ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #9

[bluesneakers]

DeOrr was apparently still in a diaper, at least at night.

Do you think that might have been because they were camping and no one wanted to have to get up with him during the night? I don't know what age is typical for boys to be pottytrained, but ever since I heard about the diaper I wondered if that's what it was.

 

[Deleted member 718]

DeOrr was apparently still in a diaper, at least at night.

Okay, he's two and a half probably in the midst of potty training. I can still see him wearing last years warm jammy pants for camping in the mountains. It's exactly what I would pack for my adorable maybe wets his pants kid. Lots of clean dry britches.

 

[rkf]

Do you think that might have been because they were camping and no one wanted to have to get up with him during the night? I don't know what age is typical for boys to be pottytrained, but ever since I heard about the diaper I wondered if that's what it was.

Having trained 3 boys, I don't think it's ever a good idea to "go backwards" when you're making progress. Plus, the best thing about summer time, was they could walk around without pants on - made training really fast! Some kids are dry during the day, but still wear a diaper at night for a while. My point was really just that if the pajama pants fit him when he was a year old (and he looks younger than that to me) wearing a diaper, I would expect them to be too small for him to wear when he's two and a half with a diaper. Gliving noted that sometimes once a baby stretches out and loses the diaper, pants might still fit a year later. (That didn't work for my kids, but everyone is different.) Since DeOrr apparently hadn't yet lost the diaper entirely, and they were pajama pants which he probably slept in while wearing a diaper if he only wore one some of the time, I'm wondering how the pants would have still fit, as he would be a year or so older and taller, but still have the bulk of the diaper. It's kind of a moot point, but was just following it through.

 

[weetziebat]

I've been following along since beginning. Sometimes have questions but I'm usually on page 3 and everyone else is up to page 16 - and have found the answers in there. What is driving me crazy right now is that I specifically remember either reading or listening when the actions of the dogs were being discussed. And it was said the dogs went from the campground to the creek and then to the vehicles. Not sure if it was one specific vehicle but that was impression I had. Unfortunately, I haven't a clue where I heard it but know I didn't just dream it up. Anyone else remember this?

 

[Arnie M]

Having trained 3 boys, I don't think it's ever a good idea to "go backwards" when you're making progress. Plus, the best thing about summer time, was they could walk around without pants on - made training really fast! Some kids are dry during the day, but still wear a diaper at night for a while. My point was really just that if the pajama pants fit him when he was a year old (and he looks younger than that to me) wearing a diaper, I would expect them to be too small for him to wear when he's two and a half with a diaper. Gliving noted that sometimes once a baby stretches out and loses the diaper, pants might still fit a year later. (That didn't work for my kids, but everyone is different.) Since DeOrr apparently hadn't yet lost the diaper entirely, and they were pajama pants which he probably slept in while wearing a diaper if he only wore one some of the time, I'm wondering how the pants would have still fit, as he would be a year or so older and taller, but still have the bulk of the diaper. It's kind of a moot point, but was just following it through.

On the subject of diapers , the grandmother (on the moms side I think) , said she had put a used diaper (of DeOrr's) in the trash ... I believe she arrived at the search area later that day and stayed to help out and was tidying up a bit , something like that. .... I understand she mentioned it because some people were trying to insinuate DeOrr was never at the campsite . I hope some folks on this thread make note of that also.

She said something like .... I threw it at the church trash .... which at first sounded strange .... but what she meant was she used a nearby trash can brought by the church group who were feeding the searchers.

I believe searchers and sheriff were aware of the diaper too . Have to mention that because otherwise somebody will make a grand conspiracy out of it . Way too much of that going on. Yesterday I was half expecting someone to say the Snake River ate the baby. Last week the sheriff ate the baby. Then for a while the baby did not even exist.

 

[Arnie M]

I've been following along since beginning. Sometimes have questions but I'm usually on page 3 and everyone else is up to page 16 - and have found the answers in there. What is driving me crazy right now is that I specifically remember either reading or listening when the actions of the dogs were being discussed. And it was said the dogs went from the campground to the creek and then to the vehicles. Not sure if it was one specific vehicle but that was impression I had. Unfortunately, I haven't a clue where I heard it but know I didn't just dream it up. Anyone else remember this?

The dogs provided no usable results for the searchers , but yes , they went from the stone reservoir back to the campsite and vehicles and that is about it.

The whole dog subject should be abandoned , the dogs did not track the child , and it will not be the first time dogs failed

Make a list of all the missing people who were found by tracking dogs. It will be a short list

Make a list of all the missing people who were not found by using tracking dogs . It will be a long list.

