ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #21

[Donjeta]

JMO I think there is some misunderstanding there. Whether it's a reporter error or something. If a polygraph is inconclusive it's not fair to say the subject was less than truthful. An inconclusive result means, "we don't know".

 

[ZooSleuth]

I didn't point that out because I don't understand the alleged difference, but to show that ALL of the polygraphs did, indeed, come back inconclusive, for whatever perceived reason/s.

And that was never in question, so hopefully you can see why I would think you were implying something or didn't understand the difference.

Back to the other subject though, were you able to find another source about being inconclusive on questions?

 

[sonjay]

We can call the results of polygraphs anything we want and we can determine, in our minds, what that means. Not so, however, with actual polygraph terminology. And although I have explained this on very many occasions and have provided links that explain those terms precisely, some just prefer to make their own determinations, which is fine for the purposes of online sleuths. IMO

ETA: A failed polygraph = "D-e-c-e-p-t-i-o-n indicated" & no caveat
A passed polygraph = "No deception indicated" & no caveat

Anything in the middle = "Inconclusive" aka "No opinion"

And polygraphs results do not have a "less than truthful" option. "Less than truthful" -- in the context in which it has been used in this case -- means "deceptive" -- aka, they lied. Aka, they "failed" those key questions.

 

[sonjay]

I don't want to get into this discussion, but just want to point out that he did actually use the word "failed" in his interview with Tricia.

03:17
TG: Are you certain that there’s no way Deorr could be in the water anywhere? That’s a big question that a lot of people have because …Couldn’t Deorr’s body be stuck under a rock or just possibly something like that happened?

03:35
SB: You know I dwelled on that fact for a long time but I have to trust the experts. They say when both people failed the same questions multiple times, there is something there and they’re being less than truthful, so I have to trust the experts.

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

Thank you. I knew I had seen that somewhere, but I wasn't sure where.

"Failed the same questions multiple times" means they failed the same questions multiple times. Means, they were deceptive. Means, they lied. There's nothing "inconclusive" about that. The sheriff explained that he didn't want to say outright that they "failed" the polygraph, because they did pass portions of it. But on the key, critical questions about what happened to DeOrr and whether they knew where he was, they failed those questions.

 

[ILOKAL]

And that was never in question, so hopefully you can see why I would think you were implying something or didn't understand the difference.

Back to the other subject though, were you able to find another source about being inconclusive on questions?

I only mentioned it because up thread it was/is being stated that the parents actually failed their polygraphs and that Bowerman never said they were inconclusive. I just wanted to point that out. I can understand why you thought I might not have understood the difference. Thanks.

 

[persimmon]

The calmness in JM's 911 call doesn't raise flags for me. I overreact to just about everything related to safety with children. However when I was in labor with my child there were some major complications for my unborn baby caused by blood pressure. They even brought the hospital bishop up to be with my husband. In that panic moment I somehow forced myself to be completely calm because I knew I could save him by lowering my blood pressure. Which I did. I could see a 911 call being somewhat calm if it means getting the police there sooner.

With that said I am extremely bothered by the lack of urgency and silence and what sounds like some coaching in the background with JM's call. Someone a while back had the perfect analogy that it sounded like she was ordering a pizza.

I second your opinion. Our natural survival and protective instincts kick in and override knee jerk reactions at times for very good reasons. JMs call is void of either of those at a time when her two year old child is missing. That is telling for me.

Adding to that the casual behavior taken toward DeOrr's safety in an environment where running water could cause the death of a toddler, I felt suspicious early on. There are reasons the law requires child safety gates be in place around pools where children are present. I guess my point is and jmoo JM does not strike me as a consientious parent who places her child's needs above her own. I'm kind of rambling but Lillahazel's post sparked some feelings I had right away.

 

[Donjeta]

I only mentioned it because up thread it was/is being stated that the parents actually failed their polygraphs and that Bowerman never said they were inconclusive. I just wanted to point that out. I can understand why you thought I might not have understood the difference. Thanks.

Is there a direct quote from Bowerman saying they were inconclusive? Not just reporter paraphrases of what some other reporters wrote he said?

 

[ILOKAL]

Thank you. I knew I had seen that somewhere, but I wasn't sure where.

"Failed the same questions multiple times" means they failed the same questions multiple times. Means, they were deceptive. Means, they lied. There's nothing "inconclusive" about that. The sheriff explained that he didn't want to say outright that they "failed" the polygraph, because they did pass portions of it. But on the key, critical questions about what happened to DeOrr and whether they knew where he was, they failed those questions.

