A change of language means a change in reality. Many cases have been solved by this principle and for new readers, I offer a few quick samples that I frequently reference:
"I didn't steal no jewelry. I showed the customer the necklace and when I went to put the jewelry away, it wasn't on the counter."
When the guilty salesperson handled the jewelry, it was a "necklace" but when it was denied in theft, or went to be put back, it was "jewelry." She was truthful in that it was not on the counter (it was in a bag near her personal belongings).
"The car sputtered and I left my vehicle on the side of the road" is where a "car" turned into a "vehicle" when it would no longer run. When he picks it up, repaired, it will "turn back into" a "car" again.
In the case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz, jr, the change of language of his father may be important. First, let's look at all the missing questions in this case.
I don't know if I have ever seen a missing child case in which the press asked fewer questions.
DeOrr Kunz jr is a missing toddler who vanished while on a camping trip with his parents and grandfather.
Some of the most basic, simple questions remain unanswered because press has not asked them.
Who was the last person to see DeOrr?
Was he with Jessica's grandfather?
If so, who left him with grandfather?
How long was his with grandfather?
What was he doing with grandfather?
Where was father during this time?
Where was father just prior to this time?
Where was mother during this time?
Where was mother just prior to this time?
The televised interview should have yielded information, instead, the father was able to control the scope of the interview as the Interviewer passively watched. This allowed the father to go not only off on tangents (which does give us some information) but allowed him to avoid any and all important questions.
So often the advice to "control the interview" is misunderstood and the subject is interrupted. In Analytical Interviewing, we do allow the subject to talk on and on, but we do not allow him to do so at the expense of critical questions.
We do less than 20% of the talking yet, when we note sensitivity, including sensitivity in avoidance, we get our information by asking specific questions based upon the subject's own language.
Instead, we have a vague question about what time 911 was called and the subject (father) corrected by mother, but then permitted to go off in a tangent, which, if there is a time constraint, must be redirected.
Better still, let him ramble and ramble and ramble and later edit it down to the pre set time frames but let us have the information.
In boh analysis, and commentary, I have mentioned that in the case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz, jr, the father has shown "sensitivity" in his answer to the question about calling 911.
The question was about calling 911, and was in a general sense. He first answered that it was "2:26", giving an exact time right after stating that he did not know what day it was. This, as noted, would appear to be a father so exhausted that he cannot even remember what day it is, while immediately spiking up and giving an exact time, which, itself, is not expected. Yet, in comparison to his first assertion of ignorance, was he attempting to elicit sympathy for himself? If so, this is not expected from a parent of a missing child, as innocent parents care little for anything but the child.
Look how he takes "what time was 911 called?" (which wasn't even the direct question) and moves into a narrative about himself:
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.
He reaffirms this with, "2:36 when she called and I..." but then immediately moves the topic towards himself...He agreed to her correction, but moved the topic from the call to his activity.
No one asked about his activity.
I have mentioned before about the word "decided" in analysis.
1. When a child is missing, 911 is called.
When someone says that "we decided to call", in order to "decide", a discussion of some form had to take place, so that a decision is made.
What discussion is possibly needed about calling 911?
If the parents frantically searched for him, in and out of the house, and around the yard, calling for him, and asked whoever it was that was watching DeOrr, there is no decision making process necessary: 911 is called.
Yet, is it even 911 he was referring to?
2. Because there is no follow up, we do not know. He said "we decided to call search and rescue."
Is "search and rescue" a separate entity for a parent of a missing toddler who fears not getting a signal to call 911?
No one asked for clarity, either.
Would you have a phone number for a search and rescue operation?
If he is talking about 911, this only increases the already sensitive topic of calling 911.
"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it."
No one asked, "Hey, why were you in your truck?" but he anticipated this being asked and answered it before the Interviewer had a chance to ask.
This makes the location of him in his truck very sensitive. In fact, as it fits the "reason why" he was in the truck, in an open statement, without being asked, meaning:
There is missing information at this point and it is not related to traffic or rushing. He already gave us the editorialized "hauling" description.
The father is withholding information at this point.
"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it."
He first makes it about himself, and now, specifically, about his location: "I was in the truck" is offered but his wife already called.
If you were the Interviewer, would you have asked about this?
"Your wife already called. Why did you feel it necessary to call, too?"
It is a basic question.
If you were the Interviewer, would you have asked about this?
"Your wife already called. Why did you feel it necessary to call, too?"
It is a basic question.
His location is very sensitive to him. He needs a reason to place himself in the truck.
Did something happen in the truck?
Or
Did something happen to DeOrr that caused the father to put DeOrr in his truck?
Did something happen in the truck?
Or
Did something happen to DeOrr that caused the father to put DeOrr in his truck?
The Truck
This is very sensitive to him, as is the time line. It is:
a. Unnecessary
b. Repeated
c. Reason why given
This increases the sensitivity three fold.
Why is it so important to him that we, the audience know, he was in his truck?
Even without training, the journalist should recognize his need to explain and his repetition and simply ask about the truck again. With training, the interviewer pounces, but even without, many recognize the sensitivity intuitively.
Think about the upcoming statement that someone saw a boy in a black truck.
For the innocent parent, there is no need to worry about it because "it wasn't me and DeOrr", which is not his answer, instead, he does not deny being in the truck with his son, but goes to "time line" regarding what time the person saw a man, boy and a black truck.
It should have no reason to raise his concern but it goes without a single follow up question.
Please note:
The mother had called 911, therefore, it was not necessary, at least, apparently, for him to even call.
The father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his language. Did he think he needed to give police different information than his wife?
Did he feel that he would appear cooperative by also calling?
Is he more concerned with appearance than his son?
"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.
The use of pronouns in the English language is instinctive. Pronouns are intuitive, 100% reliable, and are not subjective. When pronouns are "incorrect", we are looking at deception.
Here, we find 'self-censoring' or 'self-correcting' which means he has stopped himself from completing a sentence. This is to conclude: missing information.
Yet, it is unusual that it takes the form of pronouns.
This concerns me.
Who got lucky?
Why is luck involved?
His child is missing and he is "lucky"? Why is there any raising of "success" when his son is missing?
This does not add up.
This is not the language of one who is concerned that his son has been kidnapped.
Yet, nothing is asked of him.
This does not add up.
This is not the language of one who is concerned that his son has been kidnapped.
Yet, nothing is asked of him.
I was blessed that she was able to get service
There is no blessing for DeOrr jr. There is no luck, either.
Question: Why was he the one who was blessed by her ability to get service, and not his wife?
Question: Where was he that he, himself, was the recipient of blessing, by her obtaining a signal?
The Interviewer could have asked anything along these lines, but did not. How could a father of a missing child call himself both "lucky" and "blessed" while his child remains missing?
Was reaching 911 a blessing since it did not produce finding his son?
The Interviewer could have asked anything along these lines, but did not. How could a father of a missing child call himself both "lucky" and "blessed" while his child remains missing?
Was reaching 911 a blessing since it did not produce finding his son?
Where was he at this moment in time?
Why is his location, in the truck, so very important to him?
What bad luck would have come to him, beyond losing his son, had she not been able to make the call?
What change in reality transpired to change "luck" (random) to "blessing" (specific) that is found within the context?
This is to say that something was very wrong for him and things improved, not for the child, but for the father, by her ability ("able") to call 911.
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.
Would you care?
Would you not just dial and try and if it did not go through, then walk or run around to find a better signal? Then, if all else fails, get in your vehicle?
Yet, would you need to do any of these things if your wife had already gotten through?
Expected V Unexpected:
Expected: Pick up the phone and try!
Unexpected: everything he did and everything he said.
Would you not just dial and try and if it did not go through, then walk or run around to find a better signal? Then, if all else fails, get in your vehicle?
Yet, would you need to do any of these things if your wife had already gotten through?
Expected V Unexpected:
Expected: Pick up the phone and try!
Unexpected: everything he did and everything he said.
This next change of pronoun is alarming:
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, yet it follows after "I" in emphasis.
Where is the Interviewer saying, "How long did you search for?"
We searched for...and then stops himself. He then jumps time to "after",when he said, "after about twenty minutes" from the guy who said, "2:26" and didn't know what day it was.
Where is the Interviewer saying, "How long did you search for?"
We searched for...and then stops himself. He then jumps time to "after",when he said, "after about twenty minutes" from the guy who said, "2:26" and didn't know what day it was.
Emotions in a Statement
"I searched for my son and couldn't find him.
I called 911 and reported him missing.
I was so scared and now I am..."
The emotion came 'after' in this short sample. Now, here is the same short sample with a subtle change:
"I searched for my son and couldn't find him. I was so scared. I called 911 and reported him missing. "
In this second sentence, we would like to know when this statement was made. If this is a re-telling of an account from years ago, the emotions have long since been processed and the subject is more working from memory of his re-telling, than he is from re-living the experience.
Since this interview was so close to DeOrr's disappearance, the inclusion of emotions, in this portion of the statement, including "hauling" and now, "panic" appears to be artificially placed here; that is, editorializing rather than reliably accounting for what happened.
That he uses the word "dead" in "dead panic" is alarming and it may be
leakage in his language.
Is he here revealing that his son is dead?
If this is true, and he is 'leaking' this information, his next sentence makes sense:
"I knew I was in trouble"
Remember, he just said, "we" after all of his exclusive use of "I" and has introduced:
luck and blessings while the child remains unfound;
that he "didn't think" is repeated;
That he seeks sympathy for himself, not his son, and used the alarming phrase, "dead panic" in his statement;
To follow his own words, it sounds precisely true: he in the one in trouble, and not his son. Thus far, he has shown concern for himself, and talked about his own activity but not about his son and not about what happened in the specific time period when he went missing.
There are no questions about the most critical moments when DeOrr was being watched.
None.
Um, so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down.
"Did you want to call 911?"
We can only guess how the father would have interpreted the mother for this question.
Decisions take time.
Decisions mean weighing the pros and cons and since "we decided", these pros and cons were vocalized and not internal thinking. Therefore, the Interviewer should have targeted the mother. The mother could have even been gently 'accused' of not wanting to call 911 with:
"Did you want to keep searching longer before calling?" and see if she would be permitted to answer. It is a very subtle accusation and she would have likely defended herself. Remember, she did not mind correcting him and she is not likely willing to be blamed.
"We decided" is bothersome. It means that one of the two did not want to immediately call, but at this point, we cannot be sure if he was speaking of 911 or another entity known as "search and rescue" because he was allowed to make this statement without any clarification sought.
Let's consider this.
911 and Search and Rescue.
1. One and the Same
2. Separate entities.
If they are separate entities, it means that he, the speaker, knew this and either had the number or could get the number and it is not sensitive.
yet, if it is not a separate entity, we have a problem.
To consider this, we must look at context.
Is this a "change of language"?
Um, so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down.
Please understand: if 911, called at 2:36, is different than "search and rescue", the following analysis does not apply.
If it does, we must examine it as a "change of language" which should represent a change of language .
Which is it?
Please note the context: "That's when I drove down."
Did he "haul" down twice? or... "and that's when" speaks to his earlier reference.
Since the Interviewer failed to get any clarity, we are not certain.
It appears to me to be one and the same.
I conclude this due to the words, "and that's when..." speaking of the time he "hauled" down the road in his truck.
Remember, the timing of him in his truck is sensitive to him. He dismissed the eye witness, via time.
What is the difference between 911 and search and rescue?
This may be a key in this case.
911 brings police, and police investigate crimes and arrest people.
Search and Rescue looks for and rescues people.
One is authoritative. The other is helpful.
One has the power to arrest. The other just assists.
One can make one in trouble. The other's work ends when the searching is finished.
One brings consequences, while the other brings recovery.
One can be the bad guy, while the other is always the good guy. (please note the excessive praise of the specifically detailed search.)
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.
Did the father, who knew he was "in trouble", and in a "dead panic" having "put to rest" that his son was not in the water, prefer "search and rescue" to 911?
DeOrr's mother called 911.
The father called search and rescue.
The difference between 911 and "search and rescue" may be, in DeOrr Kunz' Jr's father, an important insight into his perception of verbalized reality.
He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and that was our concern.
He, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.
Please note:
I wanted to know, "Who was watching him when he disappeared?" along with:
"What was he doing?"
Yet now, "he, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean, I thought it would be perfect..."is to stop himself from telling a direct lie.
Was he right there with you and his mother?
Was he right there with his mother's grandfather?
"I mean" is stopped, as he interrupted himself.
"I thought" is past tense and now speaks to another time.
"He, uh, was right with us, where it's at" is self-censoring which appears to be an attempt to stop the direct lie before it is said.
Or...
Or he is telling the truth, and stopped himself due to the consequences from his wife calling 911.
"He, uh, was right with us" also places his wife (or girlfriend) in the difficult situation with himself. "I was in trouble" is not "we were in trouble", however.
Could this be a sharing of guilt?
Um, they finally, yesterday, we were able to put that to rest and have HC Sheriff Dave and the rest of the sheriffs have put out that there is, they assured me, there is 100% chance that he is not anywhere in that water, around that water. They have torn that creek upside down and in and out. The divers have gone through with wetsuits, along with the helicopter - that was the world's most advanced search and rescue helicopter, volunteered out of Montana, and those guys were just amazing, the accuracy they had with the night vision ability it has and the heat range it can see,, they were - . The one guy, I can't remember his name, um, I've met so many people, so many good people, but he was - his own safety, he was, he was more or less,, he was strapped in, he was on the side of that helicopter, looking, and I - he was looking down. I remember them telling me they asked search and rescue to look over, because there was an orange insect repellant can, they think by the bank, and they were dead on, that's what it was, how accurate these guys are.
J: They thought it was, it might have been, a part of a shoe, or something, but they said, go check that out.
D: These guys search miles, so the miles radius they have - it's very rocky terrain, it's very open, it's not -.the helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this, and there was not a trace of my son found - there still isn't but the search is on, that's - the hearsay of things has kind of gotten way out of hand, the search is so far as it's been put on, that it's been suspended, and that is not entirely sure or true. Sheriff Dave of Lhema HC, I just spoke with him on the phone this morning - he has got horseback riders and trackers up there right now, and very advanced professionals. I'll be going up, and I've just come down to get any resources I can get to go back, right on back up today. Um, what questions do you guys have?
The praise, when given strength of detail, is related to search and rescue.
Nothing is mentioned of kidnapping investigation, sex offenders, police "investigating" or anything similar, in spite of the PI's claim of "everything" pointing to abduction.
Could it be abduction where neglect permitted it to happen?
This theory does not fit the language.
Nothing is mentioned of kidnapping investigation, sex offenders, police "investigating" or anything similar, in spite of the PI's claim of "everything" pointing to abduction.
Could it be abduction where neglect permitted it to happen?
This theory does not fit the language.
Interviewer: Tell us a little bit about, first of all, how are you guys holding up? I know everybody, a lot of people, are praying for you all.
After all the extreme self censoring, confused pronouns and changes of language, this is the question asked.
DeOrre Sr.: Friends and family, and hoping to be strong for him.
Jessica:. Pretty...the support around us is what's, I know, keeping us together because if we didn't have all of our family - the minute I called my mom, and she was up there in a matter of hours and the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us.
They would not be together if not for the support around them. This strengthens the view that there was strong disagreement between them regarding calling 911.
In his verbalized perception of reality:
She called 911.
He called Search and Rescue.
