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

[TeaTime]

How would the why eliminate accident?

As in "Why would someone kill an innocent kid"?

iluvana - I think you answered yourself. WHY would someone KILL an innocent kid. What is the motive for killing? Why did this person kill this child?

 

[flourish]

Yes, the "gathered" is weird. Sounds like a witness talking to one of the POI, for eg., and learning something - but that would be hearsay, not direct evidence. So what can this witness have "gathered"? Very strange wording, but that seems to be par for the course for Klein.

Yeah I can't even try to decipher anything Klein says because he seems to lack eloquence and the concept of clarity.

The only result I've seen so far from his release of the statement has been further confusion and an increase in speculation about a family who has suffered an awful tragic loss.

I really hope I'm wrong and this ends up being helpful, but at this point I doubt any of this Klein circus will help find this sweet little guy who is out there, in some form, and who at the very least deserves a proper burial.

I wish it was a better scenario where I could be more hopeful that he's alive, but I just don't think he is. I just can hope something of him is found and his family can gain some closure and privacy.

 

[Dee10]

I think this earlier reply to Tapa explains my reasoning.

Tapa - I have ruled accident out from Kleins' words. He said "we know HOW. We want to know WHY." (emphasis mine) The only way this makes sense is that it was not an accident for if it was there is no reason to ask 'why".

In my opinion, it makes no sense to state, for instance "we know he accidentally ingested some drugs and died, now we want to know why he ingested the drugs" or "we know he was accidentally run over by a vehicle, now we ant to know why he was run over". To me, since he knows 'how', the 'why' tells us it was not accidental but rather an intentional act.

Of course some could argue that the 'why' refers to 'why was the accident hidden", but this argument makes no sense when we look at the words Klein selected. If Klein knew it was an accident, he could simply say "we know he died accidentally but we want to know why it was covered up" and this would not interfere with LE's investigation. The reason he didn't elaborate on the 'how' is because it was murder and he is unwilling to say this before LE is ready to act.

I hope this made sense. It does to me.​

Thanks for the reply, I understand much better what you are conveying & I agree, however, IIRC KI stated the how is homicide or accidental death. If so, IMO the 'why' could be why cover-up an accident. I'll have to go back to the article to double check the wording.

 

[4senthia]

"Not at THE TIME, no."

I wonder about now, at THIS TIME?

:cow:

Agree and who the heck breaks into a vehicle when a search is going on?
Once again I question the security surrounding even the search, not to mention the cremains-dumping during the search. What was going on there?? Arrrgh
jmo

 

[Deleted member 50844]

Greetings, all. So...I just became aware of this case. Which means I have 15+ threads to catch up on. Gah! Read for hours last night and will tonight. I normally like to get caught up before I jump in, and I've been reading from the early threads as well as trying to keep current on this one. Therefore I fully admit I don't know what has and hasn't been discussed. I'll also say this case has the most carefully chosen and enigmatic wording I can remember seeing in any case. Double Gah!
What I wouldn't give for a Cliffs Notes on this one.

Anyway, the how and why wording is interesting along with the intentional/accidental bit. Again, if I know my fellow Sleuthers, this has already been discussed, but I'm wondering if it could fit something like this example:

Baby died enclosed in a vehicle in extreme heat.
How: Heatstroke/Hyperthermia.


Why?
Was it an accident? As in he either somehow got in and fell asleep for his nap or whomever was caring for him knowingly (not thinking about consequences) or unknowingly (didn't realize he was in there) left him in there. (Stupid but innocently done)
Intentional: Was put in there as punishment, or to keep him 'contained' so as not to have to watch him closely.

Edited to add; I don't necessarily think this is what happened, could be though. There are just a billion weird things about this case.
Just trying to figure out the how/why & accidental/intentional wording.

 

[AmyPond]

I thought it was made clear with this statement.

