ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #20

[Beezneez]

"Dialogue between the parents and the infant" does sound like he expects at least some people to have seen DeOrr alive, though.

Alive when though? Obviously throughout his life. I wish this had been clarified by SB- in the last month? Week? Year? I wonder if there was a stressful event that occurred at some point during Deorrs little life that could have triggered treatment of him that would have been observed as unusual by bystanders or family?

 

[The Apparition]

Wait what? You're not allowed to take alcohol to a campsite?!

Wow guess I'm never going to go camping again. Literally the only thing that is going to help me fall asleep on some kind of 2nd rate bed arrangement in the middle of the woods is a couple of drinks.

 

[carbuff]

Darn. I thought you might have one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I'm not convinced that anything beyond momentary negligence happened. He wouldn't be the first person, large or small, to wander into the mountains and not be found for a long time, if at all.

But I'm also not convinced that a crime didn't occur. There are an awful lot of hinky doings and crazy talk for a simple lost-child scenario.

The EMT bag really bothers me.

The other thing that really bothers me is VDK going back to show the witness his receipt and remind her they had the child. That's pretty hard to see as anything but trying to convince her that she saw something she didn't really see. It can't have had anything to do with the search, because that happened at least a few hours before DeOrr disappeared, but why else would he need to do that?

 

[neesaki]

And besides why are we all talking about the one and only thing I said that is disagreed with?
Wth is with 8am? And why does SB find that they can't remember who cooked what to be significant? And I assume breakfast because of the time I beleive they left for the store.

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not.
-Dr. Seuss

It seems that it all comes down to their stories changing and, according to Sheriff B, some degree of deception on their part.... or I guess I should use the term "less than truthful". And all of this goes to the timeline which is a crucial part of the investigation. Those examples SB gave are just that, examples and probably small ones. I assume there are more significant and questionable issues than who cooked breakfast, but whatever it is he's not telling. jmo

 

[The Apparition]

The cop made me feel like he didn't beleive me either. And kept trying to trip me up and that he did. Never did take poly cause I was the one saying let's do them so when he brought it up to the other party involved they caved and told the truth which matched pretty much with what I was saying. Little things where still disorganized though

I think it's possible and normal little things might change with multiple re-tellings of events. In this case I don't think these are little things. No one can know another persons mind or intelligence level but who cooked breakfast shouldn't be hard to remember. If no one cooked you would say we all just ate cereal for instance. Who brought fishing poles is also pretty easy to remember and not mix up. To my knowledge these are the only 2 examples the sheriff gave but it sounds like VDK and JM both had lots of "inconsistencies" in their stories.

 

[Beezneez]

Devils advocate for a minute: Can anyone reasonably explain the evidence that we as the public have? Is there any reason to believe that these parents are being hung out to dry by LE? Any evidence that their publicly shared version of events possibly holds up? I understand there is an absence of evidence for some scenarios. I just would like to hear from the hold outs- those who think there is something else going on. Also- can we please all agree that the totality of the evidence in this case is not being shared with the public, so speculating on things based on nothing more than a lack of evidence aside. Any stance that there is proof that something else is happening?

 

[Hoosier952]

The other thing that really bothers me is VDK going back to show the witness his receipt and remind her they had the child. That's pretty hard to see as anything but trying to convince her that she saw something she didn't really see. It can't have had anything to do with the search, because that happened at least a few hours before DeOrr disappeared, but why else would he need to do that?

RSBM:

That little statement by SB really ruffled my feathers. The way he said it, sounded like he was just brushing it off. Was LE with VDK when he went in? Did VDK bring this information to LE? Did LE find out from the clerk? I have so many questions.

I just don't understand why a parent with a missing kid would go harass a store clerk for any reason other than to get an alibi of some sort. Is it possible that only one parent made it to the store and the other was dropped off somewhere between camp and the store? Is it possible there was another trip to the store at 8 am?

