ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #18

[Pretty Go Pale]

Exactly - hard to imagine a person wouldn't at least try and call 911 first, and if it didn't connect, then "haul" up/down the mountain for a better signal. That trip by Vernal had an ulterior motive, imo: likely to ditch items, i.e. drugs, before the beckoned LE showed up. Still think, though, that the kid wondered off on his own and met who knows what fate. ETA: My mistake - meant to make this a reply to a poster who commented on Vernal not attempting to call 911 because he only had "one bar" of signal on his cell phone.

 

[Pretty Go Pale]

I'm having trouble envisioning how the simultaneous 911 calls actually happened...
Was there a conversation? "I'll go get rid of this evidence, then in 15 minutes you call 911. Just in case someone sees me hauling off I'll say I went to try and get signal, and I'll call 911 from up the road just in case they trace cell phone pings"???

Doesn't sound realistic to me... Anyone got a better theory about how simultaneous 911 calls came about?

I think that's exactly what happened.

 

[Midge Montana]

Yeah... They just failed questions like "do you know where DeOrr is" but passed the trivial stuff, imo. Not every word they said was a lie, but what they said about DeOrr's disappearance was a lie. They lied about what happened to DeOrr.

They just can't seem to tell the truth about if they know what happened to their child and if they know where their child is. They both FAILED those specific questions more than once. Try as I might, I just cannot come up with a plausible reason why they'd not be 100% truthful about that, if they were innocent. Not that the polygraph results are the only red flags, but some of the other things, I can come up with iffy reasons why they said/did things. Some others I cannot.
I'll defer to the sheriff, the FBI, two different private investigators and the rest of those actually in the know. They obviously have much more info that we don't know about to upgrade them to suspects and restrict their ability to further question them freely.

 

[Lilibet]

You can fail questions and not fail the exam, which happened in this case, four times. That's why their tests came back inconclusive. They did not FAIL their polygraphs. Everything is based on the control questions and how they are answered. Call it word dancing or whatever you want. Bowerman has not said they failed their polygraphs because they didn't. The specific words "less than truthful" (not MY words - HIS words) are used for a specific reason. You just can't not notice that.

No one has said they failed the entire poly including the OP your reply is directed to. SB's use of the term "less than truthful" is designed to make clear that they did not lie about everything...just crucial questions about DeOrr. I don't think there is any disagreement about this.

Again, from Tricia's radio show, it's made very clear:

19:41
TG: Exactly! One of our members said, “I noticed in your first comment this week, regarding the parents, you originally said they had been deceptive and then you changed that to less than truthful. Can you explain the reason for that change in wording?” Now, there could be absolutely no reason but that’s our Websleuths members, they get right down to the nitty gritty and really want the littlest details.

20:07
SB: Absolutely. I didn’t want them to think their whole polygraph was deceptive. It wasn’t. They passed portions of it, but the portions on whether they knew where Deorr was or knew what happened to him, they were not being…they were being less than truthful . So that’s why I changed it. I didn’t want them to think…normally you think when someone is deceptive everything they told you is a lie but that’s not the case

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-**NO-DISCUSSION-quot&p=12319129#post12319129

 

[Midge Montana]

Actually, one advertised online was used and selling for $33,000. It all depends on what is added on.

I've just about stopped commenting anymore because I have no idea what happened but do think the parents both know. I'm good with just reading!

"Expensive" is relative to your financial situation. To me, that IS expensive. To, say, Donald Trump, it's pocket change.

 

[Eileen730]

what if Deorr was hurt before arriving at the campground.
All I can think of is the Lonzie Barton case

 

[Aunt_Tulip]

BBM

OT: Your post about what a person with dementia might do reminds me of a funny story about my Mom around age 88. This was before we realized early dementia was an issue. She lived in a retirement community in independent living. Every year the residents were checked out to make sure they still could remember basic things. During one of these tests shortly after George W. Bush was elected president, she was asked who was president and she couldn't remember in the moment. She HATED Bush with a passion, so her excuse to the tester was that she was sooooo upset that he was president she had blocked his name from her memory! She did manage to come up with his name later in the test, so she passed. My Mom was a clever woman LOL.

The point being, people who are having memory issues (dementia or not) can be very determined to cover it up any way they can.

Ha ha! This is the opposite of my Dad in the same type of situation. He couldn't remember a lot of basic stuff, but when they asked him who the President was at the time - look out! He remembered his name and ALL of the reasons he hated him. The doctor had to laugh eventually.

 

[Midge Montana]

Am I horrible for chuckling every time I read a post about him "hauling" down the road? I wasn't here when this case started, in fact I've only been living and breathing it for about a week, to get caught up. Was his use of that word unusual to you all here? I immediately thought he meant "hauling " as in driving fast, as we say that here a lot. I can see where it could be taken literally like he was hauling someone along.
It's just funny to me to see that every time. I guess I get this picture in my head of him putting the petal to the metal, cartoon like.

 

[Beezneez]

Too many posts to quote, so I'm just going to bullet point a few things:
- hematoma/brain bleed discussion: the little one could have definitely bonked his head & suffered a slow bleed between the skull & brain. A closed head injury swells on the inside of the skull. Outward swelling is not always noted & bruising can be hidden in hair. The symptoms could be overlooked by parents who are not paying attention, generally drowsiness, inappropriate emotional outbursts, saying things that don't make sense, stumbling around, and so on. Most parents would catch on but intoxicated/neglectful parents miss this ALL THE TIME.
- GGP (possible) dementia coming & going: people with dementia can be minute to minute, clear as day and then totally out of it the next. They can also be pretty with it except they think it is 30 years ago. It's a bizarre & devastating disease process.
- Dementia & Driving: If someone is diagnosed with dementia there is usually a surrender of driving privileges as a collaborative effort between the care givers & healthcare team. If the caregivers were uncooperative there is a legal process the doc would have to begin, which takes time, to alert the state that the priveledge needs to be revoked. This is a huge HIPAA thing. This is general info relating to dementia & driving in general, I am not speculating on GGP or caregivers in particular. There were general questions about the ability to drive up to the campground yet unable to pass poly. It is possible for someone to retain a lifelong motor skill & not be aware of the date/ people around them. I'm also not saying that because people "can" drive that they "should" drive.