XXXX XXXX: Does the information you received this weekend affirm the direction you were going with the investigation or change it?
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:02pm

Klein Investigations and Consulting: Neither. It is information gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all of the publicity on the case. We are vetting the information and it will take us a few days to do it - then compare it to what we have. Good question.
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:03pm

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

I wonder if/when they'll release any new information to the public. I know that we have no right to know all the details, of course. But I would sure love to know!

Greetings, all. So...I just became aware of this case. Which means I have 15+ threads to catch up on. Gah! Read for hours last night and will tonight. I normally like to get caught up before I jump in, and I've been reading from the early threads as well as trying to keep current on this one. Therefore I fully admit I don't know what has and hasn't been discussed. I'll also say this case has the most carefully chosen and enigmatic wording I can remember seeing in any case. Double Gah!
What I wouldn't give for a Cliffs Notes on this one.

Anyway, the how and why wording is interesting along with the intentional/accidental bit. Again, if I know my fellow Sleuthers, this has already been discussed, but I'm wondering if it could fit something like this example:

Baby died enclosed in a vehicle in extreme heat.
How: Heatstroke/Hyperthermia.


Why?
Was it an accident? As in he either somehow got in and fell asleep for his nap or whomever was caring for him knowingly (not thinking about consequences) or unknowingly (didn't realize he was in there) left him in there. (Stupid but innocently done)
Intentional: Was put in there as punishment, or to keep him 'contained' so as not to have to watch him closely.

Edited to add; I don't necessarily think this is what happened, could be though. There are just a billion weird things about this case.
Just trying to figure out the how/why & accidental/intentional wording.

I would also love a Cliffs Notes version of this case! Ha! I followed in the beginning then life got in the way. Trying to follow along best I can without reading all of the previous threads (my 2 year old doesn't let me get that much internet time.)

 

[Dee10]

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...-know-how-were-just-trying-to-figure-out-why/

"That leaves us with one last possible theory: that the child could have died up on mountain either accidentally or possibly with intent. So now we are sinking our teeth into that part of the case and we’re developing that part of the case."
......
"I think there’s a lot of ‘why’ questions that need to be asked. I think we know ‘how’ we’re just trying to figure out why and I think that’s where this case is."

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Greetings, all. So...I just became aware of this case. Which means I have 15+ threads to catch up on. Gah! Read for hours last night and will tonight. I normally like to get caught up before I jump in, and I've been reading from the early threads as well as trying to keep current on this one. Therefore I fully admit I don't know what has and hasn't been discussed. I'll also say this case has the most carefully chosen and enigmatic wording I can remember seeing in any case. Double Gah!
What I wouldn't give for a Cliffs Notes on this one.

Anyway, the how and why wording is interesting along with the intentional/accidental bit. Again, if I know my fellow Sleuthers, this has already been discussed, but I'm wondering if it could fit something like this example:

Baby died enclosed in a vehicle in extreme heat.
How: Heatstroke/Hyperthermia.


Why?
Was it an accident? As in he either somehow got in and fell asleep for his nap or whomever was caring for him knowingly (not thinking about consequences) or unknowingly (didn't realize he was in there) left him in there. (Stupid but innocently done)
Intentional: Was put in there as punishment, or to keep him 'contained' so as not to have to watch him closely.

Edited to add; I don't necessarily think this is what happened, could be though. There are just a billion weird things about this case.
Just trying to figure out the how/why & accidental/intentional wording.

Welcome!! To save you a few hours more reading, there was a long lull in this case up until the last couple of weeks. We speculated and cogitated and learned a lot about a few things, which don't seem entirely relevant now.

You know when and where DeOrr went missing, you'll have seen the videos from his parents (who haven't spoken to media since then as far as I know), the timeline is STILL wonky, we still know little about Grandpa or anything about IR's take on the case, the parents hired a PI (Vilt) who achieved nothing and quietly slunk away.

So fast forward to recently when Klein Investigations took over, allegedly at the request of extended family, and it was only then that the statement was released about the HOW/WHY bit. And we continue here: if I were you I'd stick to the first two and last two threads perhaps.... any questions, ask away!

