ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #8

[SweetT]

I have permission from a mod to post this but this is all I can say:

I spoke to a reporter at East Idaho News today and was told that a "substantial" article about this case will be published tomorrow.

Hopefully this will answer alot of our questions and clarify some things for us.

 

[CatsInTheCradle]

"The morning after they arrived at camp they went to the store"

"In the morning after they arrived at camp they went to the store"

A two letter word makes all the difference, it could be easy to mishear/misconstrue/mistype. Nonetheless it doesn't really matter but yet again there are pages and pages here going over and over the same unproven points.

Looking forward to some new info coming out, this old hat is threadbare.

Lol @ threadbare. It is beginning to feel rather tattered and worn out in here. Jmo

 

[pepelepolecat]

I have permission from a mod (thank you, Bessie) to post this but this is all I can say:

I spoke to a reporter at East Idaho News today and was told that a "substantial" article about this case will be published tomorrow.

Oh, thank you! (And you, Bessie!) I sincerely hope that some breaks are coming soon ...

 

[ClaireNC]

I too believe he 'got it wrong'. Just like the reporter that said DeOrr was found and Nate called DeOrr SR to ask him about it only to find it too was wrong.

It happens.

Some speculation on another way to think about the questionable timeline. What if the reporter did not get it wrong and actually reported on exactly what the parents told him? But now it is coming that they really arrived at the campsite on Thursday and the parents were not truthful to the media, and possibly LE, at the beginning? Maybe there is some kind of video proof that they were there on Thursday, so now the parents need to come clean.
Just something to think about as we :deadhorse:

 

[Dee10]

Personally, I'm going with JM's mom & the PI regarding arriving Thur. & hopefully tomorrow this will be cleared up, but I did find this:


But Nate, I want you to tell me about the timeline, OK? It starts Friday afternoon, right?

EATON: Friday afternoon, the family arrives at the campground. They`re settled in, setting up their tent, having a good afternoon. The

parents decide to go on a walk. They leave the boy with his grandfather and the grandfather`s friend.

The parents said they came back about 10 to 15 minutes later. No sign of the boy. Grandpa didn`t know where the boy was. He had assumed the boy

was with the parents. The parents thought he was with Grandpa.

They do their own little search for about 20 minutes. They can`t find him. They immediately call 911 for search and rescue.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/15/ng.01.html

 

[neesaki]

Thanks for the explanation, but I still don't get the logic. Why do you take the reporter's word as gospel, but assume that the PI misspoke? Why are you being so very closed minded about it?

The reporter has been informed of his mistake, but is reluctant to print a correction. And NO, I do not have a link for that. It is IMO only. If the PI does another interview that says specifically that they arrived on Thursday will you believe him? What if the parents decide to speak up and clarify some of the facts? Will you believe them?

I'm starting to get dizzy over all of this arguing and attacking each other over what time they did or didn't arrive at the campsite, jmo. I honestly don't think Ilokal is being "close minded", she's just stating and believing and reiterating the only thing that has been reported by MSM. Isn't that the only arrival time that has been reported, i.e., Friday? Also, anyone here, please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the only thing we are supposed to be discussing here according to TOS, versus rumors from social media? TIA I just don't think all of this bickering is helping things, JMO.

 

[Mickshawn]

I have permission from a mod (thank you, Bessie) to post this but this is all I can say:

I spoke to a reporter at East Idaho News today and was told that a "substantial" article about this case will be published tomorrow.

I'm almost afraid to know...

 

[ILOKAL]

BBM you're ignoring that the PI is not the only the person connected to the family that has said they arrived Thursday night. Yes it's technically only rumor at this point that the other person said they arrived Thursday night, but 2 parties that close to the family making the same claim is enough for me to come to the conclusion that Nate got it wrong.

If I thought a reporter got something wrong that I felt was important to correct, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to contact him, especially when the reporter has said that's exactly what he wants you to do. Really quite simple, no?

 

[babyback]

Did the dogs keep coming back to the campsite? I'm trying to find a source for that and only find references to the dogs bee-lining it to the reservoir.

