Monday, August 10, 2015

DeOrr Kunz: Unintended Death?





I have lamented that in the disappearance of toddler DeOrre Kunz, the interviewer did a poor job in gaining information, yet it is that enough time has passed that this interview needs a more in depth analysis review.

The untrained interview, notwithstanding, what about another view of the interview, from the perspective of leakage?

  There are two basic reasons why I am re-analyzing this interview.

In Statement Analysis, we have what is called the "40 Percent Rule" in which analysis, revisited over a period of time, will not change, but can grow for the analyst, (even in group analysis) as the brain trains or focuses upon a certain 'trail' within the analysis, that brings about an attendant emotion; especially when deception is indicated.

If the analyst (or analysts) revisit the same analysis after a certain period of time, the same statement may yield up to 40% more information.  It is not to negate the original information, it is to expand upon it.  It is up to 40% "more" or "additional" information to what we already have.

I have found that this interview has done this very thing:  it has given quite a bit more information as I have revisited it after breaking the 'emotional trail' of it, and leaving off the frustration of questions that should have been asked.

This 'certainty' is anything but, however, if there is an emotional disconnect, it can be 'certain' that enough time has passed for the analyst to embark upon tangent 'trails' within the analysis.  For a more complete explanation, please search the "40% Rule" here at the blog.  It is also included in our training course available at www.hyattanalysis.com for investigators, human resource professionals, journalists, therapists, etc).

I am bothered by the father of DeOrre Kunz' recent statement, as noted, in the sensitivity regarding the truck, but recently, a false report of his son being found prompted a local journalist to call him for comment with, "...Your son has been found..." in which he did not answer with excitement or rapid response of, "Where?  When?  How is he?  When do I get my son back?", nor any of the expected responses.

This is the second reason I am re-analyzing the statement.  The 40% rule is sufficient cause for reanalysis and is something commonly done, but in a busy schedule, this recent reply has so bothered me that it is important to not only look for more content, but to focus upon any possible leakage of information from the father's words.

Leakage

Let's look at the one interview he did give, next to his wife, with not only the original analysis, but with greater emphasis upon certain wording he used.

Please note that 'leakage", at best, is guess work.  It is something that leads us to ask questions, but it is not intended to be definitive, or anything close to definitive.  It appears, at times, to be marvelously shining in a conclusion, but that is not its purpose, nor should it be used for such.  It is a very small tool, and is used to provoke questions, rather than answers, even though, at times, it can bring forward an answer.

It is true that highly trained, and highly talented therapists can be quite sharp at leakage, but it is only used to promote new questions and the seeking of new information.  The best examples from them are when they hear a word, note it as unrelated, and seek to learn, via follow up questions, why the word entered the vocabulary of the client, at this point of time in the session.

It is not a stand-alone- principle to make a conclusion. 

For example, when Baby Ayla was first reported missing, her father, Justin DiPietro, living with his mother in Waterville, Maine, refused to 'call out' for Ayla; the single most natural reaction from an innocent parent to a missing child.  He issued a statement saying he was "emotionally incapable" of talking at that time.

In other words, he wanted the public to believe Ayla was "kidnapped" but refused the police request to negotiate with the "kidnapper" for her safe return.

Justin DiPietro knew his daughter was never kidnapped and he would not expose himself to criminal liability in his words.  Therefore, he was silent.

Yet in his written statement to police to decline to attempt to 'save' Ayla, he wrote in his own defense (something the guilty are concerned about) with the words,

"Contrary to rumors floating around out there..."

I was asked by an analyst, "What does the father do for a living?"

This was a tough question.

I struggled to answer as DiPietro has never held steady employment but is of the generation that believes he is "owed" a living.et   In fact, young males who are new fathers will sometimes answer the question, "What are your plans to support your child?" with

"Tanif!" (For those who do not know this word, it stands for "Temporary Aid To Needy Families"; or welfare, government assistance).  This response reveals not simply the entitled mentality, but that the young male deludes himself into thinking that welfare is his "pay check."

For years, social workers in child protective posed this question to fathers, especially those who played video games most all day.  Eventually, the social workers were told not to ask a father how he planned on providing for his child as it was "insulting", "demeaning" and did not "enhance his self worth."