 

[kammiemc]

Baby died enclosed in a vehicle in extreme heat.
How: Heatstroke/Hyperthermia.


Why?
Was it an accident? As in he either somehow got in and fell asleep for his nap or whomever was caring for him knowingly (not thinking about consequences) or unknowingly (didn't realize he was in there) left him in there. (Stupid but innocently done)
Intentional: Was put in there as punishment, or to keep him 'contained' so as not to have to watch him closely.

Edited to add; I don't necessarily think this is what happened, could be though. There are just a billion weird things about this case.
Just trying to figure out the how/why & accidental/intentional wording.

(Snipped for brevity)

That's exactly the way I took it too, Midge!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[neesaki]

I don't know what to think. Klein has, without proof, publicly declared a death, states he believes charges will be brought and talked about the case going to the "prosecutorial phase".

But he can't bring himself to state straight out that Deorr was or wasn't at the campground. IMO this is odd.

I just hope it isn't too long for the next update and/or real clarification.

This is where I'm at, I don't really know what to think. Yes, I have some theories but that's all they are. I'm still going to do my best to give the parents the benefit of the doubt until something solid changes that. So at this point, I guess you could say I'm in the state of bamboozlement.... if there is such a thing.

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

It was commonly thought that Vilt was brought in to direct focus and accusations away from the parents, he was a family friend, working for them, etc. But the more I think about what he did "accomplish" the more I feel like he may have damaged the credibility of the parents in the long run. It is from Vilt that we got the first Black Rubicon story (Creep in a Jeep) and from him that we then heard of DK saying he too saw an expensive looking Black Rubicon at the store that had never been mentioned before. It is also from Vilt that we heard he left because he was offering a $10,000 reward and the parents disagreed with offering a reward. Both of those things definitely left me wondering.

 

[ILOKAL]

Word choices are so tricky when we have very little else to go on. To me, "withheld" would imply someone was aware of the information, but chose not to supply it to LE. If they had said "previously undiscovered information", I could see it being some kind of document, file, record, etc. But we really don't know exactly what was meant by "previously withheld" and are left speculating, like so much of this case.

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.

 

[Deleted member 50844]

Thanks, CoverMeCagney! It's sooo helpful to be pointed in the right direction, as to where I can cut some corners. It would take me weeks to go through every post from every thread. I'll take your advice and pass you a hug!

I have watched many videos. Dipped in and out of several FB pages/groups. Those were so anti-family vs pro-family that very little actual info was obtainable. Wow.

If I may ask:
1. From the onset, LE is a-ok with the 4 adults last seen with the child. Is that still true?
2. Klein works for the family, correct? I did notice though that he seemed to discredit momma about the Jeep. Do you all feel he believes the 4 adults present are innocent of wrongdoing? I was starting to get a vibe that he may be directing question toward ggpa's guy friend. Am I right, in your opinion?
3. Odd how momma emphatically stated that the child could not for one minute be away from blanket, monkey and cup, yet...am I correct that (near nap time, no less) it was in a vehicle instead of with the child? I may be wrong on that, but think I read it somewhere.
4. I was struck by the lack of emotion/tears/something in the interview with the parents. I know, I know, everyone reacts differently, but I'm hard-pressed to recall cases of missing babies where the parents just appeared so matter of fact. Even in the shattering cases where parents have done harm, I at least see great upset and much more emotion. Maybe these parents are just super duper strong though. Am I the only one who caught that vibe? I'd actually feel much better if you all say it's my imagination.
Thanks to anyone willing to answer. I truly apologize for even asking. As I said, I normally get caught right up to speed before I even post on a case. This one is breaking my heart, as I have a 2-year-old grand baby who actually resembles this precious toddler. It's difficult, no impossible, for me to even imagine my grand baby disappearing and how devastated my son and daughter in law would be.

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

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.

I think I'm confused. I thought we were talking about...

