Thursday, July 16, 2015

Statement Analysis: 911 Call of Missing 2 Year Old

On July 10th, 2015, this little boy went missing from camp.  Here we have the 911 call from the mother, for analysis.


http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/mothers-911-phone-call-released-my-2-year-old-son-we-cant-find-him

Statement Analysis of a 911 call is no different than analysis of any other statement in that:

1.  We presume innocence on the part of the caller.  This is not a legal or ethical assumption, but a linguistic assumption.

2.  We next use this assumption to 'enter into' or understand the language of the caller via the setting.

A little boy is missing.  He is just under the age of 3.

The parents likely feel guilty about not knowing the location of their child, and they must be very nervous both for the child and for the obvious implication.  In context, we note who was present, and the topographical layout of the scene; so that if it is a campsite at a lake, "water", "woods" and so on, are part of the expectation.   If we find indicators of sensitivity, we look to see if these indicators of sensitivity are explained either by the subject, or by the context of the call.

3.  We set up an expectation of words.  What do we expect the caller (parent) to say?  We may even make a written list of what we expect to hear before listening to the call, and exactly how we expect it to sound.

As we listen to what the parent says, the 'expected' words pass by us without cause for concern.

4.  Should we hear what is not expected; that is, words, phrases, or information that is not something that either we, or most people, would say in this circumstance, we are 'awakened' or 'alarmed' or 'confronted' by these words and will carefully note the words and ask, "What would cause a parent of a missing child to say this?", in speculation, based upon the context.

Some points to consider about the call.

1.  "What's the address of your emergency?"

The call begins with the 911 operator asking the location.  The immediate address is not given but begins with a pause.

A pause is a sensitivity indictor.  We now ask, "Why would the parent of a missing child need to pause in answering the question about location?"  

We look to see if the answer is in the language.

In a home address, this is the expected:  a direct answer will be given without pause.  "1515 Mockingbird Lane" should be given without any need to think (pause).  At a camp ground, or remote site, a pause to give the location is expected.  A pause, such as, "hmmm" or "Uh..." or even "What is the address here?" is expected if the caller is at a remote site.  It is, therefore, a sensitivity indicator that is explained in context.

"an hour?" is asked by the operator, making it sensitive.  This is also explained in context:  the 911 operator did not hear the answer.  This is confirmed by the audio, or by the repeated number of times (in the text) that the 911 operator needed to ask questions.

2.  "My two year old son, we can't find him."

a.  "my"   The pronoun "my" takes ownership and is the language of biological parents.  It is likely that the caller is the biological mother and not a step parent.

b.  "we"

3.  "We can't find him" shares guilt/responsibility.  This can either be the guilty feeling for him being lost, or more detailed guilt.


2.  "What is he wearing?"

"He was wearing cowboy boots..."

She referenced the child in the past tense.  We must consider this in context.

This tells us:

a.  The mother knows or believes he is dead; or
b.  The mother is thinking of what he was wearing an hour ago, specifically (since this followed after having to repeat "an hour" to the operator)
c.  The mother may think the child takes off his boots, clothing, regularly
d.  unknown:  to be determined.

We note that the references in the past tense that point to guilty knowledge are generally about character, or life, and not about specific clothing, or having specific items with the child, such as "he had her blankie with her..." or "she had her cell phone" and so on.  These refer to the specific time period last seen.

Next note that  she went to him as a "person" she said, "he's got shaggy blond hair", in the present tense as part of the free editing process (she was not asked) and is within the same context.

Physical description of what one is wearing, or has with him, can be past tense, appropriately, since that is what the person saw or thought, the child had on.  It is when the subject (parent) speaks of the child's character, rules for life, etc, that the past tense reference becomes a red flag.

In an attribute that is ongoing, "he's..." but only in the clothing, "he was..."; which is not a conclusive point within itself.  Had she said,"he had shaggy blond hair", it would have been different.

Analysis Conclusion:

There is nothing in the 911 call to suggest guilty knowledge on the part of the mother.  










91 comments:

John mcgowan said...

Thank you for analyzing this call Peter.

"We note that the references in the past tense that point to guilty knowledge are generally about character, or life, and not about specific clothing, or having specific items with the child, such as "he had her blankie with her..." or "she had her cell phone" and so on. These refer to the specific time period last seen".

I commented on this and the past tense (was) used by his mother to describe his clothing. I have learned something new about past tense and will bare this in mind next time i hear something similar.

Thanks

Peter Hyatt said...

We learn!

John, years ago, a father was deceptive about his missing daughter. A sex offender killed her.

Dad was deceptive about substance abuse and not watching her.

it was an important lesson for me. The deception was accurate, but rushing to conclusion is always troublesome.

Mom has not given us indicators of guilt. I will get to Dad's statements. He is a talker, which is helpful.

Keep digging,

Peter

Deejay said...

With camping- I always worry about toddlers and lakes or streams...

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Peter-

Is there a way to private message you? I have a few questions that I don't want to ask in the forum. I would hate for someone make assumptions based on my questions,run rampant with them and possibly destroy people's reputations.

Thank you!

Bonnie Blue said...

I feel so awful for this Mother. I can't imagine the pain and heartache she must feel right now.

However, there is something that sets off my "hinky meter" about DeOor's father. Listen to the unedited version of this interview:

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/heartbroken-parents-of-missing-2-year-old-well-find-you-son/

He refers to his son as "the child" and "that child". He spends more than 1/2 of the interview praising Search&Rescue and their cool equipment ... he says that something like this can really turn "your" life around.

The most alarming thing to me was that he says they are positive that someone has him and he is no longer in that area, but, he never pleads to the kidnapper for his toddler's return. At the very end of the interview, his wife FINALLY says if someone has him to return him (in addition to saying they are just trying to get "the story" out there).

Maybe I am just paranoid because there are so many parents in these circumstances and they end up being their child's worst enemy. I hope this doesn't turn out to be another one.