The first time I heard, "Tanif!" as an answer, I was not only surprised at the emphasis in his words, but was surprised by my co-worker's lack of surprise.  This was to be the first of many similar responses, over the years, from fathers who not only refused to work, but considered government aid to be his "paycheck" while using his love of video games to eventually obtain "disability" payments with the "diagnosis" of first ADD, and then ADHD (attention deficits).  As extreme as it was then (roughly 15 years ago), it is not only more common today, but more 'acceptable' in society.  It is a boom to the social services world, while being a societal loss to the children raised under this banner.

Justin DiPietro rarely held a job, even a minimum wage job, due to his fierce temper coupled with his 'superior' view of self.  Like all deceptive people, he not only held the world in contempt, but did not attempt to conceal this with charm.  He was confident he would successfully manipulate Waterville Police, Main State Police, the FBI, and then television hostess, Nancy Grace.

His arrogance would make an interview's strategy flow easily.

Eventually I was able to say that DiPietro was signed up for classes to be a truck driver, which, in the very least, showed some aspect of his personality regarding what interest he might have.  This was enough for the analyst to say,

"Tell them to search for the baby in water."

It was a brilliant example of employing possible "leakage" to a case. It was speculation, and not fact.  Eventually, the case made its way to the Kennebec River in Maine.  If DiPietro weighed down Baby Ayla's body in water, while suppressing this thought in order to make another thought communicated, the suppressed words came to the surface.  This is what leakage in Statement Analysis is:

It is useful, can be highly insightful, but alone, it is not enough to ever draw a conclusion.

This also helps up understand  "leakage" in analysis and how it may be applied.  Please carefully note that this analyst did not simply up to his thought until he learned what profession or interest the subject held.  He went on to say that "truck drivers' wheels are on the ground!" as part of his thinking into leakage.  He first needed to know what verbal expressions would come from what personality type before his assertion.  This is why the books on Patsy Ramsey and Amanda Knox regarding "secret language" is unreliable as there is no consistency in application.  Leakage is only a suggestion, or a thought to be expanded upon, and not a conclusion.  It is speculative, howbeit based upon reason, and quite valuable, particularly in the Analytical Interview.  We must be even-handed in our application should we hope for continued success.

My book on missing children is almost complete and I will have an announcement on it soon, and it includes never before revealed details into some of these cases, and is not only fascinating to review these cases, but is useful for instruction in analysis.  I hope you will enjoy it, and learn much from it.  These cases have taught me a great deal.

Let's look at the original analysis of DeOrre's father's words, but now to add in speculation regarding any possible leakage in his wording.





What happened to DeOrre?

As time has passed, is it more likely that DeOrre met up with an accident of which his father, fearful of not being believed, disposed of him in some way?

Eventually, I believe that should Justin DiPietro meet a prosecutor in court, it will be his claim regarding Baby Ayla.  



Analysis Question:  Does the father possess guilty knowledge of what happened to DeOrre?

I:  Interviewer
D:  Father
J:   Mother 

I:  Alright, DeOrre, take us back, was it Friday?
Jessica: Yes.

DeOrre Sr:.I'm not sure what day it is today. 


DeOrre Sr. is the father.  This interview took place shortly after his son went missing and should not have any past tense language.  

We know that the subject is a 'talker'; that is, one who seems to like to talk a lot, including interrupting others.  This may be nervousness, or it may be his personality.  We let his words guide us. 

"I'm not sure what day it is today."

First, we note that the question was, "Was it Friday?" to which the mother said, "yes" to the "yes or no" question. 

Next we note that the father felt the need to add to the question's simple answer. 

Then, we note the focus of his answer:  it is not DeOrre, but himself.  

Lastly, we ask, "What does the father communicate by this answer?

The father communicates by this answer that he does not know what day it is; perhaps implying that he is so tired from searching and the stress that he is no longer capable of keeping track of the days, no less the time. 

This is to put the focus upon himself; his wellbeing, his fatigue. 

This is also to elicit an emotional response from the audience:  feel sorrow (empathy) for the father.  

Let's listen, therefore, to hear if the father expresses concern for the wellbeing of his son, as he has now indicated a concern for his own.  


I : today's Monday. 