Anyone wanting to be confused on a higher level , there is a dedicated thread here , what a mess , http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-amp-Answers-Ask-the-Pros!&highlight=SAR+Dogs

best wishes

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Do you think that might have been because they were camping and no one wanted to have to get up with him during the night? I don't know what age is typical for boys to be pottytrained, but ever since I heard about the diaper I wondered if that's what it was.

2 1/2 is in the average age range, although girls seem to train a little earlier than boys in some cases. In my personal experience, for boys it's closer to 3. It would definitely still be common to have a 2 1/2 year old in diapers all the time, but especially still at night even if they were potty trained during the day. The upside to camping is that he would have probably been allowed to pee outside wherever he wanted lol...most little boys loooove doing that!

 

[blefuscu]

I would think (totally assuming and could be wrong) that the FBI would be analyzing all the behavioral and physical evidence, including that of the parents (polygraph), any inconsistencies, background, timeline, etc. It looks like you have a degree in criminology, so I'm really interested in your perspective and any reasons you see as to why the FBI wouldn't be looking at them. I'm still thinking that anything (including bigfoot--not really) is possible in this case since nothing has been ruled out. It seems like the parents loved that little boy, so I'm not jumping to any conclusions. (I was thinking that the spouse/parent/family members are always seriously evaluated, just based on stats. But total assumption!) Thanks!

Oh I believe the FBI will have been and are looking at the family very closely. But I feel that the parents have shown no reason to lawyer up. I'm not 100% up to speed on the American justice system as I'm British but unless they needed a lawyer I can't see why they would lawyer up at this stage.

 

[pepelepolecat]

Do you think that might have been because they were camping and no one wanted to have to get up with him during the night? I don't know what age is typical for boys to be pottytrained, but ever since I heard about the diaper I wondered if that's what it was.

Boys usually potty train between two and three. I obviously have no way of knowing where he was re: potty training for a fact, but I could see him wearing a diaper at night and potty training/using the bathroom during the day.

 

[TeaTime]

Are there really? It's not exactly a high-profile case. Why would they take it pro-bono? What would they get out of it?

ETA: I also feel like getting a lawyer pro-bono when you haven't even been arrested...cannot be easy.

Lawyers who do pro bono work may get credit for that work which goes towards their continuing legal education classes that are taken every year for as long as the lawyer pratices. Plus, lawyers who work pro bono are appreciated by, and thought well of by, the judges. There is always incentive. Not to mention that many lawyers are of the mindset that it is their duty to do pro bono work as a service to the community.

Legal advice is usually free with the caveat that the inquirer should seek legal counsel for a second opinion, especially if the person is not accepted as a client.

LE can lie to the parents, the POIs, the press. The lawyer can not lie to the client. It is always a good idea to make sure that what LE is saying is, in fact, the truth and the law. LE doesn't know the law like the lawyers do.

 

[Eileen730]

The dogs provided no usable results for the searchers , but yes , they went from the stone reservoir back to the campsite and vehicles and that is about it.

The whole dog subject should be abandoned , the dogs did not track the child , and it will not be the first time dogs failed

Make a list of all the missing people who were found by tracking dogs. It will be a short list

Make a list of all the missing people who were not found by using tracking dogs . It will be a long list.

Anyone wanting to be confused on a higher level , there is a dedicated thread here , what a mess , http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-amp-Answers-Ask-the-Pros!&highlight=SAR+Dogs

best wishes

I am curious!
Where exactly did they take these dogs first?

campground?

I think the order these dogs went to these places is important!

 

[Eileen730]

On the subject of diapers , the grandmother (on the moms side I think) , said she had put a used diaper (of DeOrr's) in the trash ... I believe she arrived at the search area later that day and stayed to help out and was tidying up a bit , something like that. .... I understand she mentioned it because some people were trying to insinuate DeOrr was never at the campsite . I hope some folks on this thread make note of that also.

She said something like .... I threw it at the church trash .... which at first sounded strange .... but what she meant was she used a nearby trash can brought by the church group who were feeding the searchers.

I believe searchers and sheriff were aware of the diaper too . Have to mention that because otherwise somebody will make a grand conspiracy out of it . Way too much of that going on. Yesterday I was half expecting someone to say the Snake River ate the baby. Last week the sheriff ate the baby. Then for a while the baby did not even exist.

I am not so sure Deorr was ever there.
And NO ONE ate the baby!
I think we are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions.

the baby is Missing he is only 2 yrs old...
If he wandered off Id bet my last dollar he would have been found by now!
If a mountain lion attacked him his boots or some clothing would have been found.

So is he in the lake?
LE does not think so.

So where does that leave us?

There are way to many questions and no answers.

