ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #16

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #281
<modsnip>

Does anybody remember: Thursday eve.....Did they stop anywhere? Was it for diesel? Do we know if it's "for sure" (like the owner of the station verified it) and if so, where and when???
 
  • #282
It could also be something a witness didn't know they had.

Like maybe somebody who went fishing in the area and was going through photos they took and noticed there was somebody in the background they hadn't noticed before, for example. Or somebody who hadn't heard about the missing child until recently realizing they had been in the vicinity. Or somebody who remembered something they hadn't realized was significant. Or a hunter finding something that had been overlooked before. All kinds of possibilities that don't involve anyone having done anything wrong at all.

It certainly could be any of those things you mention, but the very definition of the word "withhold or withheld" involves keeping something back deliberately. You can't "withhold" information if you don't know it's needed, you don't know you have it or you recently remembered it. So either the word "withheld" has been used inaccurately, or the information was held back by someone who knew all along it was important and decided recently to reveal it. Or did I miss something on the thread that the word "withheld" is no longer an issue? This thread makes my head spin...and hurt! :)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/withhold
 
  • #283
I don't think any of the key figures in this case are so well schooled in the English language that we can assume any word they use is being used accurately :p

Bessie's quote from Klein's Facebook (post 277) indicates it was a witness who had been afraid to come forward. If that's correct, I wouldn't call that "withheld" exactly, either.
 
  • #284
I did something I seldom do and I discussed this with my husband over dinner. As soon as I told him what Deputy Steve Penner said about a lead from previously withheld information, he immediately said that would be something LE previously withheld, in his opinion.

Thanks for asking your husband but, this makes no sense to me. DSP said lead from previously withheld information. Withheld form whom? Themselves? No. Withheld from the public by LE? If so, why mention it was previously withheld unless they were also releasing the information which they did not? Since the information was not known and is still not known to the public - still withheld - why would he bother calling it 'previously withheld"?

Wouldn't he just say 'information gathered during the investigation'?

It may be just me but I think Klein and DSP are talking about the same information and it is from the witness that gathered it and then withheld it due to publicity in the case.
 
  • #285
Does anybody remember: Thursday eve.....Did they stop anywhere? Was it for diesel? Do we know if it's "for sure" (like the owner of the station verified it) and if so, where and when???

Wasn't that the night the clerk said she saw them in her store? But they denied it? Or am I remembering wrong again?
 
  • #286
Does anybody remember: Thursday eve.....Did they stop anywhere? Was it for diesel? Do we know if it's "for sure" (like the owner of the station verified it) and if so, where and when???

When asked if the family was anywhere else during the trip, Bowerman said they stopped for diesel fuel traveling from Idaho Falls to Leadore, but the gas station doesn’t have surveillance video either.
http:// http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08...orr-kunz-case/

Nate Eaton:
3:40
“Okay. Uh, do you know, did they stop any other places on their way up to Leadore?”

Deputy Penner:
3:45
“Yeah! They stopped to get some diesel fuel.”

3:49
Nate Eaton:
“Diesel fuel…”

3:49
Deputy Penner:
“Yeah!”

Nate Eaton:
“Any surveillance video of that gas station?”

3:52
Deputy Penner:
“No.”

3:52
Nate Eaton:
“Okay.”

3:53
Sheriff Bowerman:
“I’d be surprised if there’s a camera anywheres in Leadore (laughs).”

3:57
Nate Eaton:
“Well, yeah, it’s remote…”

3:57
Sheriff Bowerman
“It’s a real small community.”
 
  • #287
If the word withheld was even used correctly
I don't even have a clear understanding if it was withheld by LE and KI is just now hearing about it.
Put me on that merry-go-round right now too.
JMO
 
  • #288
Diesel is used in crematoriums.
If someone came to the campsite and removed a deceased Deorr they could
have traveled hundreds of miles to do so,
seems to me. And if would be successful.
He said "Yeah diesel!" with an exclamation mark.
jmo
 
  • #289
Wasn't that the night the clerk said she saw them in her store? But they denied it? Or am I remembering wrong again?