John mcgowan said...

Hi Bonnie

here is the full quote

"Just in a split second, your whole world is upside down and vanished," said Deorr Kunz Sr., Deorr's father.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/109875/20150716/toddler-missing-idaho-nearly-week-family-thinks-abducted.htm

Bonnie Blue said...

Hi John,

I listened to the interview and just noticed that Peter may have covered it in a different article here. I just started to read it. What is your take on this Father so far?

Oakley said...

Peter,
Although she didn't say the unexpected without cause, are there expected things she didn't say? Is that a factor? Did she say any words of urgency? Did she say any words of concern? It sounds like there was a bad signal on her end and some of the call was broken so she may have said more than was heard. I didn't hear any words of panic or any words of impatience or rudeness. I didn't hear any words of instruction on how incapable he is at just 2 yrs old. She did sound like she may have been crying and it did sound like her voice broke at the end of the call.

Anonymous said...

Oakley, this is how I think:

* Telling the emergency services that you are in a hurry, would it help?

* Interrupting the operator to explain that a toddler can't take care of himself in the wild, would it help?

* Being rude, would it help?

Oakley A said...

It wasn't in ref to if it would help. It was in ref to what a parent would be thinking and feeling. Concern, urgency, panic, impatience and it would filter into their words and appear rude.

A_Flowers said...

Oakley, Like you I didn't hear any urgency in her words or any type of panic. I have two children one that is currently 3 years old and I panic if someone leaves our back sliding door open to our fenced yard. That being said I do know that emotion takes time to process. It could be that she had poor reception, we only got to heard part of the call or many other factors we don't know. I think its too soon to come to any conclusion based on the small amount of statements the Mother has made. The Father on the other hand has said a lot of nothing which is disturbing.. I'd like to hear his 911 call.

Oakley A said...

A_Flowers. You 're right. I would not want to pass judgement on her as a mother based on a time of crisis :( and haven't come to a conclusion. I just find the art of statement analysis and what Mr. Hyatt does fascinating and how it's revealing and both detects deception and rules it out. I would like to hear the fathers call too!

Peter Hyatt said...

Gentle reminder:

do not listen for anything. Look at the words the brain produced. This is where we move away from subjectivity and how people freeze in crisis, to the details and priorities.

A good one to wrestle with is "I knew I was in trouble" by the father.

Explore this one phrase, itself, (in context) and post what you think.

Peter

Juliet said...

I have transcribed the full interview, but it's in a few posts which could use cutting and pasting in the right order, and some tidying up. I'm not equipped to do all that on my tablet, but if anyone else has time and would care to do it so it can be reposted as a whole, please feel free. It's on the first post about Deorr's disappearance - also, someone might want to change my Brit spellings to American and check it for mishearings or other errors. :)

Peter Hyatt said...

Juliet,

It is very kind of you.

Peter

A_Flowers said...

Thanks Peter. I'm still new to this and I hope they find the little guy. I do better seeing the words vs hearing them with or without emotion. I know how I would react if my child was missing but I shouldn't expect that from others, I should of said that in my comment.. you can't say it for me if I didn't say it.

A_Flowers said...

I re-listened to the interview where the Dad talks about "I knew I was in trouble".

Searched for.. after about 20 minutes dead panic not knowing where he was, in such a small area never being there I knew I was in trouble, so we decided to call search and rescue.

"I knew I was in trouble" is usually used in reference to when you realize something. I could be that he realized Deorr was missing and there was nothing else for him to do but call search and rescue. He had limited knowledge of the area. I think that he has guilt since he brought them there to the area and he was not able to keep him safe. He then talks about how great search and rescue is. That could be his way of trying fixing his wrong.

Its the term "Dead panic" that through me off the first time I heard it.. LESSON - listen more than once. It could also be that he realized he could not prolong calling for help any longer.

John mcgowan said...

Hi Bonnie

I'm looking at the Dads interview transcript (thanks for doing that Juliet) as for now i can't call it. I may have better insight once iv'e read it.

Juliet said...

You're welcome, Peter, John, and all. :)

Oakley A said...

Ok. Don't listen 4 anything. In that one phrase "I knew I was in trouble" his brain produced a change to the pronoun I from we. I is strong and reveals ownership/responsibility. His priority was his trouble not his son. It was a detail he added from his brain that didn't have to be conveyed in context of searching for his missing son.

Juliet said...

There are mistakes, though, John, so don't rely on the accuracy of it as it stands - it's more or less accurate, but that's not accurate enough. :)

Oakley A said...

In his account his brain produced 1. The word dead-in relation to his missing son
2. the detail of not of knowing where he was which was redundant. And in "such" a small area. Compared to what?
3. the phrase "never being there"-not past tense
4. I knew I was in trouble. Strong I pronoun. Ownership/Responsibility. The priority that He was in trouble not his son.

Apple said...

The search isnt over. The search isnt done. I dont care how long it takes.
----
This is from the mother. I find it unexpected. It doesnt need to be stated.

Juliet said...

I wonder about his need to go off in the pick-up truck in order to make a phone call, not wanting to 'risk' calling from where they were, while the mother was able to make her call without going down the road. Later in the interview he draws attention once again to the 'here, there - it's camping' unreliability of the service, when talking about 'anybody I called' making themselves available. Was he thinking of from where he made those calls - did he need to go down the road to make all the other calls, or was there a reason he left the campground beside making the emergency call? He finds it necessary to justify and explain the call, the bad service - was it difficult for others to make calls from the camp, did it become apparent to others that it wasn't necessary for him to have avoided taking the 'risk' of calling, immediately, from the camp? Did he maybe realise that others would be suspicious of his reason for leaving the camp, once it was known that his wife was able to make a call from there? She was, he said, very, very lucky (presumably to have managed to make the phone call) while he was blessed. Really?

