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.  



406 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 406 of 406
foodnerd said...

Even without the numerous clues of statement analysis it should jump out at a detective's ear as well as a journalist's ear, that he supposedly noted that unusually precise time of 2:36 while he was "hauling" down a possibly windy rural road? (In his truck,of course. That was when he was in his truck,remember.)

Anonymous said...

Wow that makes isaac look bad.

Anonymous said...

I watched all the interviews. Isaac's story is that he went to show Jessica a fishing hole. He said she was with him and he thought Dad and Baby DeOrr were following behind- he said they started following him. He thought they were going as a group. But Dad and Baby DeOrr weren't there when he showed Jessica the place- he says he showed Jessica the fishing hole. Where were Dad and Baby DeOrr? Then, he says he went back TOWARD camp to fish at a different fishing hole. So, where were Dad and Baby DeOrr- wouldn't he have run into them? Or did Dad and Baby DeOrr take a little detour?

Isaac fishes alone for "awhile". Then suddenly he sees Bob pacing and he finds out Baby DeOrr is missing. Jessica and Dad are somewhere else, supposedly searching. Since Isaac walked Jessica to a spot past where he was, and then came back toward camp, how could he have missed Jessica walking back toward camp, and missed hearing the parents screaming Baby DeOrr's name, trying to find him? This makes no sense. While at camp looking under vehicles and checking the camper with Bob, Jessica comes back and he tries to ask her about what's happening but she won't make eye contact. Then Isaac is gone by himself for "probably about half an hour, an hour," searching.

I think Isaac knows what happened, since he was close to the campsite fishing. Perhaps either the child drowned in the creek or was hit by Dad's truck, and he knows they covered it up. He didn't want to be involved and was afraid and walked away on purpose, playing innocent so the family wouldn't know he knew, and pretending to search for him, so he didn't have to see the rest of the cover-up and be part of it. In his situation, being the non-family member with a criminal record, I could see him being scared and feeling set up.


Unknown said...

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"

what if deorr was stolen the night before, the parents over slept and feel guilty, and the dad is speculating at this point?

Unknown said...

Trina Bates Clegg added 2 new photos.
July 8 ·
One year ago I spend a great evening with my daughter, Jessica Anderson, Baby DeOrr and my Dad cleaning the camper and making sure things were organized and ready for a camping trip to Leadore for my Dad to show Jessica, DeOrr and Baby DeOrr the same place I loved to be with my Dad, Grandma and family when I was young. Baby DeOrr was so excited to go camping.

maybe he disappeared on the 8th? they overslept, tried to find him. went to the store in the am, coz they had given up hope of finding him, and didnt want to admit they had over slept. and why does jessica make sure to say the red dye diesel was used, so it could be proved that vernal had to refuel, and no one else did. what if "the kidnapper" took vernals truck, did whatever and returned the truck, low on fuel?

Unknown said...

isaac said he showed jessica the fishing hole? didnt he also say at one point that he looked back and dad was behind him? didnt he also say he stayed with gpa and watched deorr, and why did the parents omit isaac from the fishing hole story altogether? and he said he looked up and saw gpa pacing, but the pi klien says he went down and photographed and there was no way anyone could see someone at the top...

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 406 of 406   Newer› Newest»