Here's the dialogue. Appears it was Friday (July 10) at 6:00 p.m. the evening the child was reported missing. (As of today, the clerk never made any public statement to my knowledge.)

Nate Eaton: Is there any rumors or anything you've seen that you want to clear up, Jessica?

Jessica: I just...somebody at the store, um... at Leadore said... It was one of the ladies that worked at the store said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other...

DK: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black!

JM: he drives a black truck.

DK: As a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were

JM: Earlier. It was earlier that day

DK: ...with Search and Rescue until what, a quarter to four..?

JM: Yeah

DK: We didn't...We never...haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon so it's just a lot of hearsay, and...
 
  • #290
Thanks for asking your husband but, this makes no sense to me. DSP said lead from previously withheld information. Withheld form whom? Themselves? No. Withheld from the public by LE? If so, why mention it was previously withheld unless they were also releasing the information which they did not? Since the information was not known and is still not known to the public - still withheld - why would he bother calling it 'previously withheld"?

Wouldn't he just say 'information gathered during the investigation'?

It may be just me but I think Klein and DSP are talking about the same information and it is from the witness that gathered it and then withheld it due to publicity in the case.

This seems clear to me as well Tea Time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #291
Diesel is used in crematoriums.
If someone came to the campsite and removed a deceased Deorr they could
have traveled hundreds of miles to do so,
seems to me. And if would be successful.
He said "Yeah diesel!" with an exclamation mark.
jmo

He did not say "Yeah diesel!". He said "Yeah, They stopped to get some diesel fuel". DK's truck runs on diesel, so they just stopped to get gas in the truck. Nothing nefarious about that. IMO
 
  • #292
Does anybody remember: Thursday eve.....Did they stop anywhere? Was it for diesel? Do we know if it's "for sure" (like the owner of the station verified it) and if so, where and when???

Klein's response to being asked about the diesel stop.

Without getting into specifics we have found and personally interviewed the person that sold the fuel to the family.
 
  • #293
One piece that stuck out to me transcribing was:

Klein: Well, what I have to say to the people out on social media are a few things. #1) Some of the people out there on social media have hindered this case. Uh, witnesses have come forward after and only after they received assurances that their identities would remain anonymous #1, and #2 that their information would remain anonymous. And so, you know, once we were able to give them that assurance, they were scared their names and their information would be splashed up on Facebook, um…and that has happened in some cases uh from leaks from family members to people that have nothing to do with this case that don’t even live in Idaho.

Who would be worried about information being splashed on Facebook if they came forward?
 
  • #294
Thanks for asking your husband but, this makes no sense to me. DSP said lead from previously withheld information. Withheld form whom? Themselves? No. Withheld from the public by LE? If so, why mention it was previously withheld unless they were also releasing the information which they did not? Since the information was not known and is still not known to the public - still withheld - why would he bother calling it 'previously withheld"?

Wouldn't he just say 'information gathered during the investigation'?

It may be just me but I think Klein and DSP are talking about the same information and it is from the witness that gathered it and then withheld it due to publicity in the case.

Perhaps a witness gathered information in a way that might not have been legal, like hacking into someone's email, text messages, photos.. FB account...
 
  • #295
When reading the article, I get the impression that after Klein released his information, NE might have contacted SP (SB was on vacation) and asked for a comment. To ME, Penner doesn't sound pleased. He said very little but seems to have made it clear that THEY (LE) are checking out leads (now) from previously withheld information, and clearly says nothing about a "witness" as Klein had. I don't believe Penner is referring to the same thing at all. IMO
 
  • #296
Midge Montana:

SB originally stated that the family was 'solid' and IR was cooperating. If he has changed his mind, he has not let on.

Klein was hired by the family. Exactly which family members, we do not know. He states he works for DeOrr and only DeOrr. He talked to the family POI but was not able to talk to IR who was advised, rightly so, to not speak to PI Klein or anyone on his team.