The father goes right back to the calling and not about his son:
D: Luckily, we - a few phone calls Is all it took at first, and we had, as Sheriff David said in the news, a hundred and seventy five plus people up there in the grid searches, volunteers, uh, professionals, and anybody I called. The service up there is very hearsay - here, there - it's camping, you know. Um, we're trying to hold up the best we can, but with - we have hope, is the thing. Hope is what keeps it going because the search is not over, the search is not done. We will find him, no matter what.
Note all the use of "we" now, instead of all the use of "I" before police involvement.
Note the praise of the failure to find his son continued.
I: You were in the truck so you were the first to realize, ' Oh, no, DeOrr is not here.'
The interviewer did catch some of the sensitivity about him being in the truck:
D: No, we both did, I -
J: We both did.
Recall "we decided" is something that indicates a delay, a possible debate or discussion and the joint sharing of responsibility. This is a sensitive point to them both, now, and she affirms it. It is as if the interviewer was confused about the truck (rightfully so) as he referenced it twice, and went out of chronological order to return to it.
D: After twenty minutes of up and down the creek and up and around the camp, and he wasn't there, that's when I got in my pick up truck and drove down the road to try and get some service.
"and he wasn't there" is utterly unnecessary therefore:
It is very likely that DeOrre Sr, the father, knew that when he spent this 20 minutes up and down the creek, his son was not there.
There are so many questions that should have been asked, even when pressed for time. In a televised interview, he could have said, "excuse me" when father was going on and on about search and rescue and asked a specific question.
Regarding the change of language, it is significant.
As each of us has a personal subjective internal dictionary, so it is that we are not viewing reality, but someone's perception of reality as verbalized.
The language reveals that in the minds of the parents:
The mother called 911.
The father called Search and Rescue.
These appear to be two very different realities, though the same entity. Just as a "gun" is very different from a "weapon", even when the same firearm is being talked about, so it is, unless they called different phone numbers, the difference between 911 and Search and Rescue is the difference between:
Criminal Investigation and Professional searches helping a situation.
Which arrived?
It depends upon what you project.
If you project guilt, you want only search and rescue.
If you project innocence, you want police, who will investigate, and bring in search and rescue.
The change of language is very concerning in this statement.
If you project guilt, you want only search and rescue.
If you project innocence, you want police, who will investigate, and bring in search and rescue.
The change of language is very concerning in this statement.
595 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 595 of 595It is clear to me, from the reporter's summary of what the sheriff said and what the sheriff says directly, he believes Deorr was "at the campsite July 10" (Friday). I don't hear him suggest he believes the parents lied about when he went missing.
The sheriff answered, "No, no, not at all."
The repeated no with the extra negative words "not at all" makes his answer unreliable.
Anon at 9.00 - well, we don't know what happened to Little Man. I am sick at the possibility he may have somehow fallen into the fire, but if he disappeared on the Thursday (not saying he did) at least that likelihood would be greatly reduced because it would be a fresh fire and too hot for him to approach or get too curious over. He,may have had some other type of accident though, and died unintentionally, and the adults, all or any, may have covered it up, in which case that would be inavoidably criminal, even though there was no intention for him to come to any harm - concealing a corpse, preventing a lawful burial; not sure US laws are quite the same as here, but there are sure to be parallel laws which cover the same eventualities. The best hope, if no-one has him, is sadly, that he fell into the creek - quick death by drowning far preferable to death through exposure. I find it difficult to believe he simply wandered off, and could not have been found within a very short time. Plus DeOrr's interview is so very strange, nothing sits right. So,it's all a mystery - I, likewise, have no interest in condemning the parents - there but for the grace of God go all of us, and it is not my place to judge them, though I might find their actions reprehensible - I don't know yet because we don't know what events really might have surrounded the baby's disappearance, or if they did anything wrong, beyond not paying enough attention to where he was. I want to know what has happened to DeOrr, and for him to be found, so that everyone, and most particularly his family, can stop worrying over him, and have at least some peace of mind. After all this time, he is not likely to be found alive, except on the outside possibility that someone has him. That would be a turn out for the books, but it doesn't seem likely. And yes, SM, though it probably should be a trivial concern, is not - I should think they'd be rather more concerned with having peace of mind in regard to their son, than in regard to social media, and that until at least he is found, but it's a funny old world, and life goes relentlessly on. I hope this can be over soon - I can't stand it, God only knows what it is like for all of them.
Buckley - no he doesn't suggest they lied, I wasn't saying he did. It just seems unclear to me, so far, that it's definitely the Friday. I am probably being dense, plus I am tired, and have not got back to finish the second listen yet. I'll go away for a bit now, I need some time out. :) Thanks for your responses.
I'm so afraid this will turn into another Haleigh Cummings or Kyron Horman type cold case.
Afore I go - if the 6pm store sighting was DeOrr with little DeOrr the sighting must have been on the Thursday? Little DeOrr was already missing on the Friday hours before six. DeOrr said it was him, but earlier. The visit the next day was earlier in the day when they went 'as a family'. We don't know that 'earlier' didn't also mean a day earlier. If it was, then they would have arrived at the campsite considerably before 9.30ish.
I agree with Buckley. The sheriff seems to believe Little Deorr was at the campsite on July 10. The sheriff repeated ggp's account of watching Little Deorr.
Ok. I think that may be a little bit of an extrapolation. But I'll leave the Hollywood to Hollywood.
Oh crap! I didn't see that Peter nailed the case yesterday morning at 8:30.
I agree with everything he says. I want to argue that the neglect and drugs are true, but that Dad didn't hide the body- that he's truly missing.
But I can't. Dad never tells us he searched for his son.
FYI: lynda transcribed and posted the entire interview on the Ebron thread
No, Sus and ima.grandma, the quote you transcribed/used was not accurate. 100% accuracy is imperative when picking apart statements with Statement Analysis. I have seen a lot of errors in transcripts here. While it is nice that people try to help out by posting transcripts, and errors may or may not effect analysis, these transcripts are obviously referred to by others – some who have no means to compare them with the video – so it would be very nice if people double-check before posting them (and don’t get defensive without re-checking if someone mentions inaccuracies).
Since I can’t use colors or bold here, I have put into parenthesis the areas where there are errors. The first quote is yours, the bottom is the corrected version.
This is your quote:
"...fifty yards away and ten minutes. Well, but by the time we, I seen him (and) the point I figured out he was gone. And I come back up from the creek and I actually seen (some) , a little minnow I thought he would just love. So when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to Grandpa..."
Corrected version:
"...fifty yards away and ten minutes. Well, but by the time we, I seen him (TO) the point I figured out he was gone. And I come back up from the creek and I actually seen (THERE WERE SOME THINGS DOWN BY THE) , a little minnow I thought he would just love. So when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to Grandpa..."
SOOOo; W.H.A.T.!!!!! may I ask, is the conclusion of the matter?
".... there were some things down by the...." WHAT THINGS? A minnow is a minnow. A little minor is NOT "some things..."
Somebody is lying all over the place. The child did NOT just vanish into thin air.
This is not a case of Enoch in olden times who "first he was and then he was not" who vanished heavenly in chariots ablaze, never to be seen again.
The sheriff may 'believe' everything he says as being truthful, that everyone has told the truth; both parents, elder GGF and Issac, all above board, cooperative and honest; but the sheriff can't have it both ways. There is no evidence of an abduction, no evidence of an accidental death or drowning, no evidence of an animal snatching the child, no evidence of foul play, no clear evidence of decomp odor being discovered by trained dog sniffers..... NOTHING. WHERE then, is the child!
SOMEBODY is pulling the wool over somebodys' eyes.
The Sheriff thinks an abduction is highly unlikely, (one of the least likeliest events to occur) but also in the parents defense, it took him a few days to find out that someone had dumped (or spread for Juliet) cremains in the specific search area (or crime scene if you will) and with all of those people up there and all of those police officers and detectives, no one saw the person that spread them come up there and do it. They weren't questioned until they were leaving.
So an abduction could have happened.
It's just not the likely scenario.
Can't rule out anything until we hear from the FBI.
It's going to be a long wait.
Bethany, human decomp odor is a different odor from cremated remains. There is no other odor like that of human decomp, and no mistaking human decomp odor. It's fairly easy to google research on human decomp odor which reveals the truth.
If cremated remains held the same odor after cremation that human decomp odor does, the earth would be sporadically covered in the decomp odor of cremated remains and every decomp odor sniffing dog out there would be confused. It is NOT an identical odor.
This would be like the sheriff and his crew over in Satsuma, Fl claiming that the human decomp odor the decomp sniffing dogs found in three places on and near the dumpster near Ronald Cummings MH, claiming that it could have been caused by used bandages and sanitary napkins that might have been thrown into the dumpster from the nearby nursing home, WHO had their own dumpsters for bio-hazardous materials.
This bunch over in Satsuma was so glib they didn't even bother to have any of the debris found in, on and near the dumpster that reeked of human decomp odor, sent out for testing. Duh... Like we're all stupid. It takes up to 90 minutes for human decomp odor to set in after death, so obviously little Haleigh Cummings was placed on and near that dumpster while her relatives and the killer waited for her little body to be picked up and disposed of while they cleaned up and disposed of all the evidence in slick Ronnie's MH. Of course, all, forever concealed.
I hope this search and the loss of little man DeOrr doesn't end the same way, with his little broken body never found and no one ever charged, while they go 'searching' for years claiming the child is out there! Right. I happens. A LOT.
I am aware of the need for accuracy in a transcript. Thanks. I'll pass the changes onto Ima.grandma with my apology. I'm going over to another post to do so if you're interested in following. :-)
Copying over a post I made on the Ebron thread in response to Lynda's Sheriff and Nate Eaton interview transcript,so that it also on a DeOrr thread.
------
Anonymous Juliet said...
Re DeOrr - of some interest has to be why, at the beginning, everyone was left thinking they all arrived at the campsite, and were setting up camp, on the Friday, when DeOrr disappeared. It was not until grandma went onto local news 8 Facebook news story and commented that it was on the Thursday they arrived, that this was known. So, was the story spun that way by the parents, was it a deliberate misleading to have people not think about the possibility that DeOrr vanished much earlier - can we know that he did not disappear sometime on the Thursday, but was not reported missing until the Friday?
I may be being more than a bit dense here, but I do not get it clearly from the Sherrif that the following did not all happen on the Thursday, or what time lapse might be represented by 'eventually'.
'I - Let’s go back to the beginning, can you kind of give us a timeline as to when the family arrived and what proceeded.
S: Well the family, from what I understand, that we learned during the investigation, arrived the evening prior to July 10th sometime uh, fairly close to dark on Thursday, July 9th. And then uh, they went to uh, went to town in Leodore and upon returning they supposedly they thought they were turning their child over to their GF, the child’s GGF, they went down to the crick which is right next to the campground and within 10-15 minutes they go up to find their child to show him some fish in the stream and he’s nowhere to be found and GF assumes he’s gone down to them because he was within their line of sight and uh, wasn’t to far from the campground. They started their initial search and eventually called 911 when they realized they oculdn’t find their child.'
They arrived very close to dark, and 'then' they went to town in Leadore, and when they returned all the other events occurred. He does not say it was the next morning that they went into town, but 'then'. I think I would've mentioned that they then turned in for the night, or that it was the next day they went into town. That's what I expected to hear, anyway, as he was asked for a timeline of events and puts them so closely together it sounds as if the night did not happen. Maybe he was just highlighting in quick succession the main points, but the 'thens' make me curious, because 'then' is usually what happened right next, rather than what happened the next day? If I was meaning the next day, I might say 'then, the next day', but not just 'then' to mean the next day because it's just not 'then' - it's the next day. I wonder if anyone else agrees with my thought on that, or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
August 19, 2015 at 10:22 AM
-------
"A waiting person is a patient person. The word patience means the willingness to stay where we are and live the situation out to the full in the belief that something hidden there will manifest itself to us."
— Henri J.M. Nouwen
Our attention span is shot. We've all got Attention Deficit Disorder or ADD or OCD or one of these disorders with three letters because we don't have the time or patience to pronounce the entire disorder. That should be a disorder right there, TBD - Too Busy Disorder."
— Ellen DeGeneres
-*short* too busy to bother checking it before posting, obviously. :)
Also adding the follow up which was meant to clarify:
----
Juliet said...
Or rather, not that the night did not happen, more that all he mentioned there happened that night - because he does not say night occurred between the event of arriving and them going into town.
August 19, 2015 at 10:30 AM
Trina Bates Clegg: I have made contact with both organizations [Klaas Kids and Elizabeth Smart Foundation]... 14 hrs
https://www.facebook.com/events/489787187855269/
Anon @ 7:54
I'm well aware of human decomposition vs. Cremains, but are you saying that the Sheriff didn't say or didn't mean that the reservoir had been contaminated then?
Don't both cremains and decomposition have cadavarine in them that the dogs sniff out?
Please explain, bc they released that the reservoir had been compromised, so if I'm not understanding that correctly I would sure appreciate your insight!!
Thank you so much!!
My point was the Sheriff said no one saw anyone come into the campsite, and there was no one on the road so an abduction would be unlikely bc they would have seen them.
But they didn't catch the person dumping the cremains up there with 175 people and every police officer in the area searching.
I was just saying if they were able to get by the sheriff's and deputies, I'm sure they could sneak around 5 people camping, IF that's the case.
Unfortunately I believe something terrible happened up there though, and nobody is talking which just makes it look like they want the case to go cold.
Dear Peter,
I noticed you mention that you believe Sheriff Bowerman is not lying and believes his own words. The reason I wonder about one of his statements is that I find it very hard to believe that a sheriff in a town of 100 would not be aware if the store (or any other businesses, such as the bar or the hunting shop that sells guns) have surveillance cameras. And that LE would take the word of the family of a missing child that they were all at the store based on the parents turning over a receipt from the store. No witnesses have ever been mentioned by LE as confirming they were there on Friday morning. Anyway, Sheriff Bowerman says this about the store and why he believes the parents and little Deorr were there:
“I don’t believe they have a surveillance, but we have, uh…a receipt that we documented that they purchased certain items. They were on the receipt. The time was stamped on the receipt, and so, we believe, ya’ know, that’s where they went.”
He also says: “I’d be surprised if there’s a camera anywhere in Leadore"
There are also pictures online that seem to show surveillance cameras in the store (the store has been up for sale). I thought maybe Sheriff Bowerman was lying in these quotes about for investigative reasons as that is possibly the last place Deorr could have been seen prior to going missing.
Thank you,
Gracie
"There are also pictures online that seem to show surveillance cameras in the store (the store has been up for sale)." Could they be dummy cameras?
Also, I suspect (and hope) that the Sheriff is following guidance from the FBI as to what to say, and when and how. We all know that LE holds things back during an investigation (such as something only the perpetrator would know). Issac may have a bigger role (good or bad) in this than they are letting on. Personally, I got spoiled during the Casey Anthony matter because of Florida's very liberal Right to Know law. Other states are not as generous in the information made available to the public.
Also, if it is agreed that the six o'clock sighting at the store must have been on the Thursday, as DeOrr was missing well before six on the Friday, they must have been in Leadore at six, rather than having just arrived at 9.30pm on the Thursday - that's IF the sighting can be relied upon. I think there is only Jessica's word and DeOrre's confirmation that 'it was me' to go on in regard to the sighting, but as Jessica was very concerned to have it discounted, apparently without any consideration of it being an abductor with little DeOrr, I would go with there being substance to the sighting, and with DeOrr's admission that it was him, and that it was earlier. Not earlier that day, however, but a day earlier. It's possible they went to the store 'as a family' (without DeOrr as he was already missing - Jessica and DeOrr are still also a family) the following morning in an attempt to create an alibi, with a receipt, which included items for little DeOrr. So, yes, DeOrr Sr was there 'earlier' that day, too. He says 'it was me', not it was us as a family, not it was him and little DeOrr. So I would wonder there if little DeOrr was left in the truck while DeOrr went into the store, but he was bawling so much that an assistant stepped outside to see what was going on and if he was okay, and then also noticed he was filthy.
