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

[TheTruthWillOut]

@ILOKAL

I said this the other day and will repeat:

The paragraph you cite doesn't have quote marks. The preceding and subsequent paragraphs do. Quote marks= He said it, no quote marks= The article writers words.

It really is that simple as far as I'm concerned.

 

[persimmon]

There's one true victim here that no amount of defense can truly help and that's DeOrr. All we can do now is seek justice according to the system provided to us. None of us our omnicient so we have to attempt to make sense of the senseless with evidence provided to us by individuals whose roles help shape our justice system. I imagine us as a microcasm of an actual trial and I'm waiting to hear from the suspects some explanation or reason for the experts consensus but none is forthcoming. As such, I remain suspicious of the named suspects because that is what the facts demonstrate.

 

[ClaireNC]

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.

So you have not been able to find any source where Bowerman was directly quoted using the word inconclusive? Do you realize that the source for the KFOR article is, in fact, EIN? The article is practically word for word from EIN. Reporters try to be creative and change up a few words all the time. Nothing far-fetched about it (to me).

You have stated many, many times that Bowerman said "the polys were inconclusive"...we asked for a link to that "fact". It is completely within TOS for us to ask for a link for that "fact". You cannot supply a link to support it, so your "fact" may not be accurate. IMO

 

[Donjeta]

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.

Well, except that it seems that the reporter he spoke with wrote differently...

Usually the first source is more accurate than the paraphrases by second hand reporters.

 

[ZooSleuth]

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.

Sorry, but you showed us ONE questionable article with no direct quote and your previous statement was that there were many articles that said they were inconclusive on specific questions:

I posted a link below which seems to be what Bowerman had said consistently (just by the sheer number of links with the same exact statement). He actually said in ALL those articles that their answers to some of the important questions were "inconclusive".

If you make statements like that you're going to have to provide more sources to back it up. We have no direct quotes to back up what you said.

 

[Donjeta]

Which interview? He gave several during the first week.

The interview that the EIN article and the KFOR article mentioned both seem to be referencing.
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...ruthful-are-suspects-in-childs-disappearance/

 

[ILOKAL]

So you have not been able to find any source where Bowerman was directly quoted using the word inconclusive? Do you realize that the source for the KFOR article is, in fact, EIN? The article is practically word for word from EIN. Reporters try to be creative and change up a few words all the time. Nothing far-fetched about it (to me).

You have stated many, many times that Bowerman said "the polys were inconclusive"...we asked for a link to that "fact". It is completely within TOS for us to ask for a link for that "fact". You cannot supply a link to support it, so your "fact" may not be accurate. IMO

Here's what I know. <modsnip>

But after careful consideration, I don't think it will bother me for the sake of peaceful discussion, to have posters refer to the parents as having failed their polygraphs. It wouldn't bother me for posters to call them liars. I have provided adequate sources that explain in quite understandable language just how polygraphs are administered and scored.

 

[Kairi'sMom]

I choose to trust the direct statements and clarification made personally by SB in the interview with Tricia rather than news reporter's interpretations.
It's transcribed here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Timelines-and-Maps-**NO-DISCUSSION-quot/page4
It can be heard directly here: http://www.truecrimeradio.com/radio-archives/sheriff-lynn-bowerman-radio-archive-jan-2016/


In the interview, SB unequivocally says the parents know what happened and they know where Deorr is. No ifs, ands, or buts. He doesn't hedge on that point.

02:13
SB: Well, after a pretty intense investigation and what I consider a lengthy investigation, we asked all the parties involved to take polygraphs. We were expecting a couple of them to come back inconclusive, and that would be the grandfather and the grandfather’s friend. However, the first polygraph indicated that the parents were being less than truthful, and that concerned me, but you know I take polygraphs with a certain grain of salt so… I sent out their interviews to the FBI, their Behavioral Team. They examined them and found multiple inconsistencies, and so we asked them to re-polygraph, and they said they would, and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th polygraphs, the same conclusion was made by the experts that they are being less than truthful. They know what happened and where Deorr is currently.
13:54
SB: You know they’ve been very cooperative. They’ve been very willing to talk to me and to my office and to my detectives down in Bonneville County so…not until the first polygraph came out and there was some indication that they were being less than truthful. At that time I was somewhat suspicious but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, so you know…just more recently once the FBI concluded theirs and said beyond any doubt they have knowledge and they are being less than truthful.
20:07

He also clearly stated WHY he changed his verbage from "deceptive" to "less than truthful". He doesn't use the term "inconclusive".

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.

Not a lot of room for misinterpretation, IMO.

 

[ClaireNC]

Here's what I know. <modsnip>

But after careful consideration, I don't think it will bother me for the sake of peaceful discussion, to have posters refer to the parents as having failed their polygraphs. It wouldn't bother me for posters to call them liars. I have provided adequate sources that explain in quite understandable language just how polygraphs are administered and scored.

So we can agree that the sheriff never said that the parents' polygraphs were inconclusive? I am really not sure what explaining how polygraphs are administered has to do with us asking for a link to support something that was stated as "fact".