Also, I wonder who was screaming the child's nicknames? Wouldn't screaming, rather than calling, frighten the missing child, had he heard it? Who screamed? People scream at a terrible sight or discovery, rather than at the lack of one. Wouldn't a person call for a missing child, so as not to alarm him, rather than scream? Maybe it's just a different use of the word, but screaming in relation to a child who isn't there seems strange to me - in those circumstances one might call loudly but I wonder if really, one would scream. I think people scream at discovering the worst, rather than at fearing the worst. Not to say either parent had discovered the worst, more to question if that really happened, did they, or one or the other, really scream his nicknames - is this really how, and when, the little boy disappeared? It's all so vague and contradictory.

Juliet said...

Also, there is a change in tense in the father's language around the time he watched his son till he figured he had gone - the bit about the minnows. I wondered if he was making that up as he was saying it. Did he actually see minnows, as opposed to not?

Oakley A said...

What's the thing about 3 and liars? They focused at the end of the interview about the 3 things he didn't go anywhere without.

Oakley A said...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/a-closer-look-the-campground-where-deorr-kunz-disappeared/

So this article says great grandfather which might mean an even older man watching the child. And random but their names are different? Kunz and Mitchell Are they married or? Is he the biological child of both of them?

John mcgowan said...

Oakley A said...

What's the thing about 3 and liars? They focused at the end of the interview about the 3 things he didn't go anywhere without.




Mark McClish, retired US Federal Marshal and current Statement Analyst and instructor, did his own research (with the help of students around the country) and learned something quite interesting:

When a deceptive person is going to have to choose a number between 1 and 9, the number 3 appears to come up more than others; so much, in fact, that Mark began calling it "the liar's number."

I agree with him.

Avinoam Sapir said, "This is not SCAN." That is, this observation is not part of the scientific process of analysis, but it is quite fascinating. It is not part of SCAN (see www.lsiscan.com) but it is something you might want to listen for.

I have found it repeatedly to be true. "Fake Hate" Charlie Rogers had "3 masked men break into her home" and even Tiffany Hartley said, "just had 3 boats chasing us..." in her deceptive account of what happened to her husband, David Hartley, murdered on Falcon Lake in Texas (or "the Mexico side" according to Tiffany).

The exception to this is when a police officer pulls over someone who smells of alcohol and is asked,

"How many drinks have you had?"

The number one answer is

"Just two drinks, officer."

You may find that 3 assailants held up a person at 3 o'clock on the 3rd floor on March 3rd, but hey, just be aware of this interesting observation. Do not conclude deception based upon it, but upon the statement as a whole. We never conclude deception on a single indicator.


http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/just-two-beers-officer.html

Cathy said...

I lost my son in a crowd at a community event. At first I called his name, but when he didn't appear and panic set in, I screamed. I screamed as loud as I could so that my little guy could hear.

Juliet said...

Nate Eaton discusses missing toddler Deorr Kunz on Nancy Grace - it's on YouTube, I can't post the link, but some new information there, along with some more confusion, as Nate Eaton says both that the blanket, cup and monkey were left at the site, and also that there is no sign of them, but maybe that is just sloppy reporting. The family apparently only arrived at the camp on the Friday afternoon that DeOrr went missing.

If it is the case that there are two young siblings, is there any information as to whether they were also on the camping trip?



John mcgowan said...

Juliet!

Nate Eaton discusses missing toddler Deorr Kunz on Nancy Grace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIA0NvCxrRE

Apple said...

Thank you for the link, john.

What a waste of news time that could have been used to provide information. Poor reporting.

Juliet said...

Thanks, John.

---

I am curious as to why the father said 'someone will come forward wondering where this child has come from' - is that just wishful thinking, or is it possible he knows where the child is, and intends for him to be found? Someone here put forward the idea of the father wanting to be a hero, and of his need to impress and win over his wife's family, his interest in the military, and his possible feelings of inadequacy at being a truck-driver (more or less, and as I recall) - it would seem an extreme way in which to somehow prove himself, and after a week it's unlikely the little boy is alive, unless he is being cared for by someone - also if he were to discover the child, it would be suspicious, and if someone else were to discover him, the father would not be the hero, so that doesn't pan out too well. So, wishful thinking?

John mcgowan said...

Chief deputy on missing boy's family: 'They're solid.

LEADORE, Idaho -- Lemhi County Chief Deputy Steve Penner asked people not to speculate about the parents of a 2-year-old boy who went missing during a fishing trip six days ago.

(This is not in the narrative below, but in the Vt)

Journalist: You guys have cleared the family, is that right?
Before he answers there is a long pause.

Erm..

"We've interviewed the family, and the information they've provided us - my office, myself - we're good with that," he said. "And I know there's a lot of innuendo out on social media and a lot of stuff going out there and it would be nice if it would stop and let them have a little peace. They're solid"

"we're good with that"

Distancing language. Does he still not want to commit himself.


"They're solid."

What is his subjective internal dictionary definition of "solid". The journalist misses the opportunity to ask him.


Searchers have found no trace of DeOrr Kunz Jr., who vanished from the Timber Creek Campground July 10. His parents, Jessica Mitchell and DeOrr Kunz Sr., have said they believe their son was abducted, and are pleading for his safe return.

Penner said the sheriff's office has not ruled out a kidnapping, but said the possibility is "very remote."

The sheriff's office used horses, helicopters, dogs, ATVs, teams of people and infrared imaging to comb the area for the blond-haired little boy. The child was last seen wearing a camouflage jacket, blue pajama pants and cowboy boots.

Search dogs lead teams back to the Stone Reservoir Wednesday, prompting a second search of the shallow, clear water. Divers came up empty.