Why did Jessica text her mother to let her know she had just got her female things from the store?
Trina Bates Clegg Friday at approximately 1238pm Jessica texted me and said she had got her female things
Like · 3 · 20 hrs
It's likely Jessica called or texted the previous day to let her mother know they arrived safely, due to grandpa's health,and grandpa living with her mother, and maybe she also said something like, yes, don't fuss, we've got enough of everything, as that type of conversation tends to go. The most believable explanation as to why they subsequently needed to go to the store, when they already had everything, would be to pick up sanitary products - it's feasible that her mother would just accept she forgot she would be needing those. It's possible she was trying to create an alibi there, mum thinks it's all good, we've just come back from the store, and DeOrr is still with us midday Friday - but he's not. Her text though, makes it appear believable that he is, and so the emergency call is made a couple of hours after that time?
I do not know if this is what happened, only that it was a weird message for her to send her mother at approximately 12.38pm. Still, it's good to know that on the very clear and helpful timeline of events provided by the family so far, that this vital text was sent at approximately 12.38.pm. :) it's all so weird.
"I'm asking the public, if they know the family, and they didn't have a 2 1/2 year old prior to this time period, that's when I want to look at closely."
- Sheriff Bowerman
Sounds to me he is still unsure that Deorr Jr. Was there to begin with.
I know this was already covered, but out of all the possible theories on the timeline,
This is when he wants to look at closely.
That first paragraph is a bit messed up as I'm composing in the comment box, not the best idea but I like to live dangerously sometimes. i hope it's not too incoherent - the bit towards the end might read as if I'm lumping both visits to the store into one, not intended.
and now BSG has done analysis of the Sheriff's interview:
http://backwardspeech.com/sheriff-lynn-bowerman-speech-reversals/
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/mothers-911-phone-call-released-my-2-year-old-son-we-cant-find-him/
Mom's 911 call released.
anon 1:50 -- They could be possibly be dummy cameras. Since the store is the only gas station/store in the area, and there are a lot of travelers that come through, plus they sell liquor, I wouldn't want to work there without real ones. :-) Security cams are fairly inexpensive now so all stores should have them for employee security, IMO. Maybe if the store doesn't have them they will get them now, considering the sheriff announced to the world that they don't have them. The ears of shoplifters and burglars probably perked up when they heard that!
Gracie
Bethany -
Someone on Tumblr: 'I've never been sky-diving but I have zoomed-in on Google Earth really fast.'
:)
Bethany, regarding your comment at 1:54, how does that quote from the sheriff (and the rest of the surrounding context of what he said) relate to the sheriff not being sure little Deorr was never at the campground? That quote clearly relates to abduction -- he basically says if anyone knows a family that didn't have a 2 1/2 year old before and has one now.....
Or do you think the parents gave away little Deorr before they went camping?
I meant ever, not never
Buckley - It seemed to me that Peter had it pretty much sewn up by the August 10th post, excepting the details . What was yesterday? I can't find what he might have said on it yesterday, but maybe that's due to my yesterday being different to yours, if there's a time difference.
Juliet:
Blogger Peter Hyatt said...
Dad does not speak the language of a child abuser, but this does not mean that neglect did not cause an unintended death. In fact, it would mean, if this proves to be the case, that the father may have neglected the child due to drugs, for example, and will mourn and hurt terribly.
I have interviewed fathers who have beaten their children to death, in a moment of fury, who had great remorse about their own station in life, but nothing towards the child.
His distancing language appears more related to what happened to DeOrr than to DeOrr, himself.
Let's say that he was high, not watching the child, and the child drowned. Rather than face prison over negligence, he disposed of the child's remains and has gone into cover up mode.
This takes on a life of itself and will eat away at him. There are those who do not ache for their children: Deborah Bradley comes to mind. Justin DiPietro.
Others are more sophisticated in their cover up. McCanns come to mind.
But there are those who just want the child out of the way: Casey Anthony.
DeOrr's father does not does not sound like that, though the sample is small. This is why I think unintended death by negligence may be the answer.
August 17, 2015 at 8:30 AM
Anon @ 3:43
I see what you are saying now!
I heard him say "If they know the family, and they didn't have a 2 1/2 year old prior to this time period, that's when (one, thanks Lynda) I want to look at closely."
I was thinking he was talking about Deorrs family, because he said THE FAMILY, not A FAMILY (meaning a family from the area).
But after listening to him again, he means abduction from a family in the area.
My mistake!!!
Should have LISTENED better!!!
Thank you for pointing that out for me!!!!
Buckley - I saw that but didn't think it was what you meant as that's pretty much what Peter was saying in his 'Unintended Death' article of the 10th. I thought he maybe had made another comment which I couldn't find. Thanks, though. ;)
Bethany, I figured it might've been a mishear/misread!
I actually wish a family in the area had Deorr and was taking care of him (Very doubtful). Abduction is the only hope that he is still alive.
Me too :(
One other "still alive" possibility is that the parents passed him off to someone else (perhaps pending repayment of a debt). But I doubt it.
Something else:
DeOrr: He was over, he was getting ready for his nap, uh, SAY it was almost, by that time it was almost two and he usually takes his nap
Say. That's something like a 'for example', or a 'how about?' rather than from actual recall? This came to mind due to Buckley reposting Peter's comment where he uses it:
'Let's say that he was high, not watching the child, and the child drowned. Rather than face prison over negligence, he disposed of the child's remains and has gone into cover up mode.'
He's not saying DeOrr has drowned, he's postulating - it's something which could have happened.
Along the same sort of lines, what DeOrr was saying there was not a fact to him, more an indication that he was thinking, well, it could have all happened this way, rather than that he was speaking from memory of actual events. He says it at the point he was thinking of what sort of time it was, but I think a fair bit of what he says is not from recall.
---
Whilst on that bit:
The minnow or minnows he 'actually seen' - he also did not actually see, because actually is as opposed to something else of which he was thinking, maybe that actually he did not see even a single minnow?
I posted a few times as anonymous a few days ago, but will choose an ID to make it easier to follow my train of thought. :)
A few random thoughts...
Peter says the sheriff believes what he is saying, I also think the sheriff believes what he is saying, but he doesn't necessarily believe what others have told him. He is repeating what he was told, but those are others' words, not his IMO. The sheriff doesn't sound convinced to me:
“Well, the family, from what I understand, that we learned during the investigation arrived the evening prior to July 10th, sometime fairly close to dark on Thursday, July 9th, and then, uh, they went to uh…went to town in uh Leadore and upon returning they supposedly thought they were turning their child over to their uh, grandfather – the child’s great-grandfather.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M
This is a confusing exchange - the sheriff and his deputy discuss cameras.
Nate Eaton: “Okay. Uh, do you know, did they stop any other places on their way up to Leadore?”
Deputy Penner: “Yeah! They stopped to get some diesel fuel.”
Nate Eaton: “Diesel fuel…”
Deputy Penner: “Yeah!”
Nate Eaton: “Any surveillance video of that gas station?”
Deputy Penner: “No.”
Nate Eaton: “Okay.”
Sheriff Bowerman: “I’d be surprised if there’s a camera anywheres in Leadore (laughs).”
Wherever they stopped for diesel fuel, it was not the gas station in Leadore, as that station doesn't sell diesel.
http://www.yellowpages.com/leadore-id/mip/stage-stop-junction-2160598?lid=2160598 Yet, the sheriff and deputy implied that they stopped in Leadore by following up with the last sentence.
Because of the way Nate Eaton asked the question, the sheriff's "No" response isn't necessarily to "Did you obtain any surveillance video of that gas station". He could be answering he doesn't have any because he gave it to the FBI or saying he didn't take any. Because Nate's question wasn't crystal clear, the sheriff could interpret it different ways and answer "No" and still be truthful.
The sheriff did not say that there are no cameras in Leadore. He may have implied that/deflected, but he didn't say there are none. There are two traffic cameras, one North view, the other South view at Gilmore Summit on Highway 28. http://lb.511.idaho.gov/idlb/cameras/camera.jsf?id=7 Maybe they don't consider that area Leadore proper.
More random thoughts...
That post was getting too long, so part II:
Cadaver dogs can be trained to identify cremains. I don't believe it's because cremains smell the same as decomposition, but it is a special skill/technique. There were tracking dogs at the campsite within a few hours of DeOrr being reported missing. Those dogs went to the reservoir and then returned to the campsite. The cremains were not deposited until later, at the same time that a grid search was being conducted - not that Friday. Cadaver dogs were brought in later, so it was these dogs that were apparently thrown off by the cremains deposited in the reservoir. They must have been trained to pick up cremains. Apparently they were not trained to differentiate between cremains evidence and decomp? That's unfortunate, because I think a body could have lain next to the reservoir and been removed before law enforcement arrived. There must be other reasons that the sheriff thinks it was a false hit.
Nate Eaton: “And you said Bonneville is also assisting, mainly because the family lives there.”
Sheriff Bowerman: “Very much so! Very much so!”
He really perked up at this question. I think Bonneville is involved, not because it is believed DeOrr was kidnapped, but because law enforcement thinks the family is involved in a criminal act related to DeOrr's disappearance. On July 13th, three days after DeOrr supposedly disappeared, in his report to county commissioners "The sheriff said investigators from Bonneville and Bingham counties have offered assistance in further follow-up investigations into any possible criminal histories of those involved."
It's my opinion that the sheriff's impatience with the PI's stories and tips to the tip line is due to his belief that the child is dead and someone very close to him is responsible for his death - not a stranger. He and his team are exhausted from searching and investigating and I would not be surprised if he is irritated that people deliberately lied to him used up a huge amount of his department's resources in a wild goose chase. Because of the original lies, well-meaning people are calling in tips that the sheriff knows are dead ends, again IMO.
I can't find where the sheriff says he thinks DeOrr was at the campsite in the latest interview. I have seen it reported over and over again that not a trace of DeOrr was found at the camp site. I'm not sure if the statement means no trace of him having ever being there, or no trace of him after he "disappeared".
Well, those are my thought for now. I welcome your ideas and lively discussion.
Hi, rkf - all your thoughts are interesting, and thanks for posting them - your thought about the camera question, and the way it was posed, is of particular interest to me, as I had not considered it from that angle, and that there may well be footage, but if so, he's not saying. I can't believe there couldn't be one traffic that might have captured the vehicles, at least (but then here, UK, one can't step outside without being on camera, and that literally in a lot of places, as they are everywhere; for me it's difficult to imagine any small town would not have at least a few, but then the UK is the most publicly surveyed country in the world, and we are used to it, while US citizens are perhaps not so happy for there to be many cameras or quite so indifferent to everything being constantly monitored). Well, I hope there is footage of the vehicles, as the family themselves had some concern about a blue Chevy and a black truck, which they seem to believe were spotted in the area, and because it would confirm their own activity. It shouldn't matter whether the cameras you do know are there, are in the Sherrif's jurisdiction or not, he should be able to get co-operation and obtain any footage. So, hoping that is the case.
On, the dogs - I think they only alert to what they are specifically trained to be looking for - a trail dog doesn't alert to cadaverine, and it would be a differently specialised dog again which would alert to cremated remains, The Idaho SAR dogs are trained to alert to a body or physical remains, not cremated remains, according to their website. Presumably they also use trail dogs while searching for missing people they expect to be alive. I can't imagine they would have had a dog there which was trained to alert to cremated remains from an undertaker/funeral parlour, because why might they be looking for such, or considering such a dog necessary? Still, it is such a highly specialised area that there is almost no point in conjecture. Only the dog handlers who were there could clarify, or explain why their dog might have alerted to undertaker's remains.
Yes, it is not clear if they believe little DeOrr ever was at the campsite, or f they mean they just couldn't find any trace of him once he had disappeared - one would need to go through every report for quotes to see who said what, exactly, and then just hope people were accurately quoted, as it's inot always the case.
traffic camera
rkf, I appreciated reading your posts. We are pretty much on the same wave length, so far. I am not as impressed with this sheriff as I was initially. I don't care for his lack of being factual and find no excuse for it. Too vague.
Like you, taking a risk in using a name as opposed to always posting anonymously, I will try signing off as ABB. I have been posting here off and on since the early part of 2009. I hope this will make it easier for those who disdain having to refer to my posts as an anon continuously.
ABB
Regarding the search dogs, am I understanding correctly that the scent dogs used that Friday afternoon (the Sheriff's dog and a dog from Salmon S&R I believe) went from the campsite directly to the reservoir, then returned back to the campsite? If so, doesn't that mean that DeOrr at some point would have had to have either walked and/or been carried to the reservoir if the dogs followed that path? Why haven't we heard from the parents about a walk to the reservoir with DeOrr? If DeOrr was never at the reservoir, does anyone have a thought as to why the scent dogs went to the reservoir?
RKF, as to your thought that DeOrr's body may have been hidden by the reservoir and then retrieved and moved at a later time, can you expand on that a little? Are you thinking that DeOrr met foul play elsewhere (camp site) and then was carried to the reservoir and hidden, thus explaining the dogs following the scent there?
Private Investigator hasn't said a word publicly for some time now. I wonder why. I suspect we're not going to hear much from anyone until the FBI reports back to Sheriff.
I would like other's feelings on ggp. He was protected over a missing two-year old child. From what?
The sheriff and media refrained from releasing his name for five weeks. Even though he was reportedly the last person to see Little Deorr.
The sheriff hesitantly named him a POI with the others...without naming him.
His daughter, Trina Bates Clegg, only went on sm when someone maligned him, and she began talking...to defend him.
The sheriff stated something along the longs of ggp being too physically and mentally impaired to be a reliable witness.
YET...
We know he drove a suburban pulling a camper to the campsite. He recently received a speeding ticket. So he maintains a driver's license. He is physically and mentally able to pass that test.
He took a polygraph. He must not be on meds that impair his ability to be tested.
If he owns his own camper, he must camp some still. His family were all outdoorsy campers. I saw their obituaries.
I don't know what bearing this has on things, but he gave up custody to his daughter and son when he divorced their mother. I think he reconnected with them later in life.
And what is his connection with Isacc Reinwand? The sheriff doesn't realize he's doing it, but he's certainly leaking info that these two are not just friends. The sheriff points out they are "personal friends" Why the "personal"? Note the sheriff "doesn't want to get into all the details" when asked why IR was along. I'm beginning to wonder about a "business" between these two, or some other nefarious connection.
Per various reports, Great Grandfather and Issac Reinwand met at AA about five years ago, and lived near each other at one time.
GGF is on oxygen 24/7. He may be in the early stages of dementia, so he could be lucid at times and not at others. Due to his age (76), I wonder if he wears glasses and/or may be hard of hearing.
I am more concerned that Issac wasn't mentioned at all until some time later in the investigation.
Oh, I'm very concerned about Isaac R. and have made that clear in my comments. And look at the sheriff's recent comments. IR is his prime suspect without a doubt.
But for IR to have harmed Little Deorr and hidden his body, he had to have more time than the given timeline allows. That means the parents and ggp are not truthful about times. Or we, the public, are not being told the times.
Bingo. I think I just got why ggp is hidden away. I think IR had more opportunity than we know.
From Nate E's interview of Sheriff:
NE: What can you say about Mr. Reinwand?