EXCEPT . . . . HERE, Bowerman says the answers to those same questions were "INCONCLUSIVE"!

http://kfor.com/2016/01/25/parents-of-missing-idaho-toddler-named-as-suspects-in-his-disappearance/

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

EXCEPT . . . . HERE, Bowerman says the answers to those same questions were "INCONCLUSIVE"!

http://kfor.com/2016/01/25/parents-of-missing-idaho-toddler-named-as-suspects-in-his-disappearance/

Except he doesn't.

ETA: http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/sheriff-i-just-pray-little-deorr-will-be-found/

In this transcription of the interview the word "inconclusive" comes up once referencing GGP's and IR 's poly's.

 

[ILOKAL]

Is there a direct quote from Bowerman saying they were inconclusive? Not just reporter paraphrases of what some other reporters wrote he said?

I would imagine there is somewhere. It doesn't sound like something reporters made up out of thin air. Then again, you never know. Maybe someone can do a better google search than I did, but that's what came up on search.

 

[ClaireNC]

EXCEPT . . . . HERE, Bowerman says the answers to those same questions were "INCONCLUSIVE"!

http://kfor.com/2016/01/25/parents-of-missing-idaho-toddler-named-as-suspects-in-his-disappearance/

Several people gave pointed out that the one article that you keep posting is NOT a direct quote from the sheriff. It is the KFOR reporter's interpretation of something that was reported by EastIdahoNews.

Are you not answering the question. Will you please find a link were Bowerman is directly quoted using the word "inconclusive"?

For reference, here is what EIN originally published:
Bowerman says portions of polygraph tests administered to Kunz and Mitchell have come back “less than truthful” – including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where the toddler is located.

“Their statements don’t match, and it’s frustrating because we have absolutely no idea where DeOrr is,” Bowerman says. “There have been so many inconsistencies that it’s hard to tell the truth from everything they’ve said.”
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...ruthful-are-suspects-in-childs-disappearance/

And here is how KFOR paraphrased it:
Bowerman says portions of the couple’s polygraph tests came back inconclusive, including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where he is now.

“Their statements don’t match, and it’s frustrating because we have absolutely no idea where DeOrr is,” Bowerman said. “There have been so many inconsistencies that it’s hard to tell the truth from everything they’ve said.” http://kfor.com/2016/01/25/parents-of-missing-idaho-toddler-named-as-suspects-in-his-disappearance/

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

[Donjeta]

EXCEPT . . . . HERE, Bowerman says the answers to those same questions were "INCONCLUSIVE"!

http://kfor.com/2016/01/25/parents-of-missing-idaho-toddler-named-as-suspects-in-his-disappearance/

KFOR says:

Bowerman says portions of the couple’s polygraph tests came back inconclusive, including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where he is now.

“Their statements don’t match, and it’s frustrating because we have absolutely no idea where DeOrr is,” Bowerman said. “There have been so many inconsistencies that it’s hard to tell the truth from everything they’ve said.”

Bowerman also said that polygraphs given to Walton and his friend also came back inconclusive, but that was expected because of their mental states.

EIN says:

Bowerman says portions of polygraph tests administered to Kunz and Mitchell have come back “less than truthful” – including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where the toddler is located.

“Their statements don’t match, and it’s frustrating because we have absolutely no idea where DeOrr is,” Bowerman says. “There have been so many inconsistencies that it’s hard to tell the truth from everything they’ve said.”

Bowerman says polygraphs administered to Reinwand and Walton have been inconclusive, but those results were expected because of both men’s mental states.

So basically it's the same story, there's just a little bit of verbiage that changes.

EIN uses "less than truthful" instead of "inconclusive" to refer to the parents, and EIN doesn't say that GGP and IR were inconclusive "also".

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...ruthful-are-suspects-in-childs-disappearance/

Some of the quotes in the KFOR link are direct quotes from an interview that he gave to EIN.

“Their timeline keeps changing, where they were at keeps changing, and movements and statements about DeOrr Jr. keep changing,” Bowerman tells EastIdahoNews.com.

It's just me but if the EIN and the KFOR version of the same story differ, I'd personally look at the EIN story for more accuracy since apparently the reporter actually was there and heard what was said.

