ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #22

[The Apparition]

Do we know that is DeOrr? I assumed it was just a photo to show what his birthmark looked like, not that it was actually him. (It kind of looks like a girl to me...) Who knows.

I agree. Too much hair being pulled up to match the pictures of Deorr I've seen. I hate to be "that guy" but I think we're past the point of birthmarks and what clothes he was wearing anyways.

 

[Rayemonde]

I think I understand what you're saying. I feel the same way...at least I think I do.

I think SB is a respectable LE officer. In naming the parent suspects, he felt it was the right and best thing to do. He has a case to solve, and a missing child to find. I think he's doing what he believes will further that along. I don't think he made that decision lightly, and I'm sure weighed the pros & cons.

Personally, "less than truthful" polygraphs, and inconsistency, isn't enough for me to judge the parents guilty of anything, ..other than that...less than truthful polygraphs, and inconsistency.
Before I can judge them, in good conscience, guilty of harming Deorr I'd have to hear more evidence.

I get where you're coming from, but I thought it was interesting in that other case I just posted about that even the appeals judges wrote that inconsistencies in a caregiver's story about how their child disappeared can be used to infer that the child is no longer alive and that the caregiver was responsible for their disappearance. Because why else would they be unable to keep their story straight? The appeals judges thought it was perfectly fair and reasonable to use those inconsistencies to infer that the child had been murdered and help convict a man of murder even in the absence of a body, blood evidence for murder, proof of death, a confession or a witness to a murder.


"The same circumstances which support the conclusion that James is dead, including appellant's story about how the child disappeared and his contradictory statements, invite the inference that James did not disappear on his own but was made to "disappear" by appellant himself."
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/superior-court/1994/433-pa-super-280-2.html

The FBI behavioural experts are well aware that true stories will change a little over time and that people may have trouble remembering specific details about an event, and so on, so that is not the kind of benign inconsistencies they are talking about in DeOrr's case IMO. The stories are inconsistent because they are lying. That's what the experts think. Why would parents lie about their child's disappearance? Because they were responsible for the disappearance. It's a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion IMO, and it doesn't take a great leap of faith or a spiteful desire for the parents to be guilty of foul play to make that inference.

 

[jnblsm]

Do we know that is DeOrr? I assumed it was just a photo to show what his birthmark looked like, not that it was actually him. (It kind of looks like a girl to me...) Who knows.

Not sure where the original came from.
Why would there be a picture of an innocuous birthmark even be posted?

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[hmartin]

Not sure where the original came from.
Why would there be a picture of an innocuous birthmark even be posted?

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Maybe him and his sister had similar birth marks. That may be his sister?

Wondering why this picture was even taken.
I would have never thought to photograph my kids' birthmarks at random. Probably not a bad idea for parents to do, but who thinks to do this in general? Sure, they all got fingerprinted and had their pictures taken at some mall thing, I think, as a public-awareness thingy once. But just as a thing to do.
Who actually has a picture of their kid's birthmark taken, with the hair pulled up to show it, just at random? (Neurotic Websleuthers don't count!)

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Might be a picture of that's just blown up. Like a pic of him watching something and they took it from behind him but LE Blew it up so you can see the birthmark.
OT but all 4 of my girls have almost the same birthmark as that. Same spot on all of them just different sizes.

These birth marks are really common, over here we call them "stork marks" (ie where the stork held them before they were dropped off to be born!)

 

[CatsInTheCradle]

@persimmom thanks so much! You're very kind! I really didn't share that for anything other than a little perspective. It gets very frustrating when we don't hear from LE. I still get frustrated with this case. I've only read all of the threads recently. You all have been following Deorr since day one. I thought it might help us all to remember why we have to wait.

I don't know if I would call myself strong. Ha! It's been a looooong process to somewhat get to the other side of the situation, get over guilt, etc. Everyone has a story and we all find our ways to cope with them and hopefully grow. My goal is to keep getting stronger and healthier. And to do what I can to make a difference when given the opportunity.

We're all here for these victims who can't speak for themselves any more. I wish each of them could get the justice they deserve.

Thank you! Your story is inspiring. I have always been here for the victim in this case which is baby Deorr. He is the one missing and clearly never even had a chance to defend himself from whatever happened. If only his parents were truthful rather than not truthful, then perhaps there would be some resolution. Jmo

 

[Rayemonde]

Thank you! Your story is inspiring. I have always been here for the victim in this case which is baby Deorr. He is the one missing and clearly never even had a chance to defend himself from whatever happened. If only his parents were truthful rather than not truthful, then perhaps there would be some resolution. Jmo

I found it interesting that Bowerman emphasised in his latest interviews that DeOrr is the victim in this case. Why would he emphasise that? Does he think the parents have been falsely presenting themselves as victims?

"I want to find Deorr. That's my top priority. He's my victim here."

http://www.11alive.com/story/news/n...ts-missing-idaho-boy-named-suspects/79373780/

"the real victim here is little DeOrr. I just want to find him."

