ID - DeOrr Kunz, Jr., 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #26

[giagreen]

Not clear at all if anyone had a drink or not. It is just a possibility and I think a reasonable one to ponder since they stopped at a bar/restaurant/casino, where people eat, drink alcohol and gamble. If they stopped at a church it would be a possibility that someone prayed. If they stopped at a hair salon it would be a possibility that someone got their hair cut. IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it's a reasonable one to ponder as well.
But I don't think they went into drink. I'd lean more towards a carry out to have some beers at the camp site. It's cheaper that way....and just from being from a small town and all I'd assume nobody really wants to sit at an empty small bar to drink when you could get a 24 to go and sit by a camp fire.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[Hoosier952]

So if they sue Klein, that means they are more concerned with getting $$ than finding their son. If they don't sue, it means they are guilty and can't prove their innocence in court. I think the parents know what happened to Deorr but is there any scenario in this hypothetical lawsuit where people wouldn't try to make their decision fit in why the parents did it?

I don't think anything but hard physical evidence pointing to someone else being responsible would change my mind. Like I said, others will see it differently. But let me try to take my personal opinion out of the equation and add to my statement.

If they are innocent and choose to file a lawsuit any statements made could be released by the media again. This case has some national exposure, but Klein's statements have been mostly concentrated to local news stations and FB. I know there are tons of people who follow this case on FB, but it's just a tiny portion of the population. What if a lawsuit brought more national media attention? Would they want Klein's statements scrolling across CNN for weeks on end? What about every bit of dirty laundry that will be exposed? You can bet those debts will come up and any other statement that could be taken a million different ways. Or let's say the opposite happens and everything is kept completely confidential? What if everyone assumes they lost the lawsuit? That won't bode well in the court of public opinion and John Q. Public is a potential employer, landlord, etc.

Also, I don't think they are guilty if they don't sue. I think that's just a wise decision. I think they are guilty because everyone who has touched this case says they are.

 

[Tr.]

Not real clear they were drinking then. So I'm guessing it's another rumor?

private parties are often BYOB

 

[Lillahazel]

I'm a little behind today. Sorry for my off topic thought.

I've been thinking about VDK "hauling down the road" to get service. Is it possible that he never left the campsite to call 911? Maybe he used that story to try and communicate his urgency and try and hide his close proximity to JM making her 911 call. Maybe he stayed behind and called at a similar time as JM so they could try and match their calls as much as possible?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tr.]

Reading the FB commentary on the case as anything other than low comedy will cause your iq to drop by 20 points. The fact that it is adults commenting, fighting, and pulling information out of the air is frightening and depressing to me. At this point, anybody who starts a DeOrr page must genuinely enjoy crazy because those pages are fully stocked with it and little else. Some of the more serious pages that have DeOrr posts need to delete or moderate the comments to some degree because they really are ignorant. Jmo

Agree...and at the risk of being labeled a FB basher ...it is what it is.

I do admire those daring souls who are willing to wade through the mountains of useless crap to bring back the nuggets of useful info though.
Thank you for that.

I use SM (including FB)to research missing individuals on a regular basis as anyone can see from my posts on other cases. And in many cases, absent of the chaos in cases such as this one, FB can be quite useful.

But I think that our wonderful moderators here do excellent work and there is no way I would participate in a FB like discussion on this case.

I am seriously searching for Deorr and devoting my time to coming up with search ideas based on all of the info here.
I only hope that LE strikes gold in the Spring and this doesn't turn into a years long search like so many have.

 

[Deleted member 50844]

Shouldn't they be finished 'going over Issac's proffer' by now?
What will the next step be???

 

[Butler]

Not clear at all if anyone had a drink or not. It is just a possibility and I think a reasonable one to ponder since they stopped at a bar/restaurant/casino, where people eat, drink alcohol and gamble. If they stopped at a church it would be a possibility that someone prayed. If they stopped at a hair salon it would be a possibility that someone got their hair cut. IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First it's not a casino, Idaho does not have casino gambling off Indian Reservations. Second, I believe it's a huge leap to take and claim they were drinking, got drunk & irresponsible, and killed their son. My understanding is they stopped for food, weren't able to get any, and then went on to their campsite.

 

[MBK]

In other words, assuming he was still ALIVE, little Deorr went to bed without any dinner. I wonder when was the last time he had eaten? I wonder how much food the family brought with them, if any.

 

[MBK]

Same here..I get the sense JM feels less responsible..she seems far less on edge in the interviews than VDK.
i think they sent some clear messages to one another in the last interview.ie;

VDK to JM - You could be held responsible just like anyone else.
JM to VDK - If they find him they will know what really happened and you won't be able to lie your way out of it.