Sheriff: Uh, AT THIS POINT, he's STILL cooperating. Uh, um, you know, I'm NOT getting any feeling that HE'S NOT BEING TRUTHFUL. I think he's been VERY truthful and I APPRECIATE HIS HELP. He's come up to the AREA on a SECOND occasion WITH me and, uh, UNTIL, uh, WE FIND A PIECE OF EVIDENCE or LOCATE ANYTHING that TELLS me otherwise, I think he's being VERY truthful.
This tells me the sheriff knows IR is lying, but he is keeping IR cooperating. He knows, as he said earlier, how IR's arrests don't match his court records. He also knows the way to keep IR talking is to befriend him. Note the personal "I" when dealing with IR, but the "we" looking for evidence.
I also noted the sheriff put behavioral analysis before physical evidence given to the FBI. Someone acted strange at the campsite. I'm betting it was IR.
Sus, and anyone else thinking round great grandpa at this point - it's not much, but in case it might help to have these again at this point, here are the comments relating to the great grandpa, which Trina made on the Local News 8 Facebook page around day twenty-one into the search (she said they'd been searching for that long, but I believe her comments were made over two or three days). They may not be in the order she posted them, but they were cut and paste as was. I think I got most, maybe all of them -they were deep in other people's comments, though, so I may not have found them all - also she might have posted and deleted comments which I missed between my last visit to the page and her deleting her comments.
---
Trina Bates Clegg My father is 76 and on oxygen 24 hours and not in good health. Don't ever say anything about my Dad unless you got facts. He is very cooperative and has done is pologragh.
Like · 2 · 10 hrs · Edited
Trina Bates Clegg If you have questions ask!!!!!!! I'm the grandma to Baby DeOrr and my Dad was the last one to see Baby DeOrr
Like · 2 · 10 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg They had to go to Leadore for female items and bought my Dad and baby DeOrr candy. This has been verified by the cashier
Like · 2 · 8 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg My Dad has lung problems. Since this my father has been very upset and emotionally struggling.
I have been informed Isaac was at the creek but the interview he stated something different
Like · 2 · 8 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg My Dad's suburban and camper, Isaac rode the with my Dad slept in a tent, DeOrr Sr truck they slept in the back of my Dad's suburban with Baby DeOrr
Like · 3 · 4 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg Baby DeOrr wanted to "stay with grandpa". My Dad seen him playing in the dirt and then he said he looked over and he was gone so he thought Baby DeOrr had walked to his parents. When DeOrr Sr. came to get him my father was in shock.
Like · 6 · 9 hrs · Edited
Trina Bates Clegg I know my daughter, Jessica, DeOrr Sr and my father have completed their polygraph test and I understood have done Isaas' but I personally can't verify
Trina Bates Clegg I was told Isaac was at creek but his interview was different. My Dad said Isaac was fishing at the creek
Like · 8 · 8 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg This was my Dad's choose. We spent a great deal of time there when I was younger. It's been a family camp area that we went to when my grandma was alive many years ago. My Dad and I haven't been there in about 27 years.
Like · 7 · 22 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg No Jessica and DeOrr did NOT know Isaac prior to just my Dad
Like · 3 · 22 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg I don't know how many people knew they were going camping except our fsmily. Unknown with Isaac
Like · 3 · 22 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg From the beginning I have been told from Isaac and my Dad Isaac was at the creek fishing. I was in shock with his interview when he stated he was at camp
Like · 5 · 22 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg I haven't really spent any time with Isaac my Dad lived by him before he moved in with me almost two years ago in December.
After Trina deleted, she went back onto the page for what I think was her final comment in that conversation - note the 'story' and the '100%':
Kat Krueger So weird how she suddenly vanished...
1 · 10 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg Kat Krueger I haven't just vanished!!!!!!!! I worked very early!!!! I stopped answering questions after I was informed everyone was forwarding our conversation to Kellen instead of being honest and him asking me questions. To be 100% honest I was trying to clear up things to help get the story straight.
7 · 4 hrs · Edited
"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," Kunz says. "It's the only attachment she has to that boy right now."
DeOrr Kunz, Sr.
THAT BOY? Not our son or my son?
Anon 3:33,
That quote was from the paternal grandfather who was not camping. Given to People magazine in the early days after Little Deorr went missing.
What's a suburban? Is it 4x4, all terrain type vehiclleg or is it more a city type vehicle? Nate Eaton said you needed a 4x4 or similar to travel up there because there is no proper road, it's all pot holes and rocks. There is a news report on East Idaho News in which he travels up the road, to illustrate how rough going it is.
How about Grandpa was never at that campsite?
"How about Grandpa was never at that campsite?" By Grandpa, do you mean Mr.Walton?
If so, that would mean that Trina Bates Clegg is lying. GGF lives with her.
My, my... Backward Speech guy is setting up a basic level course in (of all places) Idaho Falls.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Backward-Speech/1568196156801408
I tried to post this last night, but it wouldn't stick. If I'm not supposed to post this, please let me know so I can stop trying.
When Reinwand's mother died, I don't believe he was in the car. I also don't know that the sheriff from Lemhi was in any way involved in investigating that accident. This article may be inaccurate.
http://www.rexburgstandardjournal.com/news/parker-woman-dies-in-crash/article_dc49bd2a-4e20-5f30-881d-04c9d47db707.html
Reinwand's father is a sociology professor and also a member of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. The ACJS "is an international association established in 1963 to foster professional and scholarly activities in the field of criminal justice. ACJS promotes criminal justice education, research, and policy analysis within the discipline of criminal justice for both educators and practitioners." I agree with previous posters that Reinwand has probably hired a lawyer by now. That would be my advice if I was his father. Given Reinwand's extensive criminal history, the large number of cases dismissed on motion of the prosecutor or sealed, I wouldn't be surprised if he is a confidential informant. I don't think that would be enough for law enforcement to give him a pass on child murder if he should turn out to be involved.
http://www.acjs.org/pubs/167_771_13512.cfm
Am I reading into this too much. .... hope is what keeps IT going? Shouldn't it be them, US going. Hope is what keeps us going, not it.
The sealed files are from when Isaac was a minor and shot another classmate.
How did the mother know they arrived at the camp site at 9 pm? Did they call her? If they did wouldn't they know where to have good signal?
I do not think IR is an informant. If he was, he disqualified himself with a rape/ reduced to DV charge. No LE takes a chance on that any longer.
His father's credentials probably afford him some courtesy, though. Most Idaho LE have very probably taken a class or conference seminar from his father. I've seen him listed at numerous conferences.
Anon ar 8.29 - it would not have to mean grandma Clegg has been lying. So far as I know, she has been repeating what she was told. It's possible she might know Isaac a bit more than she suggests, but that doesn't have to mean anything. I'm not saying grandpa wasn't there, by the way, just wondering if really he was, if he was there all the while, or if maybe he, or he and Isaac, were brought along later. ('The minute I called my mother...' When, and what happened the minute Jessica called her mother if thinking for the moment that DeOrr might have disappeared on the Thursday?) Do we know they weren't the unwitting cavalry being called out? To me It doesn't seem reasonable to question their chosen company, live and let live, but many people have commented on the make-up of the group, and the unlikeliness of the trip. I think I might be tending towards agreeing with them now. Do we know there was ever really a camping trip? I'm not sure I do. Since the Sherrif's interview, all I know for sure is that Jessica and DeOrr made 911 calls, and gave an interview in which they said they were camping at Timber Creek when their little boy disappeared. An extensive search. A vigil, some Facebook. A spat with BSG. At this point that is all which is left of the story which I feel confidently able to believe to be true. How any of the characters REALLY play out, I have not one clue.
I am also wondering where Jessica was when the six o'clock sighting took place, and if the reason she wanted it discounted so badly was because she herself didn't know anything about it or want to believe it was DeOrr and little DeOrr- it's possible she knew nothing about them being at the store until she herself heard the rumour. I'm going to watch the interview again; it will seem different viewed from the possibility of little DeOrr going missing on the Thursday, and thinking the Friday scenario would therefore have to have been intentionally misleading from start to finish. Not sure I can even get my head round that possibility, but I"m going to'try.
Anon @11:28 pm. There are 7 sealed cases in Reinwand's record.
https://www.idcourts.us/repository/mainpublic_id.do?forward=mainpublic_id
IF little DeOrr was at the campsite to begin with, what if the parents left him with go and Reinwand when they went into town? When they came back, did a little exploring and when they finally asked about DeOrr, gap was surprised because he assumed they took him when they got back to camp? I don't know what to think about ggp. He sold his house and moved in with his daughter a couple of years ago. Apparently Trina has hired JM to be his "caretaker". Yet the family seems to be okay with ggp driving (speeding) around town. And JM, his caretaker thought he was competent to watch her 2 year-old by the campfire alone. This doesn't make sense to me. Either he doesn't need a caretaker or he can't be responsible for a toddler.
Something about DK's emphasis on them going to the store "as a family" and Trina's post that they bought candy for ggp and DeOrr rubs me the wrong way.
I think his recollection of events at the campsite may differ from JM's and DK's. But if that's the case, why the family's emphasis on ggp' incompetence? Are they protecting JM and DK? Why isn't LE exploiting any chasm? Do they think ggp is an unreliable witness?
Is anyone else getting a sense that there is a rift between Trina and the parents (or maybe just daddy DeOrr)? I think that Trina is starting to see through the bs.
I started to feel this way when Trina commented on the search organized by Kara Rowbury on Facebook being cancelled. From what I have observed the Kunz family has a lot of tension with Kara but Trina was wanting to support her.
~Hazel
Trina seemed happy enough about Kara, but stopped responding to her after a while, so maybe she hadn't at first realised who she was. It seemed Kara and BSG's followers had more or less hi-jacked the search, and (so?) SAR pulled out, so no search, though I saw Kara was still trying to take credit on the search page for the great success of the non-search, which the other person had worked so hard to try to organise. Only on Facebook could hundreds of people attend an event which didn't take place whilst also not attending. Maybe one of those organisations will be willing to organise a search, which would be better, anyway.
I'm trying to catch up on comments so forgive me if this was already addresses. I find Deorr Sr. comment towards the end of the interview odd "the helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this, and there was not a trace of my son found...."
Seems like an interesting choice of words to use. Your child is missing, what could be worse situation than that?
~Hazel
I noticed that too, Hazel. Maybe the only thing DeOrr might consider worse would be a plane crash the helicopter might be searching for? Still, what could be worse in your own life than your child missing? DeOrr is obviously some kind of idiot.
As for questions answered by Miz Clegg, I have not noticed any deceit in any of her statements; she said from the beginning that Jessica and DeOrr arrived at the campground at around 9:30 Thursday night. Turned out to be true. She stated that 'they' went to the store Thursday evening and bought candy for baby DeOrr and the grandfather. Turns out to be true.
She stated that her father, Jessicas' grandfather, went on the trip; not sure if it was clear if he arrived on Thursday evening as well, but I think she did say they did, even describing how/where they all slept; and that he WAS there along with Issac, and THEY were fishing, and that now Issac has not told the truth. I believe her. She also defied anyone to question her fathers' health, stating that he was on oxygen 24/7, but that it was HE who wanted to go to that campsite one more time.
Well, okay, so maybe he is old and sickly; but I know from personal experience that one can be on oxygen and go anywhere they wish. The newer machines are in no way like the old style bullet like oxygen tanks. They are little portable condensed clean-air machines that plug in anywhere and purify the air intake. I know, I have one. You can carry it with you wherever you go or unplug it when you wish to go shopping or out to eat then pug it right back in when you get to your car. No trouble at all. Many people use them. Obviously, Miz Cleggs' father is able to get around and is NOT handicapped. So I don't see any deception in this either.
Peter, I'd be interested to know if you have detected any deception in any of Miz Cleggs' statements, (Jessicas' mother) as I sure haven't; if anything she seems to be trying to clear up misstatements made by others. If you do detect any deception made by her, I'd like to know what they are if you don't mind. T/Y! -ABB
I thought there might be a rift between Trina and JM early on. I think Trina may be angry/unhappy with her daughter for whatever caused her to lose custody of her older children. Trina seems to have a good relationship with JM's ex-husband, so is either incredibly forgiving or blames her daughter for that marriage ending. (Could also just be very practical, since she wants to maintain a relationship with her grandchildren.) I got the sense that Trina felt JM and DK threw ggf "under the bus" or used him somehow related to DeOrr's disappearance, which did not sit well with her. If the grandmother ever finds out her daughter and DK had anything to do with DeOrr's death, other than negligence, I have no doubt Trina will seek justice for her grandson.
If an accident occurred, the only reason I can think of to cover it up is JM's fear of looking like a bad mother, which might affect her chances of ever sharing custody of her kids. The irony is that their own story (hers and DK's) is that they left their child unattended (with a mentally and physically diminished person without notifying him) in the wilderness next to a creek and a campfire. And he vanished without a trace.
On the Backwards Speech joker's Facebook page, in a visitor comment on 8/13 from MWE, Trina Bates Clegg has posted a few times in response to someone's questions/accusations.
Trina Bates Clegg "Mindy- I, the cops from two different counties and FBI have spoke to my Dad in great detail. Why do you think he is off limits? He has fully complied with everyone in regards to this. Yes it was just my Dad and Isaac in his suburban. I don't speak to Isaac (to be honest I have really never spoke to him much). I feel I am very satisfied with the answers as I look into my daughter and DeOrr's eyes. There are many different ways in and out on dirt bikes, four wheelers and on foot. I am 100% fighting for the answers to this case.
I beg for everyone to come up there and look around. I feel there are people living off the grid in the area and know everything about the area. I'm still unsure about the animal theory but with all the searching why no evidence of it?"
Trina Bates Clegg "My father has severe COPD and Prostate Cancer. The trip is 2 hours. I asked Isaac questions the weekend it happened without getting straight answers.
I believe my daughter misunderstood the question about the video surveillance. We knew they had cameras but didn't know they weren't working is what we have been told.
Jessica, DeOrr and our entire family are not talking to the media due the advise of detectives and our PI. We want more than anything to make every person, place and thing aware of this situation. We need prayers, faith and positivity. I can't explain the pain in our hearts over this. Jessica shutdown her Facebook because of the physical threaths.
Our focus is Baby DeOrr and hi safe return or answers"
This is probably irrelevant but mostly I'm curious. Looking on IR Facebook he has a picture of a cabin in the woods as his cover photo that he changed on 7/29. Is that a photo from a movie?
~Hazel
I'm not sure Reinwand's answers to Nate Eaton's questions during the doorway interview establish his specific whereabouts when DeOrr disappeared. Reinwand basically said "Mmhmm" to Eaton's questions. I wonder what he would have said if Eaton said a spaceship came out of the sky and little green men took DeOrr on board. "Mmhmm"?
Both the sheriff and the grandmother (per ggf and IR) stated that Reinwand was upstream when DeOrr disappeared. The only "statement" that I've heard otherwise was Reinwand's apathetic noises in that one interview.
rkf & Hazel; at this point I am believing Miz Clegg and her statements. I don't find a reason not too. What say you? I believe she really is trying to get to the truth and so far, her only question concerns Issacs' deceit. I believe this too.
Peter has detected deception in daddy DeOrrs' statements; which of course, I agree with. However, he did not detect deception in mamma Jessicas' statements, which I don't necessarily agree with considering that she had not made many comments at that time. She didn't say much but she was pretty quick to correct daddy DeOrr a few times in misstatements he made. However, it has also occurred to me that perhaps it is mamma Jessica DeOrr is covering up for? I have nothing to go on in raising this possibility, BUT it has occurred to me for no good reason.