This is not expected as "the clock" and "D-Day" are often very important to the hormone-elevated parents.  The exception may be due to extreme fatigue.  Generally, the loved ones are on high alert, and know exactly how many hours, including days, that the loved one is missing.  


J: It was Friday.


This is a plain answer, and has no sensitivity attached to it.  Not so, however, for the father:  

D: Friday, about 2.26 was when I, was it 2.26?


Here, the father, who does not know what day it is, according to his language, recalls 

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

Should the same parent know exactly the hours (culmalative) the child has been missing while being unable to identify what day it was?

That is to say that one does not know roughly how many feet a measurement was, as an estimate, but can give a precise answer in fraction of inches. 

It is an inconsistency in his language.  

Therefore:  

a.  we find him seeking to elicit empathy towards himself, and is not truthful about not knowing the day; and/or

b.  The hour is scripted; and/or

c.  The exact time is highly sensitive to the subject. 

He did not say "around 2:30" but used an exact number while not knowing what day it was.  

There are 24 hours within one day and here, he goes down to the single digit in minutes.  

He asked her for correction in the form of a question.  


J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision but only about her call and this makes sense.  It is likely that she looked at her cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern over her son. 

Either way, she knew the exact time she called.  This is not so very surprising with our cell phones today.  Neither is it surprising since innocent parents have an internal ticking clock of fear, operating under high alert (high levels of hormones) as they count the minutes that they do not know the whereabouts of their own child. 

It is this next response which I have noted for being extremely sensitive.  I add to the analysis that his response is also unnecessary which makes it very important to our analysis.  

There is no need to go further.  He gave the wrong time, and she corrected him.  

Boundary Issue

 In Statement Analysis, there is a boundary to every question and when one goes beyond the boundary of the question, the information is being offered without being sought, meaning that the subject has a need to get this information out there, and it was upon his mind and he was unwilling to wait to be asked. 

Think:  Billie Jean Dunn and her 'missing' daughter.  

Dunn was asked how far her 13 year old missing daughter, Hailey, had to walk to get to the 'sleepover' when she said, "3 or 4 blocks."  

This is within the boundary of the question, "how far" that was asked.  Yet, Billie Jean Dunn could not refrain herself from giving more information and had to tell Nancy Grace that Hailey "wasn't allowed to just go out without permission" and "wasn't allowed to walk alone..." which accomplished several things for her and for analysis' sake:

1.  Billie Jean Dunn showed that she had a need to portray herself as a good mother.  This is a warning sign.  She wanted to make certain that she wasn't going to be seen as neglectful.  

What's so bad about that?

It is not something we expect while a child is missing.  Innocent parents do not care for much of anything, including their own sleep or eating or reputations:  they just want their child back.  Everything turns pale in comparison to their missing child.  

2.  Billie Jean Dunn twice referenced Hailey in the past tense.  This told us that she knew Hailey was not going to be found alive.  

She went "outside" or "beyond" the boundary of the question, "how far" because she had a compelling need to persuade, but in doing so, revealed to us much more information that she intended.  Thus, the value of information beyond the boundary of a question and another example of why defense attorneys do not like their clients talking on their own.  

Let's look at what information the father gave us when he went beyond the boundary of the question.  

First, there is no real question, only an expectation.  It had to do with the time of when this ordeal started.  

The mother already answered the question with "Friday" but the father gave additional information by introducing the time of the call.  

The mother did not begin her account with the time of the call, but simply the day. 

The father did, and was off so she corrected him. 

He did not 'need' to add anything else.  

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. 

Let's begin with what she said:

"It was 2:36 when I called." The mother knew the exact time of her call. This is not unexpected.  

He reaffirms this with, "2:36 when she called and I..." but then immediately moves the topic towards himself...

again. 

1.  He makes this about himself.  

"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 was not asked anything about himself, or his activity, but introduces it beyond the boundary of the question. 

This is very important information to the father.  


We have an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the father being inside the truck.  Let's explore this. 

The first point is that he makes this, not about his son, but about himself.  

2.   "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. 

He was not asked, "Where were you when your wife called 911?"

It is unnecessary. 
It was outside the boundary of the question. 

His location is very sensitive to him.  