"Cadaver dogs led law enforcement directly to the reservoir but Bowerman said unrelated cremated remains dumped into the water during the search likely prompted the canines' interest."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/2...den-yield-no-clues-in-hunt-for-idaho-toddler/

"On Tuesday, scent dogs led searchers to that section of reservoir — the second set of search dogs to show marked interest in that area/"

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/07/15/3897072/search-continues-at-reservoir.html#storylink=cpy

"Police have used search dogs, which were led investigators to the Stone Reservoir, but after days of searching the water, they found no trace of DeOrr. The Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office scaled back their search on Tuesday."

http://www.kboi.com/2015/07/23/new-details-out-on-the-search-for-deorr/


"Divers and others focused on the reservoir about 50 miles southeast of Salmon Wednesday but found no sign of 2-year-old DeOrr Kunz. On Tuesday, scent dogs led searchers to that section of reservoir — the second set of search dogs to show marked interest in that area, Lemhi County Sheriff's Office Chief Deputy Steve Penner told the Post Register."

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2015/...ontinues-at-reservoir.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

And to muddy the waters even more, we have the sheriff explain that the dogs alerts were because of the mysterious cremains someone tossed during the intensive 100+ man search. IIRC the dogs didn't hit at the campground which led to much debate. But I could be mis-remembering.

Bowerman said the trained search dogs found nothing and kept coming back to the camp.
http://lemhiweb.com/content/search-recap

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I have permission from a mod (thank you, Bessie) to post this but this is all I can say:

I spoke to a reporter at East Idaho News today and was told that a "substantial" article about this case will be published tomorrow.

I have a feeling this might be a propaganda piece.

 

[travelbug]

http://lemhiweb.com/content/search-recap

yikes.. how did we ignore this little tidbit?

The search has been officially suspended. The sheriff said investigators from Bonneville and Bingham counties have offered assistance in further follow-up investigations into any possible criminal histories of those involved.

It has definitely not been ignored, but the extensive discussion has been removed since, under TOS, none of those involved can be sleuthed. We're all just impatiently waiting for some sort of break in the investigation. :moo:

 

[kammiemc]

Some speculation on another way to think about the questionable timeline. What if the reporter did not get it wrong and actually reported on exactly what the parents told him? But now it is coming that they really arrived at the campsite on Thursday and the parents were not truthful to the media, and possibly LE, at the beginning? Maybe there is some kind of video proof that they were there on Thursday, so now the parents need to come clean.
Just something to think about as we :deadhorse:

I could possibly see them letting Nate assume that they arrived on Fri, or just being ambiguous, if they didn't want attention given to the fact they were there on Thurs night for some reason. (But my guess is that it wasn't intentional and at worst a miscommunication.)

But I really doubt they would lie to LE, because they'd have to know LE would interview their family members about the camping trip logistics and find discrepancies, and they might have been asked in a polygraph test. I can't really imagine any scenario where it would be worth the risk to the parents to lie to LE about their arrival date.

 

[ClaireNC]

I'm starting to get dizzy over all of this arguing and attacking each other over what time they did or didn't arrive at the campsite, jmo. I honestly don't think Ilokal is being "close minded", she's just stating and believing and reiterating the only thing that has been reported by MSM. Isn't that the only arrival time that has been reported, i.e., Friday? Also, anyone here, please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the only thing we are supposed to be discussing here according to TOS, versus rumors from social media? TIA I just don't think all of this bickering is helping things, JMO.

It's not bickering it's a debate. There is a difference. Anyway, the PI's interview is MSM and in it he says that the family went to the store the day after they arrived at the campground.

Thinking that only one thing is correct without being willing to take in any other information is being close minded. Personally, I am leaning towards it being Thursday, but I am awaiting better confirmation. I am not dead set on Thursday or Friday.

Here is the definition:

close-mind·ed
adjective
adjective: close-minded

having or showing rigid opinions or a narrow outlook.

 

[cobalt sky]

If I thought a reporter got something wrong that I felt was important to correct, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to contact him, especially when the reporter has said that's exactly what he wants you to do. Really quite simple, no?

And therein lies the rub imo. The parents have made it clear from the beginning that they are following what's being said about the case. Certainly they were aware at some point within the past several weeks that it has been reported that they arrived on Friday and that there has been heavy speculation as to the discrepancy on sm (which by their own words is very important to them). They have had plenty of opportunity to correct this information if they so chose; thus far they have not. Their silence on the matter could be for several reasons:

1) MSM incorrectly assumed they arrived Friday, the parents kept silent because for some reason it benefits them or someone in the camping party for it to be believed they arrived on Friday instead of Thursday;

2) the parents themselves were untruthful and told MSM that they arrived on Friday when they actually arrived Thursday;

3) the parents told MSM they arrived Friday and that is the actual truth, they arrived Friday.