I think it is more likely that Issac is hiding something since Miz Clegg HAS caught him in lies; but then I wonder, if this is true, why would daddy DeOrr be covering up for Issac, inasmuch as DeOrr HAS shown deceit in his statements? He wouldn't, unless he and Issac together did something that caused little DeOrrs disappearance. On the other hand, IF DeOrr caused little DeOrrs disappearance and Jessica is covering up for him, why would she do this unless she was involved herself?
So it would appear that it all comes full circle back to daddy DeOrr. BUT then, why is Issac lying? According to Miz Clegg, he IS lying. And I believe her. -ABB
rfk, you made some excellent points in your post @4:07. Good ones, some I hadn't thought of. - ABB
Anon@4:53 am
I think Trina wants to know what happened, but really hopes it was something unrelated to any of her family members. I think she's torn between wanting to protect her daughter, her father and her grandson AND get to the truth. I don't think she is being deliberately deceptive in her comments. She may still be trying to fool herself. I think she is fighting an internal battle because she doesn't want to accept what her brain is telling her. It's been said by the sheriff and others that every scenario has been ruled out (not counting about 1% CYA wiggle room) except for foul play involving someone close to the child. I'm paraphrasing, but every scenario raised has been knocked down. No one in LE is publicly saying family members or their friends could be involved (other than naming them POIs because they were at the campsite ???). Except for this:
Nate Eaton: “At this point would you feel comfortable saying something criminal happened?”
Sheriff Bowerman: “No!”
Nate Eaton: “Okay.”
Sheriff Bowerman: “No! Not at all.”
So the sheriff doesn't feel comfortable saying something criminal happened. Not the same thing as believing something criminal happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M
Good point, rfk @ 5:20. Only thing is, Peter believes that the sheriff is being honest, not deceptive; so what is he doing, playing word/mind games?
Here's the conclusion of the matter as to what we know so far:
Daddy DeOrr has been deceptive. Issac, according to Miz Clegg, has been deceptive. We believe that Miz Clegg has been honest and above board, for whatever personal reasons which could include her future relationship with her grandkids viz a viz her former son-in-law.
We're not sure if the sheriff is playing word games and has been all along; what he says and what he doesn't say, vs what he thinks.
Jessicas' ex-husband and the father of her two older kids, stated that he had a lot he wanted to say but had to keep quiet. I sure would love to know what this is!
The conclusion: We are spinning right back where we were from the beginning and still don't know squat. Right?
Here's the conclusion of the matter as to what we know so far:
Daddy DeOrr has been deceptive. Issac, according to Miz Clegg, has been deceptive. We believe that Miz Clegg has been honest and above board, for whatever personal reasons which could include her future relationship with her grandkids viz a viz her former son-in-law.
We're not sure if the sheriff is playing word games and has been all along; what he says and what he doesn't say, vs what he thinks.
Jessicas' ex-husband and the father of her two older kids, stated that he had a lot he wanted to say but had to keep quiet. I sure would love to know what this is!
The conclusion: We are spinning right back where we were from the beginning and still don't know squat. Right? -ABB
Wow. My computer is really messed up. Sorry about that. later.... -ABB
Anon@5:35 am I think the sheriff said exactly what he meant - he didn't say he thought a crime was not committed. In fact he called the area where DeOrr supposedly disappeared a "crime scene". He said he didn't feel comfortable saying something criminal happened. That could be for lots of reasons, not least of which is that he doesn't have enough evidence to charge someone.
I don't think the sheriff is playing word games, but I think he is trying to avoid saying something that will spook his perp(s) or conflict with advise he received from the FBI.
I wonder if Trina is basing her belief that Isaac was deceptive on the doorway interview or some other interaction.
I think Dad's reaction to the helicopters being used in worse situations was a reference to the terrain.
And GGF's oxygen tank/concentrator would require a refill or power source at some point. The campground had no electricity.
The parents' own words make it almost impossible for IR to have been the one that made DeOrr disappear. They claim that DeOrr was with them until they left him with GGP to go "exploring". From that time, per their own words, they were only gone no longer than 10-15 minutes. That does not leave enough time for IR to have disposed of DeOrr, unless he had a means of transportation, but we have not heard that he drove anywhere that day. But remember who DID drive somewhere that day? DK was in his truck, "trying to get cell phone service". As we all know from Peter's analysis, him being in the truck at that particular time is of great sensitivity to him.
I think that the sheriff knows what happened, he just can't find the child's body, thus his comment that he hopes a hunter or someone will stumble upon it.
And I think that deep down Trina knows something isn't right but as has already been mentioned, she is probably holding on to the hope that her own family is not responsible.
Anon @ 10:25, if you scroll back up, or search on one of the other recent articles for comments that have been posted, you will find Miz Cleggs' statements concerning Issac. She said more than once that he lied; he said he was fishing at the time DeOrr went missing and also he said he was at the campsite when DeOrr went missing. More than once Trina Clegg made reference to Issacs' lies.
Another lie Miz Clegg has attempted to straighten out is in her comments about her father being in a state of shock when daddy DeOrr said he was supposed to be watching the baby when they left for their exploration. She has discussed this at length with her father and makes it clear that this is not true.
As for daddy DeOrr saying they had only been gone from the campsite ten minutes when he noticed baby DeOrr missing; this cannot be assumed to be the truth since we have already discovered DeOrr to be deceitful. Based on his already having been found to be deceitful, we might as well discount everything he said until we learn differently. We really don't know exactly when the baby disappeared; it could have been earlier in the day or the evening before. However, Miz Clegg did detail an earlier occasion when she said her father was playing with the baby in the dirt.
I can understand Miz Clegg hoping that her family is not responsible for little DeOrrs' disappearance, but at the same time, she knows that lies have been told, including lies by Issac. I think she has already prepared herself for the worst case scenario but is doing everything she can to make it clear that her father is not involved, even saying that her father is in such a state of shock now that it has made him sick. I can certainly understand this, it would make me sick too. ABB
I think Isaac may be working with the cops. As mentioned, he didn't have time in 10 minutes to kidnap little Deorr, hide him outside the 3 mile search zone, and be back at the camp site. Trina had said when she first talked to Isaac, he had told her he was off fishing when little Deorr "disappeared" and she was "shocked" when Isaac indicated in the affirmative that he was at the campsite instead. I think maybe the parents asked him to say he was at the campsite but when things with LE got intense, he spilled the beans. The GGF is said to have mental issues. I am not sure how serious they are but if he has alzheimers or something, he might be influenced and honestly believe what he was told by his granddaughter Jessica or Deorr, such as that he saw Deorr at a specific time. I don't think the GGF or Isaac ever saw Deorr at the campsite after the return from the store. I am not convinced they saw him on the camping trip at all.
Gracie
The sheriff also believes Isaac is lying. He couldn't have made it any clearer.
I hope you have followed all of Peter's analysis on Little Deorr's disappearance and his comments throughout. The parents show no signs of on going abuse or of harming their child at the campsite. What Deorr Sr does display is guilt toward what happened to Little Deorr. This has led Peter to the conclusion that the parents MAY have caused his death through neglect. They allowed something to happen to Little Deorr through their actions.
For Anon @9:43 and anyone else who does not understand about the newer oxygen machines. They are not concentrators. They do not require being replaced or refilled. They are air condensers. They draw in the air that is all around them, purify and convert it to clean air which runs through a tube into the individuals' nose. They are lightweight, very convenient and easy to use and easy to travel with. They can be used outdoors, indoors or in an automobile. They can be converted from electricity or battery powered, with an adapter, can be plugged into a cigarette lighter.
I know, because I have one and have used it for several years. Many people use them. They are portable, easily movable and are on wheels. There is also a smaller unit that can be carried on planes, on walks, or wherever. If any of the old style bullet oxygen tanks are still in use they must be from old equipment at old hospitals, as I'm certainly not familiar with them if they are. I have been hospitalized several times since I first started using the oxygen machine and all I saw there were the newer models such as I have and like the great grandfather would have since he did have it on his camping trip. They make life more convenient for those of us with COPD and other throat and lung problems. Just so you know. -ABB
Sus, he did not make that clear to me. Peter says the sheriff believes his own words. The sheriff has said Isaac has been "truthful" and "very truthful", so according to Peter, the sheriff is not lying about that and believes Isaac has told him the truth. The sheriff has never said the parents have been truthful. He has said they have been good and cooperative, but never truthful.
Please explain your theory on what Isaac did to make little Deorr disappear in the 10 minutes that the parents said they were away from him and the GGF.
Gracie
To Anon Gracie; we are each entitled to our own opinions, however, I do not feel that Issac is working with LE. Issac has a lengthy arrest record over a period of years, mostly felonies; I believe five of his previous cases are under seal with one very serious charge being reduced and disposed of. No doubt influenced by his father and family attornies.
His father is a well known professor in criminal law (?)and is highly acclaimed, so Issac obviously came from a middle to upper class decent law-abiding family of higher education. This does not mean that Issac himself is not the dredges of humanity as he clearly IS. Another bad seed apparently, which is heart breaking for the parents who raised them and did the best they could.
It is not easy to raise kids, but caring and hard working parents cannot always be blamed for what their no-account kids do. I'm sorry for them when they raise a child who turns out to be a low-life POS with no respect for his/their parents or their manner of upbringing; however, it is a fact that our prisons are filled with felons who came from good families, many with higher IQ's.
Sounds to me like this is exactly where Issac belongs and WILL eventually land up.
I've done this analysis, but I'll gladly do it again. Sorry I can't bold on my phone.
NE: What can you say about Mr. Reinwand?
Sheriff: UH, at this point he's still cooperating.
UH is measuring words, stalling.
"Uh, AT THIS POINT he's still cooperating."
Speaks to time. The present moment, and shows the IR was not cooperative at one point, or the sheriff is worried he will not be in the future.
"Uh, at this point he's STILL cooperating."
Now we know. Still is a continuous. IR has been cooperating, the sheriff is worried about future cooperation.
"Uh, at this point he's still COOPERATING."
The question was "What can you say about Mr. Reinwand?" The sheriff in free speech form, went straight to cooperating. We will watch for what "cooperating" means to the sheriff.
-
Ooops. Sorry again. I forgot to initial my post @ 11:33.... -ABB
Gracie, for you to believe that Issac didn't have time to do anything to little DeOrr within the time frame that Daddy DeOrr gives as their being on their exploration, that being ten minutes; FIRST you have to believe that DeOrr was telling the truth. I don't. His deception has already been noted -ABB
Cont sheriff speaking on Isaac R
"UH UM, YOU KNOW, I'm not getting any feeling that he's not being truthful."
Stalling to collect thoughts. "You know" shows an awareness of his audience and careful selection of his words.
"Uh um, you know, I'M NOT GETTING
any feeling that he's not being truthful."
In the negative is not reliable. "Getting" shows continuous action and is also unreliable. He does not tell us he did not get, he leaves it open.
"Uh, um, you know, I'm not getting ANY feeling that he's not being truthful."
"Any" focuses one, a single entity. Spoken in the negative about one single thing...there is one thing the sheriff wants IR to tell him.
"Uh um, you know, I'm not getting any feeling THAT he's not being truthful."
That is distancing. This is close.
"Uh um, you know, I'm not getting any feeling that he's NOT BEING truthful."
Another negative and not reliable.
"Uh um, you know, I'm not getting any feeling that HE'S NOT BEING TRUTHFUL."
Imbedded statement.
EXCELLENT, Sus. -ABB
Cont sheriff speaking on Isaac R
"I THINK he's been very truthful and I appreciate his help."
"I think" leaves room for others to think differently.
"I think he's been VERY TRUTHFUL and I appreciate his help."
"very" weakens truthful as there is a need for the speaker to bolster it.
"I think he's been very TRUTHFUL and I appreciate his help."
We now know from the sheriff's free speech, with no prompting, his definition of cooperating...truthful. We've had a change in language in the last two sentences from cooperating to truthful. Remember, that was a "still cooperating" and a weakened truthful and a not truthful. I believe it can be surmised it is to keep IR talking.
"I think he's been very truthful and I APPRECIATE HIS HELP."
Note the "I" for future reference. Cooperating>truthful>help is another change in language.
Sheriff speaking on Isaac R
"He's come up to THE AREA on a second occasion with me.."
From the beginning, the sherrif has called it a "scene." In this interview, he slips and calls it a "crime scene." Here, speaking about IR, he softens it to AREA. Or extends it. I wonder if he wanted to know where IR had been in the AREA the day Little Deorr disappeared.
"He's come up to the area on a SECOND occasion with me.."
Second means there was a first. We only know of one time IR was at the campsite..the day Little Deorr disappeared. So one time since he's been to the campsite with LE.
"He's come up to the area on a second occasion WITH me..."
In SA "with" separates, shows distance between. There was distance, possibly tension, between the sheriff and IR visiting the "area."
"He's come up to the area on a second occasion with ME.."
The sheriff is doing the investigative work. The sheriff is dealing with IR. notice his use of personal pronouns when speaking of IR.
Go Sus!
Sus, your analysis of the sheriffs' words is very very good; in fact, excellent. Now here's a big however for ya; I really don't think this sheriff is smart enough to know or realize he is giving himself away with his 'implied' words, or lack of. Over the last weeks I've come to believe he is not a smart man. -ABB
Ok, if we believe Tina Clegg, the family left the store at 12:38 pm on Friday headed back to camp. If it takes 40 minutes due to road condition, they returned at approximately 1:20 pm. They called 911 at 2:36, and they searched for the baby for 10 minutes before calling, they could have been gone for the walk for as long as an hour. Jessica said the baby had been missing for an hour when she called, which makes me think they left at 1:30. IF Isaac was at the campsite when they returned, he had less than 40 minutes. First responders couldn't have made it there any earlier than 3:15, and the Search dogs arrived around 5pm. IF Isaac did not return to the campsite until JUST BEFORE the cops, he had almost an hour and half. How far could he have gotten on foot and been back under both scenarios?
"AND UH, until, uh, we find a piece of evidence or locate anything that tells me otherwise I think he's being very truthful."
Beginning a phrase with "and" may indicate missing information from the previous phrase. The sheriff told us how IR "come up to the area" with him. It bridges to looking for evidence, with missing information.
"and uh, UNTIL UH, we find a piece of evidence or locate anything that tells me otherwise I think he's being very truthful."
"Until" speaks to time. The sheriff will say he's truthful "until" proven otherwise. What will prove otherwise?
"and uh, until uh, WE FIND a piece of evidence or locate anything that tells me otherwise I think he's being very truthful."
Note "I" has changed to "we". The context has changed from investigating IR to "find"... Find what?
"and uh, until uh, we FIND A PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR LOCATE ANYTHING that tells me otherwise I think he's being very truthful."
Singular. "A piece." "Anything." They don't have the physical evidence, including Little Deorr, to prove what's in front of their face.
"and uh, until uh, we find a piece of evidence or locate anything THAT TELLS ME OTHERWISE I think he's being very truthful."
In context with finding a piece of evidence or locating anything, this is what he needs to "tell" him. Tell is a change in language from feeling. His feeling was connected to "not truthful." He needs physical evidence to "tell" him.
"and uh, until uh, we find a piece of evidence or locate anything that tells me otherwise I THINK he's being VERY truthful."
I think leaves room for others to think differently. He has repeated it, making it sensitive. Possibly he's received pressure, from family? Attorney? Feels from self? To get IR to talk. Again, we see very which weakens the truthful. And by this time the repeated "truthful" has become a sensitive topic.
