything is now focused on the people who were there at the campground ?

Or does Klein.&.Co focus on the people because he does not think DeOrr ran away?

I feel there is a gaping hole in the Q&A replies

.

 

[Lilibet]

.

I read all the Q&A by Klein and no one even mentions the obvious .... maybe DeOrr simply ran off and got lost in the mountains

I think Klein.&.Co have done a good job of clearing up some of the trash rumors , but in reality all they are doing is reviewing information previously gathered and tidying it up a bit , plus some additional interviews.

At this time of the year nobody can do outdoor searches .... so is that why everything is now focused on the people who were there at the campground ?

Or does Klein.&.Co focus on the people because he does not think DeOrr ran away?

I feel there is a gaping hole in the Q&A replies

.

BBM

Someone did ask whether Klein thought DeOrr had wandered off and he said there was no evidence of that. This was a question by RV on January 16 after the press release. It wasn't in the Q & A. It's impossible to tell whether he means that the evidence points to another scenario or that he has no evidence that DeOrr wandered off because the searches turned up nothing.

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInves...=939492649466653&comment_tracking={"tn":"R9"}

 

[LaLaw2000]

Technically, they said he didn't "wonder" off...typo, I know, but between that and the awkward first sentence of the statement makes the grammar police in me painfully cringe. The world is reading...how about some extra careful editing?

I just have to say that I have my doubts about this 'investigative agency'. JMO

 

[JadeSLeuth]

Question for those with sharper minds than me:
Klein stated that IR would not speak with him/them; but did Klein make that statement before or after the witness came forward with previously with-held information on January 9th/10th weekend?

 

[Arnie M]

.

I think they are good at finding (custody-dispute) children who are still out there somewhere with one of the parents .

Completely different than finding a child gone missing while camping.

I have nothing against Klein , but what they are doing is not much different than if a new detective or policeman took a fresh look at the whole file to see if anything has been overlooked

A PI from out of town might have a slight advantage when it comes to interviewing "potential witnesses" , or people who were reluctant to talk to police for whatever reason.

I appreciate Klein dispelling some of the false rumors , but the sheriff could have or should have done that himself.

 

[Arnie M]

Question for those with sharper minds than me:
Klein stated that IR would not speak with him/them; but did Klein make that statement before or after the witness came forward with previously with-held information on January 9th/10th weekend?

All I know is that the local sheriff said IR had been cooperative during the search for DeOrr last summer ... everything else about IR has just been rumors created on social media ... plus reporters pounding on his door