Klein Investigations and Consulting: Neither. It is information gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all of the publicity on the case. We are vetting the information and it will take us a few days to do it - then compare it to what we have. Good question.
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:03pm

But it sounds as if you are talking about a different quote from Deputy Penner, because certainly LE wouldn't have been scared to come forward. Sorry if I added to the confusion! :facepalm:

 

[ILOKAL]

I think I'm confused. I thought we were talking about...

Klein Investigations and Consulting: Neither. It is information gathered by a witness that was scared to come forward because of all of the publicity on the case. We are vetting the information and it will take us a few days to do it - then compare it to what we have. Good question.
Like · Reply · 20 · January 11 at 2:03pm

But it sounds as if you are talking about a different quote from Deputy Penner, because certainly LE wouldn't have been scared to come forward. Sorry if I added to the confusion! :facepalm:

NO, you didn't add to the confusion. Most of the coverage of Klein's statement also includes the brief (independent from Klein's) message from Deputy Steve Penner that says they have or are developing new leads from information previously withheld. There is no mention of a witness.

 

[Little Ol Me]

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.

Interestingly, the same thought crossed my mind.
That perhaps L.E. were the ones who had withheld information, and had recently developed new leads concerning that.

 

[bessie]

Lemhi County Chief Deputy: “We have new leads in DeOrr case”
Local 6 Updated at 9:35 pm, January 16th, 2016
By: Nate Eaton

[...]

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

Penner would not elaborate on where the new leads came from and would not say if they were in relation to a statement issued Saturday morning from Kunz family private investigator Philip Klein.

Investigator believes DeOrr Kunz Jr. is dead
Posted: January 18, 2016 3:10 p.m.

[...]

Klein said on his Facebook page that a new witness, previously deterred from talking due to the publicity of the case, came forward and provided new information.

Klein refused to disclose the unnamed witness’s relation to the case, or if they were present at the campground the day DeOrr went missing.

In a question and answer session held Jan. 11 on the Facebook page, Klein said the witness had “direct knowledge, not hearsay,” on the case and that his investigators are vetting the information.

Private investigator: Charges could be filed in DeOrr Kunz Jr. case
By David Ashby [email protected] Jan 21, 2016

[...]

"Some of the comments on social media were so rabid that witnesses were afraid to come forward because they were afraid of the backlash from the public and social media,” Klein said.

 

[Janeumayer]

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...-know-how-were-just-trying-to-figure-out-why/

"That leaves us with one last possible theory: that the child could have died up on mountain either accidentally or possibly with intent. So now we are sinking our teeth into that part of the case and we’re developing that part of the case."
......
"I think there’s a lot of ‘why’ questions that need to be asked. I think we know ‘how’ we’re just trying to figure out why and I think that’s where this case is."

Maybe the prosecution wants to find the motive in order press charges?

 

[neesaki]

But then, if it was someone else, then there would have to have been an abduction, I would think. And Klein has stated that there was no abduction. Maybe I'm not taking into account other scenarios.

Ok, now I'm missing something, MBK. I do agree that it could have been an abduction OR an animal attack ( I know, you didn't say that one ) I do realize that Klein has ruled both of those possibilities out, but without evidence, I personally can't concur until he shows us the real evidence. JMHO

So do you mean it couldn't have been any other witness other than the POI's, as in the other campers in the upper campground? I'm sorry, maybe I'm on a Merry-Go-Round in the Twilight Zone. Idk and, TIA

 

[carbuff]

Information can innocently have been withheld But you seem to refuse to agree. That often happens. If LE came across information from documents that came into its possession by way of a company, for example, and could be considered previously withheld even when that information was simply not known to exist. If it was not known to exist nor known to have had any value and an individual did not provide LE with the information from the document, then a witness would have not necessarily come forward. For example, a subpoena duces tecum instructs the possessor of the document (often a company) to present the document requested. There need not be a witness involved and in such cases, there usually isn't. IMO

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.