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

[Arnie M]

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"}

Yes . I read that back a few days ago , and I agree ... it is impossible to tell what he meant or was implying.

We all know there is no evidence of the boy in the forest , boots , toys, clothing or whatever ... but that does not mean he is not there , it simply means nobody has found anything.

 

[LaLaw2000]

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.

BBM:

Could it be one of the older couple that was camping on the mountain? That couple was talked about by the Sheriff on Tricia's radio show. This couple even helped search that first day and maybe even the second. The Sheriff also stated that the couple left before they could be spoken with again. The local authorities where the couple was from helped locate the couple for the Sheriff and vouched for them. Maybe one of them remembered something or saw something they did not think was important at the moment.

This was a nice older couple who, IMO, just happened to be there and not involved in any way except for the coincidence of being there at the same time DeOrr disappeared.

JMO

 

[MBK]

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

I have read (not in any articles about this case), that LE will often advise against a reward as it gets in the way of the investigation. It brings all the weirdos out of the woodwork. You'd have sightings all over the world (when things are a bit closer to home, so to speak.)

 

[LaLaw2000]

Just a matter of opinion, but I haven't known of a missing child's case where a reward was discouraged by LE.

 

[lesajo]

I have a question. If you read WS, yet never search fb for anything related to a case, is it normal for relatives of that case to pop up as possible 'friends' per fb? I have been getting people with names similar to this case on my ' people you may know' announcements. TIA.

Interesting question, and I am not sure if anyone answered this in the thread or not.
I don't know exactly how facebook works, but I did notice fb gave me "possible friends" ( relatives) of a fb page I frequented often on another case here in WS. So, fb knows I kept snooping, just hoping fb didn't place me as a possible friend to them.
So big brother is watching. Scary.
But your question is even more strange because you mentioned you didn't search on fb, that baffles me. Any insight anyone?
Prayers for little Deorr, my stomach has been sick since I read all the new reports, ie: direction the case is going. Sad.

 

[pepelepolecat]

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.

The family who saw the Rubicon were in an entirely different town -- iow, that they were not the people camping nearby. Unless there was a third sighting of the creep in a jeep, that is.

 

[Dee10]

Yes . I read that back a few days ago , and I agree ... it is impossible to tell what he meant or was implying.

We all know there is no evidence of the boy in the forest , boots , toys, clothing or whatever ... but that does not mean he is not there , it simply means nobody has found anything.

I wondered that too, but then I remembered there have seemingly been different timeline and various changes like exploring vs fishing etc. Evidence is being held back like the cash register receipt, possible shovel and in the Q & A there was quite a bit KI refused to comment on.

This case changed for me when the four were "named" POI because they were there. IMO of course they were always POI's because they were there, but the SO when out of their way to name them. Very shortly after the FBI came in and searched houses, re-searched vehicles, re-interviewed and did behavior analysis. KI say LE has come to the same conclusion as they have, which I assume is based on the totality of what they have found. JMHO

 

[iluvmua]

http://www.idahostatejournal.com/me...t-a-trace/article_10d44717-75dc-5601-aa30-572

The Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office won’t even comment on whether they consider DeOrr’s parents to be suspects in the case.

 

[Roselvr]

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?

This is what I could find
Klein Investigations and Consulting Q & A post

1 - There was a question put to us that Mr. Klein answered which was the time of the first request for help to 911 - that date was July 10, 2015, at 14:22 hours.

2. There were two more questions being the date and time stamp at the Stage Stop - we will not release that as it is evidence in the time line. The second question was the first reponders there which the answer is one and one half hours after the first call came in. All in approx.

3. This is Caroline. Philip was saying that the 911 call came in a 14:28 PM. The time for the first responder and date stamp are a part of the timeline that cannot be released at this point.

4. There were three 911 calls which are public - 14:22, 14:26 and 14:28 hours on the 10th.

 

[krig101]

I find it interesting that they will not release the timestamp on the Stage Stop receipt.

IMO

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

I find it interesting that they will not release the timestamp on the Stage Stop receipt.


Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Because it is evidence.

 

[krig101]

Because it is evidence.

Right. I just wonder if it is going help or hurt everyone's story.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

Right. I just wonder if it is going help or hurt everyone's story.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I would imagine it corroborates the timeframe the parents said they were there.

 

[Hoosier952]

4. There were three 911 calls which are public - 14:22, 14:26 and 14:28 hours on the 10th.

3 calls? I thought there were only two? One from Sr. and one from JM with JM's call going through first and Sr.'s call just minutes after? Not that it makes a difference, just curious if I missed something.


I think abduction has been ruled out, but would removing a deceased child be considered abduction? In legal terms, I know it wouldn't be, but could it be a way of skirting around a direct statement, such as [one of the persons at camp] called in a friend to retrieve and dispose of a body. Possibly a person who is now releasing that withheld information? That person would be in some legal trouble for sure and scared to come forward.

 

[leep]

Interesting how strongly suggest is underlined in the media release from Klein. If "other parties" have knowledge, does this "strongly suggest" imply that they could be charged with obstructing justice if they do not come forward?

If you follow some of Klein's other investigations this is one of their tried and tested methods to apply pressure to witnesses IMO.

 

[desert-blue]

3 calls? I thought there were only two? One from Sr. and one from JM with JM's call going through first and Sr.'s call just minutes after? Not that it makes a difference, just curious if I missed something.

I'm very curious about the three 911 calls, especially since JM's was the one made at 14:28 (that is the time stamp on the audio recording that has been released). That means two other 911 calls were made prior to that. We know that DK's call was made after JM's because you can hear the operator answer his call in the background of JM's call. I'm very confused about the two earlier calls - who made them and what was said (and why haven't they been released - the PI said they were "public")?

 

[mommylicious]

Is it possible the "earlier" calls were dropped, which caused Deorr Sr. to head out for better reception?

 

[desert-blue]

I find it interesting that they will not release the timestamp on the Stage Stop receipt.

IMO

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I find that interesting as well. It shouldn't be a big deal, if it meshes with the timeline. Bowerman refused to give the time stamp as well. I think it's an important piece of the puzzle... MOO.

 

[desert-blue]

Is it possible the "earlier" calls were dropped, which caused Deorr Sr. to head out for better reception?

I've thought that also, but neither JM or DK have mentioned anything along those lines. DK's only reason to haul up the road was because he only had one bar of service, not because he had already had two dropped calls. I think it's odd. MOO.

 

[Roselvr]

Interesting how strongly suggest is underlined in the media release from Klein. If "other parties" have knowledge, does this "strongly suggest" imply that they could be charged with obstructing justice if they do not come forward?

I think they are telling the "other parties" that they know about them and to come forward now.

I'm very curious about the three 911 calls, especially since JM's was the one made at 14:28 (that is the time stamp on the audio recording that has been released). That means two other 911 calls were made prior to that. We know that DK's call was made after JM's because you can hear the operator answer his call in the background of JM's call. I'm very confused about the two earlier calls - who made them and what was said (and why haven't they been released - the PI said they were "public")?

I forgot to add it to my reply that JM's time was listed wrong as someone else said the same thing there, I believe that whoever was posting had the times wrong.