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

 

[ILOKAL]

Here's a perfect example that polygraph examiners can and do lie to suspects about the results of their polygraphs in an effort to "coax" a false confession. In Cook County, IL, a polygraph examiner told the suspect mother that she failed her polygraph, yet LE files show the mother's polygraph was inconclusive.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...aquari-dancy-nicole-harris-alleged-confession

 

[Rayemonde]

Here's a perfect example that polygraph examiners can and do lie to suspects about the results of their polygraphs in an effort to "coax" a false confession. In Cook County, IL, a polygraph examiner told the suspect mother that she failed her polygraph, yet LE files show the mother's polygraph was inconclusive.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...aquari-dancy-nicole-harris-alleged-confession

That's interesting. Do you think that Bowerman is lying to the family, the public and the press about the parents' results? And lying about them being suspects? Or is it the FBI that is lying, and they are lying to Bowerman about it too?

 

[Rayemonde]

Harris said the polygraph examiner told her she failed the test, though police records show the exam was inconclusive. Harris testified that he screamed at her, called her a "monster" and told her she would spend the rest of her life behind bars if she didn't cooperate, according to a court transcript. The examiner denied Harris' claims.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...aquari-dancy-nicole-harris-alleged-confession

So it's just the polygraph examiner's word against the mother's? The polygraph examiner denied lying to her about the results?

 

[ILOKAL]

[SUP][/SUP]

That's interesting. Do you think that Bowerman is lying to the family, the public and the press about the parents' results? And lying about them being suspects? Or is it the FBI that is lying, and they are lying to Bowerman about it too?

I don't mind answering your question, Ray, although I thought I had explained my position previously. It seems clear (to me) that the parents did not fail their polygraphs, at all, and that the answers to two important questions were inconclusive. I don't believe Bowerman lied when he announced that in his first interview on January 25th which is what the corresponding articles show. What the articles say is . . . . Bowerman said, but what he allegedly said is not included in a quote. I don't know who picked up on the "error" when Bowerman originally said the polygraphs showed deception, but he quickly changed that to less than truthful, because to say their polygraphs showed deception is saying they failed.

 

[ILOKAL]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...aquari-dancy-nicole-harris-alleged-confession

So it's just the polygraph examiner's word against the mother's? The polygraph examiner denied lying to her about the results?

Her conviction was overturned.

 

[Rayemonde]

[SUP][/SUP]

I don't mind answering your question, Ray, although I thought I had explained my position previously. It seems clear (to me) that the parents did not fail their polygraphs, at all, and that the answers to two important questions were inconclusive. I don't believe Bowerman lied when he announced that in his first interview on January 25th which is what the corresponding articles show. What the articles say is . . . . Bowerman said, but what he allegedly said is not included in a quote. I don't know who picked up on the "error" when Bowerman originally said the polygraphs showed deception, but he quickly changed that to less than truthful, because to say their polygraphs showed deception is saying they failed.

Oh, I see. So you don't think that anybody has lied about the polygraph results in this case?

 

[pappa rob]

Oh, I see. So you don't think that anybody has lied about the polygraph results in this case?

Some one is, but as for whom we'll just have to wait and see..

 

[Mickshawn]

Wondering why this picture was even taken.
I would have never thought to photograph my kids' birthmarks at random. Probably not a bad idea for parents to do, but who thinks to do this in general? Sure, they all got fingerprinted and had their pictures taken at some mall thing, I think, as a public-awareness thingy once. But just as a thing to do.
Who actually has a picture of their kid's birthmark taken, with the hair pulled up to show it, just at random? (Neurotic Websleuthers don't count!)

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Perhaps for Physician records???

 

[ILOKAL]

Oh, I see. So you don't think that anybody has lied about the polygraph results in this case?

I'm not willing to make that leap since we have no way of knowing, but from this forum alone, I HAVE learned that LE often does lie and to do so is acceptable (to some) as just part of what LE does. IMO

 

[LaLaw2000]

DatelineFan...........................:hug:

 

[Mickshawn]

DatelineFan...........................:hug:

I second this hug, DatelineFan!!

 

[LaLaw2000]

Polygraphs are a tool for LE to aide in investigations. I have a friend who is a polygrapher with a large department. He trained at Quantico and attends seminars and ongoing training there. Polygraph results are actually allowed in civil trials if both sides agree to it. Of course that rarely happens.

The ongoing discussion about polygraphs is not going to end, IMO, because either you think they are helpful or you don't. For those who do not think they are helpful, can anyone explain how you have two different people and different genders not being truthful in regard to the same questions but truthful in others? That would be an oddity, IMO. I believe the Sheriff and the FBI in that the parents are not being truthful in all questions.

I do not believe for a moment that polygraph results is the only thing the Sheriff and the FBI have. As in all cases, it is the totality of the evidence that makes the case. The truth is a constant. You can tell the truth time after time with consistency.

I keep just reading because I have nothing of substance to add. The only other thing I want to say is that I also do not believe for a second that the only people who know what happened to little DeOrr are the parents, GGPA, and IR. I believe there are others involved here, IMO. I just hope that sooner or later someone will decide to come clean about what they know.

JMO

 

[Hoosgirl]

Perhaps for Physician records???

That was my first thought. My son's pediatrician measures a mole at each well check to monitor it for any changes. But the background of the pic looks like someone's house.

I also wonder why this birthmark wasn't publicized as a way of ruling out all the blonde headed toddlers out there. Remember the hotel boy fiasco? Would have been so easy to just say he didn't have the birthmark.