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.
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.
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???
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?
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.
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
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???
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.
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
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
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 dont even live in Idaho.
Who would be worried about information being splashed on Facebook if they came forward?