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

[rkf]

Agree.
Its just that things were so vague for us. I keep asking myself why were there not details provided by the sheriff for the simple stuff like the layout of the campsite and all the things he saw at the campground. We needed details to know what happened and from the very first interview we were not told enough to know what really happened.

We have only been told some people went camping and boy ended up missing.

That is not enough details to know exactly who got there, what times, where exactly everyone was, who slept with who, what did they eat for dinner, breakfast, etc.

I realize we may not get every single detail but the problem is we were provided NO details at all. Practically nothing. The sheriff did not help much with his interview. More of the same nothing

Also, the unedited video of the sheriff's interview has actually had some footage edited out...
[video=youtube;FV-h82eVQ1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M[/video]

 

[rkf]

No one suggested that trailing dogs, air scent dogs or cadaver dogs are infallible. However, more than one dog was taken to the campground and NONE of them picked up DeOrr's scent anywhere except the immediate campsite area. To me, this is very telling and what it tells me is that he was there and he did not wander away. One dog may not pick up a scent, but in this case NONE of the several dogs picked up a trace of him.

The dogs didn't track him from the campsite to the reservoir, they were taken to the reservoir and were interested in the area. Sheriff thinks the cremains were the reason the dogs were interested. Nonetheless, the reservoir was searched methodically and he isn't there.

The child returned to the campsite with his parents after the trip to the store.
I do not believe for a second that the parents took the child to the store on Friday morning, then killed him and dumped his body before returning to the campsite. I also do not believe for a nano second that he died from an accident on that store trip and was then dumped somewhere between the store and the campground. They didn't hand him off to a 3rd person during that trip either. Think about it. They would be returning to the CG where 2 other people would notice that he was not with them. GGP said he was standing there watching him after the parents left to 'explore'. I will never believe that GGP knew that the parents dumped his body somewhere and lied to help the parents in the cover up. These are preposterous hypotheticals.

He was at the campsite.
He returned with his parents from the store.
Not in the creek.
Not in the reservoir.
Not an animal attack.
Did not wander off.

A human took him.

What did momma say? Something like "why would they take him when they know how much he means to us"?

Because I do not believe the parents had anything to do with the child's disappearance, I would like to know more about their connections to the LDS church and the church itself. Are these the kind of followers who would take a child from parents who failed to follow the LDS ways? Just asking. If not possible, then this is a stranger abduction.

Serious question: If everything you say is true, why would the sheriff state he thinks abduction is the least likely of all possible scenarios? Less likely than an animal attack, drowning (when he is 100% sure DeOrr is not in the creek or reservoir) or Sasquatch encounter?

My opinion is that the sheriff thinks, right or wrong, that DeOrr's disappearance is related to one of the "POIs" at the "crime scene".

 

[sunflowerchick]

This is exactly why I still struggle with letting my 10-year-old walk like four houses down to his friend's house even though we live in a perfectly safe neighborhood. Because you just never know.

So, this is a big question for me. Why isn't the sheriff leaving the door wide open to a possible abduction? Knowing that GGP wasn't in perfect health mentally or physically, he wouldn't be able to completely rely on what the ggp saw/didn't see. if I were the sheriff I might wonder if GGP could have dozed off while someone pulled right into the campsite took the toddler and took off. That would at least explain why none of the dogs could detect a scent trail.

Yet, he has all but completely ruled out an abduction possibility. I believe there is a good reason why. But what is it? Any theories? (BTW, this guy seems to me to have his Malcolm Gladwell 10,000 hours of expertise in his field. I'm not doubting him AT ALL. I just wish we knew what he is thinking.)

For me, it's Occam's Razor, the simplest solution and I agree. I do NOT think this was an abduction. I think DeOrr's little body will be found somewhere in the creek or in the reservoir.

As for the dogs, I have no idea how all that works, and frankly I am not interested enough to study it but I'm sure it isn't an exact science. If little DeOrr went into water, would the dogs pick that up? They did "hit" at the reservoir. Yes, I know that everyone says that is due to the cremains but couldn't it be that AND little DeOrr's scent as well?

 

[rkf]

I agree that I think he's been taken. While dogs are not infallible, I don't see how a bunch of them would not pick up ANY scent away from the campground. If he had wandered then surely one of them would pick up his scent.

I think someone took him from the campground, I think like William Tyrrell it was an opportune snatch, someone saw he wasn't being watched properly by GGP, saw no-one else around and grabbed him into a truck/car. It's amazing what we can miss just by getting on with life. I was watching a case about Sofia Silva and the Lisk sisters from Spotsylvania, VA. Sofia aged 16, was abducted from her front porch, with her older sister in the house, while she was doing homework. There were neighbours gardening and kids playing out in the street. No-one saw anything. Months later Kristin (15) and Kati (12) Lisk disappeared from their front yard. Again no-one saw anything, despite the girls walking home from the bus stop, changing clothes and starting to fill the pool in the yard with a hose.

I know these cases aren't identical to little Deorr's case, but it shows that even older children can be abducted without anyone seeing anything, even if neighbours and others are around.

Regardless of whether DeOrr was abducted or not, if he was at the campground, his scent should also have been there. Until we know for sure if any of the dogs alerted to his scent, what evidence do we have that DeOrr was ever at the camp site? LE must have some, since the sheriff said he's 99% sure he was there.

[video=youtube;FV-h82eVQ1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M[/video]

We already know that information we believed to be true at the beginning of the investigation has been shown false - and we had so little information to begin with! There seems to only be conflicting reports, from what the dogs scented or didn't scent, to when the POIs arrived, to how long the parents searched for DeOrr before calling 911, etc., etc. Why is there still not an uncontested timeline of where everyone was and what they were doing between 9:30 Thursday night and the arrival of LE on Friday afternoon?

 

[Niner]

I can only speak for myself, but my opinion is that WS has some very talented, educated, skilled, articulate members who are excellent at detecting and "ferreting" out the truth, especially when given some facts to work with. (And one doesn't have to put up with foul language and snarkinesss here either!) I have read on this site for years and have only just recently become a member due to a case that was close to home.

This is where the public goes if they want to know about a case so I find it hard to believe that there aren't some members of LE who check here at least once in a while! If I remember correctly, WS has even helped to solve a case or two where their help was acknowledged by LE (I don't remember the cases in particular or I would link them but imagine those members who have been here a long time will remember). I stand in awe of the sleuthing abilities and deductive reasoning of many WS members, and still usually just lurk due to feeling inadequate compared to the rest of you! Thanks, WS'ers for all of the time, thought, and genuine care that each of you give in attempting to help "crack the case"! Cheers to you all!:loveyou:

Also, there is one case one here that the LE themselves are here to answer questions on a cold case file they have - and now I don't recall the case... sorry!

I have included the great post by TxJan1971 on the search dogs on the Timeline. :tyou: for that detail post!!

 

[rkf]

7-23....Search dogs led authorities to Stone Reservoir, but no trace of the missing toddler showed up. On Tuesday, the Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office scaled back their search. They report that the case is going in another direction.

Ok.. what is the other direction? What would you think? jmo

When did the dogs lead searchers to the reservoir? Which type of K9? Saw this from TxJan71's dog post: the trained search dogs found nothing and kept coming back to the camp posted July 13th, 3 days after DeOrr disappeared.

Now I'm confused again. Hope Onebest will help! If a dog is "put on a scent", it's looking for that person, and would follow the most recent trail of that person. Cadaver dogs don't hunt for the remains of a particular person, but remains and cremains or anything else they're trained to spot. (Right? Wrong?) There are several articles in TxJan71's post that seem to use cadaver dogs and scent tracking dogs interchangeably. If a dog is given a scent, would it be distracted from following that scent by the smell of cremains if it hadn't been trained for cremains? What if it had been trained for cremains?

 

[Jackeee]

I spend a lot of time catching up here, so I may have missed an answer to one of my 'just wondering' questions.

Since toddlers are sometimes carried a lot, would DeOrr's scent have been transferred to the clothing of someone carrying him and this is maybe what the dogs picked up on?

 

[jessie]

Excuse me if this has already been asked and answered previously, I may have missed it, so much information hee from all of you it quite blows my mind.

Does anyone know what they used to provide the dogs with Deorr's scent.? I would guess some clothes, his blankie, but has it been said by LE ?

TYIA.

 

[rkf]

Excuse me for thinking out loud, but I needed to go back to clarify, that the initial dogs used were track dogs specifically trained to search for people who are lost versus cadaver dogs. They did track Deorr's scent down to the reservoir and then went back to the campground. Which says to me he went down to the reservoir and maybe back to the campground? Now I wonder if the dogs followed the same scent trail back to the campground as the one they followed to the reservoir, or if it was a different scent trail .

The sheriff did not say the dogs tracked DeOrr's scent to the reservoir and back. He said the dogs went to the reservoir and back. Is that because the handlers worked the dogs in the area between the campsite and the reservoir without the dogs ever catching a scent or because the dogs tracked DeOrr's scent to the reservoir and then returned to the campsite?

 

[Niner]

For me, it's Occam's Razor, the simplest solution and I agree. I do NOT think this was an abduction. I think DeOrr's little body will be found somewhere in the creek or in the reservoir.

As for the dogs, I have no idea how all that works, and frankly I am not interested enough to study it but I'm sure it isn't an exact science. If little DeOrr went into water, would the dogs pick that up? They did "hit" at the reservoir. Yes, I know that everyone says that is due to the cremains but couldn't it be that AND little DeOrr's scent as well?

re bold - that's my theory too. I know they said they "ripped" apart the creek, but look how they didn't find Chandra Levy, and a few others that were in the general area of the searchers. No abduction - human, Sasquatch, or UFO.

 

[rkf]

This is exactly why I still struggle with letting my 10-year-old walk like four houses down to his friend's house even though we live in a perfectly safe neighborhood. Because you just never know.

So, this is a big question for me. Why isn't the sheriff leaving the door wide open to a possible abduction? Knowing that GGP wasn't in perfect health mentally or physically, he wouldn't be able to completely rely on what the ggp saw/didn't see. if I were the sheriff I might wonder if GGP could have dozed off while someone pulled right into the campsite took the toddler and took off. That would at least explain why none of the dogs could detect a scent trail.

Yet, he has all but completely ruled out an abduction possibility. I believe there is a good reason why. But what is it? Any theories? (BTW, this guy seems to me to have his Malcolm Gladwell 10,000 hours of expertise in his field. I'm not doubting him AT ALL. I just wish we knew what he is thinking.)

I don't think anyone can answer you without joining the PI in the Caribbean...

 

[kammiemc]

For me, it's Occam's Razor, the simplest solution and I agree. I do NOT think this was an abduction. I think DeOrr's little body will be found somewhere in the creek or in the reservoir.

As for the dogs, I have no idea how all that works, and frankly I am not interested enough to study it but I'm sure it isn't an exact science. If little DeOrr went into water, would the dogs pick that up? They did "hit" at the reservoir. Yes, I know that everyone says that is due to the cremains but couldn't it be that AND little DeOrr's scent as well?

I don't know. I am kind of trusting the sheriff--at least, I can't think of a reason not to. He said, based on the proven "expertise" (he used a different word--I don't think dogs can necessarily be experts, though dogs are my favorite people) that it didn't make sense that they didn't find the toddler the first day if he were there. He says the toddler is not out there and not in the water. There were multiple dogs searching. And an infrared camera. And SAR divers. Not a boot, not a scent. I don't think he called off a search based on a hunch. I think he feels very certain, based on his experience and the thoroughness of the search, that the toddler is not there and that the case is going in a different direction.

Of course, he could be wrong. (LE is not infallible either!) But for some reason I don't jump to the conclusion. The simplest scenario for me is that he correct.

 

[desert-blue]

FWIW, the rumor is that JM, DK and DeOrr slept in ggp's Suburban, ggp in his camper and IR in a tent. Maybe that's what you meant by rig.

I used the generic word rig because I couldn't remember the exact model... sorry if that was confusing

 

[ClaireNC]

Excuse me if this has already been asked and answered previously, I may have missed it, so much information hee from all of you it quite blows my mind.

Does anyone know what they used to provide the dogs with Deorr's scent.? I would guess some clothes, his blankie, but has it been said by LE ?

TYIA.

I don't think that has ever been mentioned, Jessie. Another bit of info that we just don't know.

 

[Onebest]

When did the dogs lead searchers to the reservoir? Which type of K9? Saw this from TxJan71's dog post: the trained search dogs found nothing and kept coming back to the camp posted July 13th, 3 days after DeOrr disappeared.

Now I'm confused again. Hope Onebest will help! If a dog is "put on a scent", it's looking for that person, and would follow the most recent trail of that person. Cadaver dogs don't hunt for the remains of a particular person, but remains and cremains or anything else they're trained to spot. (Right? Wrong?) There are several articles in TxJan71's post that seem to use cadaver dogs and scent tracking dogs interchangeably. If a dog is given a scent, would it be distracted from following that scent by the smell of cremains if it hadn't been trained for cremains? What if it had been trained for cremains?

Trailing/tracking K9's most likely are not trained on HRD or Cremains. We do NOT know the exact training of the K9's that were deployed rkf. If we did have it verified I could be more helpful. I have found information on the Sheriff's office K9 and Salmon PD but I do not know if I am allowed to sluth them for this site. If we are, I will write more about them specifically. However!! big however. It STILL won't answer all your questions because you want to know exactly when and how the dogs were utilized and we have not been informed. We were told that the Sheriff deployed their own K9 but if you listen to the tape it does not state exactly WHEN it just says they used them. Did they use them on the first visit up? Did they call for them the next day? We just don't know.

In a hypothetical search plan that I did for a call such as this I would post haste! deploy the trailing/tracking dogs from the camp sight immediately. (In my opinion the Sheriff probably did that)

Then I would also call out Air Scent K9's to work the forest around the campsite.(IMO he probably did that ASAP too with SAR resources)

Then if the information I got from the tracking dogs lead to a water source and I suspected drowning or?? I would deploy cadaver dogs for both the water and the surrounding area. (we KNOW he did that)

I might still keep running the Air Scent dogs in the forest but at that point tracking/trailing dogs no trail/too much contamination/not much they can do. JMO.

I hope they ran Cadaver dogs after the cremains dissipated but we have not been told.

They are NOT always interchangable. You got to know your dog teams. Some live find dogs are also trained in human remains but not all. When you deploy you are asked. I worked Oso with my cadaver dog and at every location I was asked "Live find or cadaver". Meaning, what is your dog trained to look for? SO based on how many days after the mud slide it was, the condition of the search area, the abilities of the K9 Team you have an idea of what information will be offered if anything. Usually Live find is always first! for obvious reasons. After so many days or when/IF the search is considered a recovery cadaver dogs are secondary resources.

Its just not cut and dried because there is so much information not being released. I wish I could be more helpful.

 

[Onebest]

The sheriff did not say the dogs tracked DeOrr's scent to the reservoir and back. He said the dogs went to the reservoir and back. Is that because the handlers worked the dogs in the area between the campsite and the reservoir without the dogs ever catching a scent or because the dogs tracked DeOrr's scent to the reservoir and then returned to the campsite?

But he did call them "track dogs" in the video. He says they were given a "scent". That is what you do to get the dog to follow that scent on whatever trail they want them to follow. If the dog is trailing he has his nose on the scent trail/close to ground, and that is what he is following. IMO that is what the job the dogs were doing. The Sheriff and the Salmon police K9 Handler would know that about their dogs.JMO

 

[kammiemc]

But he did call them "track dogs" in the video. He says they were given a "scent". That is what you do to get the dog to follow that scent on whatever trail they want them to follow. If the dog is trailing he has his nose on the scent trail/close to ground, and that is what he is following. IMO that is what the job the dogs were doing. The Sheriff and the Salmon police K9 Handler would know that about their dogs.JMO

Great info. I know you can't say for certain, but based on the tracking dogs going to the reservoir, would it be reasonable for LE to surmise that the toddler had been to the reservoir (and perhaps back to the campsite) at some point?

 

[rkf]

Was just checking out mines in the area. There don't seem to be any very close to the campground, but thought others might find it interesting anyway. http://www.idahogeology.org/webmap/?show=mines You'll have to zoom in to the area you want to see.

 

[wondering25]

The answer is in the webcams..JMO

 

[rkf]

I used the generic word rig because I couldn't remember the exact model... sorry if that was confusing

Probably not to anyone else. I think of a rig as a big truck. THAT would be interesting on a camping trip.