I worked at a gas station for a couple of summers during high school. Small town, lots of daily regulars, but due to the state parks and women's prison around town, we had our fair share of non-regulars as well. I doubt I'd remember a non-regular unless they did something to stand out from the hundreds of people I saw in a day. But if a non-regular came in by her/himself wanting me to place them at the gas station, I'm not sure I wouldn't just claim something along the lines of "yeah, you look familiar, did you come in last week?" just to get them out of the store. Because chances are if I saw them at any point, I might remember the face, but couldn't place a time or if I had even seen them in the station. It's also not fun to be put on the spot. And I've had enough run-ins with people with ulterior motives, I know it's easier just to keep them happy and get them away.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

From Tricia and Bessie's radio show with Sheriff Bowerman:

30:58
"Bessie: Well, Sheriff, we’d just like to know, are there plans for any further searches?

31:03
SB: You know absolutely. Right now the National Association for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) have expressed an interest in coming back up with dogs so we’re entertaining that. Recently we were in on snowmobiles. There’s 4-6 feet of snow in there so right now, of course, that’s not possible. Basically, we’re just asking anybody that has firsthand knowledge of conversations that they either overheard or observed—some sort of dialogue between the parents and the infant that seemed unusual, please contact us with the information."

This is worrisome to me as it sounds like Bowerman is trying to establish a history of the parents being less than nice to Deorr. Poor little fella.

bbm:thumb:

... and maybe therefore they are less than truthful. Would fit well.

 

[Karinna]

I think its relevency has waned with time, but initially it did seem like an odd coincidence that on some level suggested an injured party. When the bag was initially brought up, all possibilities were still on the table with the parents as culprits seeming the less likely theory. Idk just my thoughts.

I still think it was an oddly brazen act for somebody to smash a truck window and steal a bag with the area crawling with LE. That fact alone just makes it suspicious. Perhaps it was another red herring or attempt to muddy the water? Whatever the case, it's as weird as the cremains dumping in my mind.

BBM, Do EMT bags have any type of drugs in them? Maybe someone was after something like that and not for the purpose of a different kind of medical reason?

 

[TeaTime]

"...firsthand knowledge of conversations that they overheard or observed-some sort of dialogue between the parents and the infant that seemed unusual..."

WTH? What kind of conversation or dialogue does one have with a 2 1/2 year old, much less an unusual one, and why would anyone remember or notice it?

SB is asking for people who witnessed bad behavior on the part of the parents to come forward.

I wonder if he is reading any of the SM where posters have said some pretty awful stuff, one never knows where the truth may be.

 

[Karinna]

"...firsthand knowledge of conversations that they overheard or observed-some sort of dialogue between the parents and the infant that seemed unusual..."

WTH? What kind of conversation or dialogue does one have with a 2 1/2 year old, much less an unusual one, and why would anyone remember or notice it?

SB is asking for people who witnessed bad behavior on the part of the parents to come forward.

I wonder if he is reading any of the SM where posters have said some pretty awful stuff, one never knows where the truth may be.

Exactly. It sounds like a fishing around for info. to me. Why don't they have enough evidence, i thought they did? And that would only be hearsay anyway.

 

[persimmon]

Well, I'm not convinced that anything beyond momentary negligence happened. He wouldn't be the first person, large or small, to wander into the mountains and not be found for a long time, if at all.

But I'm also not convinced that a crime didn't occur. There are an awful lot of hinky doings and crazy talk for a simple lost-child scenario.

The EMT bag really bothers me.

The other thing that really bothers me is VDK going back to show the witness his receipt and remind her they had the child. That's pretty hard to see as anything but trying to convince her that she saw something she didn't really see. It can't have had anything to do with the search, because that happened at least a few hours before DeOrr disappeared, but why else would he need to do that?

What are your thoughts on the emt bag?

 

[persimmon]

BBM, Do EMT bags have any type of drugs in them? Maybe someone was after something like that and not for the purpose of a different kind of medical reason?