I love it when people are able to observe body language and read into what is being said on a deeper level. This is maybe your second post where you've made such observations about the latest interview. I absolutely don't doubt the inferences you've made, but what led you to them? TIA!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Question: Are you tainting a potential court case by sharing so much information about this case?

Answer: This question could be asked about any case that receives lots of publicity. There has always been some tension between the First Amendment and a defendant’s right to a fair trial. The judicial system works to balance these competing rights.

We asked a handful of Idaho judges, prosecutors and law enforcement for an opinion on our coverage. Overall, none of them expressed any major concerns and many applauded our work.

Media coverage can create challenges in finding an unbiased jury and should anyone be charged in this case, a judge has the option of moving the trial.

A child from our community is missing. We maintain the public has the right to know as much as they can about him and the circumstances surrounding his disappearance.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/0...stions-youve-asked-about-the-deorr-kunz-case/

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't think anything but hard physical evidence pointing to someone else being responsible would change my mind. Like I said, others will see it differently. But let me try to take my personal opinion out of the equation and add to my statement.

If they are innocent and choose to file a lawsuit any statements made could be released by the media again. This case has some national exposure, but Klein's statements have been mostly concentrated to local news stations and FB. I know there are tons of people who follow this case on FB, but it's just a tiny portion of the population. What if a lawsuit brought more national media attention? Would they want Klein's statements scrolling across CNN for weeks on end? What about every bit of dirty laundry that will be exposed? You can bet those debts will come up and any other statement that could be taken a million different ways. Or let's say the opposite happens and everything is kept completely confidential? What if everyone assumes they lost the lawsuit? That won't bode well in the court of public opinion and John Q. Public is a potential employer, landlord, etc.

Also, I don't think they are guilty if they don't sue. I think that's just a wise decision. I think they are guilty because everyone who has touched this case says they are.

What could be said in a lawsuit that would be so sensational that the national media---which has almost no interest in the case---would now be interested? Most of their readers/viewers have never heard of Deorr so why would they care about a lawsuit against his parents? I just think it is is extremely unlikely that this case is ever going to get significantly more interest than it already has. How many cases "blow up" almost nine months after the victim goes missing?

 

[courtneyb]

I guess I could see a sheriff using the scare tactic of publicly naming the parents suspects to try and make them come clean, but if he didn't have info/evidence/solid reason to do so I think he could get into serious legal trouble. Would he risk that? And he would also have to be blatantly lying about all the poly's and the FBI's determination. Given all that, I'm just not sure he would pretend that he knows something he doesn't just to scare the parents. He seems wiser.

Also, the PI signed by the family who would seemingly have the most reason to give the parents the benefit of the doubt also believes (and expresses all the more forcefully) that the parents know where their son is. He says that he doesn't say it loosely, but firmly. I can't think of why he would point fingers back at the family of his client unless he had serious reason to do so.

I just can't for a moment believe that LE, FBI and Klein are all collectively wrong or trying to mislead people. I go back and question my logic every time I hear someone say something counter. And j just keep ending up in the same place. No way no how that they're off on this. They just need the parents to stop lying and say where DeOrr is right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. And, when I asked about the possibility that SB suspects one is responsible for DeOrr's death and the other only in the cover up, but isn't sure which is responsible for which, so he names them both suspects, thinking surely the one who isn't responsible would roll over on the other one, it was pointed out to me that there's no way he would employ that tactic because of the legal ramifications.

But, I'm not so sure. He named them suspects but only said they are lying and they absolutely know what happened to DeOrr.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoosier952]

What could be said in a lawsuit that would be so sensational that the national media---which has almost no interest in the case---would now be interested? Most of their readers/viewers have never heard of Deorr so why would they care about a lawsuit against his parents? I just think it is is extremely unlikely that this case is ever going to get significantly more interest than it already has. How many cases "blow up" almost nine months after the victim goes missing?

I don't think it would be what was said necessarily, just the fact that there's a (potential) lawsuit in general. The news loves drama. I didn't say it would happen either, just what if. It wouldn't even have to be national, even local news spreading to more viewers. A defamation case is all about public perception and personal reputation. A lawsuit isn't going to get their son back and it's not going to get them out of hot water with LE. Maybe they could get Klein's statements removed from the media, but there's still statements by SB and Vilt saying the exact same things, just with a bit more tact.

 

[Hoosier952]

I agree. And, when I asked about the possibility that SB suspects one is responsible for DeOrr's death and the other only in the cover up, but isn't sure which is responsible for which, so he names them both suspects, thinking surely the one who isn't responsible would roll over on the other one, it was pointed out to me that there's no way he would employ that tactic because of the legal ramifications.