JM never mentioned a black jeep Rubicon, it was a lead from a woman in another city/area that noticed a creepy guy driving a black Rubicon staring at her kids. Some speculated she was responding to JM's statement that there was a creepy guy staring at DeOrr at the Leadore store. Then someone in Leadore was alleged to have spotted a black truck at the store and the stories got all intertwined until they took on a life of their own.

Klein states that there was never a sighting of a Black Rubicon in Leadore. He does not discredit JM as she never mentioned the black truck/suv/Rubicon, except when reporting the story that was circling around that the store clerk saw a filthy bawling baby with a guy driving a black truck.

I do not think anyone is clear as to where the monkey, blanket and cup were physically located after DeOrr's disappearance. The parents mentioned that these things were all left behind, implying that if DeOrr went wandering about, he would take these items with him as he never went anywhere without them. I do not put any stock into the fact that the items were left behind. My nieces and nephews all had favorite things that they wouldn't leave the house without and couldn't sleep without (requiring late night deliveries of things left at Auntie's house) but they didn't carry them everywhere such as into the back yard, the pool, the playground, etc.

The interview with the parents was a few (maybe 3) days after the initial disappearance. Both parents look devastated to me. Both seem on the verge of a breakdown and both are holding back tears. I got no hinkey, red flags at all from this interview.

No matter how horrible a situation we find ourselves in, we can all hold it together for a few minutes and it was my impression that this is what they were doing in order to give the interview to get out the information about the missing baby.

None of us can know the depth of pain another is experiencing or how they will react to unimaginable horror. I think of the many, many funerals I have been too where parents were burying their children and there was only one where the grieving parents were continuously inconsolable and unable to hold themselves up for even a minute. Each was a tragic incident but even then all the parents, except these 2 friends, were able to hold up for periods of time between breakdowns.

I am not a behavior analyst but I just didn't have a bad reaction to the parents' behavior in the interview.
 
  • #297
If the word withheld was even used correctly
I don't even have a clear understanding if it was withheld by LE and KI is just now hearing about it.
Put me on that merry-go-round right now too.
JMO

Except is was LE that said is was previously withheld.
 
  • #298
"JM never mentioned a black jeep Rubicon, it was a lead from a woman in another city/area that noticed a creepy guy driving a black Rubicon staring at her kids. Some speculated she was responding to JM's statement that there was a creepy guy staring at DeOrr at the Leadore store. Then someone in Leadore was alleged to have spotted a black truck at the store and the stories got all intertwined until they took on a life of their own. " From post 300

According to Vilt though, it was DK who said he remembered seeing an expensive black Rubicon in Leadore after the other sighting was reported. Now Klein is saying there wasn't one. So did DK lie? Did Vilt make it up?
 
  • #299
When reading the article, I get the impression that after Klein released his information, NE might have contacted SP (SB was on vacation) and asked for a comment. To ME, Penner doesn't sound pleased. He said very little but seems to have made it clear that THEY (LE) are checking out leads (now) from previously withheld information, and clearly says nothing about a "witness" as Klein had. I don't believe Penner is referring to the same thing at all. IMO

ETA: NOT the article that Texas transcribed. It's an article by Nate Eaton.
 
  • #300
One piece that stuck out to me transcribing was:

Klein: Well, what I have to say to the people out on social media are a few things. #1) Some of the people out there on social media have hindered this case. Uh, witnesses have come forward after and only after they received assurances that their identities would remain anonymous #1, and #2 that their information would remain anonymous. And so, you know, once we were able to give them that assurance, they were scared their names and their information would be splashed up on Facebook, um…and that has happened in some cases uh from leaks from family members to people that have nothing to do with this case that don’t even live in Idaho.

Who would be worried about information being splashed on Facebook if they came forward?

I don't understand this one either but, there are lots of folks who jump into a fb discussion about a case and only post hateful and hurtful things for whatever reason and if they came across the name of an anonymous witness, who knows what they would post. I don't think anyone with their right mind would want to subject themselves to fb garbage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
14,886
Total visitors
14,964

Forum statistics

Threads
633,283
Messages
18,638,987
Members
243,468
Latest member
klarag
Back
Top