The search is continuing Thursday in the reservoir. Representatives from the National Association of Missing and Exploited Children are also assisting. The sheriff's office is asking the public not to go to the scene. If anyone has information, they are asked to call the Idaho Fusion Center in Meridian at 208 846-7676.

http://www.krem.com/story/news/local/northwest/2015/07/16/deorr-kunz-missing-family/30251951/

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

Hi Guy's. Could someone check if i have this right. I need to step back for a while. Emotional fatigue is kicking in i think?

Is the chronological order out?. If so, this may not becoming from experiential memory?

Thanks

Juliet's transcript.


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. 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.


1st he tell us he "didn't think one bar would get it" (calling for help) because he didn't want to"risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off"

Then:

"So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road"

Isn't "one bar" the same as a "little service"?

"about a half mile down the road"

I would focus my search here. This maybe leakage of the location of baby DeOrr?


"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."

"Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic"

"dead panic" (Noted)

Is the chronological order out?

First:

"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."

Second:

"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."

"I knew I was in trouble." (noted)

Third:

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

So he is "in the truck" looking to get service on his phone half mile down the road. Then he says they searched in "dead panic". Then he says "so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down."

Peter Hyatt said...

Cathy said...
I lost my son in a crowd at a community event. At first I called his name, but when he didn't appear and panic set in, I screamed. I screamed as loud as I could so that my little guy could hear.
July 17, 2015 at 5:58 AM


Behavioral Analysis 101.

The child goes missing, the parent calls; no response, the elevation of intent.

Compare this to missing Baby Ayla.

Baby goes missing.

Dad too emotional to call out to her.

Hides in bathroom.

Ridicules those who call for him to call out her name.

Fails polygraph..

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

John, your honesty is endearing.

There is one who sometimes posts here, when he can bear up under the stark difference in our beliefs, but he has an honesty that I not only respect, but find it also endearing. He says he will never change, not realizing that there is no motive to getting anyone to change viewpoints, only to embrace truth, even when, like Pilate, the historic cynic says, "What is truth?", which is to say:

excuse my acute immoral act of allowing an innocent to be executed so that I may advance my political career safely.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

A Flowers,

an interesting post!

I enjoy when readers assert, and then explain why ---this is good for all of us because if we are wrong, we can 'fix' where we went off base.

Peter

Sus said...

Thanks for doing the transcript, Juliet. I've been looking at when the parents first noticed Little Deorr gone.

D: He was playing with Grandpa.
J: He, yeah, he was with my grandfather.
Note they both put distance between the grandfather and Little Deorr by using "with." Deorr sr uses "was playing" which can show deception, as he sees it as continuos action, no end. Jessica uses her own language rather than parroting Deorr sr..."was playing/ was with", "Grandpa/my grandfather."

This is evidence that they both saw Little Deorr NEAR the grandfather, not necessarily the grandfather caring for Little Deorr.

D: He was over
"Was" is strong past tense. "Over" shows distance between father and Little Deorr.

D: he was getting ready for a nap
Father again uses continuos action indicating deception....about the nap. How was he getting ready? Or did father think it should be nap time?

D: uh, say it was almost, by that time it was almost two
"Say it was almost". No, we can't say it. "by that time" it was almost" All of these are wanting us to lead up to a certain time which is important to the father...TWO. Why is two important to the father...

D: and he usually takes his nap
His language has already shown Little Deorr was probably not acting tired, but it was near his USUAL nap time and he was near another adult.

Sus said...

D: um...we was just, yeah, we decided we were going to go little exploring,
"we was just" is an interruption in thought. What were they doing? Father already showed in earlier language he was away from Little Deorr. Now with "we" the mother is with him. "Just" is a comparison. What other thought? To be near Little Deorr who is not napping? "We decided" may indicate a discussion or persuasion on father's part.

D: and he was going to be good with Grandpa by the campfire
"And" may show missing information. I think it's that Little Deorr was not acting sleepy and Grandpa was not asked to watch him. "Was going" is passive. Along with the earlier "we decided" again I dont think grandpa was informed he was babysitting. "By the campfire" concerns me a bit. Why was it added? Was Little Deorr interested in it? Anyone else?

Peter Hyatt said...

Thanks due to Juliet's labors!

Peter

Sus said...

I see I missed several things:
"were going" "exploring" Again the father does not say they WENT or they EXPLORED. He leaves it open.

So both he and the mother are strong in stating Little Deorr was by Grandpa. (Not that Grandpa knew to watch him, just that he was near him.) The father is clear that he and the mother were together. What they were doing seems deceptive, though. Whatever it was...they couldn't wait for that two o'clock nap time.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

RE; Point to Sus at 12:33

You made an excellent point on little Deorr "playing with Grandpa" and that reminded me of something. How could Deorr be playing with Grandpa and yet Grandpa said "I thought he was going up to you."(Note: this statement is attributed to Grandpa by Dad).

Sus, your analysis is furthered supported by Dad's vigil statement: “There’s not much to be said other than one small mistake as a parent – leaving him with an adult that turns his head for a minute,” Kunz said. “Please cherish and love each other because it could be changed in just a split second.” (Source: http://q13fox.com/2015/07/14/vigil-held-for-idaho-boy-2-missing-for-four-days-sheriff-rules-out-possible-lead/). Notice he said "leaving him" and not "asking another adult to watch him/ letting someone else watch him/ trusting someone else to watch him".

Neither Dad nor Mom specifically asked Grandpa to watch Deorr. If so, they would have said so. Dad, particularly, wants us to assume they asked or Grandpa offered
to watch Deorr. How do we know? In the interview, he anticipates being asked why no one was watching Deorr and offers the information without being asked. He strongly asserts his position by stridently talking over Mom (Video: 8:45-9:30), yet he stumbles over the actual words and proceeds to ramble about why he was coming back to get Deorr. He immediately launches into self-defense mode with "It's such a small area...."

Anonymous said...