This means that he was not going to wait to be asked to explain himself.  This leads us to point 3:  the reason "why" is given.  


We note that the father, "D", explains why he did something without being asked.  This indicates a need to explain why he drove in his truck.   This means that he thought to himself, "I better explain why I was in the truck because they are going to ask me about it."

Therefore, we assign the reason why someone did something only when not asked, to the color blue which is the highest level of sensitivity in analysis.  Should we find two colors of blue close together, the sensitivity becomes extreme to the subject.   We will get to this.  

The Truck

Please note:  placing himself in his truck is very important to the father, so much so that he twice explains why he was in the truck. 

This is very sensitive to him, as is the time line.  

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. 

4.  What he was doing in the truck.  

a.  "Hauling"

That he was "hauling" is not only unnecessary to say (no one would consider this a leisurely drive) but it is also 'story telling', which is to make us consider the location of the emotions within his statement.  

Remember, he began this interview seeking to gain sympathy for himself, perhaps so tired that he did not even know what day it was.  

Now, he feels a need to let everyone know:  while his son was missing, he did not leisurely sit around and have a drink, he was "hauling", that is, 'rushing' to get cell phone service.  

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.  


"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 not only feels the need to explain why he was in the truck and why he was driving so fast, but he feels the need to explain a delay of sorts in that he waited until he had more than "one bar" to make his call. 

His wife had already called.  

Please be on alert for some issue, between husband and wife, over 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.

Here we must also note that anything told in the negative is important.  He tells us what he "didn't think" rather than what he did think.  This is a slight elevation in importance to the subject, himself, which we must then, in the least, consider why it would be.  

He did not say, "I thought it best to get two bars" but reported it in the negative:  "I didn't think..."

*What might cause this subtle change in language?

Is there something about the father who "didn't think" when it came to his son?

Is this possible leakage regarding an accident?  

Is it possible that something happened to DeOrre in which his father simply did not think it carefully through, and caused an accident to the child?

Please remember that leakage is not a conclusion but a thought that needs to be explored.  In Analytical Interviewing, any quick notation of possible leakage is used to ask follow up questions.  

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"?

What would cause him to attribute "luck" to either parent, since it regards success and his child is missing?

Please remember that this did not come from his mother.  

Next, without understanding why this is "lucky" for anyone, why is "luck", itself, made sensitive by the words, "very very"?

His pronoun usage is confusing.  Pronouns do not confuse.  

He introduces the word "lucky" when there is no success in finding his son.  

This is not expected.  


I was blessed that she was able to get service 


He then ascribed the "luck" to "blessing", but neither luck nor blessing is associated with the missing child, but back to himself. 

This is not expected. 

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?

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.  

Next:  Did the father not want 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. 


Note again the self censoring, though this time, the missing information is not associated with confused pronouns. 

a.  "I didn't think"
b.  "I didn't want to try"
c.   "risk"

Please note that his focus is upon himself. 

Please note that which he reports in the negative.  

Please note the inclusion of the word "risk", not that his son is missing and as "risk" but there existed "risk" to the father, and this risk is associated with contact with police.  

We expect to hear that his son is at "risk" but we do not to this point; only that there was a "risk" to the father, and it had to do with his communication with law enforcement. 

Note he calls it "my talking" in the context with "risk."

Was there a significant debate between parents about calling 911?

Where did he go when he traveled about a "half mile"?

Did something happen as a result of 'not thinking' on the part of the father in which he needed time to "think" and that calling 911 was a 'risk' of not being believed, or being caught in neglect of some form?

Is he 'leaking' out that he wanted more time "to think" before calling 911 and she disagreed?

In that "half mile" down the road...what was there?  How often was he there?  Was he there before? Was he with his son at that location previously?  How did he know that at that specific location, he would get service?  Why does his mind go to that place, so much so, that it is highly sensitive to him?

He "knew" this was the place he could get service and has a need to explain why he went so far when, in reality, no one would care.   

The emphasis thus far is upon himself, with the pronoun, "I" being prominent.  

He has shown a great deal of concern that he be seen as tired, rushing, concerned, and carefully avoiding "risk" in order to get his call through to the police in spite of knowing that his wife already had.  

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.  