Buckley noticed the sheriff said this...
NE: The family says their vehicles and cars were searched which sounds like any case , that would be standard procedure.
Sheriff: Ya know, even though we searched them that night, you know, ya always second guessed it. Did we miss something? Could he have been in ANOTHER COMPARTMENT? Did we not search everything? Yeah, SO everything's been searched at least a couple of times, if not more.
Why did the sheriff even bring up "another compartment"? The last sentence begins with "so", making it sensitive in relation to "yeah, searching everything."
But maybe not that night. Maybe "another compartment" was found later, after the vehicle was allowed to leave the scene. That's certainly what the sheriff seems concerned about.
Out of the three vehicles at the campsite, which probably had more compartments...the parent's truck, ggp's suburban, or his camper? Which left the area? Maybe to get ggp home? All just questions I'm wondering.
Another think I'm wondering about is plain old human nature. Four people can't keep a lie. All four can't be in on covering up something nefarious. I don't think three could either. Maybe two, if they are both culpable. Just more ramblings today...
Anon @ August 21, 2015 at 4:21 A
Thanks, this comment you posted is new to me.
Trina Bates Clegg "Mindy- I, the cops from two different counties and FBI have spoke to my Dad in great detail. Why do you think he is off limits? He has fully complied with everyone in regards to this. Yes it was just my Dad and Isaac in his suburban. I don't speak to Isaac (to be honest I have really never spoke to him much). I feel I am very satisfied with the answers as I look into my daughter and DeOrr's eyes. There are many different ways in and out on dirt bikes, four wheelers and on foot. I am 100% fighting for the answers to this case.
I think this, along with her earlier comment, indicates that Trina might know Isaac better than she is saying:
Trina Bates Clegg I haven't really spent any time with Isaac my Dad lived by him before he moved in with me almost two years ago in December.
It's the 'really' which leads me to think she may have spent some time with Isaac, but most likely she really has not spent time alone with him, but when Isaac has been with her father. I think she is not speaking to him now, as he no longer leaves nearby, maybe, but in the past she has at least spent some time with him - as it's in the past it need not mean anything, but she would have at least some idea of what their relationship is, maybe also of what the 'business' the Sheriff spoke of is,likely to be.
The following comment is not in the least convincing, not only because she only feels it, but because she is still searching their eyes for answers - it's in the present tense, so she suspects there are more answers, information she has yet to be given.
'I feel I am very satisfied with the answers as I look into my daughter and DeOrr's eyes.'
From this I take it that Trina is in conflict:
'am 100% fighting for the answers to this case.'
She does want to find DeOrr, but it is not the 'answers' to which she is fully committed - she is fearful of what the answers might be, but she's also desperate for her grandson's body to be found.
Has the grandfather having Dementia rumor been confirmed? My grandparent has Dementia and even in the beginning stages they were easily influenced by what others told them, super forgetful, confused about new information, and still had their drivers license, in Idaho non the less.
~Hazel
Hazel,
I don't know. It's the sheriff who mentioned his mental state, while also mentioning physical. Ggp took a polygraph. I can't imagine that anyone with dementia could take a reliable polygraph.
From an outside perspective IR seems like the most likely suspect because of his past but I can't get the parents words out of my mind. If IR did anything or was away from the group even for a short time. I feel like the parents and their family would be acting differently towards him. If you discover your child is missing wouldn't the stranger of the parents be the first person they would look for and question his whereabouts immediately and pay close attention to his movement and actions until the authorities arrived? Even before calling 911. Maybe that's the untrusting of strangers in me? Or maybe they did suspect him from the beginning and are being told not to say anything while they investigate? But then why make up the story about the man looking at them weirdly in the restaurant?
Someone also commented on IR coming from a good family. I really feel like that is irreverent. If anything his fathers profession could have made him good at learning how to cover up a crime. Plus IR's sister (there's a photo of her on one of IR's profile pictures with a comment from her) seems just as off as he does. In some of the pictures of the children that are on his sisters page they appear to have bruises on their bodies and one almost seems to have a black eye? I also find it bizarre that one of his sisters friends is Kara Rowbury.
This whole investigation has too many coincidences in it.
~Hazel
Isaac, what's in the box??????
Anon, you've been saying that a long time, and it matches to what the sheriff said in his interview.
More importantly, where IS the box???
Anon @10:57 am.
Another lie Miz Clegg has attempted to straighten out is in her comments about her father being in a state of shock when daddy DeOrr said he was supposed to be watching the baby when they left for their exploration. She has discussed this at length with her father and makes it clear that this is not true.
Which statement did Trina make clear was untrue? TIA.
Gracie, I agree with you at 11:04 am. It's possible they arrived at 9:30, told ggp DeOrr was asleep, ggp assumed DeOrr slept with them in the Suburban. In the morning, the baby is still sleeping, then the parents take off for the store. They come back, go for a walk, then ask ggp "Where's DeOrr?" I'm hearing two different stories - parents never say they specifically told ggp they were leaving and he was in charge. GGP assumed the baby was with his parents. But then I've also seen it stated, I believe by ggp's daughter, that ggp played with the baby at the camp ground and that he was watching him, turned his head and the baby disappeared. They can't both be right. I guess I need to find the verbatim statements so we can analyze them!
ABB - Are the air concentrators safe to have around heat sources, like a campfire? I haven't seen the photo off ggp with his oxygen kit. Is it the same type as yours? TIA
PI: "knowing Deorr personally from my association with him before in Mount Pelier? that, uh, I can't imagine him doing anything like that cuz he LOVED his son, that WAS his son, that WAS his blood, that WAS his heart, that WAS his life, that, uh, the parents would not be involved in anything sinister.So you start looking at the other people involved that were at the campground, look at the grandfather, the grandfather, uh, was in ill health on oxygen, the other gentleman, who Isaac was there, uh he was a POI so I think look outside the box. So I think there has to be another possibility and I'd RATHER think that, I feel, that he was abducted. Everything points to abduction."
Something that niggles is DeOrr's apparent concern that what was happening in the campground might have been seen from the road above. Did he have concerns that Isaac, or someone else, might have been witness to something which happened in the campground? Did he also mention that from up there one could see to the bottom of the reservoir? I wonder why he mentioned those things.
Isaac Reinwand's father is a sociology professor, who appears to specialize in criminal law.
The Idaho Court Data Repository has 26 records on Isaac.
15 misdemeanors (1 was felony rape pled down to domestic violence misdemeanor)
9 were dismissed on motion of the prosecutor
8 guilty judgements
7 sealed by court or judicial order
https://www.idcourts.us/repository/mainpublic_id.do?forward=mainpublic_id
I think IR is a pretty terrible person, but I'm not convinced he is responsible for DeOrr's disappearance.
Issac's last court case was 3 year ago, which was just about the time he met GGF in AA. So maybe he's turned things around now.
Anon @12:45 pm. The sheriff said it takes 20 minutes to get to the campsite from Leadore. Eaton made a big deal of the road's difficulty, but I've seen lots of photos of the search that included regular sedans, so it can't be that bad. And DK was driving a 4x4 truck.
Example: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/14/22/2A87CF1E00000578-3161336-Search_Police_launched_a_widespread_search_for_the_tot_spanning_-a-179_1436909481404.jpg
I'm not convinced either. I'm convinced of nothing except the sheriff knows he's lying. Anyone wonder why ggp pals around with him?
Anon@6:16pm Or he's gotten better at not getting caught.
Isaac has shown a capacity for violence. However, why would he want to kill DeOrr? If he's fishing, and DeOrr wanders up to him, why would he kill him? He doesn't have a record of child abuse or child sex abuse, as far as I can tell. What other reason would Isaac have to kill his friend's great grandchild while on a camping trip with the family?
Anon at 6.16!-Isaac didn't seem too with it when Nate Eaton doorstepped he - he didn't even put on a shirt to open the door, knowing he was going to be filmed. Nate said that he had aleady tried several times, so how could he have not been expecting them? Unless maybe they got crafty and went another day with very little equipment and he thought they were delivery men, or something, so was caught on the hop, and had literally just climbed out of bed, though I doubt he would have come outside, anyway. That whole episode was so weird.
Does anyone know if it is true that Isaac refused to join in the search? I would so like to know the answer to that. What say, he had been up on the road above the campsite, and saw something happen - what if he was unwilling to search because he was not stupid,mor in any way willing to join in with what he knew to be a charade, yet also is not saying anything out of loyalty, because grandpa is his friend? He expressed no concern for the welfare of the child, he was only interested in what grandpa might have said. I don't think Isaac is stupid, though it may suit him to have presented himself in that way. Do we know he didn't go off by himself, that he really was at the creek? By saying he was at the camp, is he just trying to cover for grandpa, to be the 'witness' to the baby just disappearing, perhaps? I wonder what the 'business' was all about, too, and if grandpa was the last person to see DeOrr, or if grandpa only believes he was the last person to see, DeOrr, if he does really believe that. Maybe he is trying to protect Jessica and DeOrr, whilst Isaac is trying to protect grandpa. Maybe they each have something different to hide, albeit all of them are trying to protect one or another of the group.
rkf, re your post at 4:54; I haven't seen any photos of the GGF's oxygen concentrator either, but it it's anything like mine, which I do believe they are all pretty much the same now. It is about the size of a medium sized suitcase standing on end. It does not contain oxygen.
As I described earlier, it merely pulls in the air that is around it and purifies it. It is supposed to have a nine foot clear radius all around it to allow for enough air for its' usage, so outdoors works fine. It works fine in an automobile if the air conditioning is on, but does not work well if enclosed in a bathroom or laundry room as there isn't enough air circulation over a period of several hours as it takes all of the air out of a small room. I have mine sitting in the great room which is outside my bedroom as I hate the noise of it (it's not real noisy, I just don't like any noise) while I'm trying to sleep or watching tv, but also have a 50' tube attached to it that runs into my bedroom. With a longer tube, I could extend it up to 100' but don't have the need.
Yes, I believe it could be used near a campsite but not real near a burning fire, at least I wouldn't do that. You wouldn't want it picking up hot air as this is what would blow into your nostrils. These machines are really safe and practical though, smokers can even smoke around them while they are in use since the machine does purify the air and does not contain any compressed air. The smaller travel ones work the same, only they are carried in a little shoulder strap bag and are battery operated. You've probably seen them on commercials.
These machines are expensive. You cannot purchase them to my knowledge, but instead are furnished and maintained by the supplier who services them occasionally; the cost is roughly $460 per month for the one I use. Anything else?
Sus, I agree. The sheriff (and Miz Clegg) knows Issac is lying.
An Peter knows Daddy DeOrr is lying.
So where does that leave these two? BOTH LYING! But the question is: WHY?
What are these two sharing in common that has caused them to lie about little DeOrrs' disappearance? Why would one cover up for the other unless both were involved?
It's not looking good for either of these two. NOR is it looking good for mamma Jessica, as surely she must know by now when her baby daddy is lying? Woudncha think?
Poor ole greatgrandpa, I think he is just caught up in the middle and is scared to death. OR, has he had some sort of unsavory relationship with dirty pooh good buddy Issac that we aren't privy too?
Sorry, forgot to sign off @9:21... -ABB
Also forgot to sign off @9:09. Dang. Not used to this. ABB
Anon @ 9:09pm. Thank you! That answers one of my questions, which is "Why would ggp sit by a campfire with an oxygen tank?" It looks like he could sit by the fire safely, as long as the machine wasn't pulling in hot air from the fire. He could have a long enough tube that the tank could sit a decent distance away, and there would be no chance of him and DeOrr going up in a ball of flames.
You've got it rkf. These machines are really very safe and convenient. GGF could comfortably use the tube with the machine sitting a safe distance away. He could even use it closer, only I don't think he would want hot air blowing into his nostrils. I know I wouldn't.
Sus, thank you for posting your analysis about the sheriff and Isaac. I am new to statement analysis so I have just been following along with what Peter analyzes and everyone's comments. If the sheriff does believe Isaac is lying and/or if Isaac really is lying, I am still not convinced it means Isaac had anything to do with Deorr's disappearance. I feel one or both of the parent's are involved, possibly a negligent accident of some sort. At this point I am basing this more on intuition and what I know about the case rather than statement analysis.
If little Deorr was ever at the campground, I think maybe something happened to him either at the campground or in Leadore, he accidentally died (got into drugs, etc) or there was a negligent accident (drowned or got hurt while parents were wasted, etc), and his body was hidden.
Gracie
(Post one of two)
My current ruminating : Maybe Jessica doesn't or didn't know what happened to little DeOrr, if indeed, something did happen to him.
"Who would harm us this way?' Especially knowing how much he means to us. He's everything to us.'"
Jessica believes someone known to her and DeOrr has caused them harm, but she does not express concern that someone might have caused harm to her child.
I think, in the interview, she may, in places, look with suspicion at DeOrr, - maybe because he,seemed to be acting strangely, and because he has delayed calling 911' and was pretending to be SAR.
DeOrr Sr knows something happened, and that it happened suddenly -
'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.” ' East Idaho News
Maybe Isaac knows what happened, because he was watching from above, or from elsewhere, or because he came back down from the creek and happened on to the scene of the tragedy. Perhaps this is why Trina was so shocked when Isaac said he was with grandpa when DeOrr disappeared:
Trina Bates Clegg From the beginning I have been told from Isaac and my Dad Isaac was at the creek fishing. I was in shock with his interview when he stated he was at camp
Like · 5 · 22 hrs
Perhaps grandma Clegg was already worried that grandpa might be withholding information, and is now even more worried, in case also Isaac knows the truth, and because she suspects the truth is bad, and Isaac, therefore might incriminate grandpa, Jessica, DeOrr, all or any of them, at any moment.
“My dad was standing there watching him and he turned his head and then (Deorr) was gone,” Clegg said. “It appears like he just vanished.”
That's grandpa's version of events, but Isaac could well know different.
Perhaps Isaac is only pretending he didn't see anything. Maybe grandpa knows what happened to little DeOrr, and so does DeOrr Sr, but they felt they had to cover it up to hide the truth from Jessica? Isaac wants no part in any of it, as it was nothing to do with him, he just happened to be there, and so he is simply denying all knowledge, and hoping his continued silence will make the case go cold, as he doesn't want any more trouble for himself, or for grandpa and his family. He just went to do a little fishing, and whatever little business the Sheriff was thinking best not mentioned. Grandpa brought his grandkids along and while he was with grandpa, tragically their little baby died. Isaac was just there.
Alternatively, what say, DeOrr died and Isaac helped grandpa cover it up? What say, Jessica and DeOrr had gone off exploring, leaving DeOrr with grandpa, and the baby was let to play, grandpa was inattentive, or just didn't know he was meant to be looking after him, something happened, DeOrr died, grandpa was hysterical, and so Isaac felt he had no choice but to help him cover it up before the parents returned. When Jessica and DeOrr returned they were told the baby must have wandered - DeOrr noted that grandpa was in shock, which might have struck him as odd, because little DeOrr could not have gone far, and they would soon find him. So, he had his concerns then, but grandpa's old, and maybe he just couldn't cope with having not kept a better eye on the baby.