BUT if #3 is the correct answer, then we are forced to wonder why JM's own mom would state that they arrived Thursday (still sm rumor at this point) and also wonder why their own PI would infer that they arrived on Thursday. SOMEONE somewhere is either very mistaken or being evasive/untruthful. IMO.

I would like to know if they made any stops on their way from IF to the campground. If so, it is possible that the stop/stops might be the reason for the sensitivity regarding the disclosure of the arrival day/time. IMO.

 

[ClaireNC]

I could possibly see them letting Nate assume that they arrived on Fri, or just being ambiguous, if they didn't want attention given to the fact they were there on Thurs night for some reason. (But my guess is that it wasn't intentional and at worst a miscommunication.)

But I really doubt they would lie to LE, because they'd have to know LE would interview their family members about the camping trip logistics and find discrepancies, and they might have been asked in a polygraph test. I can't really imagine any scenario where it would be worth the risk to the parents to lie to LE about their arrival date.

I agree. I was just throwing it out there as something to think about.

 

[kammiemc]

I'm starting to get dizzy over all of this arguing and attacking each other over what time they did or didn't arrive at the campsite, jmo. I honestly don't think Ilokal is being "close minded", she's just stating and believing and reiterating the only thing that has been reported by MSM. Isn't that the only arrival time that has been reported, i.e., Friday? Also, anyone here, please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the only thing we are supposed to be discussing here according to TOS, versus rumors from social media? TIA I just don't think all of this bickering is helping things, JMO.

I don't know, I thought the PI interview was on MSM so could be discussed. Everyone is allowed an opinion! And those opinions tend to be expressed with varying degrees of confidence. I always feel like if I'm going to go out there and be super confident/adamant that I know better than others, I know I'm going to get a little heat back. In my experience!

 

[ClaireNC]

I have a feeling this might be a propaganda piece.

Exactly. Hopefully, at least, it will clear up some of the rumors and misconceptions.

 

[4senthia]

In the parents' interview they somewhat addressed DK sr and rumors concerning whether he was in trouble @work. He said this was not true and his employer had been there helping search.
This is just trivial, but wasn't he trying to explain he wasn't in some kind of "trouble" @work/that he wasn't being asked to come back right then?
This always bugged me a little also. Could DKsr have called in sick on Thursday and had to later be truthful w/his boss.
IDK but there was something silly being talked about there and I guess it could maybe explain why Friday was allowed to stay there as the official day of arrival/disappearance.
Yep that'd be really trivial, but who knows?
jmho
ETA: link
http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs...03&type=wny_coinis_15_14&param1=1&param2=f=4%
@the 6:30 mark in video, then Mom explains about the boy @the store

 

[babyback]

In the parents' interview they somewhat addressed DK sr and rumors concerning whether he was in trouble @work. He said this was not true and his employer had been there helping search.
This is just trivial, but wasn't he trying to explain he wasn't in some kind of "trouble" @work/that he wasn't being asked to come back right then?
This always bugged me a little also. Could DKsr have called in sick on Thursday and had to later be truthful w/his boss.
IDK but there was something silly being talked about there and I guess it could maybe explain why Friday was allowed to stay there as the official day of arrival/disappearance.
Yep that'd be really trivial, but who knows?
jmho
ETA: link
http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs...03&type=wny_coinis_15_14&param1=1&param2=f=4%
@the 6:30 ark in video, then Mom explains about the boy @the store

I'm glad that you mentioned that, because I also got that feeling when listening to the interview, which I've listened to so many times now, I can almost repeat it verbatim.

 

[4senthia]

I'm glad that you mentioned that, because I also got that feeling when listening to the interview, which I've listened to so many times now, I can almost repeat it verbatim.

I know it's somewhat of a glitch that causes my needle to stick on that particular part of the record
Words and such are heavy to me.
Mom's irritated switching of her foot @particular times during DK's talking, but maybe it was because he did most of the talking.
IMO if she wanted to talk she would have spoken up.
jmho