Nothing that anybody seeking to get high could use.

 

[Karinna]

I think the thing i find so odd in all of this case is for Deorr's parents to leave him with GGP & GGP's friend whom they had not met before. If it was an older child like a 12-13yr. old maybe ok., but a 2 year old is just too risky IMO, knowing how quickly little ones that age can just take off within seconds of not being watched carefully. Especially seeing as we are now told GGP & friend have diminished responsibility in all of this. I certainly wouldn't be so trusting of everything being okay in that scenario. But then i would never take a child that age on a camping trip in a place like that either, too dangerous IMO. Better off at home in a familiar environment when they are that age because they don't call it the "terrible two's" for nothing.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Not sure about anyone else, but for me it was this:

DG: Did any, or all, of the adults go to the Silver Dollar Restaurant and Bar in Leadore on Thursday, July 9th?
Feb 1 at 10:06pm
Klein Investigations and Consulting:
As this is in the timeline - and outside any prosecutional questions - the answer is yes.

How did this person know to ask that question?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1688440941411392&id=1625921954329958

bbm
My question would rather be: How did Klein know that question/answer would be "outside any prosecutional questions" if the investigation is not completed in the least???

My answer to your question: Maybe the one who asked had read/heard something before about "Thursday +Leadore bar" and so on. When I asked a question I had read before on another forum, that led me to my question.

 

[persimmon]

Exactly. It sounds like a fishing around for info. to me. Why don't they have enough evidence, i thought they did? And that would only be hearsay anyway.

No, heresay would be if somebody came forward to say somebody told them they saw JM and VDK engaged in unusual dialog with DeOrr. Directly observing unusual behavior could be beneficial to prosecutors...especially if enough people come forward so that all of their testimony serves to establish a pattern of maybe anger or something along those lines. It would not necessarily prove anything but it would cast suspicion and doubt on any defense that aims to develop a loving family image.

 

[Karinna]

No, heresay would be if somebody came forward to say somebody told them they saw JM and VDK engaged in unusual dialog with DeOrr. Directly observing unusual behavior could be beneficial to prosecutors...especially if enough people come forward so that all of their testimony serves to establish a pattern of maybe anger or something along those lines. It would not necessarily prove anything but it would cast suspicion and doubt on any defense that aims to develop a loving family image.

I guess so, but there are exceptions to hearsay evidence as well.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

 

[persimmon]

I think the thing i find so odd in all of this case is for Deorr's parents to leave him with GGP & GGP's friend whom they had not met before. If it was an older child like a 12-13yr. old maybe ok., but a 2 year old is just too risky IMO, knowing how quickly little ones that age can just take off within seconds of not being watched carefully. Especially seeing as we are now told GGP & friend have diminished responsibility in all of this. I certainly wouldn't be so trusting of everything being okay in that scenario. But then i would never take a child that age on a camping trip in a place like that either, too dangerous IMO. Better off at home in a familiar environment when they are that age because they don't call it the "terrible two's" for nothing.

It's odd and seems indicative of selfishness on their part...which is not a positive parenting trait. I would think as parents of a small child experiencing camping in the great outdoors, your thoughts would be on your child's experience and therefore driven by a desire to make it awesome for them. You go "exploring" you take ypur child because thats what kids love to do. It also struck me as contradictory that on one hand he hates to separate from them and the other he was fine to be left behind while they explore.

 

[persimmon]

I guess so, but there are exceptions to hearsay evidence as well.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/hearsay-evidence.html

Always hard to say what attorneys will argue over as far as evidence allowed at trial. Idk just seems like he's maybe got some observations and he's hoping for more to strengthen their case?

 

[Karinna]

Always hard to say what attorneys will argue over as far as evidence allowed at trial. Idk just seems like he's maybe got some observations and he's hoping for more to strengthen their case?

Yes that could be. I guess we will have to see if there is enough to charge anyone with anything first.