All JMO

 

[wondering25]

The FBI investigates crimes.. they are not there to investigate whether or not a MT lion ate the baby. Local LE must have some reason to believe a crime was committed and has called in the FBI. Yes, the FBI has more resources but many many cases never have the FBI reading the polygraphs, doing behavior analysis.. etc..several area LE counties were in on this investigation.. FBI is there because this is a complex crime.. not sure who did what.. but a crime is suspected, thus the FBI.. JMO

 

[ILOKAL]

The FBI investigates crimes.. they are not there to investigate whether or not a MT lion ate the baby. Local LE must have some reason to believe a crime was committed and has called in the FBI. Yes, the FBI has more resources but many many cases never have the FBI reading the polygraphs, doing behavior analysis.. etc..several area LE counties were in on this investigation.. FBI is there because this is a complex crime.. not sure who did what.. but a crime is suspected, thus the FBI.. JMO

I don't think so. I think the FBI has been brought in to assist in determining that in deed NO CRIME has been committed and leaving no stone unturned to make sure that no one has gotten away with a crime. It's like a safety precaution for the county. Apparently there aren't any news sources or talking heads that believe a crime was committed either, otherwise they would be on THAT bandwagon, which obviously they are not. MOO

 

[starfire]

I thought about that too. He doesn't want to say anything that might stop the info from coming from those at the campground. He basically was publicly thanking IR. And he might genuinely be appreciative of the cooperation. It would seem there is not a heck of a lot to go on!

It sounds like the parents, the GGF, and IR were all in fairly close proximity when little Deorr went missing. If the parent's "exploring" story is to be believed, it seems almost impossible for IR to be involved -- unless he somehow kidnapped Deorr without the GGF noticing, incapacitated him, and hid him outside of the 3 mile search zone -- all within the span of 10 minutes or less.

Since he was not far from the camp site, I am assuming the parents checked with IR and/or IR heard them yelling for little Deorr shortly after they returned from the 10 minute walk. If IR had been missing for awhile when the parents initially started searching and/or disappeared for quite awhile before LE showed up, it seems we would have heard something about that by now, from LE, the PI, the family...somebody. I think IR is strange and I wouldn't necessarily want him around my kids (if I had kids, that is), but I am not convinced he is involved in little Deorr's disappearance.

 

[wondering25]

I don't think so. I think the FBI has been brought in to assist in determining that in deed NO CRIME has been committed and leaving no stone unturned to make sure that no one has gotten away with a crime. It's like a safety precaution for the county. Apparently there aren't any news sources or talking heads that believe a crime was committed either, otherwise they would be on THAT bandwagon, which obviously they are not. MOO

You can't prove a negative.. jmo

 

[ILOKAL]

You can't prove a negative.. jmo

Then the FBI won't be able to prove little Deorr wasn't there; wasn't attacked by an animal; didn't drown in the creek/reservoir; wasn't abducted/kidnapped; or didn't wander off, get lost, and succumb to the elements either.

 

[Sutton]

It's been a while since I followed this thread, but I check the headline every day.

Deorr could have passed away on the candy bar trip, shortly after he was seen by the store clerk (can't remember if the sighting is credible, or if the clerk is a RSO). Deorr's body was then hidden outside camp. There's probably an entire thread discussing this possibility.

No, wait--it seems as if the parents are still solid, so that theory won't work.

 

[katydid23]

It sounds like the parents, the GGF, and IR were all in fairly close proximity when little Deorr went missing. If the parent's "exploring" story is to be believed, it seems almost impossible for IR to be involved -- unless he somehow kidnapped Deorr without the GGF noticing, incapacitated him, and hid him outside of the 3 mile search zone -- all within the span of 10 minutes or less.

Since he was not far from the camp site, I am assuming the parents checked with IR and/or IR heard them yelling for little Deorr shortly after they returned from the 10 minute walk. If IR had been missing for awhile when the parents initially started searching and/or disappeared for quite awhile before LE showed up, it seems we would have heard something about that by now, from LE, the PI, the family...somebody. I think IR is strange and I wouldn't necessarily want him around my kids (if I had kids, that is), but I am not convinced he is involved in little Deorr's disappearance.

I am still looking sideways at IR. We don't have enough facts to know that it was only a 10 minute window. I can think of a couple of ways he could have gotten away with it. I would probably break TOS if i went into details. But I don't believe it was an impossible task. Someone could have had him stashed in a backpack, for example, and then gone off 'to search.' No one would have questioned his being gone if he was looking for the boy.

 

[ILOKAL]

I am still looking sideways at IR. We don't have enough facts to know that it was only a 10 minute window. I can think of a couple of ways he could have gotten away with it. I would probably break TOS if i went into details. But I don't believe it was an impossible task. Someone could have had him stashed in a backpack, for example, and then gone off 'to search.' No one would have questioned his being gone if he was looking for the boy.

In this scenario, I guess the parents see IR leave with the backpack to "search" but then ALSO see him return without the backpack? How does that work?