I believe "we" searched, yet he then goes to editorializing:  

"dead panic", or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic").  The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.  Just as "hauling" is not necessary, neither is "panic" but it is that he uses the word "dead" next to "panic" which may be leakage in his language. 

Is he here revealing that his son is dead?  Did he "not" think and do something foolish, such as ignore, or go smoke pot, or in some other way, cause an unintended death by "not thinking", as he should have?

We do not have signals of child abuse in his statement.  We do not have the subtle blaming of a victim.  His use of "son" in its context suggests that DeOrre was likely not a chronic victim of abuse.  

Was it an unintended death, caused by someone who as not thinking as he should have?


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; 

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

To follow his own words, it sounds precisely true:  he in the one in trouble, and not his son.  

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

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

Which is it?


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

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

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

It is likely that there was a "decision" to be made in a situation where no decision is necessary.

This is why I believe that there was a delay and a debate, between himself and his wife, and why the word "we" now is used but in connection with the word "decided", which is its focus, more than a call. 

Note also that he appears out of chronological order.  

He has gone back to his driving "down" again.  

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

Please note that when a child goes missing, there will be sensitivity indicators, as well as even signs of guilt, in both innocent and guilty parents.   We seek to discern the difference via context. His statements show a focus upon himself, and not upon his child.  The sensitivity is about not thinking, and a need to persuade us of immediate and hurried action.  This need to persuade, itself, is most unnecessary and reveal that there was a delay and there was a debate about getting police involved.  

For innocent parents, there is also an expectation of minimization.  To have a child go missing some adult must have been neglectful, in most all situations.   In his case, twice thus far he has talked about "not thinking", that is, in the negative.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Lots of self censoring by him as seen in broken sentences. This is to stop himself, mid sentence.  

It is regarding pronouns, which is not expected.  

Even though they were seated together, he used the pronoun "I" mostly until the police are introduced.  

In the chronicity of his account, police are now "on our way" (not on their way) and he then goes into a lengthy praise of police while they were unsuccessful in locating his son. 

Were they, in his language, and from his perception of reality, "successful"?

That is to say successful in not finding him?

  Praise of authorities. 

This is something that is not expected at this time unless the subject does not want the child found.  

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

When do we find praise of "authorities"?

1.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent when the child is found safe.  This is hyperbolic praise, appropriately so.  They are thrilled and eternally grateful.  

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

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

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

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

When police begin to suspect the parent, the praise quickly changes to rage and denigration.  

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

He does not describe any concern for his son, but in his praise of authorities, he ascribes an emotional attachment they had to a child they did not find.  

The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning.  

Here, he speaks about his son for the first time.  


He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and that was our concern. 

a.  That he is "pretty small" is not a negative, as it is 'rebutted' by the word "but", in describing how well he moves.  This is not any form of blame, even subtle, but a description.  

b.  Note next that he uses the word "that", which is distancing language; and

c.  He uses the past tense "was"is troublesome as it is a past tense reference.  "He's pretty small for his age" is "He is", in present tense.  

Yet, "...that was our concern" begs the question:  

Why was that a concern, but no longer a concern?

Taking the distancing language of "that" and the past tense "was", it suggest that this is not his concern, any longer. What has changed, in reality, that in the language of the father, it is no longer a concern?

Does he know that his son "moves" quickly, especially since father may not have been "thinking" and, perhaps, left him to his own devices?

d.  Next note that this is not his concern but "our" concern. 

"He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good and this is my concern..." or even "this is our concern";

Question:   Has anything changed that has led the father to believe that he no longer left the area on his own?

If so, (kidnapping), the past tense use here is appropriately consistent...someone has him.  This makes sense, but it is not supported by the whole. 

The father did not think. 
There was a dead panic. 
The child moved very fast even though he was small.  
There was a delay and a debate about calling 911.  


Thus far, there is nothing within the language to indicate child abuse on the part of the parents.  This does not mean guilt or innocence, but of how they relate to their son indicates quality of relationship.  It strengthens the view that whatever took place was not intended. 



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.

Let's consider these words under a supposition. 

Let's consider these words presupposing that the little boy was very quick on his feet, as some are, and that the father did not think carefully enough and left him alone while he did something he should not have, and the child met an unintended death, through a fall or downing and panic set in. 