 

[ILOKAL]

Sorry but, you showed us ONE questionable article with no direct quote and your previous statement was that there were many articles that said they were inconclusive on specific questions:



If you make statements like that you're going to have to provide more sources to back it up. We have no direct quotes to back up what you said.

Zoosleuth, I explained to you in a previous post the Google search I did and that I linked to the first article that came up. Here's that search result:

http://www.google.com/search?sclien....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..31.1.723.8hrNGQYjtPg

 

[Donjeta]

Here's what I know. <modsnip>

But after careful consideration, I don't think it will bother me for the sake of peaceful discussion, to have posters refer to the parents as having failed their polygraphs. It wouldn't bother me for posters to call them liars. I have provided adequate sources that explain in quite understandable language just how polygraphs are administered and scored.

JMO the posters not being able to understand how polygraphs are administered is not the issue here. I'm sure many posters have read up extensively on polygraphs on this thread and other cases. The issue is posting as a fact that all the parents' polygraphs came back as inconclusive when we can't find any direct quotes that say so and several quotes that indicate there was a suspicion of deception.

 

[bluesneakers]

"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:

Do you mean argument, disagreement, opposing viewpoints, or perhaps merely differences of opinion?

 

[ClaireNC]

Zoosleuth, I explained to you in a previous post the Google search I did and that I linked to the first article that came up. Here's that search result:

http://www.google.com/search?sclien....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..31.1.723.8hrNGQYjtPg

If you go into the articles that come up in that Google search you will see that the references to the word "inconclusive" are in relation to IR's and GGP's polygraphs. It does not satisfy the requirement of providing a link for the stated "fact".

 

[ILOKAL]

So we can agree that the sheriff never said that the parents' polygraphs were inconclusive? I am really not sure what explaining how polygraphs are administered has to do with us asking for a link to support something that was stated as "fact".

Don't twist what I said, especially when it's perfectly clear. Posters can say the parents failed their polygraphs and are liars who lied on important questions and I won't bother.

It is and will REMAIN my opinion that the sheriff not only said their polygraphs were inconclusive but that he also said their answers to those two important questions were inconclusive and that the FBI told Bowerman the parents were "less than truthful".

 

[haven71]

I'm far behind but before I catch up, I don't want to lose my train of thought (which I'm practically famous for).

Thinking out loud here. There have been many cases of children who "accidentally" died. Only, it wasn't an accident. I remember one not too long ago where a father left his child in a hot car and "forgot" he was there. Searches on his computer showed he'd looked up info about what at what temperature and how long would it take a child to die in there, etc.

Of course they've checked JM's and Deorr's computers. If nothing was found to be suspicious, then that may be some proof that it was not pre-planned, anyway. And hopefully they're being tracked (they could use someone else's computer though, or a library, etc) because they could be looking up all sorts of things that they think might save their bacon.

JMO.

 

[Donjeta]

Don't twist what I said, especially when it's perfectly clear. Posters can say the parents failed their polygraphs and are liars who lied on important questions and I won't bother.

It is and will REMAIN my opinion that the sheriff not only said their polygraphs were inconclusive but that he also said their answers to those two important questions were inconclusive and that the FBI told Bowerman the parents were "less than truthful".

Bowerman says portions of polygraph tests administered to Kunz and Mitchell have come back &#8220;less than truthful&#8221; &#8211; including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where the toddler is located.

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

The words "less than truthful" are in quote marks. In usual journalistic practice it means it's Bowerman's actual words.

KFOR didn't put quote marks around inconclusive:

Bowerman says portions of the couple&#8217;s polygraph tests came back inconclusive, including questions about knowing what happened to DeOrr, why the child disappeared and where he is now.

 

[ILOKAL]

If you go into the articles that come up in that Google search you will see that the references to the word "inconclusive" are in relation to IR's and GGP's polygraphs. It does not satisfy the requirement of providing a link for the stated "fact".

Here's the 2nd article in the Google search which states what I said:

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

I don't know if those are Bowerman's words, but I have seen no reason to believe they aren't.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Here's the 2nd article in the Google search which states what I said:

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

I don't know if those are Bowerman's words, but I have seen no reason to believe they aren't.

Willfully ignoring multiple explanations from myself and others here isn't our problem.

 

[bluesneakers]

Here's the 2nd article in the Google search which states what I said:

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

I don't know if those are Bowerman's words, but I have seen no reason to believe they aren't.

This must be so frustrating for him. JMO but after so many false leads and stories I would want to shake them by their shoulders and scream at them to just tell the truth already.

&#8220;Their statements don&#8217;t match, and it&#8217;s frustrating because we have absolutely no idea where DeOrr is,&#8221; Bowerman said. &#8220;There have been so many inconsistencies that it&#8217;s hard to tell the truth from everything they&#8217;ve said.&#8221;

 

[courtneyb]

The multiple "not passed" polygraphs are interesting to me, and just show potential support of the evidence that LE obviously has that made them comfortable naming the parents as suspects in their own child's death. Since polygraphs aren't admissible in court, it's even more obvious that there is either some really hard evidence or an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence against them. If they had passed all the polys, and LE still named them suspects, I'd believe they had the evidence to back it up. The facts are that:

1. Due to some sort of conclusive evidence, they are suspects.

2. They also happened to "not pass" a boatload of polygraphs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk