Monday, July 27, 2015

Deorre Missing: No Suspects, but Persons of Interest Due to Presence

Isaac-Reinwand

from EastIdahonews.com with quote that parents are "persons of interests" because they were at scene, but not "suspects."   Please see expanded analysis below.  

IDAHO FALLS — The third individual who was at Leadore campsite when two-year-old Deorr Kunz Jr. disappeared said he has no idea what happened to the toddler.
Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman confirmed Isaac Reinwand, 35, of Idaho Falls, was at the Timber Creek Campground on July 10alongside Deorr’s parents Jessica Mitchell and Deorr Kunz Sr. and his as yet unnamed great-grandfather.
The sheriff’s office had previously withheld Reinwand’s name, referring to him only as a family friend at the campsite.
Over the weekend Reinwand’s name was widely publicized on social media, leading to Bowerman confirming the detail to EastIdahoNews.com

Yes, he was at the scene,” Bowerman said in an email. “He’s a personal friend of grandpa’s for about five years. We are treating him no differently than the family, he has been questioned numerous times, and has been to the scene with me.”

Bowerman said Reinwand, similar to Mitchell and Kunz, are “persons of interest” in this case because they were at the scene. However, at this time, neither Reinwand, Mitchell or Kunz are suspects in the missing persons case.

The great-grandfather, who authorities have not identified, also has not been labeled as a suspect. Authorities said his declining physical and mental health ruled him out at the beginning of the case.
Over the weekend, Reinwand was repeatedly identified as a sex offender with an extensive criminal history in online forums and on social media. However, police and court documents dispute that assertion. The Idaho State Repository shows Reinwand was charged with felony rape in 2006, but that charge was amended down to misdemeanor domestic battery.

Sheriff’s officials also have told EastIdahoNews.com Reinwand is not a sex offender.

“He does have a criminal record, however the police reports are not consistent with his record... not sure why,” Bowerman said in the email.
Bowerman did not elaborate on the inconsistencies. 
EastIdahoNews.com spoke with Reinwand briefly Monday morning on his doorstep. He confirmed Deorr was with him and the great-grandfather before he went missing, but Reinwand declined to answer further questions.

He just disappeared,” Reinwand said. 

Investigators are still classifying the Deorr Kunz Jr. case as a search and rescue. During the last two weeks, search crews have conducted extensive sweeps of the area, including the reservoir and the creek. The search was scaled back after 10 days. There is still no sign of Deorr. 
Mitchell and Kunz believe their son was abducted. Bowerman has not ruled abduction out. He said authorities do not suspect foul play, but has said in the past that everything is being considered in the search for the toddler. No suspects have been named in the case.
Deorr has been missing since the afternoon of July 10, when the Salmon Dispatch Center received a 911 call from Mitchell that the toddler had gone missing. 

The parents told EastIdahoNews.com they left the child with his great-grandfather and when they returned 10 to 15 minutes later, Deorr was gone. The great-grandfather assumed the child was with his parents.

“My dad was standing there watching him and he turned his head and then he was gone,” grandmother Trina Bates Clegg said on July 12. “It appears like he just vanished.”

That the body posture entered the subject's language is expected; this is a terribly tense scenario.  That she does not claim that he "disappeared" is very important.  
Saying "he disappeared" is something that would, by itself, bring a level of suspicion because disappearance is not possible.  It is very important that she be quoted accurately:

"It appears like he just vanished" is appropriate use of "appears" due to the impossibility of actual disappearance.  

This is not a 'sensitive' nor suspicious sentence.  

I would like to know what 'discrepancy' exists in the police record. 

It could be that the man was investigated for something, or a police report was specifically generated for something but he was not arrested or not found guilty.  It is an association with something. 

When I report, for example, that one has a "history of domestic violence", this is meant to be literal, and not judicial.  Many violent people are violent yet unconnected.  The lack of conviction is a legal status, but does not mean the person is any less violent. 
Therefore, in collateral interviews, a man could be investigated for child abuse:

a.  he did it but it was not proven
b.  he did not abuse the child but the report was a spite report
c.  he has been repeatedly reported for child abuse (or DV, or whatever) but with lots of suspicion, yet without proof enough to go to trial
d.  ...and so on. 

It is important to know if this man has ever even been accused of harming a child, or has had an association with child pornography, and so on, or if his criminal record has nothing to do with violence.  

The best predictor of violence is history, and the best predictor of sexual risk is interest, such as child pornography, 'barely legal' pornography, and so on.  

I once met a director of children's social services who asserted that just "having" child pornography doesn't mean there is a link to child abuse. 

It was a frightening statement.  

This man's name is associated with the missing child, just as the parents' names are as well.  

Had the journalist done an average job interviewing them, we would have known, with certainty, that they were involved or that they were innocent, but the interview was poorly conducted. 

Journalists would do well to train in Analytical Interviewing.  

The father's explanation about driving down the road for bars on the cell phone is highly sensitive.  Most people would, in such an emergency, just dial and not 'pre think' that they 'might' lose signal.  They just call and if it is a poor connection, get in the car and drive hoping the signal would improve. 

This is the portion of the father's interview that is the most sensitive part:

J: It was Friday.
D: Friday, about 2.26 was when I, was it 2.26?

This is to assert an exact time, while not remembering the day of the week.  

Should the same parent know exactly the hours (culmalative) the child has been missing ?

J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision.  It is likely that someone looked at the cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern.  We let the words guide us towards a conclusion.  

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 


One might ask, at the conclusion of this statement:

Who cares that one might get cut off from 911 in such an emergency?  At least they would have his location.  

This is an 'over explanation' showing an acute need to explain his action.  

a.  Constant self censoring
b.  broken pronouns
c.  An over explanation about the phone call.  

It could be so sensitive because they argued about the need to call with him wanting to search a bit more first, or it could be so very sensitive for reasons associated with guilt going beyond the delay.  
The interview is with both parents seated next to each other; therefore, the use of "we" is appropriate.  With this established, when either parent moves from "we" to the pronoun "I", it becomes even more important to the subject.  (For new readers, the "subject" is the one speaking).  In the interview, he regularly "self censors", which is seen in sentences where he either stops himself entirely, or he changes pronouns in the sentence.  Pronouns are instinctive to us in English.  We do not pre-think pronouns.  You know when you are alone and say "I" just as you know when you are not alone you say, "we"; without having to give it careful consideration.  

Is this a form of stuttering?  Is this something he always does, or...

is it just produced in this interview, while his son is missing?

I do not know the answer, but it would not be difficult to find for investigators who need only to talk to him about an issue unrelated to his missing son, for a few minutes.  

Truck

We have an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the father being inside the truck.  

It needs examination.  

1.  The Reason Why

In an open statement (that is a statement where one is telling us what happened, choosing his own words) when someone tells us why they did something, it is "sensitive" information, and could indicate that there is also missing information at this very point in the sentence.  

We note that the father, "D", explains why he did something without being asked by the interviewer. 

 This indicates a need to explain why he drove in his truck.   

This means that he thought to himself, "I better explain why I was in the truck because they are going to ask me about it. I need to beat the Interviewer to it. "

Why?

Why is this?

This goes for anything.  

When someone says, "I went to the store because I needed milk", the person felt a need to explain why he left the house, even though he was not asked why he left the house.  We hear this type of language in child abuse cases where neglect is suspected.  It has a feel like, "he has an excuse for everything!" frustration with the interviewers.  

I sometimes will even say, "I didn't ask you why you needed to leave the house" in seeing to 'up the ante' and put the subject, just a bit, on the defensive.  (it is a tactic in a larger strategy, dictated by the context). 

It is sensitive only when it is offered without being asked.  

Therefore, we assign the reason why someone did something only when not asked, to the color blue which is the highest level of sensitivity in analysis.  Should we find two colors of blue close together, the sensitivity becomes even more important to the subject.  Should we find more than two "blues" close together, we call it a "cluster of blues" and it is a very strong signal that there is missing information regarding this very point, and we aim our laser-questions at this point of the interview  


First, note the setting.  

He didn't know what day it was (some parents of missing children know the exact number of hours the child is missing, which is expected since it is so critical and hormone levels are elevated) yet he gave what he thought to be "the exact time" of the phone call.  

He almost had it right but was corrected by the child's mother.  This is seen in context of vagueness of the day, which, if due to fatigue, makes "2:36" sound rehearsed, but in error. 

The exact time was off and was corrected by the mother.  He did not remember the day, but used the word "about" when giving the exact time. There is nothing "about" when stating "2:26" as "about" is used to estimate.  We use estimation with round numbers, and round times. 

"It was about 2:30" is something we would expect to hear.  Not "2:36" corrected to "2:26", unless, for example, one is looking at the cell phone time while talking.  


The time when police were called by them is a sensitive topic, to him, linguistically, but not to her.  

Yet, there is something that is much more sensitive to him than the exact time of the call, which is related to the call, itself:  


The Truck

Please note:  placing himself in his truck is very important to the father, so much so that he twice explains why he was in the truck.  His location "in the truck" is something that is very sensitive to him, and there may be, concerning being in the truck, some missing information.  

This is very sensitive to him. 

Why is it so important to him that we, the audience know, he was in his truck?

Even without training, this journalist should have recognized his need to explain why and his repetition and should have asked about it.  

With training, the interviewer would have pounced on the sensitivity but even without, many recognize the sensitivity intuitively. 

That he was "hauling" is not only unnecessary to say:

no one would consider this a leisurely drive, stopping off to have a cigarette, admire the scenery, and eventually call 911 to report a missing toddler,   but it is also 'story telling', which is to make us consider the location of the emotions within his statement.  

"I was hauling" shows a need to present urgency, rather than urgency presupposed.  

The father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his language.  

Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.

He began with "we searched" indicating unity, but then gives an 'editorializing', or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic").  The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.  

Emotions in the "logical" portion of a statement are often put there artificially unless something has caused the subject to debrief and process the emotions. 

What causes emotions to enter due to processing?

a.  the passage of time. 

When enough times passes, it becomes more difficult to conclude "artificial placement" of emotions.  In truthful accounts, especially fresh, or told for the first time, the emotions come in the "after" portion of the statement.  Such as:

I could not find him;
we searched everywhere in the area;
I called 911. 
I was in a panic. 

This shows that the emotions take time to process, especially since parents are on "auto pilot", that is, zoned to find their child. 

What it makes us wonder is if they really were in a "dead panic", or they wish to convince us that they were.  We look for their words to guide us, and for the journalist to ask.  

b.  The repetition of the account. 

Once the account has been told, emotions have had time to settle in, and in repetition of an account, the emotion is then sometimes added in the "logical" portion.  

I do not know if this father has repeated this account enough times to have processed emotions.  I do not think enough time has passed, by this point, so my question has to do with how often he has repeated this account.  

"dead panic", however, is not a word ("dead") we expect a parent of a missing child to use.  This has caused considerable alarm in the comment section of the blog and this is a reasonable reaction to such a thing.  Recall Josh Powell saying that Susan would be 'eaten up like hamburger meat' in a verbal argument with her father.  This was:

a.  leakage
b.  a signal of just how much he hated his father in law 

He knew that he had dumped Susan's remains somewhere that wildlife would devour her.  

"Dead panic"is certainly a troubling phrase to use.  I would like to know if he has used this regularly, as  a habit of speech.  Yet, for it to show up here:  does he know something he is not saying? 

"I knew I was in trouble" is an interesting statement. 

Is this an admission of guilt and worry over oneself, or is it the words of a father taking responsibility, ultimately, for his son's plight?

Some very responsible parents will take full ownership and responsibility of the situation, making his son's disappearance his own trouble. 

It is also possible that this is 'leakage', that is to say, he, himself, is in trouble.  


 Um, so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down. 

"Um" is a pause, giving one time to think.  In working from experiential memory, is this necessary?

Next, "we decided" shows both the unity of "we", but also that they 'came to a decision', which is to say:  There was a delay in calling for help.  

I never like "we called" therefore, whenever I have heard it, I asked, "Did you both call?" as I want clarification.  It is possible that both called, or two calls were made, but I want this to be clear.  I have found, too often, "we called 911" to be in the language of the guilty as only one called, and the one who made the call, uses "I", but the other, the guilty, may wish to be seen as "part of the innocent" person's cooperation with police.  This goes for all sorts of crimes. 

Please note that when a child goes missing, there will be sensitivity indicators, as well as even signs of guilt, in both innocent and guilty parents.   We seek to discern the difference via context. 

For innocent parents, there is also an expectation of minimization.  To have a child go missing some adult must have been neglectful, in most all situations. 

For a child to go missing, highly responsible adults will blame themselves, even when the child did not go missing on said adult's watch.  This is because the highly responsible adult will hold herself, for example, responsible for letting the neglectful person watch their child in the first place. 

Years ago, Kyron Horman went missing.  Statement Analysis indicated step mother Terri Horman for deception and this deception was specifically about what happened to Kryon.  

Desiree Young was Kyron's biological mother, who blamed herself, as responsible mothers do, even for getting sick, and being unable to care for him, which is how he ended up in Terri Horman's hands.  

We must be on our guard for natural minimization and guilt, in the innocent parent's language. 

That "we decided" not only suggests a delay (during the 'debate') but likely due to fear of, first, over-reacting ("he's got to be here!), and, possibly, fear of being blamed.  

There was a delay in calling and they initially did not "agree" about making the call.  

Fear of being blamed is also something that shows itself, in the specific sensitivity indicators, and must be categorized in context.  

"we" turns into "I" when driving; that is, likely driving without his wife.  

I do not know who "search and rescue" is:  is this the result of calling 911, or did they have another number, specific to Search and Rescue?

Next, "that's when" speaks to time.  He returns to the truck, further making this a very sensitive point to him.  

The truck, the truck, the truck...it is repeated in his language, and it is something that is of great importance to him and even includes editorializing language, which often belies the need to persuade.  

We must remind ourselves:  The missing information could be only that they argued about calling 911 and the delay is something he feels either guilt over, or he worries that it would appear like guilt to others.  It could be only this and not more nefarious cover up of activity.  We do not have enough for a strong conclusion...yet. 

She tried getting a signal out - um, as soon as I got a hold of the,, I kind of, they told me that she was on the other line with them and they had our location, and they were on our way. They, they were amazing, they are amazing and they still continue to be. Ah, Lhema High County Sherriff and Salmon Search and Rescue, you could not ask for a better group of people, volunteers, and search and rescue, and just everybody. You couldn't ask for better people - so sincere, so concerned, and they were - everybody was emotionally attached to this, as you, anybody would be of a two year old. 



Lots of self censoring by him as seen in broken sentences. This is to stop himself, mid sentence.  Is this his normal habit, as a "baseline", or is it specifically triggered by the topic?

If it is his norm, so be it, but if he can talk about baseball, for example, without being "all over the place" in pronouns (this is restricted to pronouns because pronouns are instinctive), it is very troubling.  


a.  "Tried" in the past tense, often indicates failure.  


b.  Praise of authorities. 

This is something that is not expected at this time.  It is way too early for this kind of 'surrender' of a missing child where there was only failure to locate him.  

Parents want their child found.  When not found, they see authorities as having "failed" them, and it is not time for praise.  

When do we find praise of "authorities"?

1.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent when the child is found safe.

2.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent parent when the child is found no longer alive, after a long period of time has passed, and the parent has significantly grieved and processed the trauma, and recall, at moments of sheer terror, kind faces, or the 'small cup of water' offered in consolation.  This is similar to language in parents who outlived their child, and warm themselves with memories of the wake or funeral, and remember the kind comments of friends and relatives.  It generally takes time, however, to hear this. 

3.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child by the guilty (those indicated for deception regarding the disappearance of the child):  the guilty did not want the child found, hence, the praise.  

4.  We find the praise of authorities who fail to find a child in the language of the guilty who reveal a desperate need to "make friends" with "police" (that is, "authority") and quickly align themselves.  

They sometimes even "name drop", and talk about how good "Sgt. Smith" was, and so on.  This can belie a need to be seen as 'part of the solution' rather than the cause of the problem. 

See the analysis of Brooks Houck, where on the Nancy Grace Show, he answered criticism for not searching for Crystal Rogers with both name- dropping and his own behind the scenes, searching, reminiscent of Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.  

The father may have been treated well, but because at the time of this statement, his son had not been found, the praise is not expected.  

"Was attached" may indicate that he is thinking of the specific time period during the search; this is evidenced in how he breaks up time period of them being "amazing" including the future.  

The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning.  

What about the blues of sensitivity in his statement?


D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 

The two most sensitive parts of speech in Statement Analysis are:

a.  The leaving or departing from a place ("left, departed")
b.  The reason why ("so, since, therefore, because", etc)

With (a) it means that leaving a place is more important than the arrival or location where one was going.  When "left" is used as an "unnecessary connecting verb" it is sensitive. 
"I was at my office and I went home" is a sentence that moves forward yet:

"I was at my office and left and went home" shows "left"as an unnecessary connecting verb (one cannot go home unless one first leaves, therefore, "left" is not even necessary to say.  This means the 'law of economy' is abandoned, and additional words are used giving us additional information. 
"Left" indicates that there is missing information in a sentence.  This missing information is 70% likely to be due to rushing, time, traffic, lateness, etc, but 30% likely to be critically withheld information.  It is very easy for the interviewer to learn what the missing information is likely to be:

"So, tell me what happened when you left your office?"

Answer a:  "Nothing.  I just wanted to get home."  This is likely going to be traffic or time. 

Answer b:  "What happened when I left?  Oh, well, my boss came to see me and..." indicating that the subject was still thinking about what happened at the office, just prior to leaving, because it was important. 

WE ALWAYS flag "left" for missing information and follow up questions tells us what it is.  

When the missing information is nefarious, the subject usually says, "Nothing, why do you ask?"

I say, "oh, I don't know" and move on. 

I then ask other questions but I will soon say, 
"Ok, let's go back to when you were at your office.  What hours do you work?"

My lens is focused at just before he gets out of work.

"I work 9-5"

"Always?"

"Yes."

"What hours did you work that day?"

"Why do you ask that, I just told you I work 9-5?"

I got him. 

No matter how much he squirms, I politely and in an even voice, always go back to the time just before he left which unnerves the guilty into thinking, "Holy $&%*^( !  This idiot knows and is toying with me!" which increases the pressure on him to unburden himself, release the pressure and tell me what happened.   At times, when necessary, I have gone "past" that missing hour of time for more than 45 minutes in the interview (to soften him) only to "go back" to the hour where missing information is.  It tells the subject who feels he must cooperate that I am relentless.  It is his will versus mine and I will not lose.  He wants to tell me and I want to know and he is going to tell me. 

Once an investigator has this much confidence in analysis and in the system, he cannot fail.  If the subject will talk, he cannot fail to obtain information.  It is only when a subject refuses to speak utterly, rather than, "I don't want to talk" (which is not a closed door) or anything like it, I am going to get the truth.  


b.  "Because" 

The Reason Why

In this point of sensitivity, there is no "70% likely" anything:  there is a story behind it and I am going to find it.  

In the interview, any time I hear the word "because" or "so" or "since", I flag it, and I will find out why this person has a need to explain himself. 

BECAUSE HE ASSERTED IT WITHOUT BEING ASKED, it is not only "sensitive" information, but he INITIATED IT, meaning, he not only wants to tell me, and he not only needs to tell me:

He has an acute need to tell me and any interviewer who learns this one element of Analytical Interviewing is going to find that:

His need to tell me the information is even greater than my need to get it.  

HE is actually the one desperate to tell me, even though I am desperate to know:  his desperation is deeper and emotionally tied to him.  He is the one who 'started' the flow of information with its use and HE is the one worried I was going to ask him. 

In an interview of stolen item, she told me about her day, hour by hour, including several points in time:  

"Then, I went on my smoking break."

Ok, that's fine. 

"After lunch, I took my 5 minute smoking break."

Good for you. 

"I went out to my truck to smoke"

I got her.

This is where the thief took the stolen item.  

She was thinking about the stolen item and worried that there was surveillance video in the parking lot (there wasn't but I did not tell her that, I just asked her if she thought the parking lot had a surveillance camera...She thought I was Satan for asking that question!), that's all.  

By telling me why she went to her truck when I did not ask her why, told me that she was afraid I was going to ask her, "Say, why did you go to your truck at 2PM?"  (I don't really say, "say") 

Once she used the word "to", my training in gear, I knew that she had done something that she did not want me to know about, nor did she want me to ask her why she went to her truck.  

When she confessed, I asked her the usual two questions:

1.  Why did you confess to me?
2.  Why did you confess at this time?

ALWAYS ask these questions and you will learn a great deal about yourself.  
Her statement showed a powerful need to be respected, so I was extra cautious in respectful tones.  She also said she had not slept since the initial event. 

But she said something else that is so important for you, the investigator to hear. 

She said, "But I thought you knew I hid it in the truck!"

This was the same truck searched by a police officer with 25 years experience who interviewed her and declared her innocent based on his 25 years experience.  (She confessed in writing and was convicted). 

The reason "why" shows a need to explain.  

It is something that Interviewers are trained to spot, through repetition, mock interviewing which is video taped, and then reviewed on video, more interviewing,  more written analysis, and so on. 

This is done until it becomes second nature. 

I saw recently that Wes Clark wrote that he tells investigators not to practice this newly learned skill on friends and family lest they lose them, but acknowledged that he knows they will and admitted:  you cannot turn it off after a certain point in training and practice 

He's right.  (I like his work).

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 

Look at this again, perhaps without your spectacles:  


D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the 

truck hauling down to the road trying to get 

service because I didn't think one bar would 

get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was 

blessed that she was able to get service 

because I didn't think, I didn't want to try 

and risk getting half way through my talking 

to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to 

where I knew I could get a little service, 

about a half mile down the road. 

Look at his "reason why" in his statement; there are three of them, close together, creating a 'cluster of sensitivity'

1.  "Because" I didn't think, tells us not only "why" he was "hauling" (that is, rushing) but what he did not think. 

The first need to explain is found while telling us he was rushing.  No one asked why he drove down the road but he wanted it out there.  But there is something else for you to consider:

No one had accused him of delaying, nor taking his time, to call 911 for his missing son. 

That he told us what he "didn't think", which is in the negative. 

"I drove down the road to where I thought I would find a better signal."

Instead, he needs to tell us not only why he drove, but what vehicle he was in.  We did not ask him, "What vehicle did you take?"

We did not ask him, "Were you driving really slow?"

None of these things were posed to him by the interviewer.  "We" is the audience. 

He "didn't think" is stopped.  He has censored himself from giving us information. 

2.  "Because I didn't want to try..."

"I didn't want to try"?  Why not?  If you tried and failed, you can "haul" down the road IN YOUR TRUCK and try again.  There's no penalty for dialing 911 twice. 

Something is wrong here. 

Something is missing here.  

Why would anyone care if he was standing on top of his head, dialing 911 with his toes, as long as he called 911 for his son?

3.  "So, I went down to where I knew I could get a little serve, about a half mile..."

Not only does this tell us "why" he did something (get in his truck and drive) but now he wants us to know the length of the drive:  "about a half mile."

We would not give a rat's patooty if he was in or out of his truck, had one bar or two, or how far he drove:

We only care that he called 911. 

He, however, cares very much that we know:

Where he was when he called 911, in his truck;
How far he drove his truck to call 911;
How fast he drove his truck to call 911; 

She got "lucky" that she had a signal; in fact, her luck is made sensitive by him, according to him, with "very very lucky"; something of which he did not have.  

To be "very very lucky" is only in comparison with a reference point.  What is his reference point?

It is his own delay in calling.  She was "very very lucky" in her call, but only in comparison to him. 

Yet, who  was "blessed"?

Answer:   He was.

Question:  Why was he blessed?

Answer:  Because she could get a signal.

Question:  Why is this a blessing, since he got through, too, with a very short delay between the two calls; so short, in fact, (due to his "hauling") that they were both on with 911 at the same time. 

This "blessing" sounds scripted.  

She was lucky but he was blessed. 

One is random, one is providential and is an invocation of Divinity in the language of most. 

The search and rescue were amazing. 

They failed to find him. 

The father's extreme sensitivity tells me that he was the one who needed to "agree" to call 911 and that there was a delay in making this call. 

The delay could be the reason for guilt in his language and sensitivity indicators, however, it is not my experience that a short delay in calling 911 would cause such a reaction rather than the fact that the child is missing being the 'reference point' for the entire interview!

This is not expected.  

Yes, he could have guilt because of the delay, because he chose the site where his son went missing, or even that he was friends with the man who is also named a "Person of Interest" with an unknown criminal history. 

Parents do, in fact, blame themselves for that which they did not do.  This is often a signal of being highly responsible parents.  If a babysitter that I chose harmed my child, I would blame myself as being responsible for choosing the babysitter that brought harm. 

I would probably also blame myself for choosing a camp site with water, if my son had drowned there.  

I would blame myself, irrationally and illogically, as well. 

Yes, it could be these things. 

Yet, I have my doubts, especially with the need to learn why his truck is so sensitive that it gets repetition and signals of missing information.  I liked, "my son" references, including the contexts, though I would not have minded hearing the child's name, too.  

"Dead" and "I" associated with "trouble" are concerning but I do not know, yet, why.  

Had this interview been conducted with even marginal training, we would likely know much more information at this point in this tragic account of a little boy's life.  

If his friend at the camp is, indeed a sex offender, the father could have rambled on and on nervously trying to portray himself in a positive light because of guilt of having the sex offender near his child. 

It is true that some men are falsely accused in spite reports, but a momentary lapse of judgment is all it can take, to effectively bring a lifetime of pain to the child, and every person who loves the child, for the rest of their lives.  

We remain open about the possibilities, and hope for answers.  



409 comments:

1 – 200 of 409   Newer›   Newest»
ima.grandma said...

You may need to input his name yourself as you have to log in. It is the link to the Idaho Repository. Click the "cases that have ROA's" in the first of three boxes that come up after you enter his name and then verify. 17 cases are pulled up but it's confusing and difficult to follow. I'm headed out to the dentist or I would study the cases. I'm also interested in the remaining two boxes and the cases involved. There has got to be some telling information contained therein. Maybe by the time I return home, someone will have more info. My whole face is in pain, I have forgotten how painful a toothache can be. Relief is coming my way soon. Hi Jen, my blog sister. I really enjoy our conversations and want to respond later once my pain subsides and I can think straight.

https://www.idcourts.us/repository/caseHistory.do?schema=BONNEVILLE&county=Bonneville&roaDetail=yes&partySequence=70456&displayName=Reinwand%2C+Isaac+David

Sus said...

I noticed two things going back through for the umpteenth time.

The father begins with the call. When the interviewer asks him to take him "back to that day, the first thing on the father's mind is the CALL TO SEARCH AND RESCUE. That's out of order. Shouldn't he begin with "we were camping", "we lost our son" or some such, but no, his day begins with THE CALL. It sure makes me wonder about a set up.

The second thing that bothers me is that neither parent mentioned the friend at all. The father said Little Deorr was playing with Grandpa. The mother said he was with her grandfather. The father said he thought he would be alright with Grandpa by the campfire. He further states when he came back up he questioned the grandpa. Not one word about questioning the person who wasn't physically and mentally deteriated. The friend is completely ommited from the account, yet the friend says Little Deorr was with him and Grandpa. That omission is strange.

Last, (for now) the parents do not believe he was abducted. No way. The mother posts on her own Facebook and a closed group. Yeah, that's how to reach people.

ima.grandma said...

Whoops, I forgot to mention there is an interesting note. It says there are two cases that are "SEALED" at the bottom of the page. Okay, I'm out of here. Wish me luck, I'm such a dental coward...

Sus said...

Good luck. I know just what you mean. My dentist knows just to shoot me up with pain meds when I walk in. (Posture noted.)

Trigger said...

This is interesting.

Doerre, Jr. doesn't go anywhere without his security blanket, which was found in Deorr Sr.'s truck, along with two other items that Deorre, Jr. has at all times.

"GGrandpa was just standing there watching him and turned...etc."

Was Deorr, Jr. in the truck while GGrandpa was standing there watching him from outside of the truck?

A new name appears in the news, linked with GGrandpa, who was a close friend.

Isaac is 35 years old and Deorr,Sr. looks to be about the same age.

Three adult males, one toddler, and one adult female at the campsite where Deorr, Jr. is last seen.

Deorr Sr. experiences "dead panic" and states that he is in trouble, then gets into his truck where Deorr, Jr.'s prize possessions are seen inside it, and "hauls" 1/2 mile away to find cell service.

What kind of trouble could Deorr Sr. be in?

Does he have prior offenses or warrants? Does he have a current custody case involving other children? Is he driving without a license? Did he call in sick that day to his employer? Is he on probation? What does he know about himself that would cause him to be in trouble? Who or what would he have to answer to that would cause him to feel troubled?

tania cadogan said...

Peter you missed one

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road.

BGirl said...

Sus,

I agree with you completely.
I posted about my son getting lost at Lowe's, and I noticed the same thing, I started telling what happened, at Lowe's that day, in the last place I physically saw my son before he vanished (which he happened to be hiding in a model kitchen cupboard, thinking we were playing hide and go seek) and that is how I always tell the story because that's how I remember it happening. I can still visually see it.

Deorr Sr. starts off with a semi joke about not knowing what day it was, then starts at the 911 call. Whenever the reporter takes him back and presses for more information, he says all this "thought he was good with grandpa" but never tells us exactly what happened, and this to me says so much more than anything because when your child disappears you remember every single detail and replay it.
Sounds scripted to me.

Trigger said...

GGrandpa thought that Deorr,Jr. was with his parents, then how can GGrandpa be standing there watching Deorr, Jr.?

Was Deorr, Jr. in the truck, asleep with his items, when mom and dad went hiking?

Did they assume that GGrandpa would babysit Deorr, Jr. when he had finished napping or that they would be back before Deorr, Jr. had awakened?

Two adult men were present when Deorr, Jr. went missing. GGrandpa is identified the one who is watching Deorr,Jr., yet he is not aware of it.

The other adult male is clueless and has no information to give.

Where was Deorr, Jr. and what was he doing when mom and dad left him at the campsite?

My toddler raised a fuss every time he saw me walk away from him or saw that I wasn't focused on him. He watched my every move so that I couldn't ignore his presence when he was awake.

Did they leave the camp quickly and quietly?... in an effort to keep little Deorr from clinging to them, or crying, or following them? or was he asleep in the truck when they left the campsite?



Buckley said...

Dude creeps me out.

Trigger said...

Maybe Deorr Sr. can't remember what day it was because he was playing hooky from some other responsibility? Isn't Friday a regular work day for most people?

Trigger said...

I would not refer to myself as "blessed" on the day my toddler went missing. I would be cursing that day and everyday after it until I knew that my child was safe and sound.

How many other children does Deorr, Sr. have?

Anonymous said...

Blessed: A play on the word 'Blazed' to describe the effects of Marijuana on the human mind. Another way of saying 'Stoned' or 'Mashed'.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=blessed

Anonymous said...

I smoke a lot of pot, and I've never heard of or used the phrase 'blessed' to describe being high.

Anonymous said...

My concern of the moment is about the old grandpa. If he is so old that he is physically and mentally not able to be of much help, or of much use in answering questions, why was he out on a camping trip? Seems to me like the would not be able or comfortable to loll around on a miserable camping trip!

If he is this decrepit, why would the parents leave him in charge of watching their active toddler baby, knowing he's not physically or mentally able to care for or keep up with an active little boy who can get into all kinds of mischief on little or no notice? Hell, he might even forget the child entirely.

Particularly, whose friend exactly is the mystery man who is half the age of the old grandpa; grandpas' or DeOrr Sr's? And why was he on this camping trip at all? In fact, why were ANY of them out camping in the middle of nowhere!

The connections between the old decrepit grandpa, the parents and the younger male ner'do-well friend with the criminal record are not adding up.

As for DeOrr's explanation re having to haul ass out down the road in his truck to find a cell phone connection; when I lived in a heavily wooded area and had no use of my cell phone and would have to drive down the road to use it, I kept dialing continuously until the phone started to register bars and I made a connection, I didn't wait until I got way down the road to start trying. Besides, his 'one bar' would have reached 911 anyhow even if he never left the campsite.

iMO, these people are ALL a buncha liars except maybe not the old grandpa and I'm not so sure about him, since he IS hanging out with a criminal deadbeat half his age. What the hell is THEIR connection! Aren't we "known by the company we keep", or "birds of a feather flock together" or some such malarkey?

There's way more to this story than any of us know.

Anonymous said...

Another post said that Jessica was GGF's caretaker. Unless they had somewhere suitable to leave him, they probably had to take him with them on the trip. I also read elsewhere that GGF had enjoyed going camping over the years. On another thread on this (Statement Analysis) board) someone said that GGF and Friend met at an AA meeting about 5 years ago.

All that being said, why would Friend even want to go on this trip?

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow, I'mAGrandma & Lynda; I made the post @6:16 above, raising lots a questions. I just read your posts under "How to obtain a confession" and I agree with all of you.

In re the old grandpa, it sounds to me like he needed a caretaker of his own... Why in God's name would this sick and tired old man be taken off on a camping trip on a hundred mile drive just to get there? He's been friends with this criminal man half his age for the last five years? For what purpose?

NONE of this makes any sense whatsoever. What kind of advance set up was this, anyhow? I'm just going to go ahead and say it straight out: This child has been killed and disposed of; possibly before anyone even got to the campsite. There I said it. Mama knows, daddy knows, possibly the sex offender and grandpa too.

Juliet said...

If it's the same great grandpa, there are photos on the grandmother's Facebook of him sitting enjoying a can of something on a camping trip, maybe the one to Blackfoot Reservoir. They are a family which enjoys camping, and it seems grandpa either goes or is taken along, but he doesn't look fit enough to be caring for a child, or if he would be capable of going after one very far, much less chasing after one who tore off. It may not be suspicious that he was with him, but that he was meant to be looking after DeOrr - I don't believe that.

Juliet said...

'with them' , rather.

Julie said...

Anon - I have wondered about it being a set-up, though I'd be more inclined to the family friend being the patsy, and not in the know - he's the one with the dodgy criminal past, upon whom suspicion would naturally fall. Maybe he went along to drink a few beers with grandpa, and to watch grandpa while the parents took DeOrr exploring - or Was under the impression that was why he was asked along. If he's an alcoholic, it's possible he still drinks, and it's all as much a haze to him, as to grandpa. He didn't look too bright when he was door-stepped, he wasn't even dresses, could be an ideal candidate for a set-up. Only 'could', but he doesn't seem the ideal camping, or like he would be very useful, or great company, or even a good care for grandpa.

Juliet said...

Dressed - ideal camping companion. Sorry, bitty tablet keyboard.

Anonymous said...

Dad refers to people posting sh*t, and Mom says the same about negative "crap." I can't help but thinking that the child had some kind of "bathroom accident," was punished, and died as a result.

Buckley said...

So if Reinwand was "at the scene" why was he nowhere in the parents' statement?

Anonymous said...

Buckley...an excellent question. This is getting curiouser and curiouser.

Sus said...

That's what I am wondering, Buckley. He is completely omitted from the parent's account.

"He was playing with Grandpa." "He was with my grandfather." "He was good with Grandpa by the campfire." "I asked Grandpa 'Where's Deorr?" No mention of Isaac Reinwand.

Yet, IR says Little Deorr was with him and Grandpa. Most telling, I think, was in the video. IR asks the newscaster if he's talked to the grandfather yet.

They planned on the grandfather "losing" Little Deorr. I mean blaming it on him.

So where is Little Deorr? They used present tense consistently. They don't seem to think he's truly kidnapped.

Katprint said...

This news video showing the reporter diligently trying to interview Isaac Reinwand is interesting for what is missing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01DB2lqpWcs

@ 1:27 "Can you tell us what happened up there?"
"Ummm, I don't know. He just dissa- he disappeared is all."
"He just disappeared. Did he wander away? [silence] Do you know? Or..."
"I, I, I'm not, I'm not..."

@1:40 "A lot of people have heard from the family and everything, I know a lot of people want to hear from you and the grandfather."
"Have you ever talked to the grandfather yet?" (no stuttering)

When a child is missing, it is not normal behavior to clam up like that. His repeated refusals to answer questions (which I didn't bother to transcribe but there were more refusals to answer than answers) sound a lot like someone who has been advised by their attorney not to talk about the case.

Juliet said...

Here's Nate Eaton and Isaac Reinwand - the exchange is out sequence at the beginning because that's how the channel has edited it.

Nate: Isaac?
Isaac: Hi
Nate: How you doing?
Isaac: I'm doing okay
Nate: So he was just with you and the grandfather when he wandered away?
Isaac: Uh,huh


Nate: I'm Nate Eaton with East Idaho News
Isaac: Yeah, I don't have any questions, I'm sorry
Nate: You don't have anything you want to say - alright, sorry to wake you up, we just want to see if you have anything to say about DeOrr missing.
Isaac: I don't
Nate: You don't?
Isaac: I'm not talking...
Nate: Can you tell us what happened up there?
Isaac: Um, I don't know. He just disappeared, he disappeared, that's all, that's all.
Nate: Did he wander away, you know, or -
Isaac: I - I c... I'm not talking, I don't have anything to say about it
Nate: A lot of people have heard from the family and everything, and I know a lot of people want to hear from you and the grandfather.
Isaac: Have you ever talked to the grandfather yet?
Nate: I haven't. So, he was just with you and the grandfather when he wandered away?
Isaac: [pause] Uh,huh
Nate: And then you guys thought he was with the parents
Isaac: [pause] Yeah
Nate: And the parents came back and he was gone?
Isaac: [pause] Uh,huh
Nate: Okay. Did you get our Facebook message?
Isaac: I didn't, I didn't get your [inaudible] message, but like I said - I don't have, I don't want, I can't - I don't want to answer any more questions, or anything.

Juliet said...

Seems like he's constrained, under pressure not to talk.

Katprint said...

I checked out the Idaho court records following the link helpfully provided by ima.grandma. The rape charge plea-bargained down to a domestic battery is troubling as is the conviction for providing alcohol to a minor. He was repeatedly convicted of violating a stay-away order presumably issued with regard to his rape victim. There are several sealed cases which may indicate the victim is a minor, possibly his child with Sara Byrd per the paternity/child support case in the court records. There are several sealed cases which may indicate the victim is a minor. He has a bunch of theft/stolen property related convictions which make him not a great person to have around a vulnerable old man. The other dozen offenses are a hodgepodge of criminal trespass, driving without a commercial license/insurance/license plates, discharging a firearm within city limits, etc.

Here is the link but as ima.grandma mentioned, you have to enter in his name and search. https://www.idcourts.us/repository/caseHistory.do?schema=BONNEVILLE&county=Bonneville&roaDetail=yes&partySequence=70456&displayName=Reinwand%2C+Isaac+David

Juliet said...

There's no good reason not to give an interview in the case of a missing child, unless there is something to hide. Who is hiding what, though? The parents aren't much more forthcoming. Why can't he say anything, why doesn't he want to let people know what happened, give his version events, defend himself or the parents? He's very cagey, hesitant in answering, can't give a straight yes, just an affirmative sounding 'uh,huh.' Perhaps he doesn't know, maybe he was in an alcohol induced state the whole while, and just accepted that what the parents said is true, because he doesn't sound too committed in his responses to what happened. How many cans can someone drink on a 120 mile journey? It sounds like the family is good at making threats if it's true they have threatened people online - or he might have an attorney advising him not to talk.

Anonymous said...

I suspect Issac may be working with law enforcement, and thus is keeping everything close to the vest. He might even be a Confidential Informant.

Sus said...

Look at the sheriff's words. He's not cooperating.

"at the SCENE." "to the SCENE"
"Scene" brings to mind an exact location where an event happened. "Scene of a crime." "Scene of an accident." One does not usually describe a disappearance as a "scene." The sheriff gives away what he thinks happened.

"Personal friend"
He's modifying what type of friend, which makes it sensitive. He questions why he was with the grandpa.

"Grandpa's"
Close and personal. He's named him practically as his own in a familial way. Why? Does he feel sympathy for the grandpa? Does he suspect someone used him, or blamed him?

"We are treating him no differently than the family,"
This is unnecessary. Why does he want us to know this? Was he accused of this?possibly by IR or an attorney? Or is he sensitive to it because his name was not released?

"He has been questioned numerous times,"
No mention of a polygraph or offer of one, as he mentioned with the parents.

"has been to the scene with me."
A dropped pronoun. Has been is passive. I have a feeling he was taken there. "With" denotes distance between the sheriff and IR.

They may be looking at Isaac Reinwand, but still trying to figure out if the parents played a part with him.

Buckley said...

"We are treating him no differently than the family,"

Stated with a negative; not "treating his the same as..."

Anonymous said...

Peter's site is brilliant, as are the commenters here. I am learning so much. Thank-you all. One day I hope to contribute, but for now, I am absorbing like crazy!

-jsl

Anonymous said...

I smell a plea bargain.

Sus said...

Thanks, Buckley! I missed it. Even more proof they are looking at him. Of course, we don't know who the sheriff counts as fam...he seems pretty close to Grandpa. :-)

Oakley A said...

There is a consciousness of guilt built into every topic the father addresses in the interview. The searchers have not found this little boy. I hope the officials are focusing on finding the source of the guilt through questioning. It could ultimately eliminate him as a suspect if there were a case. It could also bring the inclusion of possibilities besides wandering off and abduction. There has been zero evidence of either.

Juliet said...

'We are treating him no differently than the family.' Could this, being in the negative, mean that they are treating him differently from the family?

Has he taken a polygraph, and will the results be released?

Have Jessica and DeOrr been taken back to the scene (if they are not still there?) and been questioned numerous times? They are not sharing that on social media, if so, and also if so, they must have given a more coherent account of that day by now.

Juliet said...

Sorry, Buckley already spotted that - i should read the previous comments before I post. It's interesting the Sherriff said that - I want to know why they are not saying the parents passed their polygraphs, and why there is no mention of Isaac taking one.

Buckley said...

Alright, we know that police withheld Reinwand's name. We know that the parents withheld his name from their summary of what happened. Are these omissions coincidental or a concerted effort to keep speculation off him while they investigate?

Reinwand himself gives an "uh huh" to "was boy with you and grandpa?" Yet parents tell us they asked grandpa "where's Deorr?" They didn't mention Reinwald at what would seem to be key point. Did Reinwald disappear at the same time, causing dad to rush looking ("calling") in his truck? Yet dad has to explain use of rushing in the truck to cover for leaving Reinwald out of the narrative?

The other garbled, sensitive part of the narration about the sighting of a boy and another man buying him candy. Why are dad and mom both insistent he was abducted, yet strangely dismissive of this sighting?

Anonymous said...

And now someone new to add to the mix. Why wasn't she on the camping trip?
https://plus.google.com/103147085546033521924/posts

Buckley said...

One more thing: LE told public to stop speculating about parents. LE said they were treating Reunwald "no different than family". LE did not say "stop speculating about Reinwald.

trustmeigetit said...

Nate: I haven't. So, he was just with you and the grandfather when he wandered away?
Isaac: [pause] Uh,huh
Nate: And then you guys thought he was with the parents
Isaac: [pause] Yeah


If him and grandpa had him (he confirms this) and wandered away, if mom and dad are not there why would you assume the parents had him.

That makes no sense.

It can't be both

Anonymous said...

This scares me if she's Reinwand's fiancee:
http://www.skillwho.com/users/child-care/id/idaho-falls/wysdom-zerba/ad66083d-dacf-4594-8619-02c79ae88aac/

trustmeigetit said...

When a polygraph is passed it seems that is always shared right away.

There would be no reason not to state that.

However with a failed or inclusive it is often not shared, at least not initially

My mom is on failed...

Anonymous said...

Someone on another blog posted that they "heard" Reinwald refused to take a polygraph.

Lemon said...

"...I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road."
__________

I find the word "risk" strange/unexpected in this context. What is the "risk"? That not all the information will be conveyed? That he will have to call back? The risk is to himself, not his son. "Getting half way through MY talking to 911" he is thinking of himself, he takes ownership with 'my'. Is he worried about getting 'interrupted' because he is thinking about what he will say? Will he get confused if he is interrupted, as in off script?

Why is the risk to himself more important here than the 'risk' to his son who is missing?

Also still bothering me: lucky vs. blessed :/

Sus said...

It's possible Reinwand was not at the campsite when the parents returned. He is certainly ommited from their account.

I'm not sure what this has to do with it, but it bugs me...
The father says he drove TO THE ROAD. Not down the road to get better service, but "to the road." He had a destination in mind.

trustmeigetit said...

You said "It's possible Reinwand was not at the campsite when the parents returned"

I would actually expect his name to come up more if he was there when the left (which he admits) but gone (along with their son) when they returned.

To me, as a parent..if my child was missing and one of the last people with him was also gone, they would be suspect in my mind. I then would expect him to be more of a focal point.

Strangely his name was was not sure even thought he himself said he was with the child as well.

There are so many things that don't make sense.

Juliet said...

Ano at 11.31 and 11.37 - why should that young woman be on the camping trip, and why do you think she is Isaac's girlfriend? I think from his FB, he is single. From one of her numerous FB profiles it seems she was in a relationship with him in 2013, but has since got married and had a baby with someone else.

Juliet said...

No, from two of her profiles - it's complicated, as there are several. From the link you posted, she's not happy about her husband or former husband legging it off to Peru, but I can't see that she's part of the camping trip, or currently with Isaac. It's complicated though, so many profiles.

ima.grandma said...

http://www.examiner.com/article/police-don-t-suspect-isaac-reinwand-deorr-kunz-jr-case-despite-record.
There was also discussion around Reinwand when his name wasn't identified. He was at the scene, but Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman, who has led the investigation, says his testimony checked out and Reinwand is being considered as one of the family, whose testimonies the police have accepted. Reinwand has been a friend of the grandfather's for five years, but Deorr's parents had just met him.

Was there a campfire going? I hope LE sifted through those ashes for evidence, like paper with their "script" written down for the 911 call.

Re: the 911 call time correction. 
Consider this scenario:
* Sr. and Jessica finally decide to call 911.
*@2:26 tells Jessica to wait 10 minutes before calling 911.
*Deorr drives "up the mountain", not down, to do something he doesn't want known (this is when he is hauling ass) 
*By 2:36 he is now back down the mountain (about a half-mile from the campsite) ALREADY on the phone with 911.
*2:36 Jessica makes her 911 call.
*911 operator asks if his wife is also calling.

Did they both want to be calling 911 at the same time? Why would they want it to play out like this?

How does this next snippet fit in? It seems unecessary to elaborate. The "road" is sensitive and must be involved. Sus, I just reread your post:
 Sus said...
It's possible Reinwand was not at the campsite when the parents returned. He is certainly ommited from their account. 

I'm not sure what this has to do with it, but it bugs me...
The father says he drove TO THE ROAD. Not down the road to get better service, but "to the road." He had a destination in mind.

Perhaps this is when he dropped Reinwald off somewhere.

Snipped from the interview:
D: that we don't know is...I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are...

This is worth mentioning again ~ he says "didn't know or don't know" five times ~ he says "can't see" five times {can't see much; can't see out; can't see out; can't see up; can't see round; can't even see they are...} I need to find the words that followed the ellipse, "can't even see they are..." WTH does that mean? 

He quickly changes his pronoun from "we to "I." then he uses "you" when referring to what you can't see. He alternates between "you" and "I" with the last sentence changed to "you". The entire paragraph is written in the negative except "you can go up the reservoir" and "I could see everything that was going on at the campsite". 

When exactly did this happen ~ "I travelled up there myself."? 

Wow! https://www.facebook.com/isaac.reinwand
I see he posted an article about little Deorr on July 12.

I'm afraid I will be a serial poster until Deorr Jr. is found. Little children are so innocent, especially at his age, the cutest of all ages. I keep seeing his face and I try to block out a worst case scenario.

BTW, my tooth still hurts a bit and I know this sounds bad but I have a new appreciation for narcotics. I have craved pain relief for the last three weeks. For all y'all dental cowards like me out there ~ get it over with ~ the fear and anticipation is worse than the procedure and then you will feel so much better.

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Bio

I have 3 years of experience with Child care skills in Idaho Falls, ID."

Juliet said...

Wysdom Zerba: 'If anyone sees any nude pics of me on Facebook let me know asap. Isaac is posting them and I want to know so I can turn him in for sexual harassment.' 30 June 2014

Lizyanbudy said...

I wonder if the little guy was ever at the camp site. We're pictures of him taken during the camping trip before he disappeared?

Cat said...

I think the parents were told by LE not to name the friend during their initial (and only?) interview as to not compromise the obvious ongoing investigation. "Who would do this to us?" I sensed Some tension and frustration and guilt about Grandpa. Maybe they wanted to say his friend's name but couldn't.

Anonymous said...

Isaac recently posted a meme about being single, so there is that.

From one of Wysdom's FB pages she posted this back in June of last year: "If anyone still talks to Isaac Reinwand let him know whe is in trouble with the police for sexual harassment by putting nude pics of me up" and "If anyone sees any nude pics of me on Facebook let me know asap. Isaac is posting them and I want to know so I can turn him in for sexual harassment".

https://www.facebook.com/wysdom.zerba.94

Sounds like getting into a relationship with Isaac wasn't very "wyse".

Juliet said...

Ima.grandma at 1.34am - the ellipse isn't intended as an ellipse, there are no words missing from the transcript - the dots there indicate that his words trail off. The only reason I would not include a spoken word is because it is not spoken clearly enough, or if the quality of the recording makes it too difficult to hear. Any words which can't be transcribed are indicated by [inaudible]. If there were a few words missing which were spoken together, that would be indicated, too. :)

Juliet said...

Anonymous at 6.16 - others have posted that grandpa and Isaac met through AA, so that's the connection, and for myself, I see no reason why they should not be friends, or why anyone would find it odd that a thirty-five year would like to hang out with grandpa.

Anonymous said...

It is somewhat odd, IMO. Most of my friends are 35-45 and I don't know any of them who hang out with 76 year olds they aren't related to (not that it is wrong, it's just not common, IMO).

I have a strange feeling that Isaac's attendance at AA meetings was court-ordered and grandpa's wasn't.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter- Excellent points!

The expected in this situation, is an hysterical mother (especially since the child is only 2 yrs old). Factoring in a creek within 50 yds, the woods, and wild animals, one would expect the father to be physically comforting her during a 911 call. Add in the grandfather's condition- it's likely someone suffering mental decline and aging would become easily upset or agitated by the commotion. The expected becomes that either Isaac would be assigned to take care of Grandpa or one would send Isaac for help (better reception/nearest campground/nearest store).

Getting in the truck and going for better reception should only occur after they've attempted to call 911 and failed...which we know didn't happen. He needs an excuse to be in the truck and an excuse to be leaving the area.

Where was Isaac when mom was calling and Dad was hauling? Where were Isaac and Grandpa and what were they doing?

While recognizing that the interviewer did direct his opening question to Dad, the main focus of the interview is on Dad and his heroics. In 15 min & 5 sec, Dad uses the word "I" 55 times. Dad seems to be capable of describing everything in excruciating detail- yet there's a stark lack of detail for Isaac and his interactions with anyone present, and very skimpy details during the time the child "disappeared/vanished/was abducted". Why?

Anonymous said...

On another blog, the following is discussed: During the parents media interview, someone off camera says What About the EMT Bag? There is then an immediate off camera reply We'll Get to That Later (but they never do during the interview). I'm wondering if they really said EMPTY bag. If so, what could that mean? (Of course, it may have nothing to do with this case, but could refer to something else, such an injury happening in the studio.)

Anonymous said...

I is a homonym for EYE. There are numerous references to watching, looking away, etc.

Anonymous said...

Methinks Dad hit the road to ditch some type of evidence. Truly, I hope it was [only] booze, drugs, etc. and not a corpse.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Reading Dad's statements here for the umpteenth time *grin*:

This is probably a no-brainer for everyone else here, but I just realized that it was only after Deorr realized he specifically was in trouble that he says "We decided to call search and rescue."

So, there was a time gap according to his words, between looking, panicking, realizing and weighing personal consequences, discussing how to handle the situation, and actually making a 911 call. WOW! Then factor in that on Jessica's call, she says the child's been missing an hour before calling. Now, factor in that Dad's "hauling" away from the campsite at some point to "where I knew I could get better reception" and yet, he stated he's "never been there before".

Based on their own words, it looks as if the 911 calls were both delayed and staged. If the truck-911 call story is true, he'd already scouted in advance where to call from for better reception, so his call wouldn't be dropped in the the middle of telling his story. *raising eyebrows*

If the truck-911 call story is a lie, why was he in the truck and why was he leaving the campsite? Or was he actually stopping to call 911 on the way back to campsite after hauling something away?

Anonymous said...

BINGO, FoolsFeedOnFolly! I think you've nailed it, some of the others too. The scene was staged, including the 911 calls as well as DeOrr's lame brain remarks.

IMO, there IS a cover up here; this child did not 'vanish' as was implicated in one of the interview descriptions given by a dumb relative; this child is dead and disposed off, quite likely deceased prior to the arrival of the party at the campsite, then disposed of somewhere known only to daddy DeOrr and possibly momma too. The idiot forgot and left the little blankie, monkey and cup in the truck, but momma slips up saying he never leaves them anywhere. Well, this time he did and she knows it.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Reading Peter's explanation of the 911 call- about Dad being in the truck, driving quickly, the distance driven:

Thinking about this in relation to how this interview began(that Deorr chose to begin with the 911 call):

He says "It was about 2:26..."
She says, "It was 2:36 when I called."

Notice, exactly what he said, he called at 2:36. She's not correcting him or his time. She's asserting what time she, herself, called. That's important. It's odd that they both know the exact minute and that their times are exactly 10 minutes apart.

Like Peter said, Dad doesn't know what day it is, yet remembers the exact minute he called. Now we have the delay in calling 911 (child missing 1 hr already per mom's 911 call), the decision to call (how to go about it, and the extreme sensitivity surrounding the circumstances of the call. How long does it take to drive a half mile down that really rough, rutted, rock-strewn half-mile mountain road, stop and check for a signal, and then call 911? About 10 minutes maybe? Hmmmm.


Anonymous said...

They needed to have blankie, cup and monkey there to "prove" the child was at the campsite, and to give the search dogs a scent.

Anonymous said...

The timing of the 911 calls troubles me as well. Mom calls 10 minutes AFTER Dad says he did, but they seem to be on the phone at the same time with the 911 operator. The official logged time of Mom's call is 2:28. (However, she may have a digital watch and just looked at it too fast and read the time incorrectly.)

Juliet said...

Ps ima.grandma - Sorry, I didn't articulate that, too well - I meant there are no words missing at the 'ellipse', as it's not intended as an ellipse, and that any missing words are indicated by [inaudible]. I should have used more than three dots to avoid confusion- my bad. :) I hope the dentist was kind!

trustmeigetit said...

Plus if Deorr NEVER went anywhere with out those items, the blanket would have been with him while in grandpas care and not in dad truck.

They have not even mentioned that being odd which if he always has it should be.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Forgot to add at 11:14, he calls her "lucky, very lucky" that her call went through. The order of the calls going through is important. Hers has to do with luck (favorable, by chance). You can almost hear/see his relief that the call went off, in "lucky, very lucky"...as in , according to plan?

As Peter said, Dad's call, 10 minutes later is different-it's "blessed" (as in like a God-send). Mom's call went through, did not get dropped, and help was immediately dispatched. Yet, he refers to that call as only "lucky, very lucky" after the fact. His, on the other hand, is blessed. Why? Blessed out-trumps lucky any day. Shouldn't her call be the blessed one, especially since he gives questionable coverage as his excuse for being in the truck? She gave all the significant information, why would LE or search & rescue need his call? Blessed because he needed her call to be recorded first, giving him to time to do or complete something else? Or blessed that he had arrived where he was supposed to be, according to some plan?

Please note that he's attributing "lucky, very lucky" to her call, after the fact-knowing her call successfully went through. And still says of his later #2 call as "I was blessed...". The interviewer should have asked: "In what way?" or "You say you were blessed, how?"

It's a little alarming to me that "blessed", is used in conjunction with "hauling", following pretty shortly behind "dead panic". Uhm.

I'll stop being a board hog now and resume my real life! Ha-ha!

Anonymous said...

Ten minutes is sensitive. It is the alleged time difference between the two 911 calls. Mom and Dad said they were gone exploring for only 10 minutes.

Anonymous said...

Saying they decided to call "search and rescue" stood out to me as strange. "Call 911" or "call for help" seems much more normal and natural to me.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: Anonymous @ 12:32

Excellent comment! Search and rescue stuck out to me (and a few others here too, I think). Using Peter's principles here, search and rescue was already on his mind...not 911. (Side note: So, that phrase alone causes me to wonder if whatever happened to Deorr was not a medical emergency, as in, accidental injury). IMO, this was part of what may have been covered before they "decided" to call. IMO, based on Deorr's words, he already had a speech in mind for the 911 operator, that he couldn't afford to be interrupted (maybe because he'd forget his story). So, the plan was for Jessica to call while he did/finished whatever.

This needed to be an missing/abducted child...except the problem is there's an overwhelming lack: of little Deoor outside of there immediate campsite or an abduction. So, we have four adults and a missing boy.

Side Note: I'm not saying Jessica was involved in a staged call here. We are assuming because Jessica is sitting next to him in this interview, that she is the "we" he referred to when he said "We decided to call...". It's the same as Deorr saying, "We were going to go exploring...". We assumed he meant he and Jessica, but he could have been thinking of someone else when recalling this. Who is "we"? Anytime a subject switches from I to we, the interviewer should follow up (not interrupt-wait for the subject to break) with "Who is we?". We shouldn't assume it means the person seated next to them, their spouse/partner, or even who they've told us was present. Just like in this case, they never told us Isaac was present-they withheld information. That's not necessarily a crime-LE may have requested that or they may not have wanted that party besieged by the media. He could be innocent and who needs a media circus?

Oakley A said...

Lizyanbudy I have doubts. I question if he was ever there as well.

Oakley A said...

DeOrr Kunz, Jr. has been missing over for two weeks, and investigators are still combing the Timber Creek and Stone Reservoir area in the missing Idaho toddler case.

According to a retired investigator who spoke with East Idaho News, this missing child’s case “will come to a resolution.”

Retired Idaho Fish and Game investigator, Tony Latham, believes that from his experience in several missing person cases, DeOrr Kunz will be found.

“I’m quite satisfied this will come to a resolution. Everything has to be on the table. You do your initial assessment … and focus on what’s the most obvious. At the same time, everything else has to be operating in the background.”

What are some theories that Latham has regarding the 2-year-old who’s been missing since July 10? He thinks it’s possible that the boy walked away on his own, was abducted, a wild animal attacked him — and it’s even possible that he was never at the campsite in the fist place. Latham explains that Lemhi County has conducted about 300 searches and if a wild animal was involved in the missing Idaho toddler’s disappearance, “they would have at least found a boot.” He says, therefore, “that theory should be discounted.”


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2284637/deorr-kunz-jr-update-surrounding-search-of-missing-idaho-toddler-in-timber-creek-stone-reservoir-area/#REdeBlUpc8IGPJKe.99

Anonymous said...

Read all the comments to Peter's other posts re Deorr on this blog. Lots of interesting info.

Sus said...

OT
I was looking for mountain lion info and found this. Since it's near me I found it interesting. Who can catch it?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PEsa8xmmtbU

Sus said...

OT re the mountain lion attack...the apology.

http://www.connecttristates.com/m/news/story?id=673263

Anonymous said...

There is another website for amateur "sleuths" that has banned discussion about the parents; so it is filled with literally hundreds of postings about mountain lions, bears, giant birds of prey, Bigfoot and the like. Most of the posters aren't buying into any of that.

Trigger said...

I also think that Deorr Sr. was getting rid of something when he went "hauling" half a mile away from the camp.

controlled substances? stolen property? something that he didn't want LE to find in his possession?

When a child goes missing while in the care of the parents, they should expect to be besieged by the media.

It is all too common for two-year olds to suffer abuse and die at the hands of parents, then have the parents lie about what happened.









Trigger said...

Did anyone hear or see what little Deorr was wearing when he went missing?

The parents had his blanket, cup, and toy monkey to show to the media. Why not show clothing that was similar or just like the clothing that he was wearing when he was last seen?

I wonder if the clerk was able to describe the clothing on the little boy that she saw who was dirty and crying?

Anonymous said...

It's been reported that he was wearing blue pajama bottoms, camo jacket, and oversized camo cowboy boots.

Anonymous said...

Lyrics to Half A Mile Away by Billy Joel:
http://genius.com/Billy-joel-half-a-mile-away-lyrics#note-3620082

DJ said...

'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood
When blackness was a virtue the road was full of mud
I came in from the wilderness, a creature void of form
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

And if I pass this way again, you can rest assured
I'll always do my best for her, on that I give my word
In a world of steel-eyed death, and men who are fighting to be warm
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

Not a word was spoke between us, there was little risk involved
Everything up to that point had been left unresolved
Try imagining a place where it's always safe and warm
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

I was burned out from exhaustion, buried in the hail
Poisoned in the bushes an' blown out on the trail
Hunted like a crocodile, ravaged in the corn
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

Suddenly I turned around and she was standin' there
With silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her hair
She walked up to me so gracefully and took my crown of thorns
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

Now there's a wall between us, somethin' there's been lost
I took too much for granted, I got my signals crossed
Just to think that it all began on an uneventful morn
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

Well, the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount
But nothing really matters much, it's doom alone that counts
And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

I've heard newborn babies wailin' like a mournin' dove
And old men with broken teeth stranded without love
Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

In a little hilltop village, they gambled for my clothes
I bargained for salvation and she gave me a lethal dose
I offered up my innocence I got repaid with scorn
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm

Well, I'm livin' in a foreign country but I'm bound to cross the line
Beauty walks a razor's edge, someday I'll make it mine
If I could only turn back the clock to when God and her were born
Come in, she said
I'll give ya shelter from the storm.

Anonymous said...

Why drink and drive, when you can smoke and fly?

Nothing makes sense. Everything is an accident waiting to happen.




Maybe they were all having a great time together, when suddenly, there is no beer.

Dad is a truck driver. This is when someone turns his head, and there is a dead panic.




"there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished,"





"he was over, he was getting ready for a nap, uh say it was almost, by that time it was almost two, and he usually takes his nap, um...we was just, yeah, we decided we were going to go a little exploring, and he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire, we weren't more than fifty.."

"He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and that was our concern. He, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy. Um, they finally, yesterday, we were able to put that to rest and have HC Sheriff Dave and the rest of the sheriffs have put out that there is, they assured me, there is 100% chance that he is not anywhere in that water, around that water. "

"that we don't know is...I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are..."

"they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either."

"He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found."

"2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, i didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble. Um, so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down. She tried getting a signal out - um, as soon as I got a hold of the,, I kind of, they told me that she was on the other line with them and they had our location, and they were on our way."

lynda said...

Peter or anyone of you brilliant analysts....I know it is a short interview but what do you make of the grandfather (this is Deorr Sr. dad talking, he was not on camping trip) and his well thought out "how to kidnap a little boy" speech?? This is the article that was printed about 2 weeks ago I think.



LEADORE, Idaho - "He's just my buddy. I can't imagine the world without him," DeOrr Kunz Jr.'s grandfather, DeOrr Kunz, said.

The 2-year-old was on a fishing trip with his parents, great-grandfather, and a friend of his great-grandfather when the boy went missing July 10th. Search-and-rescue crews have still not found a trace of the missing child, which is leading family members to stick by their initial thought of an abduction.

"If he had gotten up there and fell or an animal got him there would be something left behind and there's just absolutely nothing," DeOrr Kunz said.


KTVB
Sonar robot being used in search for missing East Idaho toddler

Search-and-rescue crews have been scouring the bottom of Stone Reservoir after dogs picked up a scent and led them to the small lake. But the boy's grandfather believes there's no way he could have gotten there all by himself.

"If he's in the water up there he was taken up there. He cannot walk on level ground without falling down. His little, short legs they can't walk up hill, he can't walk on level ground. He would have fallen and if he would have fallen he would have been crying. He didn't get up there by himself," DeOrr Kunz said.

"They weren't up there very long when this all happened, and what they came down with is that it was 4 minutes that someone wasn't watching him," Kune said.

Which DeOrr Kunz believes is plenty of time to snatch up a little boy.

"If a man was going to do it standing on the north side of that creek where the pine trees are, and the little boy on the other side of the creek. The creek is only about 4 feet wide it's not very big. They could have closed in on him. muffled his voice, muffled his mouth, and headed into the trees and he'd never be seen," he said.


KTVB
Search continues for missing boy, still no trace

The family believes the overall effort of the Lemhi County Sheriff's Office has been excellent and says the office is doing everything they can to find their little boy.

"I think they're doing an excellent job and they're doing everything humanly possible," DeOrr Kunz said

Anonymous said...

Little Deorr was getting ready to take his nap and would be good for grandpa while momma and daddy took a walk exploring.

The problem with this is, little Deorr did not have his blankie, monkey and cup with him, those things he never left behind, those things that he always took with him wherever he went, that he would have needed with him to take his nap. He would be wailing to the top of his lungs and unable to go to sleep without his blankie, monkey and cup.

His cherished things were in the truck, but nobody got them for him so he could take his nap? That's because he wasn't there.

Deorr was not ready to take a nap, or getting ready to take a nap. Momma lied. Somebody forgot how vital it would be to get rid of his blankie, monkey and cup if they intended to claim he was kidnapped from a campsite where he was getting ready to take a nap; or at least leave them lying around near the spot where he would have been taking a nap. Not. Uh oh... BIG MISTAKE. His precious things were left behind inside the truck when Deorr was disposed of.

If there were no other 'dead panic' give away clues to this childs disposal, there ya go folks!

Another lie: He was only missing ten minutes? Momma said it was an hour before they reported him missing; clue #2. There are so many vital clues here that this child is nowhere to be found and has been disposed of it would make an investigators head spin if they were really paying attention. All four of the adults who were there need their heads cracked together until somebody starts talking.

Anonymous said...

Jessica Mitchell's Facebook account appears to have been deactivated.

tania cadogan said...

you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found."


It's been reported that he was wearing blue pajama bottoms, camo jacket, and oversized camo cowboy boots


This got me to thinking.

He is a toddler, going out camping with his parents, Great grandfather and a 'family friend to the Great grandfather in a wooded and rugged area near water.

Why was he wearing camo colored clothing?
Why was he dressed allegedly in blue pyjama bottoms?

He wouldn't be dressed appropriately for the location.
Why wearing pyjama bottoms at that time of day?
If he was just going to have a nap why not put him to bed in his normal clothes so that when he woke up they wouldn't have to get him redressed

I also have a problem with his camo jacket and boots.
Camo is designed to make the wearer blend in with the environment, hence the name.
Given his age why wouldn't they dress him in clothing that would stand out such as bright orange, neon green or yellow or scarlet, something that would make him stand out if he was in the woods or playing on the riverbank?

He is a toddler and the can move fast if something catches their attention, or they can get lost in woods.
It is very difficult to see a small child wearing camo clothing in a wooded area, they blend in and disappear, one small blob of grey/green/brown in a mass of grey/green/brown.

Was his clothing specificly chosen to conceal him?
Who decided what he would be wearing that day and at that time?

The blue pyjama bottoms may mean he disappeared earlier than claimed since it was pyjamas and not jeans or pants.
What was worn under his camo jacket?
What was the reason for him to be wearing pyjama bottoms?

Is there any evidence to show he was ever at the campsite as claimed?

Given the great grandfather's age and health issues can he even remember seeing Deorr Jr. there at the time and place claimed?
I also think it strange that the non family member was friends with the great grandad, especially given the age difference, what brought them togeather?

Whose decision was it to invite him on the camping trip?
Why was he invited?

I would want all the adults polygraphed and preferably statement analysed, we are not being told everything.

Oakley A said...

They searched around the camp in at least a 2 mile radius so if anything was discarded they probably have found it.

Anonymous said...

Mom and Dad gave been polygraphed, but Sheriff has declined to release results.

Juliet said...

Anon at 6.58 - Well, that's the way to make all her comments disappear, including the past tense one about DeOrr's favourite video on Tanisha's page below the Charlie Pugh - 'See You Again' video. Though most, or maybe all, of what she wrote, at least on her own page, is on this blog in the comments. Maybe she's just had enough of being criticised for being on-line and is talking a FB breather. DeOrr's page is still there, but he hasn't said anything on it.

Anonymous said...

Odd things about this case:

1. No apparent FBI involvement. 2. No reward being offered. 3. No Texas Equisearch or other similar orgs. 4. No lawyers. 5. No psychics! 6. No clues.

trustmeigetit said...

I am reminded a bit of the "Dingo ate my baby" case where the baby just vanished from their camp site and was never found again.

Hope that is not the case.

Also Peter...you never did do analysis on the police interview. You posted it, said you were gonna do it and never did.

Anonymous said...

The mother's (Jessica) facebook page before it was deactivated had several posts about missing signs for DeOrr..they appeared to have been made by the same person, but why would you make so many with different backgrounds? And she also posted other missing kids on her personal page, which I find strange. I would only be focused on my child if they were missing at this stage.
On one of the fb groups Jessica asks for people to not join a certain fb group or leave it because people were critical of her and some of those people were her family and friends. And then there is a private fb group dedicated to finding DeOrr, I don't know really what the point of that one is, if its for those close around her, they should make it hidden completely from the public.

Juliet said...

Why, when Jessica was asked in the interview if there were any rumours she wanted to address, did she not say no, she could not care less about rumours, her only concern is that DeOrr be found and about what might be happening to him? DeOrr Sr, too, is very willing to spend their precious airtime time addressing rumours around his employer - why didn't they dismiss the question, with 'I don't care about rumours - all that matters right now is DeOrr.'? The more I think about that, the stranger it seems, especially when Jessica wants to quash as rumour the sighting of a man and boy 'matching our description of our son'. Why, if they thought DeOrr had been abducted, wouldn't she say, 'If you also saw this person/man/guy and little boy, please contact the police, in case it is DeOrr, and this is the guy who has taken him.' Is it significant that Jessica refers to the man in the black truck as a 'gentleman', rather than as a person, man or guy? Why does she accord someone who might be the potential abductor of her son such a respectful description?

I recall Peter writing, I think on the subject of ATLs, something along the lines that in false hate mail, the writer can give themselves away by making the supposed author refer to the recipient in respectful terms when that wouldn't be anticipated. Could there be a similarity in Jessica's words - she knew it was DeOrr, so she called him a 'gentleman'? Just wondering, I don't know if what might apply to the written word, where there's time to decide how to put things, might also apply to words spoken spontaneously - well, if Jessica's words were spoken spontaneously, and had not been somewhat rehearsed.

Anonymous said...

Jessica also refers to the "lady" at the store.

Anonymous said...

Hobnob, your post @ 7:19, there has to be a connection between the elder grandpa and the younger male close friend that we are not aware of. HAS to be. Yes ma'am, this is a very unusual relationship.

More than just co-members of an AA group, former alcoholics... OH? Some 'thing' had bonded these two, we just don't know yet what it is. Just because an old man is getting weak and frail doesn't mean he hasn't been up to no good and might still be. His companion certainly has; so where's HE been?

Anonymous said...

Maybe GGF was the Friend's AA sponsor?

Oakley A said...

I think the FBI has to be invited in unless there was evidence of an abduction that crossed state lines. The Sheriff hasn't indicated he thinks there is any reason for their help. I think they have used some or all of the same t equipment Equisearch has. The Salmon River Search and Rescue are highly trained in the region and know the area. Really surprised there are no lawyers!!

Anonymous said...

I hate to even suggest this, but maybe DeOrr was dressed in camo clothing so he could be hidden somewhere along the way. I don't know the area, but if it's a lot of wilderness, could they have disposed of him somewhere off the road? It makes me sick just to type that. They could have disposed of him somewhere along the way and then had the searchers concentrate on the campground, hoping his remains wouldn't be found.

Apple said...

AnonymousJuly 28, 2015 at 6:58 PM
Jessica Mitchell's Facebook account appears to have been deactivated.

-------
Unexpected

Anonymous said...

I just read the transcript of the Nancy Grace show about this. Someone stated that the child had a Hot Wheels in his pocket. First time I've heard this.

Anonymous said...

His paternal grandfather, also named DeOrr Kunz, told HLN the family believes little DeOrr may have been kidnapped.

“He had little toy hot wheel trucks in his pocket and nothing fell.....

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2015/07/17/deorr-kunz-missing-family-fear-abducted

Juliet said...

Anon at 8.44 - Yes, thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten that. Maybe she normally refers to unknown people in polite terms, if that's what she was brought up to do. They don't come across as a very polite family on social media, though. :-/ The terms do go together - would one be likely to speak of a woman and a gentleman, rather than lady and gentleman? Lady and man wouldn't be so unusual, but ,woman and gentleman might not trip off the tongue. I still wonder if that was not at least somewhat rehearsed.

Anonymous said...

"Ladies and Gentlemen"....as in an emcee greeting an audience? That is: staged, rehearsed.

lynda said...

I'm still stuck on what grandpa kunz said. Is this normal or to be expected? That someone his grandfather no less, would tell nation "how" someone would kidnap him? I am an amateur at SA but would this be considered leakage? He tells us that he is NOT in the water for sure but if he is, somebody put him there. Then he explains how he "could' have been kidnapped.


"If he's in the water up there he was taken up there. He cannot walk on level ground without falling down. His little, short legs they can't walk up hill, he can't walk on level ground. He would have fallen and if he would have fallen he would have been crying. He didn't get up there by himself," DeOrr Kunz said.

"They weren't up there very long when this all happened, and what they came down with is that it was 4 minutes that someone wasn't watching him," Kune said.

Which DeOrr Kunz believes is plenty of time to snatch up a little boy.

"If a man was going to do it standing on the north side of that creek where the pine trees are, and the little boy on the other side of the creek. The creek is only about 4 feet wide it's not very big. They could have closed in on him. muffled his voice, muffled his mouth, and headed into the trees and he'd never be seen," he said

Anonymous said...

The Grandpa who said this was not at campsite, so he could just be parroting what the child's parents told him.

Anonymous said...

Grandpa Kunz: "The only good thing about being abducted is it means he’s is still alive."

ummm....not necessarily

Anonymous said...

They passed and Isaac refused.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 10:59 pm...What is your source that Mom and Dad passed the polygraphs? Law enforcement has stated that they took them, but LE is not releasing the results. As for Isaac, I've seen that people have "heard" that he refused, but nothing definitive.

trustmeigetit said...

And actually it's more likely they are not alive.

Anonymous said...

I was just thinking about what I might be doing if my little boy (or girl) were missing. I'd be out of my mind right now, wondering where he is, who has him, is he dirty, wet, lying in filth, how is he being treated, is he sick, is he hungry, is he being beaten and abused; I would be out of my mind, wondering if he is lying dead being picked over by vermin, insects, animals?

How could these people have a moment of peace, of rest, of worrying about what others think of them, or even trying to explain or defend themselves. I would be stark raving mad.

I would listen for the leaves to rustle, for the wind to blow the branches in the trees, for just one whisper of his little voice. I would lie down on the ground to wait for him to come to me in the spot where I last saw him. They would have to sedate and carry me off in a straight jacket from the woods he was last seen in.

trustmeigetit said...

Could not agree more. Even the video they did, they had to stop looking, drive to that studio and do the interview.

I would want media attention to make sure his face was out there it I would tell them to come to me where I was searching.

They'd only seem panicked, worried, anything. Dad especially seemed calm. I was more stressed when my dog got out for 20 mins and we were walking up and down the roads calling him.

I don't see any panic.

trustmeigetit said...

Also, they didn't focus on him. Most the conversation was praise for searchers while your son could be suffering. The focus was not their son. His name, photos, begging for his return.

trustmeigetit said...

And no seeking media coverage. Closing off is a bad sign.

trustmeigetit said...

They kinda brushed that off. Dad has a black truck and they were sorta saying he was not there at that time. At least that's how it seemed to me.

So to me, the fact they are not thinking that could be the kidnapper is alarming.

Like the McCanns did about the Snith sighting.


Anonymous said...

MAybe they've finally lawyered up?

lynda said...

Anon 10:52...Grandpa Kunz is Deorr Kunz Sr. father. I don't think he is parroting the "kidnap scenario" He goes into great detail about how to do it and also details how baby couldn't even walk on level ground, much less up a mountain.

To my knowledge, the parents polygraph results have NOt been released. Anon..please state your source if you would. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I remember reading that LE said they weren't going to release the polygraph results because the public could (my paraphrase) misinterpret them. Unfortunately, I can't find that reference now. Feel free to search away!

Oakley A said...

RE: ISAAC REINWALD
To Juliet and Katprint
I heard him say to the reporter “As far as I know he disappeared.” As far as I know being a qualifier.Which begs the question why a qualifier? Followed by "that's all". Which may also be a qualifying phrase? I'm not sure if that is different than I don't know but as far as I know is what I hear.
And prefaced with uhhhh. Judge Judy always says uhhh is not an answer :).
The rest was definitely a case of interviewer leading and yeah what you said responses
Sketchy.
http:/www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/sheriff-family-friend-not-a-suspect-in-deorr-kunz-case/

Oakley A said...

REINWAND

Oakley A said...

Lynda
Have they taken polygraphs? I read they told the Sheriff they would but hadn't read where they had. Did you?

Anonymous said...

From the door of his house, he said "He just disappeared, that's all."

Anonymous said...

Re Polygraphs: See Anonymous at 11:10 pm above.

Oakley A said...

"As far as I know he ( starts to say just but doesn't) he disappeared is all."

Oakley A said...

He started to say just but I don't think he quite finished .. And he began with "Far as I know he...

Oakley A said...

Thank you! Found it

Oakley A said...

Found an article thanks lynda

Oakley A said...

Not even sure he begins with as but rather"far as I know. And I believe it's is all rather than that's all.

Oakley A said...

http://www.examiner.com/article/missing-idaho-toddler-deorr-kunz-jr-parents-foul-play-not-suspected

Oakley A said...

Ends with "so"

Anonymous said...

Isaac will be arrested for this crime. If the body has not been found he will probably take a plea deal to avoid the death penalty and give up the location.

Anonymous said...

Here is a breakdown of the 3 Deorrs:

Deorr Jay Kunz (the missing toddler - he is referred to as Deorr Jr. but is not really a junior)

Vernal Deorr Kunz (father of little Deorr -- is referred to as Deorr Sr. but Deorr is his middle name so he is not really a senior)

Dennis Deorr Kunz (paternal grandfather of little Deorr, goes by his middle name)

They all live together with Jessica Mitchell.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone notice how Isaac perked up when they mentioned the grandfather and asked "have you talked to the grandfather? " He didn't sound sleepy then.

jen-d said...

"person of interest" what does that really mean? is that a politically correct term for 'not enough evidence to be declared as suspect but I know you are'?

Anonymous said...

I did notice that, Anon @3:26. He wasn't stuttering then either. Is that his photo at the top of this article? Yikes! Freaky looking creep.

Juliet said...

Oakley A at 12.06 - I listened again with headphones and yes, you're right, he says, 'As far as I know he just disappeared, he disappeared is all, that's all'.

Juliet said...

'As far as I know' - isn't that what someone would say when they didn't have first-hand knowledge, but rather had been told something by somebody else? I'm trying to think of instances in which I would use that phrase, and so far am only coming up with second hand knowledge, or something I don't know enough about to be able to say 'I know'.

lynda said...

Juliet..ITA. Those are the only 2 instances I would myself use that phrase. I also feel that saying "is all" after disappeared makes it sound like minimization of the fact that a baby disappeared. Such as, "he was joking around is all." You say "is all" as an apology to explain someone's behavior. The fact that he seems interested in whether or not reporter talked to GG just tells me that HE hasn't seen GG since that day or shortly thereafter. Either LE or family have prevented them from seeing each other.

Anonymous said...

Anon @3:20 a.m., what gives you the idea that Issac will be arrested for the murder and disappearance of little DeOrr?

Even if he is, this still does not account for why the babys' blankie, cup and monkey that he never leaves behind were found inside daddy DeOrrs' truck instead of placed with him as he was getting ready to take his hypothetical nap like his momma claimed he was. Wouldn't this indicate that Issac wasn't the only one involved in little DeOrrs' disappearance? I think it does.

What say you?

Oakley A said...

My take
Reporter: Can you tell us what happened up there?
Reinwand: Uhhhhh or Ummmmm
Reinwand responded: "Far as I know he jus, he disappeared is all, so"
UHHH/UMM is thinking what to say.
FAR AS I KNOW is a qualifier. When REALLY is used as qualifying it is affirming. FAR AS I KNOW isn't certain.
JUST is added when some1 deceptive wants to be believed.  He uses a form of just, JUS, slightly stuttering over it and not quite completing it. Not very believable.
IS ALL is he doesn't know what else to say, or is trying to end the questioning or stop the flow of information.
SO is used to explain why but here he does not appear to have something to explain but reports what he does not know for certain. Indicator of deception?

http:/www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/sheriff-family-friend-not-a-suspect-in-deorr-kunz-case/

Juliet said...

Hi, Lynda - I'm not used to hearing 'is all' , which is probably why I didn't catch it the first time round, I heard the clearer 'that's all' which followed, so it seemed to my Brit ears he had said it twice, but on closer listening there it was. :) I agree with what you say - it's very strange how they all say he 'just disappeared' and he 'just vanished', and now to add 'is all, that's all' to it, well, there's no way a baby 'just' vanishes, and that's all! It's easier to find the grandmother to be nearer to the truth, when she said he 'appeared' or 'appears' to have vanished, but not that he did 'just' vanish, not unless they are keeping quiet about their teleporter. :-/

John mcgowan said...

Oakley A said...

JUST is added when some1 deceptive wants to be believed


Hi,

The word "just" is used to compare or minimize downwards. ( I "just" had 2 beers officer") the word "just" in this instance, in the mind of the person speaking tells us he maybe comparing "2 beers" minimizing down from a higher amount. "It's not like i had 3 or 4, this is comparing. It is also used when something has "just" happened. "I received a call just 2 minutes ago" It's the context of what is happening or asked. It also qualifies the statement as you say, thus weakening it.

Sus said...

"is all" shows the subject wishes to stop the flow of information.

The sheriff's words show that Isaac Reinwand is not cooperative with LE. (See my prior analysis.)

Sheriff: "treating as family..."
Isaac Reinwand: asked newscaster if he spoken to the grandfather yet.
My take is Isaac R is accusing LE of focusing on him. Are they?

Parents leave him out of their interview. They don't mention him with Grandpa at the campfire when they leave Little Deorr. They don't mention him when they come back to the camp. Yet, Issac R said he was there with Grandpa. Is it possible Isaac R drove Grandpa to the site and left, or they thought he had left? It is beyond strange that Isaac R and the sheriff puts him at the "scene" when the parents do not.

Sus said...

Correction: the sheriff said, "We are treating him NO differently than family." In the negative tells us the opposite. Something IS different than family.

Oakley A said...

And he wants to be believed it was two beers. Just two beers.

John mcgowan said...

Oakley A said...

And he wants to be believed it was two beers. Just two beers.


Indeed.

Anonymous said...

Two VERY LARGE beers!

Anonymous said...

dis·ap·pear (dĭs′ə-pîr′)
v. dis·ap·peared, dis·ap·pear·ing, dis·ap·pears
v.intr.
1. To pass out of sight; vanish: The moon disappeared behind the clouds.
2. To cease to be seen; be missing or unfound: Her purse disappeared from her locker. The plane disappeared somewhere over the Pacific Ocean.
3. To cease to exist: Dinosaurs disappeared at the end of the Cretaceous Period.
v.tr.
To cause (someone) to disappear, especially by kidnapping or murder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disappear

trustmeigetit said...

I just caught something….

DeOrr Kunz: "If he's in the water up there he was taken up there. He cannot walk on level ground without falling down. His little, short legs they can't walk up hill, he can't walk on level ground. He would have fallen and if he would have fallen he would have been crying. He didn't get up there by himself"

BUT… the media went to the spot and taped where they were camping and showed us the water.

It was not UP it was DOWN.

The water is downhill from the campsite.

The link to the video is below. See for yourself. He specifically says this is the creek we have been hearing about and scans the area and I see no other "water" and no water that would be "up".

http://youtu.be/qvZbH7NSadA

So now I want to know what water are they referring too that is “UP” when the water RIGHT NEXT to their camp site is a steep drop DOWN

Not sure but this is now concerning me. What water are they thinking of?

Since they only turned their heads for a few minutes, he could not have gotten too far. So now we have water UP there…



Oakley A said...

:)

trustmeigetit said...

I just caught something….

DeOrr Kunz: "If he's in the water up there he was taken up there. He cannot walk on level ground without falling down. His little, short legs they can't walk up hill, he can't walk on level ground. He would have fallen and if he would have fallen he would have been crying. He didn't get up there by himself"

BUT… the media went to the spot and taped where they were camping and showed us the water.

It was not UP it was DOWN.

The water is downhill from the campsite.

The link to the video is below. See for yourself. He specifically says this is the creek we have been hearing about and scans the area and I see no other "water" and no water that would be "up".

http://youtu.be/qvZbH7NSadA

So now I want to know what water are they referring too that is “UP” when the water RIGHT NEXT to their camp site is a steep drop DOWN

Not sure but this is now concerning me. What water are they thinking of?

Since they only turned their heads for a few minutes, he could not have gotten too far. So now we have water UP there…



Sus said...

"Just" is used as a comparison. It means he had another thought than disappeared which he did not share.

Anything after his "so" would have been extremely sensitive. He stopped the flow of information and did not choose to share it. That in itself is telling.

Anonymous said...

I think he means "up" relative to where the interview is taking place (i.e., in a studio).

Sus said...

That was the grandfather Kunz speaking who was not at the site. He was speaking of the reservoir as they were diving in it. It is above the creek and empties into it.

trustmeigetit said...

This is to go with my comment above about going “up to the water”

There is a photo of the water the searchers looked in. There is no area that I can see where Deorr would need to go “UP” to that water.

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/20/lemhi-county-sheriffs-office-scaling-back-search/30417297/

trustmeigetit said...

Is there a photo anywhere that shows this? Every photo I find shows no where to go "up" to water. But nothing is labeled clearly as far as location

Anonymous said...

I think "up there" is a general reference to up in the mountains, at the campground, etc. In other words, at a higher altitude than where the speaker is at that moment.

Oakley A said...

John mcgowan said The word "just" is used to compare or minimize downward.
I'm interested in your amplification of the just before disappeared in this instance. In his mind what might he be comparing that lead him to want us to believe the lesser of the two. Thoughts?

Sus said...

There are all sorts of photos showing them diving and using sonar in the reservoir. Maybe on the sheriff's site? As to elevation, the actual park site shows it nicely. The reservoir is above their campsite. It empties into the creek they were camping by. (The creek the newsman you saw show.) The creek was also searched. I repeat, also, the quote you are using is not from Little Deorr's father, but his grandfather that was not there. He did an interview with People magazine.

Anonymous said...

Someone on another forum pointed out that (in one of the pictures shown here), there are only 3 seats (one single and one double) around the campfire. Of course, we do not know if GGF had a wheelchair or some other type of special chair):
http://www.ktvb.com/picture-gallery/news/local/2015/07/13/missing-toddler/30075461/

Sus said...

Oakley A,
All we know is he had another thought. Just is a comparison. He shut it off with "is all." If he had continued after his "so" that would have been sensitive information. All else is speculation.

They need to send that reporter again and again.

Anonymous said...

Never mind, pic is of the relocated campsite (not the original one)

Oakley A said...

I have to believe they did but I have wondered if the police ever asked to see what exactly they brought for the camping trip. Was it legitimate for the amount of time to be spent? Did it include supplies for all campers including the little boy?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE: Sus @ 10:53

That was my take on the "is all" phrasing, as well! You bring up an excellent point about perhaps Isaac R driving Grandpa to the site. Food for thought here. Has Deorr's 911 call been released yet? I have yet to see it, but I could have missed it. That brings me back to Jessica's odd interview statement, "Who would do this to us?". Perhaps there was a different reason Deorr needed to make sure his 911 call wouldn't be dropped; some things he needed to convey to LE/certain he would not be overheard...maybe the spotty cell phone coverage was a good excuse to leave.

Perhaps that's also why Deoor and Jessica seem somewhat confident the kidnapper would not harm their child. Maybe that's also why they don't seem too hysterical or distraught, they're not making continued media appearances, they're laying low,they're not emotionally engaging a kidnapper, and they're not actively pursuing the kidnapper (warning/stirring up community via media, organizing vigils, etc.). Perhaps that's why Deorr's dad detailed out how a kidnapping could have happened. Perhaps that's also why the blanket, cup, and snuggle toy were still in Deorr's truck- a kidnapper grabbing the child right before a nap wouldn't know that.

Considering possible scenarios here...and there seem to be a lot of them! This much I know, LE knows far more than they're telling. They've done a good job, IMO, keeping this close to the vest.

Anonymous said...

I say Isaac did it alone.

Anonymous said...

"Who Would Do This to Us?" Indeed. One would expect something more along the lines of "Why Would Someone Do This to a Child?" Makes me wonder if Mom and/or Dad owe money to some bad people.

Anonymous said...

Answer to your first question is DNA.

Sus said...

I am stuck on:
- The parents speaking in present tense through entire interview. No hint of knowledge their son is deceased.
- Peter's analysis of no evidence of ongoing abuse.
- The father's use of "my son."
- The mother's pleas to leave him where someone can see him and bring him home.
- The parents omission of Isaac R from their account, when they left the campsite and when they returned.
- The father drove "to the road" to make his call. I think that's a slip. He wasn't just looking for reception, but something on the road. What is on the road? Cars. The first alert put out by his sister described a car and a truck to watch for. Was one Isaac R's?
- Search and rescue does their job, can't find Little Deorr. It goes into what seems to be looking for a body and the father, at least seems relieved. Then they hint at a possible abduction, yet do not hook up with national organizations. I think they knew from the beginning now and hoped his body wasn't thrown in the creek, reservoir, or woods. They hoped he was taken away.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

"Who would do this to us?"

Maybe someone to whom you owe something- Money? Drugs? Personal property? Have you taken something that isn't yours?

Maybe someone who feels threatened by you- Are you about to/Have you cut someone off from a relationship lately?

Maybe someone you've angered/antagonized/told off/fought with recently (hence the enemies remarks in the parents'interview)

Maybe someone who is jealous of you- What do you have that they don't? A long-term relationship? A wife/girlfriend? A family? A child?

Maybe someone needing money- Drug/alcohol addiction? Someone with a drug/loan shark debt? Someone with little to no means of support, with impending lawsuits?

Maybe an opportunistic or predatory Sex offender?

Oakley A said...

Sus I get what you're saying.
Mulling this over. Could IR have told the parents "he just disappeared"...
No one really knows what happened to this little boy and there are no eye witness accounts. There have been 3 LE ascribed theories: he wandered off and is lost, he was abducted and is not there, he was the victim of an animal attack and hasn't been found. It is impossible to "disappear". Making "he disappeared" alone a troubling statement. So why would he, the family friend IR, include in a statement what "just" happened? Since we can only report what we know for certain or remember and he is telling us "far as I know", meaning he doesn't know for sure or have memory to speak from, why is he telling us he "just" disappeared. It seems more than comparing alone. To me it seems it's as someone who is being deceptive and wants to be believed. Because he wants us to believe the unbelievable he just disappeared. Why?

Betty said...

Yes but if Sr. was gone ten minutes before he placed his 911 call he could easily have driven more than two miles.

Anonymous said...

Because DeOrr (the dad) keeps referring to his truck throughout the interview, this is pure speculation, that when the parents went off for their walk or whatever, either grandpa or Isaac moved the truck for whatever reason...and accidentally hit the baby, killing him. Or maybe the parking brake wasn't fully engaged. However both grandpa and IR could be considered impaired (one is old and other possibly drunk). When parents returned they find their son deceased and panic. This could be why the dad seems to blame himself. This could also explain the timeline problems.

Anonymous said...

The possibility of a truck accident has been raised on this and other forums. Dad also uses the term "back up" a lot, lending further credence to that theory in my view.

Sus said...

Here's what I'm saying:
Two people place Isaac Reinwand at the "scene.", the sheriff and Isaac R himself.

Two people, by omission, DO NOT place him there.

Listen to their accounts. People are assuming Isaac R was there at the time Little Deorr "disappeared." The parents do not state that. Actually, the sheriff does not state that. Only Isaac R states that.

Just food for thought.

Oakley A said...

Where did they put the boy in this scenerio?

Anonymous said...

Sus, you get a gold star!!!!

Anonymous said...

Oakley, he is in a deep hole covered in water, a cave, mine, septic tank or sinkhole. The spot was picked out in advance.

Anonymous said...

Why would Isaac R. place himself there? If noone else does (by omission)?
What am I missing?

Betty said...

Well, if IR isn't at the campsite then he may not have an alibi. By putting himself at the campsite he has a better chance of getting away with Deorr's disappearance.

Anonymous said...

I agree Betty.

Anonymous said...

'Who would harm us this way?' Mitchell said. 'Especially knowing how much he means to us. He's everything to us.'

And how would a random kidnapper know how much he means to them?
"KNOW" = leakage

Anonymous said...

Isaac's arrest record is much more fleshed out today. The sealed files are from when he shot another teenager with a rifle.

Anonymous said...

Issac still has some sealed cases in another county.

Oakley A said...

In advance of knowing he would be accidentally run over by the truck?

Anonymous said...

Dad's Facebook profile now says Engaged (before it was In A Relationship).
https://www.facebook.com/public/DeOrr-Kunz

John mcgowan said...

Oakley A said...

John mcgowan said The word "just" is used to compare or minimize downward.
I'm interested in your amplification of the just before disappeared in this instance. In his mind what might he be comparing that lead him to want us to believe the lesser of the two. Thoughts?


Hi, Oakley

Reporter: Can you tell us what happened up there?
Reinwand: Uhhhhh or Ummmmm
Reinwand responded: "Far as I know he jus, he disappeared is all, so"
UHHH/UMM is thinking what to say.
FAR AS I KNOW is a qualifier. When REALLY is used as qualifying it is affirming. FAR AS I KNOW isn't certain.
JUST is added when some1 deceptive wants to be believed. He uses a form of just, JUS, slightly stuttering over it and not quite completing it. Not very believable.


He doesn't actually say "just". An assumption is that, this is what he was going to say? If he doesn't say it himself, we can't assume this is what he was going to say.

My examples above, earlier, were just that, examples, of how "just" is, and can be, utilized. :-)



Oakley A said...

I don't know guys. I can't understand why the Sheriff would say he, IR, was at "the scene". The language indicates the scene would be the area where Deorr went missing. But Sus is right that's an assumption. But I wonder if the Sheriff would have made that statement with the parents saying he wasn't around at all.

Oakley A said...

I agree. I never thought he really committed to the word. I guess we have to leave it alone.

Anonymous said...

I do not have any of the earlier statements in front of me, but if I recall correctly, the Sheriff and/or his deputy have already said that after a thorough search of a three mile grid area, there is no evidence of an accident happening at the campsite, there is no evidence of a kidnapping at the campsite, there is no evidence of the child wandering off, there is no evidence of any wildlife that might have attacked and carried the child away, there is no evidence of a drowning in the nearby creek or the reservoir, and there was not one item belonging to the child that was found in any of these searches.

If the sheriff and his deputy are correct, this leaves only one of two possibilities; 1) either the child never arrived at the campsite or, 2) the child was carried via vehicle and driven off the campsite area. In either of these possible scenarios, other hypothetical situations would be idle speculation, right?

However, it is possible that something vital and well concealed may have been overlooked in the searches, just as Anon @ 3:10 outlined; there are several possibilities that could have happened with no trace evidence being left behind. I do not believe this sheriff is holding anything close to the vest, IMO he and his deputy have no idea which way to go now that they have no evidence to go on.

I question that they've even followed up in searching DeOrr's truck, the cell phone records of the four adults involved, the tapes at the store where a description was given of possibly little DeOrr and his dad having been there that day, the polys or anything else. As of now, they have only made a dry run and there is no more info.

No vigils have been called for or organized, no pleas have been made for a kidnapper to return the child, no missing child organizations have been called on to help, and no reward offered. It's as if this case is about to dry up and grow cold with no further follow up on poor little missing toddler DeOrr. I hope not but at this moment it is sure starting to look this way.

lynda said...

Since the sheriff ONLY released Reinwalds name because of SM frenzy, I feel that the parents and the sheriff did not release his name before because of his record. He's a violent rapist for Gods sake. If they would have released his name in the beginning ALL media attention would be focused on him as his record stands for itself. Perhaps the sheriff did not want that pressure from media to "arrest" the rapist because he Knows it was Not Reinwald? I will say again, either this case is handled by nothing but incompetents or the sheriff is acting like Barney Fife but is really Columbo.

ima.grandma said...

Hey there everyone, I had complications with my dental surgery and had to return for additional procedures. I'm pretty much miserable but life does goes on. As mama always told me, "this too shall pass."

I did read something today that I want to share just because it's so strange. I want to catch up on my chats with some of you later when I start to feel better.

This snippet is part of Dennis Deorr Kunz's (Jr.'s grandfather) abduction scenario.
"If a man was going to do it standing on the north side of that creek where the pine trees are, and the little boy on the other side of the creek. The creek is only about 4 feet wide it's not very big. They could have closed in on him. muffled his voice, muffled his mouth, and headed into the trees and he'd never be seen," he said.

Remember the "backward speech" analysis. I haven't given any validity to this process, nor the time to attempt to understand. However, I try to keep an open mind.
http://backwardspeech.com/missing-idaho-boy-accident-abduction-or-murder/

I revisited some of the links applicable to this case and noticed the above site had been updated. The section identied as: Public Update July 27, 2015 is interesting. Note the grandfather's reference to "pine trees" and the speech analyst's reference to "spruce" 

I want this baby found alive. I want to believe the parents. Something is very wrong though.

John mcgowan said...

Anon @July 29, 2015 at 5:46 PM

Hi,

to add to your observations. Excellent i may say.

Why have LE not released DeOrr SR's 911 call? Could it be it was inaudible? Does it contradict Mums call.? Why release one and not the other? I'm intrigued to say the least!

Anonymous said...

Anon at 5:46: they held a vigil on July 13. The mom did ask for the return of DeOrr and though no reward has been offered they are trying to raise money for continued search efforts. I do not believe this family is at all wealthy enough to post a reward. I'm not sure what missing child organizations you are referring to, but he is on several missing person's websites such as the national center for missing and exploited children to name one.
I strongly believe they know more than they are telling the public. The relationships between law enforcement and the persons of interest is also something that needs to be scrutinized.

John mcgowan said...

~~Waves to~~ ima.grandma

Hi, i hope you feel better soon.

This "reverse speech" malarky. I can't get my head around it?. I've visited the site. To me, it's comes across as clutching at straws. Fit the language to the outcome of analysis. I don't know?

I am not savy with this type of analysis (maybe i'm just naive) . I stumbled across it searching for updates. I am however, open to all options. If it gets to the truth of what happened, then i'm happy. :)

Oakley A said...

I want to listen to his call as well. I initially thought maybe his call ended abruptly after his opening statement and the dispatcher told him his wife was already placing a call. Now IMO they may purposefully have withheld it. Perhaps they need to invite the FBIs help.

Anonymous said...

Parents have gone from SOLID to NOT SUSPECTS to PERSONS OF INTEREST.

GreatGranpa is NOT A SUSPECT, but LE is silent as to whether he's a Person of Interest.

Foul Play has gone from NOT SUSPECTED to NOT RULED OUT.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 409   Newer› Newest»