"If somebody has him please don't hurt him," mom Jessica Mitchell tells KTVB. "Just bring him home safely where he belongs." Mom begins with "If somebody has him" which to me says she doesn't really believe he was abducted. She asks that the abductor (if there is one) doesn't hurt him. She then follows with "bring him home safely" which sounds the same to me as "don't hurt him" and "where he belongs" which is unnecessary. We all know a missing baby belongs with his family. Why the need to say this? It sounds to me as though the mother is either aware of what happened and where he may be or suspicious of dad and/or grandpa.

Juliet said...

Well, on account of what Cathy has written, I accept that some parents will scream if they can't find their child - we do tend to go on our own experience, and mine differs. Good to know, though - as Peter says, we learn. :)

Juliet said...

Did people think you were crazy, though, to just scream, Cathy? Perhaps it's down to personal reserve, but I couldn't just decide to scream, and then produce a scream, though I could shout or yell if it seemed necessary - there would have to be some terrible sight or devastating discovery, more than the fear of one, to produce a scream. Screaming to me, is a reaction to something specifically horrific and beyond my ability to control. I have screamed once in my adult life, and I did not at first realise that it was me who had made the sound. So, how we all differ, yet in some ways are quite the same, at least if the principles of Statement Analysis are correct!

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

The Store sighting bothers me. At 7:08 in the video, Mom & Dad are asked to address the possible sighting by the General Store employee at the store in Leadore. Dad and Mom both talk about the lady stating that "a gentleman and a younger blond boy- matching our description of our son" were in a black truck, the boy was filthy and crying, the man was buying him candy, and it was about 6:00. Why is Mom quoting the description of the boy this way, when she already knows it was Dad and Deorr? Why did she detail the quote, but add "matching our description of our son"? It sounds awkward and distant, as if it wasn't a description of their son. Yet the father says in the next breath that it was him, them. Why is the store sighting so sensitive to both of them? It's one of the few things in the interview that provoke the mother to actually speak first, as opposed to look at Dad, look around, and nod her head in agreement.

Starting at 7:35, Dad says, "As a family, we went down to get a few things.....". This is reminiscent of his "As his father.." and "As a father..." statements. We need to know why (in what context) is he using this phrasing. What is provoking the use of those authoritative phrases? Why does he feel the need to assert his/their rights as parents? Is it abnormal for them to get in the truck and go places as a family? Is the sensitivity due to Deorr crying? Or that the lady reported this? If they "as a family" went, why is Mom missing from the quote and from Dad's statement that it was him? There's no mention when they relay the lady's quote: of a woman in the black truck; placing a woman with them in the store; a woman interacting with either the gentleman or the boy; or even a description of a woman at all. Why?

From 7:36-7:38 Dad admits that it was him, but insists that the lady had the time wrong. Notice he does not deny that Deorr was filthy (he doesn't even correct it to "dirty"), Deorr was crying, and he was buying Deorr candy. He's more concerned with dismissing this sighting. Any parent/babysitter/knows that candy is a surefire way to distract an ill-tempered child. Any parent/babysitter/dentist/nurse knows that candy quickly and often effectively distracts a child from an injury or scare. He goes on to say that they had not left the campsite since 1:00 that day. So, they had left the campsite before Deorr was reported missing. According to news reports, they'd arrived at the campground that morning. The reporter should have pursued this by asking when they arrived at the campground and what kinds of things (Dad's phrase) did they buy at the store. It's a alarming that Deorr was already filthy and crying (and possibly being placated with candy) before 1:00 and he's missing "without a trace" before 1:35. Remember, according to Mom and Dad on the 911 call, he'd been missing an hour when they called at 2:35. So, they've been back at camp less than 35 minutes with a filthy and crying toddler,when Mom & Dad "decide to go exploring" (not- we went exploring)...and Deorr "vanishes" "without a trace".

(Side Note:The candy alone would have delayed a 2:00 nap, much less whatever caused the crying, the disruption in a toddler's normal routine, the new surroundings, etc.) *Sigh*

Could Deorr have been injured somehow and his parents attempted to calm/distract/placate him with candy (out of ignorance or fear of being blamed), and he succumbed to his injuries?

Juliet said...

Oh, just rereading and I see they were 'screaming his name', which must mean yelling, rather than screaming proper.

. 'He was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire.'

'I seen him to the point I figured he was gone'.

The father watched him out of sight as he headed towards the campfire. As a family, they go to the store around one. A lady in the store sees a filthy child in a black truck, bawling, around six. The father says there's a problem, he drives a black truck. He says 'it was me', but both parents say it was earlier. Very confusing, but do others agree that the father's words are 'it was me?' It sounds like that to me, but it would be awful to misrepresent him if that's not what he actually said - please listen for yourselves and see if that's what you hear. If he did say it was him, then he's putting himself with the bawling, filthy child in the black truck, disputing the time, as though the time of the sighting itself could make a difference to him placing himself with the boy and the truck. if that happened at one, why no attempt to explain the child's condition by either parent? Both parents say it was earlier, they went to the store earlier, but neither addresses the issue of the filthy and crying child. That's strange, as though they are saying it wasn't him, but also that actually it was.

Juliet said...

Foolsfeedonfolly

I think they did go as a family to the store at one, but that DeOrr was not filthy or bawling at that time. The mother is troubled by the later sighting and description of the man, truck and boy - the father blurts out that it was him (I think that's what he says), and they both say it was earlier, possibly because that's what she wants to believe (that he wasn't also there later with their son in a distressed state) and that's what he wants her to believe - but it's messed up, because without intending to, he's put himself at the store with the family, when she knows and agrees he was there, but also later with the filthy bawling little child, whom she doesn't acknowledge as having been in that condition when they all went to the store. She is much troubled by the description of the child who (otherwise?) matches the description of their son, as being filthy and bawling, as it's the rumour she wants dispelled - she doesn't want that to have been her son and her husband. I wonder if the mother is protecting her husband there, or simply unable to entertain the possibility that it could have been him and their son at the store again, later.