It could be that the parents do not know what has happened to their child. They may have a strong idea,which is why they seem not to be acting like the parents of a missing baby. They may be too distressed to voice any suspicion, and hope against hope they are wrong, and that little DeOrr has indeed just vanished, because somebody abducted him. They may have searched all night for him, believing he must be near by and had just lain down somewhere and fallen to sleep. Maybe Jessica doubted this when she discovered all three of his comfort items were left in the campsite, which made her think he must have been taken away, but the others persuaded her, that he must be near, and to keep searching. She might suspect Isaac, who would know, through grandpa, how much the baby meant to them, but also not be able to believe he would have hurt her baby, and would likely be in denial as to the possibility of her grandfather knowing anything. They may, if this happened toward evening, or after dark, have searched all night, believing he would be asleep somewhere nearby, and that when he woke he would cry, and they would hear and easily find him. 'No sounds of him. No crying.' Were they listening all,night for him to make a sound?
Well, they weren't only listening, they were also screaming his name, so I still have to wonder if there was not an accident which they discovered and over which they and grandpa became hysterical, because screaming is quite different to calling, and to shouting, though perhaps some people don't make a distinction, and would say 'screaming' to mean any of those. Perhaps Isaac tried to calm them all down, if there was an accident, and together they decided to cover it up.
I think I prefer, that the parents don't know, but virtually know - they feel responsible for what happened because they were not looking after their baby. ,Grandpa knows and is devastated. Isaac knows, but he is not talking. If the parents don't know what happened for sure, it is most likely Isaac who took away the body and left the comfort items before the parents returned. If DeOrr knows what happened, it is most likely him who hid the body. I think Jessica did not know, but she probably thinks she knows by now. If any of that fits, none of them has any desire for the truth to be known.
Alternatively, if there was not an accident in the campsite little DeOrr may have just woke and wandered, tripped and fallen in the creek,maybe hearing them there. They maybe thought he was asleep, and not realised for some time that he was missing. The water 'is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not that far either...so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either'. Had DeOrr been in the creek to say it was 'knee deep and a few feet wide'? Perhaps they messed about in the creek that night, and then fell to sleep without checking on him, and found little DeOrr's cowboy boots and blanket near the water or trapped in the fallen logs the following day. Perhaps only one found him, retrieved him, or his boots or blanket, and went about covering it up, keeping the others searching for hours before the 911 calls were made.
Gracie,
You're welcome. You are correct. We have no idea what the sheriff believes Isaac is not truthful about. We have heard very little from Isaac ourselves. I wish we would so we could analyze his words.
Unfortunately, we haven't heard much from Deorr Sr and Jessica, either. This is a very strange case. Too quiet. What little they have said has shown Deorr Sr is deceptive about something. I learned my lesson in earlier cases...that sometimes parents show deception because they have knowledge they can't share with the public. For that reason I tend to be cautious in my judgements. But that's just me. We will see.
I think some may be giving too much credence to the possibility of an accident having happened on Thursday evening, with the baby wandering off and with the parents looking and searching and screaming little DeOrrs name all night through the campsite, down at the creek and the surrounding areas.
This sounds a little preposterous in light of the fact that 911 could have been called, who would have brought in high-powered search lights and a crew to help search for the little boy. This makes no sense at all when you think about it.
Really, none of these accidental death scenarios makes any sense. You don't just accidentally kill your kid then hide his little body then stake a big cover up. ABB
I'm not attempting to challenge you Sus, in your belief that the sheriff 'believes' Issac is not being truthful. I read your analysis of each word and phrase made by the sheriff and I understand how you arrived at that conclusion in your use of statement analysis; and entirely right you may be. I'm certainly not saying you aren't.
However, I recall also, that according to statement analysis, "if the subject didn't say it we can't say it for him." Wouldn't this also apply to those statements made by the sheriff? The sheriff did not say he does not believe Issac; in fact, he said the exact opposite, that he DOES believe Issac.
Also, there is to be considered Peter's guidance that "he believes the sheriff believes he is telling the truth." So there you have it; which is it? Truth, dare or consequences?
On the other hand, we know that Issac has lied according to Miz Clegg: Issac couldn't have been BOTH at the creek fishing and at the campsite at the same time when little DeOrr went missing. Which comes back to: which truth does the sheriff 'believe' Issac is telling? You know, it is rather hard to get inside someone else's head to be able to project what that person 'believes'. ABB
Sus, Maybe Isaac was lying when he indicated to Nate from East Idaho News that he was at the camp site when "as far as I know he disappeared". Trina says he previously told her he was fishing. That convo may have happened the day Deorr disappeared before Isaac was intensely questioned by police. I think maybe he was indeed fishing and the parents asked him to not mention that to the police (maybe he agreed because drug usage was involved in the trip or some other reason). Then he caved during interrogation by the police but agreed to play dumb like some of LE apparently is, to keep the parents talking. Just a theory.
Anon 4:45 Someone might stage a cover-up if the accident was criminal negligence. Jessica has already lost custody of her 2 other children and her ex might not want to bring them to visit her in the penitentiary.
Gracie
Good point there, Gracie. I can't speculate about the question to Sus any more than I have already said, but you could be right in the criminal negligence aspect concerning her ex and the cover up. I just know that initially her ex hubby was helping and was upset about his two children losing their little brother, even hiring a helicopter to help with the search for little DeOrr. Shortly thereafter, he made a statement that there is a lot he wanted to say but decided to keep quiet. I sure would love to know what that's all about, wouldn't you?
I just know that a woman doesn't lose her kids for no good reason without putting up one hell uv a fight for them, unless for some reason she knows she would lose or decides she'd rather have her freedom than the responsibility of kids. Even being broke and poor and not knowing how she is going to manage, I can't see a woman walking away and leaving her kids behind. Makes me wonder what was going on with Jessica that her ex wound up with the kids?
Gracie,
i am saying exactly what Peter is saying. The sheriff believes what he is saying. Of course, he does. SA is not hocus pocus. SA is learning to listen carefully at what someone says.
Let's take a look at that "very." When someone adds very to a word, they have a need to bolster it. You either are, or you aren't, truthful. "Very" creates a question about truthfulness.
Repeating a word or phrase means it is on the speakers mind. "Truthful" came up a lot in regard to Isaac's cooperation. That makes "truthful" a sensitive topic to the sheriff.
Now, the sentence said in the negative. The easiest shortest way is always best. The sheriff chose a round about negative way. Follow the words and you will see he actually ended up saying Isaac is not being truthful.
ABB- Challenge me! :-) It makes me think. And remember, we are only looking at what the sheriff thinks. We're trying to figure out where the investigation is going since we don't have interviews of the subjects ourselves.
Does anyone else here think that the sighting of the "creepy old man starting at DeOrr" might have been less to do with supporting their abduction theory and more to do with trying to place Jessica at the store WITH DeOrr and daddy DeOrr?
I will sign as Anne from now on
Anon 12:30 Yes, I think so. The store sighting at the Stage Shop never mentioned a woman, just a man in a black truck with a filthy, bawling little blonde boy. The parents claimed they were at the store just at a different time than the clerk mentioned, but they never mentioned if and why little Deorr was filthy and bawling.
Did something happen on the trip to the store with just Deorr Sr and Deorr Jr? Plus, when Deorr Sr was talking about the store trip he said they went to the store "as a family". That comment has always bothered me. It sounded like a strange and fake thing to say, IMO.
Gracie
"went to the store as a family" struck me (on the East Coast) as odd, too. However, my relatives in the Western part of the US use the phrase "as a family" a lot. They go to church, to a restaurant, to a concert, etc. "as a family."
I live on the west coast and found it kind of strange, maybe because it was before or after several "as his father"s.
Gracie
My relatives are very religious, so "as a family" may be a church saying.
911 Call
https://soundcloud.com/idaho-statesman/911-call-deorr-kunz-missing-lemhi-county
In her 911 call, Jessicca says ' I'm ACTUALLY camping in Leadore, just outside of Leadore..' I tried the search box for 'actually' but it comes up with articles where Peter uses the word himself, rather than the ones in which he explains it - it would take too long to go through them to find one in which it is explained. From memory, though, I think it indicates that the person uses it when thinking of and comparing what they are saying 'actually' about, with something else. which may be the real thing they were thinking or doing? So, while she is saying she is camping in Leadore, she may be thinking of some other place, where actually she has been, or she has been camping elsewhere, or she may even not have been camping at all? Help on 'actually' would be appreciated from anyone who knows.
Also, on Websleuths, someone is saying she believes that Jessica may be saying, in the 911 call, that DeOrr has been missing 'from around morning', but when asked by the operator if she said an hour, agrees. I find it very difficult to be sure that is what she said, but listening more closely does not make it clear that she said an hour either. So, just adding that for interest, and in case anyone else can hear more clearly.
Correction - 'around this morning' is what the person thinks Jessica might be saying.
Regarding the 911 call, I think that Jessica says "about an hour". The 911 operator then clarifies by stating "an hour?" and Jessica confirms by saying "yeah". So I am pretty sure that she said "about an hour".
As for the "actually", I went back and listened and noticed something:
911: "What's the address of your emergency?"
Jessica: "Umm...I'm...actually camping...in Leadore...just outside Leadore..."
The 911 operator asks for the ADDRESS of the emergency. JM hesitates, then states she is "actually camping...in Leadore...". I'm trying to imagine what would make me say "actually" like that. And what I realized is, if the "emergency" took place in location A (???), and I am now in location B (camping in Leadore), if I call to report the emergency from location B and I am asked for the address of the emergency, I might hesitate to gather my wits as to how to respond...I might, in my mind, be thinking ok, the emergency happened back in location A, but I am *actually* not there where it occurred, I am *actually* here in location B... thus, causing me to respond by telling the operator, "Umm...I'm actually here in location B...". But the emergency itself happened somewhere else (Location A).
In other words, maybe the "emergency" (whatever happened to DeOrr) occurred somewhere else (location A), but JM, without realizing it, was conflicted how to answer, as reporting the "emergency" from location B is not being entirely truthful. To exemplify further, imagine her answering this way:
"Ummm...(the "emergency" happened in location A, but right now) I'm ...actually (here in location B) camping...in Leadore..."
I hope this makes sense lol.
Anne
Saying "actually camping" may simply be because she was responding to the question as to the address of her emergency. She was not at a location where there is a regular address, like a house. In that context, it doesn't seem inappropriate, IMO. I can think of several examples in which someone asking me a similar-type question where I would probably throw in an "actually", due to the answer being different from what the person was asking/expecting.
Gracie
Someone has set up an online store. http://miraclesforlittleman.org/
Anne and Gracie - thanks for your explanations, I get what you both are saying and it makes good sense. :)
Interesting article:
http://magicvalley.com/news/local/mini-cassia/why-do-children-die-new-idaho-team-searches-for-links/article_9df005d0-722d-570c-9a23-a52f74d1b406.html
Rkf - helpful friends, strangers, no idea who the people who own the site might be, but they don't say how any funds raised will be used. Grandma Clegg was apparently selling wristbands outside the high school a couple of weeks after DeOrr disappeared, and they look same type as were on her FB, so maybe rather a lot were unsold. I don't know how raising money is going to fund any miracle. I know she would like to organise a new search. It would be a miracle if he were found alive as a result of searching the mountain again - if he is on the mountain, he is not alive, so I don't see how selling wristbands is going to help bring about that miracle. If he has been abducted, money is not likely to reveal his whereabouts either. I can't see they would need much for a search, people would turn up well prepared for a day on the mountain - maybe wanting to hire some search dogs. As they don't say, I can't say it for them. :) Not saying what miracles they are hoping for is a bit of an oversight, though.
I sent the following email to both contact addresses yesterday and have not yet heard back from them.
Hi. I have a few questions about Miracles for Little Man. Is Miracles for Little Man a 501(c)3? Are donations tax-deductible? What types of resources does DeOrr’s family need? How much (what percentage) of the money raised goes toward promoting awareness of Little Man’s disappearance and to help the family? How will the money be used to promote awareness? By the family, do you mean DeOrr’s parents, Jessica and DeOrr Sr? Are you related to the parents, friends, or simply concerned citizens?
Thanks for answering my questions.
The people who started the store live in Maryland and don't appear to be related to DeOrr's family on either side. I could be wrong and am looking forward to hearing if they are family or friends. If they were interested in raising awareness, they could at least include a "missing" poster that people could put up in their neighborhood or even copy and distribute. The "care kit" includes a National Center for Missing and Exploited child ID kit that can be downloaded from the NCMEC for free. I wonder if NCMEC knows "Miracles for Little Man" is selling it or if they would care.
I want to think (like the PI) these are well-meaning people trying to help from afar, but are inexperienced and haven't thought through what they are trying to do. I hope it's not a "new friend" of the family using this tragedy to turn a quick buck.
When I first saw this yesterday, posted on the paternal grandmother's facebook page, I was shocked. I have always been repulsed by people turning a family death, especially a child's, into a money-making opportunity using GoFundMe or another crowdfunding site with minimal oversight. (I understand if someone is indigent and can't afford to bury or cremate a loved one, but if someone can figure out how to set up one of these sites, surely they can find other ways to raise the money among friends or via government programs set up for unusual situations.)
If the family is involved in this venture and chooses to sell wristbands and framed photos of DeOrr instead of reaching out to main stream media, in my mind this points to something seriously wrong.
The site has been updated since I looked at it. It now says 100% proceeds,go towards the search, and in addition to the wristbands and 'Care Kit' supporters can also make a Miracle Donation, three options for that offered so far.
I looked up the contact people for the Miracles site on Facebook, it appears that the man involved might be a truck driver based on his FB posts? I wonder if that's how he knows Daddy DeOrr, through their truck driving jobs.
Anne
I saw that, too Anne and Juliet. Proceeds are income less expenses. How are they calculating expenses? How much are they charging for their time, for example? LIVESTRONG sold rubber wrist bands for $1 each and made a killing on each one. (Of course they had volume working in their favor). These people are selling them for $5 plus shipping.
David Barnhart only recently added DeOrr Sr and other Kunz relatives as friends on Facebook, so I doubt they are long-time friends from their over the road trucking days, but it's possible.
As I'm typing this, the site just went down. Maybe they're making updates or maybe they have decided they don't want to get in trouble for pretending to be a non-profit. (using .org implies non-profit even though anyone can buy the domain.)
Nate Eaton: “At this point would you feel comfortable saying something criminal happened?”
Sheriff Bowerman: “No!”
Look at the question asked.
it is effectively a compound question.
Is the sheriff saying no something criminal happened?
Or,
Is he saying something criminal happened but he isn't comfortable saying at this point, leaving him open to saying something criminal happened at a different point in time?
But wait, the sheriff answered, "No, no. Not at all."
I believe Nate E. got an "okay" in between the no's, but the sheriff was still talking.
Miracles for Little Man fundraisers are in Maryland:
http://miraclesforlittleman.org/p/deorr-kunz-jr-fundraiser
It's back.....
@ Tania
Or maybe the sheriff just doesn't feel comfortable saying anything is a crime scene ever, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't. It was a bad question.
Also, doesn't adding "Not at all" at the end weaken the sheriff's "No, no."?
In my mind, the sheriff, right or wrong, has looked at Little Deorr's disappearance as a criminal act from the beginning. He had always referred to the campsite as a "scene", and in the recent interview, a "crime scene." While the chief deputy said the parents "are good", the sheriff named all at the campsite POI. Within days he reported to his board they were looking into criminal backgrounds.
So what do you guys make of what the sheriff said about the parents and ggp?
NE: How about the parents and the grandfather?
Sheriff: You know, I think all three of those three have been very cooperative. Uh, they've given us everything we've asked for. And uh, I feel real good about the parents, and the grandfather, also.
-"you know" (which the sheriff used a lot in this interview) shows he is aware of his audience.
-"I think" leaves room for others to think differently.