 

[Jamaica Me Crazy]

Would someone PLEASE get Bowerman in here? :gaah:

 

[Donjeta]

I would imagine there is somewhere. It doesn't sound like something reporters made up out of thin air. Then again, you never know. Maybe someone can do a better google search than I did, but that's what came up on search.

The word inconclusive was mentioned in the interview, just not in the context referring to the parents. Maybe someone who wasn't so knowledgeable about polygraph results thought that less than truthful and inconclusive were the more or less the same thing.

 

[ILOKAL]

Several people gave pointed out that the one article that you keep posting is NOT a direct quote from the sheriff. It is the KFOR reporter's interpretation of something that was reported by EastIdahoNews.

Are you not answering the question. Will you please find a link were Bowerman is directly quoted using the word "inconclusive"?

For reference, here is what EIN originally published:
Bowerman says portions of polygraph tests administered to Kunz and Mitchell have come back “less than truthful” – including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where the toddler is located.

“Their statements don’t match, and it’s frustrating because we have absolutely no idea where DeOrr is,” Bowerman says. “There have been so many inconsistencies that it’s hard to tell the truth from everything they’ve said.”
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...ruthful-are-suspects-in-childs-disappearance/

And here is how KFOR paraphrased it:
Bowerman says portions of the couple’s polygraph tests came back inconclusive, including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where he is now.

“Their statements don’t match, and it’s frustrating because we have absolutely no idea where DeOrr is,” Bowerman said. “There have been so many inconsistencies that it’s hard to tell the truth from everything they’ve said.” http://kfor.com/2016/01/25/parents-of-missing-idaho-toddler-named-as-suspects-in-his-disappearance/

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Listen, I posted that as it's a MS article that came out the very first day Bowerman named the parents as suspects. That same day Bowerman used the word "deceptive" and before most read THAT article (which may have been the same one), he quickly changed deceptive to "less than truthful". I don't think the TOS require me to provide a link for a link. I explained how the article comes up on Google search in many places. I have no way of knowing of that is actually Bowerman's word or if the reporter used liberty in reporting. That seems a bit far-fetched (to me) just based on how the article is worded. If you care to research this MS article to see if that is actually what Bowerman said, then that's up to you. I have no reason to believe that's not exactly what Bowerman said, IMO.

 

[Rayemonde]

Would someone PLEASE get Bowerman in here? :gaah:

"Excuse me Sheriff, I know you're very busy trying to solve crimes and all, but we need you to settle an argument on an Internet forum"? :giggle:

 

[Rayemonde]

Listen, I posted that as it's a MS article that came out the very first day Bowerman named the parents as suspects. That same day Bowerman used the word "deceptive" and before most read THAT article (which may have been the same one), he quickly changed deceptive to "less than truthful". I don't think the TOS require me to provide a link for a link. I explained how the article comes up on Google search in many places. I have no way of knowing of that is actually Bowerman's word or if the reporter used liberty in reporting. That seems a bit far-fetched (to me) just based on how the article is worded. If you care to research this MS article to see if that is actually what Bowerman said, then that's up to you. I have no reason to believe that's not exactly what Bowerman said, IMO.

Respectfully, do you think you might inadvertently be cherry-picking?

 

[ClaireNC]

It's just me but if the EIN and the KFOR version of the same story differ, I'd personally look at the EIN story for more accuracy since apparently the reporter actually was there and heard what was said.

GMTA, Donjeta! (I just posted the same thing above).

 

[ILOKAL]

The word inconclusive was mentioned in the interview, just not in the context referring to the parents. Maybe someone who wasn't so knowledgeable about polygraph results thought that less than truthful and inconclusive were the more or less the same thing.

Which interview? He gave several during the first week.

 

[Rayemonde]

I second your opinion. Our natural survival and protective instincts kick in and override knee jerk reactions at times for very good reasons. JMs call is void of either of those at a time when her two year old child is missing. That is telling for me.

Adding to that the casual behavior taken toward DeOrr's safety in an environment where running water could cause the death of a toddler, I felt suspicious early on. There are reasons the law requires child safety gates be in place around pools where children are present. I guess my point is and jmoo JM does not strike me as a consientious parent who places her child's needs above her own. I'm kind of rambling but Lillahazel's post sparked some feelings I had right away.

Exactly... Their original story made no sense imo because you wouldn't walk off and leave a toddler next to open water without making sure someone was diligently watching him. Either the story is untrue, or it was an extremely neglectful thing to do and they put their child in grave danger.