As the father seems to be saying that it both was and wasn't him at the store, I wonder if there has been an appeal, in order to eliminate the possibility of it having been DeOrr and their son - in such dire circumstances, one would hope that if it was someone else, they would come forward, rather than let doubt surround the father.

I wonder why Jessica didn't say, 'but he wasn't filthy and bawling when we went to the store, so no matter the time just being out, it couldn't have been you and DeOrr - so why did you say it was?' That's odd.

Oakley A said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oakley A said...

I have an interjection. I may have missed it being introduced or it may be silly. Is there any supporting evidence that Deorr was with the group at the campsite? I read he went missing on Friday just shortly after they arrived. Could it have been an attempt to cover up a crime, accident or something that had already happened. Snake River which he stuttered out while trying to say search and rescue is some distance from where they are. Maybe it's why there is an assured attitude and words from the father there isn't a trace of him on the mountain.

Oakley A said...

Thank you

Oakley A said...

Someone Anom did say it could be a hoax. I was thinking narrow. A hoax for attention a hoax for gain. What if it was to cover something up.

Juliet said...

There is a piece on People.com in which the paternal grandfather, also called DeOrr Kunz, says his daughter in law won't put down the baby's blanket, also that the blanket was in the truck. The parents were setting up camp and assumed Jessica's grandfather was looking after him. There was a four minute window when no-one had an eye on him.

Apple said...

"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. 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."
-----
To, because, so, because, to, so, so
Isnt that a lot of blues?

Juliet said...

"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. (Paternal grandfather)

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

Missing toddler's grandfather believes boy was abducted

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.

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.

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.


http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/17/missing-toddlers-grandfather-believes-boy-was-abducted/30321903/

Anonymous said...

Apparently I'm of a suspicious nature in this entire missing toddler situation. I just don't see it that any parent would wait twenty minutes before calling 911 when their child is missing. I don't care what their difficulty might be in calling 911, at the least they would have been trying as soon as they discovered the child missing, particularly being aware there was water nearby. Nope, not believing it.

Further, I think the mother is highly suspicious of her husband and he knows she suspects him. IMO, this is why she appears so apprehensive, to the extent that she is allowing herself to cow-tow to him and is the reason he is taking over and shoving her into the background in the interviews.

I find it strange that out of FOUR adults on that camping trip and not a one of them were even glancing towards the baby? Nope, not buying this scenario.

Sure the baby could have been kidnapped; all the more reason one would call 911 immediately, not run around calling for him for the next twenty minutes, right?

Juliet said...

The parents, in the interview, didn't volunteer that DeOrr isn't a steady walker, which would have reduced the chances of him getting very far away from them - also if losing his footing would cause him to cry, then they should have heard him.

The paternal grandfather said, in another of these interviews, that the family had been living with him for the past eighteen months or so, in which case, the grandfather is up to date on the boy's walking skills, and how he reacts to falling.

(I would post the URLs if I was using my PC, but as it's not working, I'm having to muddle along with my tablet, which I find difficult to use.)

Juliet said...

Well, the father almost volunteered the information when he spoke about DeOrr tripping.

John mcgowan said...

Hi Juliet,

If you know the headline of the Grandfather's second statement, the one about them living together, i will try to find it and post here.

Oakley A said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oakley A said...

Juliet said July 18, 2015 at 8:56 AM

The parents, in the interview, didn't volunteer that DeOrr isn't a steady walker, which would have reduced the chances of him getting very far away from them - also if losing his footing would cause him to cry, then they should have heard him.

Juliet in fact the father said the opposite. He said he was pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good and that was their concern.

Oakley A said...

The NCMEC says in this case it's a little unusual for a 2-year-old to go missing and not even a trace to be found, but it's not unprecedented. The NCMEC says often times people would think a 2-year-old would be wandering around the forest, crying, and looking for help; when in fact they could burrow down and find shelter for themselves.

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/15/lemhi-county-sheriffs-office-calls-in-experts/30213577/

Juliet said...

John, it's on hlntv.com and the headline is 'family fears missing 2-year old was abducted'

Juliet said...

Oakley, so they did, I had forgotten that already, having a brain like a sieve at times, but how interesting - that's plain misleading in view of what the grandfather has said.

Oakley A said...

Juliet you are right all fingers seem to be pointing in opposite directions.

John mcgowan said...

Thanks Juliet.

Family fears missing 2-year-old was abducted

Idaho authorities are now using sonar as well as divers to search a remote reservoir for missing 2-year-old DeOrr Kunz Jr. The toddler disappeared last Friday while camping with his family near the Stone Reservoir in Leadore.

Police divers have been methodically searching every square inch of the reservoir for the little boy after cadaver dogs indicated there may be something there. However, Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman tells HLN they just learned that someone had been dumping human cremains in the reservoir, and that very well could be the smell the dogs picked up on.

“It’s pretty disappointing. Someone was depositing human cremains up there while we’re searching the area. It contaminates the reservoir and the entire area,” says Bowerman.

“Nevertheless, we have sonar there today and divers still at the reservoir. We are going to side scan and sonar the whole lake. We have people up there on horseback too searching as we speak.”

The boy’s parents, DeOrr Kunz Sr. and Jessica Mitchell, told police they left the toddler with his great-grandfather and a friend of the great-grandfather’s to go exploring, but when they returned less than 15 minutes later, the child was nowhere to be found. The great-grandfather, in turn, thought DeOrr was with his parents. It was then that Mitchell called 911 to report her son missing.

While the couple remain up on the mountain waiting for any word of their son, his paternal grandfather, also named DeOrr Kunz, told HLN the family believes little DeOrr may have been kidnapped.

John mcgowan said...

Cont..

“He had little toy hot wheel trucks in his pocket and nothing fell. They found nothing. It’s like he vanished without a trace. He had to have been abducted. The only good thing about being abducted is it means he’s is still alive,” says Kunz.