 

[ILOKAL]

Yeah... They just failed questions like "do you know where DeOrr is" but passed the trivial stuff, imo. Not every word they said was a lie, but what they said about DeOrr's disappearance was a lie. They lied about what happened to DeOrr.

Rayemonde, those trivial questions weren't a part of the polygraph. Those were part of the many interviews. You just can't say (well I guess YOU and others CAN and HAVE) that their answers to these polygraph questions were lies without knowing what the control questions were and how they were answered. The answers to the control questions determine how the real questions are graded. A lie on an innocuous control question, even when the answer given to the real question is the absolute truth, will generally result in a failed polygraph. Although they didn't fail their polygraphs, there must be problems with the control questions with the end result being inconclusive. I hope you can understand what I have tried to explain. IMO

ETA: And a truthful answer to a control question that the polygrapher believes is a lie (because most people really HAVE done what was asked but lied about it) will also cause truthful questions on the exam to be interpreted as lies.

 

[Rayemonde]

I know a woman with dementia, and she told me that her hairdresser put something on her hair that made it it stop growing so she doesn't ever need haircuts any more, and the gardener put something on the grass that made it stop growing. Truth is, she still gets regular haircuts and the gardener still cuts the grass, but she forgets it as soon as it happens... So her mind has tried to make sense of the situation, and that's what it came up with. I don't think it was a conscious thing at all, and I think she really believes it.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Hi all, been absent 24 hours and got about 500 posts to catch up on, before I attempt skim reading the lot, has anything significant happened?!

 

[ClaireNC]

Hi all, been absent 24 hours and got about 500 posts to catch up on, before I attempt skim reading the lot, has anything significant happened?!

Hi CMC, No nothing new in the past 24 hours, just still discussing the same things over and over again.

 

[katydid23]

Not truthful and "less than truthful" are not the same. That's why Bowerman is using "less than truthful". They don't mean the same thing. IMO

I don't see much of a difference between the two. Less than=not

 

[Purplepixii]

Rayemonde, those trivial questions weren't a part of the polygraph. Those were part of the many interviews. You just can't say (well I guess YOU and others CAN and HAVE) that their answers to these polygraph questions were lies without knowing what the control questions were and how they were answered. The answers to the control questions determine how the real questions are graded. A lie on an innocuous control question, even when the answer given to the real question is the absolute truth, will generally result in a failed polygraph. Although they didn't fail their polygraphs, there must be problems with the control questions with the end result being inconclusive. I hope you can understand what I have tried to explain. IMO

And you know the "trivial questions" weren't part of the polygraphs how? Do you have a link please? Because now you're intimating that it's not just the sheriff that isn't doing his job correctly, it's also the FBI and whoever was responsible for administering the polygraphs and thus "control questions"? That's just priceless! :gaah:

 

[Lilibet]

Hi all, been absent 24 hours and got about 500 posts to catch up on, before I attempt skim reading the lot, has anything significant happened?!

Nope.
MOO

 

[Rayemonde]

We 've been discussing whether "less than truthful" means the same as "lying" for most of those posts

 

[pepelepolecat]

Does your "stress can make memory problems worse" apply to everyone, or is it just as to GGPA?

It applies to everyone, and it can get worse over time. So a 20 yo person might be able to perform okay under stress but find it much harder by the time he/she reaches 40 and even harder by 60, 70, 80 and beyond.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3914/

ETA: "Experiencing an acute highly stressful situation can interfere with subsequent information processing. This holds true particularly for those circumstances in which a stressed individual is required to retrieve previously stored information while the acquisition of new information is shown to be particularly resistant to disruption in experimental animals."

 

[Aeronomy]

Am I horrible for chuckling every time I read a post about him "hauling" down the road? I wasn't here when this case started, in fact I've only been living and breathing it for about a week, to get caught up. Was his use of that word unusual to you all here? I immediately thought he meant "hauling " as in driving fast, as we say that here a lot. I can see where it could be taken literally like he was hauling someone along.
It's just funny to me to see that every time. I guess I get this picture in my head of him putting the petal to the metal, cartoon like.

That's how I took as well. It was brought up earlier that it didn't make sense, though, when you've been searching so long and all of a sudden it's pertinent that you haul . I have wondered if his use of the word hauling was just a normal word to him since he is/was a truck driver.

 

[Rayemonde]

Am I horrible for chuckling every time I read a post about him "hauling" down the road? I wasn't here when this case started, in fact I've only been living and breathing it for about a week, to get caught up. Was his use of that word unusual to you all here? I immediately thought he meant "hauling " as in driving fast, as we say that here a lot. I can see where it could be taken literally like he was hauling someone along.
It's just funny to me to see that every time. I guess I get this picture in my head of him putting the petal to the metal, cartoon like.

I thought it was a strange choice of word... They'd been looking for an hour, but suddenly there's this big need to speed away from the campsite?

Did Vernal ever say how far he drove away before stopping to make the call?