Let's consider this as a possibility as we then revisit these words. It was a "risk" for the father, in need of luck and blessing, in contacting police, who are overly praised in their failure to locate his son.  

consider an unintended death took place and he said:  



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.

"He, uh" (pause, sensitive portion) "right with us", and not "with us", but "right" with us. Remember, "with" between them indicates distance.  "Right with" wants us to believe he was very close. 
Note next it is "us" and not "me", from someone who has stumbled on pronouns and his focus has been mostly upon himself.  

"I mean" is another pause. 

"I thought" is now in the positive and this may be to the originally planning:  he thought this place would be perfect because it was enclosed.  

This is to indicate that if the child is dead, it was not his intention.  His intention was to find a perfect camping spot.  

"our biggest concern" uses "our", to share responsibility.  

In an unintended death, this is expected:  the parent who was "in trouble" does not want to be isolated here.  He wants to share responsibility, and this explains why he sought sympathy (too tired to even know what day it was) and be seen in a positive light (I hauled in my truck, and was in a dead panic) and even drove "a half mile..."

Did he transport his deceased son, who died in an unintended manner, away from the camp site, causing a major delay in calling 911?

Did his wife insist that 911 be called saying, "they will believe you"?

I do not find the language of child abuse even though the father distances himself, and is concerned about himself. 

If DeOrre jr is dead, there is no need to worry, fret or be "concerned" about DeOrre jr any longer.  

It is concern for self, having neglected to "think", or carefully supervise his son, that has triggered such sensitivity in language, may be the explanation based upon his words.  

 It may be that he blames himself for choosing this location, therefore, he feels the need to explain (justify) its choosing:  enclosed by walls and mountains (positive) and not much space (negative; what there isn't).  It was a good idea, but, still, he "didn't think" his son could get as far away as he did in such a short time and...

Thus far, he has not used his son's name, (distance) only using "he", but here he is a "little guy", which is consistent with being small for his age, and the concern about the water.  

"He" is used and we must make note that, in context, most of the information from the father is about the search and not his son.  The volume of words is carefully looked at:  


 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.

Possible leakage:

"put to rest" should be questioned along with "dead panic", "blessed" and "lucky", within his language. 

Now we add "dead on" to our list of possible leakage.  

Follow the pronouns:  When he says "they", he immediately stops himself and says "we", connecting himself to authorities.  This constant inconsistency in pronouns indicates deception.  

Here we have additional information that is related to the above praise of authorities.  He gives a detailed view as to why he called this "amazing"; technology impressed him, yet, his son is not found.  

He worried about the water (creek) to the point where he conceded that the place was safely chosen with it being an exception, yet even comparing it to his son's body size. 

Did DeOrre jr drown?  Is this why he is so sensitive about the water?  Did he transport DeOrre jr's remains in the truck?


The praise of authorities in an unsuccessful search is not expected.  Was this him getting "lucky" and "blessed"?

The lack of concern for his son does not necessarily mean murder.  The child may be "safe" once deceased, as "that was our concern" is now alleviated as there are no more concerns over him.  

Did he neglect to supervise DeOrre who made it to the water, moving faster than he thought his son could?  

Note how little she says compared to how much he says:   

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?
Please note that he says "my son" while the child is not found.  This is to take ownership with "my" and "son" (title) during the time when we find guilty parents moving away from their child.  

I do not think this child was a victim of ongoing child abuse, including neglect, further strengthening the possibility of unintended death.  

He continues to rave about the efficiency and adds horseback riders to the helicopter and use of technology, further giving linguistic indication of why has was "amazed", that is, to praise authorities. 

This is an example of letting the subject speak for himself.  We were not expecting praise because his son is not found, but he explains the praise, not for failure, but for:

a.  thoroughness
b.  relief that he, himself, did not cause his son to drown in choosing the location
c.  technological wonders
d.  scope (largeness) and coordination of the various arms of the search  

The father then asks if the station has any questions.  This shows an openness and willingness to answer anything, as he has controlled the interview throughout.  This is a very poorly constructed interview.  

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.

DeOrre Sr.: Friends and family, and hoping to be strong for him.


Is there strain between father and mother?  