Authorities say while nothing has been ruled out, they don’t believe foul play is in involved.

“We are still treating it as a missing person,” says Sheriff Bowerman.

Bowerman says the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children have requested they collect DNA samples from the parents.

“They want that on file so if the child turns up somewhere else they can easily check if there’s a match. It’s standard procedure with all missing children,” Bowman said.

According to police, the parents have agreed and are “cooperating 100%.” Authorities say they are concerned parents who just want to find their son and have even offered to take lie detector tests.

Bowerman says they will complete their search of the reservoir and re-assess at the end of the weekend where to focus on next. In the meantime, they are following up on all the leads and tips that keep coming in.

DeOrr’s grandfather says he’s heartbroken over his missing grandson.

“They've lived with me in my house for the past year and a half and he's my buddy. When he wants to take a nap he'll come up to me and say 'nap papa, nap papa,' so we'd lay down and take a nap. I’m so attached to him. I don't know what I'd do if we lost him. I just can't imagine going day to day without that little boy running around. I’m so sad. I’m just at a loss here.”

DeOrr was last seen wearing cowboy boots, blue pajama pants, and a camouflage jacket.

Police are asking anyone with information to call 208-846-7676.

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

Anonymous said...

How could the grandfather not know the parents had left the little boy with him?

How could the parents take off on their walk without the grandfather not knowing they were leaving the child with his grandfather?

NOBODY is paying any attention to the boy? Nobody communicated with each other at all? With a dangerous body of water nearby? Not buying into this. Just not.

However, it's the parents I'm suspicious of at this point, not the grandfather. It was THEIR responsibility to make sure the grandfather knew they were leaving their child with him. They didn't.

Peter Hyatt said...

almost done with part one of the interview Juliet transcribed.

Sus said...

I keep checking Twitter and facebook hoping to see they have found Little Deorr. It would have to be a miracle now.

Juliet said...

Oakley - if it were not for all the adults on the camping trip having to be involved, and for the possible sighting, i would also suspect that DeOrr had never been there - at least not a living DeOrr, mainly because the father's account of his presence is so hazy, excepting when he says 'he was right there with us', after which he didn't seem to be very much right there with anybody, and only said to be doing what it emerges his paternal grandfather says he couldn't do, walk very far without falling over and drawing someone's attention. If the parents were maybe high on drugs, that could account for their vague recollection and failure to make sure he stayed within sight, but nobody is saying that was the case, so there's no reason to think they were doing drugs. It seems too much to think that four adults, one not even related, would be willing or morally able to consent to the covering up of the death of a child, but we know such things happen - at this stage even a hoax for money and attention would be a good outcome, at least if it meant he was alive and well. I haven't checked to see if there's a gofundme page, but assuming not, as the media would be including it - if it was a hoax, there'd surely be a page by now.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Actually Juliet, there is a page. I found it a day or two ago. I was a little surprised the media hadn't picked it up yet. It's a Giveforward page, started July 12th, with a $3000 fundraising goal.

The last paragraph in the description states: "These funds will be used to increase resources for searching, expenses of missed work for DeOrr Sr & Jessica, food and water for those still out searching and anything else that comes up that will help find little DeOrr." https://www.giveforward.com/fundraiser/wnf9

Because LE is searching for a missing Deorr, we're searching for answers here.

Oakley A said...

I'm not convinced of the sighting. Maybe the store has video and the police have reviewed it and know he was there at that point? I know what you mean, though Juliet so much about it is difficult to imagine. It would be surprising 4 adults were involved in a cover up. I'm finding it almost as hard to believe that they are convinced there was an unseen kidnapping in, by their account, a four minute period with 4 adults around in a wide open area with remote access and one way in and out. The elder and younger Kunz both said The only good thing about being abducted is it means he’s is still alive,” With most abducted children killed in the first 24hrs by an abductor that is a desperate statement from a parent. It's a matter of what type of desperation it is. There is a you tube video of the campsite and it is enlightening to just how secluded the area is. The possibilities of abductions in an area like this has to be low. I empathize with what that would feel like to have a child missing, I know it must be excruciating. I feel like I would want my son to be found just as alive in woods where he wasn't in the grips of a child abductor. But I also would be desperate for any possibility they could be found and alive. Again it's hard to grasp he got so far away from 4 adults in a wide open area, in such a short time and that a vast rescue team can't locate him also. The only thing I know is time is this precious 2yr old boys enemy right now and they need to find him!

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thinking about my comment July 18 11:32 p.m.

Actually it's because when a person has an emergency, the expected is that he/she will verbally relate events in order as they occurred without editorializing (i.e. telling you how they felt or what they thought as things unfolded).

Action and reaction come first;the brain processes the emotional impact after the danger has passed. In other words, if your house is on fire,you need to escape. You don't spend time thinking "I'm so afraid!". You feel fear and your fight or flight instinct kicks in. The adrenaline rush propels you to react(trying to get to a door/window, trying to get loved ones out, trying to get out, trying to put the fire out, etc.). In the moment, your brain doesn't have time to process emotions; it's working in fight or flight mode; danger heightens adrenaline production to sharpen your senses. Your brain is busy recording sights and sounds, analyzing the threat, and weighing your options. Afterwards, emotions catch up with as you mentally process the experience. Then the person will often say, "I've never been so scared in my whole life/in all my life."

GRACEELU7 said...

Anonymous @4:14 exactly. Also, why is no one talking about the family friend ?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

This is not statement-related, just something that struck me as a little odd. In the parents' initial interview, Dad is dressed in an orange zipped-up sweat jacket, but Mom (obviously sunburned) is in a short-sleeved t-shirt. Although it's July, I attributed it to perhaps the interviewing room was chilly.

Fast forward to the early July evening vigil, Dad was wearing the same zipped up sweat jacket, while the overwhelming majority of the attendees were wearing short-sleeved/sleeveless shirts and shorts.