- "all three" oops! The all is so unnecessary. He could have answered "they" or the "parents and grandfather", but "all" is on his mind. Someone in the group is separated.
-"of those three" Now he distances himself from the three, or someone of the three by using those.
-"have been" is passive and past tense. Is someone not cooperating NOW?
-"very cooperative." Very weakens cooperative. To me cooperative is unexpected in a missing child case speaking of parents. It's like they are helping him, when he should be helping them find their child. Cooperative sounds like a criminal case.
- When speaking of Isaac R, the sheriff defined cooperative as truthful - three times. The sheriff never mentions truthful about the parents.
-"They've given us everything that we've asked for." Here is the sheriff's internal definition of cooperation for the parents and ggp.
-"have given" insinuates a continuos. He did not choose " gave." and done giving.
-"us" and "we" Note it's "I think" and "I feel", yet ibecause they have given US everything WE. I'm trying to think this out. So there's a sharing in asking...SAR, sheriff's dept, FBI, and he has formed his thoughts and feelings from their answers to that.
-"everything that we have asked for." Why wouldn't they if they want their child back? Why would the sheriff even mention this?
Is someone not giving everything asked for? The sheriff does separate with that ALL and distance with THOSE.
-"And uh" AND signals missing info. It bridges "given everything that we have asked for and his feelings on the parents...or ggp. I can't tell.
-"I feel" If he feels one way, he might feel another way later. It is bridged by "and" to indicate missing info, and follows the three giving everything asked for.
-"real good about the parents" Real weakens good. Here he separates the parents from the ALL.
-"and the grandfather, also." This is what I can't figure out. Is the grandfather an after thought or emphasized. There is an "and" and an "also" to include him.
Sorry for the long post.
and still no additional words from P.I. Vilt.
It's weakened with the second no, and again with "not at all." His answer is unreliable
Remember also, that he said what they get back from the FBI will be critical to the case.
Bethany they also have another fundraiser at GoFundMe: http://www.gofundme.com/z8az94
Someone mentioned on websleuths or somewhere that supposedly Deorr had a matchbox car in his pocket at the time, I'm sure there's a large possibility it could have fallen out, but they said maybe they should take metal detectors up there?
That sounds like the first good idea in a long time.
Also that they are up there every weekend searching and someone wanted to know why go if they think he's been abducted. Well they could be holding on to the last place they physically seen him if they are innocent, out of desperation or....IF they were involved in something nefarious, and they know he's up there, just wanting to be close to him and grieve since he doesn't have a proper burial spot.
If I were LE, I would be watching to see what they are doing up there, if they are actively searching or ???
This comes across as so creepy to me. Daddy DeOrr's mother's Facebook page, her cover photo shows part of a Missing flyer with Daddy's face on it, it's larger than the images of little DeOrr. Yet another example of how this is all about Daddy DeOrr. I mean, I hate to judge but is it really necessary to have his face on a missing flyer for his baby boy? So weird!
https://www.facebook.com/laurie.eberlekunz?fref=ts
And I think it's great that people want to help but I don't understand how selling bracelets is going to help find DeOrr. Hundreds have volunteered to help search at their own expense which would cost the family nothing. What is going to be done with the money they raise?
And why aren't we hearing anything further from the PI?
Also, in the past few weeks I have watched a lot of David Paulides videos on YouTube on the Missing 411 cases like Dennis Martin and the mysterious disappearance of Sam Boehlke at Crater Lake. (Who literally ran up a small hill, his father chased him up, he ran down the other side and when the father got up there he was gone. Never saw him again. Within seconds that happened.)
I am not a Bigfoot enthusiast nor do I believe in Aliens, and David Paulides doesn't mention what it is that he thinks is the reason behind the disappearances (and there are A LOT of them) but there are other children (and adults) that have been lost forever that were within a few feet of their parents, vanished without a trace and we're never seen again. It all happens in the national parks and forests.
Anyway my point is, in the cases where some of the Missing children HAVE been found, some are many, many miles from the original camp site, usually way up high in the mountains where they as a two or three year old could never get to on their own in the amount of time allotted. Most times they are found naked and have no discerning marks on them.
Maybe they should move the search farther out, if anyone is still searching.
Hate to hear the Sheriff say he hopes a hunter might come across him (basically)- I know their resources are tapped out and they are frustrated. I can't imagine how they feel. I just have a feeling they are never going to find him.
:(
Like so many others.
She probably has them on her computer from before she uploaded them to FB.
Agreed.
I don't recall there were hundreds of pictures on Jessica's page - it's easy enough to save them onto a hard-drive or memory stick, anyway. Besides, some people prefer to keep most or all of their photos off-line in their phone, in albums or a digital photo frame, or on-line but privately stored. I didn't get the impression that Jessica or DeOrr had virtually lived their lives through Facebook and posted photos of little DeOrr's every movement, more they just had Facebook profiles and posted sometimes- DeOrr seems not to have much bothered with his Facebook, or at least not made that many public posts. There's no reason to assume that Jessica's only photos of DeOrr were on Facebook, or that if they were she has deleted her account. It may just be deactivated.
"I don't understand how selling bracelets is going to help find DeOrr."
Maybe to provide food, water and gasoline for the volunteers? Hiring private search dogs? Paying P.I. Vilt?
Regarding the Miracles site asking for donations and what they will be used for: If I'm not mistaken, the volunteers that have offered help have offered to do so at their own expense. We have heard nothing at all from the family or from anyone speaking on their behalf in regards to any search efforts going on currently. The only search dog (beyond the original search efforts) that I'm aware of was owned by a man named Harry and Harry wanted nothing at all to do with the parents so he backed out; there have been no other plans for search dogs that I am aware of. PI Vilt? What exactly is HE doing to help find DeOrr? He has been eerily quiet since his big tv interview. I'm wondering if we will be adding him to the list of people such as Harry who, after initially wanting to help the parents, decided to run away as fast as they can.
This is probably the most bizarre missing child case I have ever come across. The silence and secrecy is so strange, it is forcing me to wonder if they really want DeOrr found, or if they just hope that as time goes on people will lose interest and just forget about him.
I tend to think the PI was a family friend who offered his help & they couldn't refuse without offending him or appearing to not be interested in using every resource available. However, they probably felt he was quite ineffective, much like we all did and discouraged him moving forward, based upon negative reactions from the public. He struck me as having a bit of dementia or something wrong with him, as his premise really didn't make sense in the context of the things he discussed.
DeOrr Sr contacted Harry, saying "We have lots of money from the donations coming in, so I can pay you to come search for my son." However, DK refused to let Harry bring forensic evidence scent dogs. This was five weeks after DeOrr Jr disappeared. What kind of search of the campsite would not include cadaver dogs five weeks after a two year-old disappeared in a forest of that size? Harry posted all of this on his Facebook page, but he has since deleted it. He withdrew from the case for the reasons Anon @ 11:14 am gave above.
In fact, I second everything Anon @ 11:14 am said. Volunteers don't get paid. They are providing their service as a gift to the missing, his/her family and the community at large. It is great when other groups, such as a church, provide food and water and a respite area for SAR, but my understanding is that SAR people are self-sufficient. I'm grateful for their service, not just the searches, but all the hours of training they put in to hone their skills.
The problem with the bracelets and the "little man" website in general is that the people who started it will not explain how the money will be used other than "searching" or who it is going to specifically, other than "the family".
Hey Isaac, still reading here?
I also find the dad's picture being on little Deorr's missing poster creepy. The only time I have ever seen an adult's picture on a missing child's poster before is when it's the person/parent wanted for abducting the child.
Yes RKF I should have been more clear that Harry wasn't going to be working for free, I can't understand why DeOrr Sr. wouldn't want cadaver dogs there??? If it is true that the family has been going to the campsite on the weekends, what exactly are they doing there? If they truly want to find DeOrr then it is very suspicious that they would refuse cadaver dogs. Did he not understand what Harry does lol? Again, what is the point of going there on the weekends? Is it really to look for DeOrr, or is it to hide out from someone or something? So flipping strange! Not to mention that if they are so sure DeOrr was abducted, why waste valuable time and resources back at the campground? GAhhhhHHH!
I saw on FB that the Monster Polish (bigfoot) guy was communicating with DeOrr Sr. and apparently they made plans to meet at the campground, MP was going to help search. But DeOrr Sr. didn't show up according to MP. There was a discussion about it on the "Search Even" FB page, Trina got involved and claimed she heard nothing about a search with MP guy. Someone told Trina that MP posted asking DeOrr Sr. why he didn't show up for the search but it was later removed. Trina then responded literally in minutes with a screenshot of a conversation between herself and MP; in the convo MP says that DK gave him the excuse that he couldn't show up for the search because of "truck trouble". Trina then deleted the screenshot of the convo with MP. So odd that she was able to contact MP so quickly and have that convo with him, then post it so quickly. Just to then delete it. So weird!
Anne
@ Anne. Very weird. This whole case is weird.
Sharing here some info posted by someone on WS who knows about K9s. In addition to what's below the poster also said it's pretty standard for the cadaver dog to be trained to pick up on all the scents of decomposition AND cremains, otherwise the dog is not a viable resource.
'Trailing Dogs, picking up scent trail on a long line held by handler usually 20-30 feet long.
Air Scent Dog, running free picking up scent on wind.
Cadaver Dogs, running free, trained on decomp, blood, bone, tissue, teeth, placenta, cremains and large source human remains and combinations of all of these. Not two different skills sets, a scent inventory so to speak for HRD. Human Remains Detection. They will hit on any or one of these sources but no, they can't tell you which part of the human body they found.'
I would take it then, that the dog wasn't 'thrown off ' by the cremains, rather that as the cremains were not what the investigators were anticipating or looking for, it was they, rather than the dogs, who had been thrown off - the dogs were looking for any type of remains, while the investigators hoped for something specific to DeOrr. Just wondering, if when the cadaver dog alerted, it was assumed to be some evidence of DeOrr, and that this got said before it could be established that the dogs had alerted to incidental/unrelated cremains, rather than to anything which could have been the little boy's remains. Was it that which made them say DeOrr had been at the reservoir, maybe an assumption made before they realised the dog was alerting to something which could not have been Deaorr? Just wondering if the scent/or trail dogs did actually lead them from the campsite to the reservoir, or if it was the cadaver dog alert which created for the wider search party the idea he had been there, before the investigators were able to confirm it was cremains, and unrelated.
Is anyone here in the crazy backward speech guy's secret FB group? If so, has anything interesting been said there lately?
I heard a rumor that the poly results are out? Does anyone have the inside scoop?
Some time ago, Grandma Trina posted (with lots of exclamation points) on FB that both Jessica and Deorr, Sr. had passed the polys. Of course, that's probably what they (as opposed to law enforcement) told her.
The latest from Backward Speech Guy:
"I will never give up the pressure on DeOrr and Jessica. I will continue to expose the truth and their lies. They know what happened to their son and where he is right now. They will have to kill me to get me to shut up...no pune [sic] intended"
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Backward-Speech/1568196156801408
What a Fruit Loop. Although, if it turns out that there is an "VUL life insurance policy on baby DeOrr, I may have to revise my opinion.
From another case:
When asked if Fairbanks had been cooperative during the investigation, Robinson said, "It depends on how you define cooperative. There's a difference between cooperative and truthful." -http://www.wthr.com/story/29897819/f...ted-for-murder
New statement:
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/09/parents-issue-statement-on-two-month-anniversary-of-deorr-kunz-disappearance/
This is the first time I've seen Jessica Mitchell speak more than a couple of words:
http://www.kpvi.com/mostpopular/story/Family-and-Friends-Continue-Search-for-DeOrr-Kunz/Tme5hCaIIkeL1uYt528JMg.cspx
What do you guys think?
I apologize if these videos have been posted elsewhere. Here is another interview with the parents.
http://www.localnews8.com/news/parents-of-missing-2yearold-talk-about-social-media/36054316
Conspicuously missing? The reliable denial.
Before people start condemning another person as being a child killer, they really need to do more research then chat rooms.All of this speculation has them assuredly guilty before they even have a trial, which is going to be hard to keep as a fair trial.But, of course, we are all super intelligent detectives here that just missed our calling...how sad...But since everyone here already knows everything, there's nothing left to learn, no reason to try, right? Stunted.
(Juliet...Hmm, backward speech guy is not beyond a bit of corrupt behaviour, is he?)...what has been done here is totally corrupt. How infantile...
("the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us."
No mention of searching)...If they had been all up in the way of the searchers, you'd be saying they were trying to confuse he search...
(Fortunately the only trouble I've ever gotten into was a speeding ticket)...Well I believe that speeding and potentially causing a deadly accident due to your speed is a lot worse then Jessica's record..."She" (we all know who "she" is, right?)...Insurance, let her driver's license expire, had a small claims that was never pursued, another small claims that was dismissed, (meaning she was found not guilty), and that's it. You cannot count the cases with no middle initial, or the ones with the wrong middle initial, and I am even wondering about the wrong birth year ones. If you go and look for yourself, you will see that there are a lot of Jessica Mitchells in Idaho. I suppose that was the parents, making sure there's more confusion right? so how does everyone here KNOW about all these drug crimes she has?
(Peter, as other people have commented, is there any significance in "the" truck when he had in other comments called it "my" truck? Or because they are not in the same answer is it not significant?) He was most likely sensitive about the truck because of the report about the black truck and the kid, 5 hours after the 911 call...
(Juliet said...
Why didn't the interviewer just ask 'What were you hauling?' Or 'why were you hauling?' Doesn't hauling mean moving something heavy?)...OMG! He was hauling ass...and I do believe he censored that, yes...
(We see the noun "search" a lot, in reference to the professionals, but rarely do we see the verb "searched". The only place I see it is )...Ok, so, "we search for 20 minutes... (nor does he say they searched for HIM.)...You don't know what the search was for? Everyonne knew, why does "he " need to say who? (I am distancing myself, do you know who "he" is?) ...And, maybe you misinterpreted and he really did mean they were in a dead panic for 20 minutes...
(A child is missing. A child THEY were responsible for. Nothing comes ahead of the child. And THAT's the bottom line.)2nd...So, every child that comes up missing obviously wasn't being watched...?
(If they think he was kidnapped, why are they searching there?)...They don't have the ability to look for a kidnapper, and not all kids are abducted for ransom...
(Anonymous Anonymous said...
In other words, we're talking about a couple of deadbeats who were living off others. Yep. That pretty much sums up what I thought anyhow.)...actually, the father was a truck driver and his truck wasn't too shabby...
I could go on and show almost every post where the accuser is wrong, but it's pointless. I came here hoping to learn something new, but I could go everywhere and read this type of garbage. Average people, nothing more.
BTW I did notice a couple of posts where the person tried to speak logically and unbiasedly, thanks guys! For the rest, hopefully you will find yourself innocent of something one day, and read all over the place where your dispicable. Maybe you'll go to trial, and get a biasd jury, idk, but I am not wishing you involved with a disappearance. Maybe someone will lose drugs right where you decide to sit...
The father knew "Dave". Dave later told Jessica he loved her and believed they had nothing to do with what happened to their son. I believe this was planned well in advance. They knew Dave and Rebecca Cox who owns the bar/restaurant they stopped at the night before(long before the trip) Was DeOrr Kunz Jr. Dead before the trip and this was a cover up? After watching the very first interview I knew they were guilty. As many thought.
Does the water references by the truck hauler mean CSA or I'm guessing it's fine because it's in context with searching and not dropped in unnessarily.
.
Distancing language.
He didn’t want service, he didn’t want rescue, he certainly didn’t want police service.
Post a Comment