But, I'm not so sure. He named them suspects but only said they are lying and they absolutely know what happened to DeOrr.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM- What are the possible legal ramifications for naming someone a suspect who isn't actually a suspect? Does the same go for a POI? I tried googling but everything I found was based on media reporting and potential libel cases.

 

[Karinna]

BBM- What are the possible legal ramifications for naming someone a suspect who isn't actually a suspect? Does the same go for a POI? I tried googling but everything I found was based on media reporting and potential libel cases.

From what i can gather that LE naming someone a "suspect" means that LE place them under suspicion of having committed a crime because they have evidence to do so. I think LE do that all the time in criminal cases and it usually follows that at some stage there will be pending arrest & charges. Depending on the case that has been built against a suspect once they are charged the clock starts ticking for the prosecution to prove their case. I would think at this stage of the case evidence is still being gathered to try and build their case against the perpetrators of whatever crime they feel was committed.
I'm not sure LE would name someone a suspect if they didn't have any evidence to do so, but am not absolutely sure about that? In this case it seems they could be trying to get a confession from the suspects to get some answers, and especially with the PI's getting on the bandwagon as well. Just how it seems to me anyway and all IMO.

 

[courtneyb]

BBM- What are the possible legal ramifications for naming someone a suspect who isn't actually a suspect? Does the same go for a POI? I tried googling but everything I found was based on media reporting and potential libel cases.

I'm not actually sure myself. Hopefully someone who does will weigh in. I would think that LE has legal protection in naming someone a POI, more so than naming someone a suspect.

But I would think that since they were named suspects in his disappearance as opposed to suspects in his death, that they are okay in doing so because though SB says they believe he is deceased, he doesn't go so far as to say he is responsible for his death. Which could stretch as far as them giving DeOrr to someone and he died in that person's care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go?
http://policelink.monster.com/train...g-to-a-suspect-how-far-can-an-investigator-go

 

[haven71]

I was just listening to JM's 911 call again.

Not sure why, but this time I DO detect emotion in her voice, especially at the very beginning. Her voice is pretty shaky.

IMO this could mean a couple of things. Either the accident/death had *just* happened and she was trying to keep it together, or that she was so nervous calling because of an cover-up and knows that her call will put everything in motion, including thorough searches and relentless investigations, and that is nothing to stop the inevitable snowballing. That their lives will never ever be the same again.

It's hard for me to believe that the accident/death had just occurred though. I would at least have figured they'd hid the body well (and if time allowed, as far away from the campground as possible). I don't think they'd hide the body AFTER calling 911, because as far as they knew LE could've been available and been there in less than a half hour. So why rush? I think the incident happened well before they called 911. And I'll say it again, it is ODD that they all 3 called within minutes of each other...I guess they thought it would make them seem so scared and that it was incredibly urgent that they get help to find Deorr.

Poor Deorr. I hope it was an "honest" accident and that up to that point in his life, he knew and felt loved by his parents to the nth degree. I hope this was just a gross mishandling of something tragic and accidental and that no premeditation occurred, or that his life ended in a moment of fury at the hands of those he trusted. If so, I hope that moment was instantaneous so he didn't suffer.

His parents will pay accordingly, I pray.

 

[Hippie Heart]

I think Thurs night seems like a possibility too. Especially if there was any drinking done. I'm thinking if the blood on the truck's bumper and fender was DeOrr's then it was likely DK moving the truck, not someone else. That would also explain why they might resist calling for help immediately.

In that situation (if drinks had been had) there would have likely been serious charges. And no more trucking.

They would find themselves in a bit of pickle, because the longer they waited to call after he died, the more obvious it would be that he has been deceased for awhile before calling for help.

I could see how that situation could lead to them fabricating DeOrr's disappearance.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry just catching up. That is one of the best theories I've heard yet!

 

[Hippie Heart]

First it's not a casino, Idaho does not have casino gambling off Indian Reservations. Second, I believe it's a huge leap to take and claim they were drinking, got drunk & irresponsible, and killed their son. My understanding is they stopped for food, weren't able to get any, and then went on to their campsite.

So if it was truly an accident and not premeditated, what is your theory on it? Why is this a huge leap? Lots of people including myself bring alcohol on trips. There's nothing wrong with that. You wouldn't have to be "drunk" to have such an accident. You could just have a couple drinks and be feeling good and accidentally hit someone in the pitch dark.

So again my question is, what is a good theory for an accidental death?