July 16th: Dad and Mom are camping within a mile of LE searchers and divers. In the pics (http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/16/deorr-kunz-missing-family/30239047/), it's a sunny July day. Mom is dressed in a tank top and jeans; Dad is dressed in the zipped up orange sweat jacket.

Not being familiar with Idaho and the level of humidity there, is this normal?

Temps in Leadore Idaho for July 10th-16th according to Accuweather.com:
81, 75, 82, 77, 73, 79, and 82

Anonymous said...

"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.
It's as if he's trying to create the scenario or situation for the audience . Wouldn't most parents not go there?

Anonymous said...

The climate is dry not humid. Seems strange to be wearing a heavier jacket when it's been so warm.

John mcgowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John mcgowan said...

DeOrr Kunz Jr. Update: Missing Idaho Toddler Search Narrowed Down, Parents Refuse To Leave Campsite [Video]

Snipped:
Kunz, 70, explains to People that there was a small window of time in which DeOrr Kunz Jr. wasn’t being watched.

“There’s a four-minute window where no one had an eye on him. My grandson is paying the ultimate price for this.”

Investigators are meticulously combing the campsite for any sign of Kunz Jr. His grandfather explains that the family has been “torn apart” by the boy’s disappearance.


Mitchell, 25, is clutching hard onto her son’s blanket. Kunz talks about the heartbreaking scene.

The blanket was in the truck, so Jessica now has got that blanket and she will not let go of it. She holds it, smells it, loves it. It’s the only attachment she has to that boy right now.”

Note the distancing language "That". this maybe due to guilt?

This reminds me of the McCanns and "cuddle cat"


Note below:


Jessica: this is his blanket. He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket, his cup, or his monkey, and all three of them were left at the campground. And since he..
D: All three has to be with him.
J: Yes.
D: He will trip over them if he has to, but they are going with him, and this is the first time since he's been born, pretty much, that he's been without these things...and that's another reason why we were wondering.
J: Yes, because this is the blanket that we brought him home in from the hospital, this is his, this is what comforts him and at all times.
D: This is an exact replica of a security blanket, for everybody this is his actual blanket - he does not go anywhere without it, that's our other concern of why.

They tell us.

A: "He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket"

B: "All three of them were left at the campground"

C: "All three has to be with him"

D: " The blanket that we brought him home in from the hospital, this is his, this is what comforts him and at all times."

If all of the above are true, then why was it in the "truck" If it was in the truck (as grandfather explains) and we are to believe he "He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket". Then the last place he was was in the "truck" and not at the camp site as we are told he was.

So which one is it?

Juliet said...

Foolsfeedonfolly - £3000 is a very low target, do you know if donations can be accepted past the target amount on that site? There's the interview question about them wanting lots of up people up on the mountain, the maybe telling suggestion that they hadn't even thought as far as a vigil yet, and the interviewer saying the authorities don't want lots of people up there, and then the father changing the subject to how helpful lots of people have been to the search - so sounds like he might have been in some conflict with the search team there, wanting to attract lots of people, even though he must have been advised that would no longer be helpful, so maybe he decided that holding a vigil wouldn't be quite so detrimental to the search as a host of random volunteers trampling any evidence -also, it, would be the only other reason for many people to be there, and would still bring in the people, which maybe would still create justifiable 'expenses'. I think I need to stop being quite so suspicious - perhaps they were able to derive comfort from the prayers and support of those who turned out. I don't know if the vigil took place before or after the interview.

That's a.very interesting observation on the father's jacket -he could quite innocently be recovering from sunburn, but is LE likely to have asked him to take it off in those first couple of days, I wonder.

Juliet said...

What about the grandfather's words? I just noticed that after describing the boy's inability to walk very well, he can't imagine going from day to day without that little boy running around. I suppose he maybe just falls over a lot, walking or running around, or running around is just a figure of speech, and he means more generally being around.

Oakley A said...

The father has not been photographed without the orange hoodie on. Even at the vigil he was wearing it. It's a great observation Foolsfeedonfolly.

Boftd. Other rescue workers are wearing jackets and long sleeves. Probably due to searching in brush. It seems warm to wear the hoodie non stop in the heat of the day .Maybe he has shed it when we haven't seen. It does get cool at night.
It also may be all he has after being there so long and he hasn't even thought to change under the circumstances.

Juliet said...

It's strange that someone would be 'dumping/depositing' human cremains in the same area as a search for a missing child was taking place. They say the dogs may be picking up on the cremain scent rather than that of the boy. it's not clear who used the term 'dumping' - journalist or LE, would be interesting to know.

Anonymous said...

This is something I noticed on Jessica's Facebook page.
She is into crime scene investigation games, just an observation. She also updated her pictures the day of the interview.

Mommy3 said...

People react differently during emergency situations and some are a bit better at holding their composure.

I have a 2 tear old and a 5 year old, on separate occassions they had slipped away with out my knowing because I was distracted by something else. I freaked out internally and blocked everyone else and I was very focused on one thing... finding them and thankfully within 1 to 2 minutes of me noticing they were gone. Had I had to relay that my child was missing to anyone I would have been distracted and to me, that is what his mother sounds like... if she were fighting to be composed and holding back teats or distracted and she was looking. Her tone of voice and distraction says a lot for me in believing she was not responsible for her child bein missing

Mommy3 said...

People react differently during emergency situations and some are a bit better at holding their composure.

I have a 2 tear old and a 5 year old, on separate occassions they had slipped away with out my knowing because I was distracted by something else. I freaked out internally and blocked everyone else and I was very focused on one thing... finding them and thankfully within 1 to 2 minutes of me noticing they were gone. Had I had to relay that my child was missing to anyone I would have been distracted and to me, that is what his mother sounds like... if she were fighting to be composed and holding back teats or distracted and she was looking. Her tone of voice and distraction says a lot for me in believing she was not responsible for her child bein missing