We have seen that there was discussion about calling 911 and likely a delay in that call.  Since the "decision" was in his language, it is very likely that he is the one who argued against calling. 



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.  

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.  


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.  

J: - especially after screaming his name, we have nicknames for him, no sound of him, no crying.


This is an important point about the mother:

Everyone (or most everyone) has nicknames for their toddler.  


D:.he's a goer and a mover but he does not go away from his parents, he does not.


"He's a goer" is not insulting, but like the above description, may be self-justification of "not thinking" and just taking his eyes off of his son for a short time, leading to an accidental death.  

The father is not trying to float the 'kidnapping' lie.  

J: Yes, he's very attached to us.

I like this better than "we are very close" not because the closeness can be a two-way street (it is) but because:

a.  she is talking about her child's behavior while missing
b.  She shows no need to include herself, as parent, to the attachment 
c.  His age is very young and utterly dependent upon an adult for survival. 

I: So this is unusual.

D: Very unusual, sir.


Both shoot down the alibi of kidnapping.  

J: And we didn't hear people around us, we didn't see anybody, we have -

Off camera: social media, that needs to be addressed.


I: Yes, social media can be a good thing but it can also -


D: That's, that's one of the -


J:.We just don't want anything to twist it


I: Yes, we don't want to twist it, so clear up any rumors that you've seen or heard


J: We've-


Off camera [inaudible] - we 

need to talk about -

J: One thing that concerned me -


D: We wanna get to that. Most of the biggest rumors that are going around is - I mean, I have heard everything from the - I mean, why you would make up a rumor that has to do with a three year old is - if you're not going to help, please, don't - if it's not helpful - it's -


J: Yeah.


D: This is a two, almost three year old we're talking about, please help us. But I've heard everything from my company won't let me come home off the road to look for my son - I was there the entire time, and my employer, four hours after my son went missing, has been up there day and night, has not slowed down - um, and that, that one bothered me, and then they just came, they got worse, and they got worse, and they got worse - but that's a handful of bad with a bunch of good. The amount of support is overwhelming, and it's good.





"please help us..." what?  Find him?  He stops his sentence and begins with "But", which rebuts that which preceded it.  Help us with hearsay and gossip? 



Interviewer : is there any rumors or anything you've seen that you want to clear up, Jessica?


As in all missing child cases, it is better to ask, directly, about their own involvement, to let them issue a denial.  


Jessica: I just, somebody at the store, um at Leador, said, it was one of the ladies that had worked at the store, said that they saw, um, a gentleman and a younger blonde boy matching our description of our son, really filthy, buying candy for him, and he was just bawling, in a black truck. That is the only other..






Jessica: he drives a black truck.

Remember what she said about them still being together?  Here, she points to him with "he drives a black truck."  It is the truck he placed himself in early in the interview, that was accompanied by sensitivity indicators. 

DeOrre Sr.: as a family, we went down to get a few things. It was me, but they claim it was at six o clock...that afternoon, evening, but we..were...

Note that she referred to him with "he", but he "rebuts" her with "as a family", which goes from singular, himself, to plural, as a family.  He continues with "we", yet then after affirming himself, again uses the word, "but" in:

"It was me, but they claim..." 

He did not say "they said", but to him, in his language, it is a "claim", which is different than just a quote. 

He is concerned.  

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

DeOrre Sr.: ..with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four..?


Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

1.  This allows for the kidnapping excuse to be used.  Thus far, neither parent has shown any interest in the kidnapping theory. 

2.  It allows us to listen to see if the father goes, again, beyond the boundary of the question:  

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


interviewer: So they could've come to your...


Remember his "I didn't think" answers?
Then, he did think, he thought the area was perfect for his son since it was closed in.  
Here, now he changes it with, 

"we don't know" is interrupted (self censoring and confused pronoun) with "I come to find"and "I didn't know" (repeated) 

He mentions the "reservoir" (water) here and a road.  It is mentioned a second time and then he travels, but mentions "by myself", which is not necessary and something that should have led to a question towards the mother about not going. 

The question is yet answered, but it appears the Interviewer may have grown impatient.  The father goes over the interruption and continues mentioning water again: 


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



Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...




D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

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


Here, the father connects himself at that time to his son. 

He was "over" is stopped.  "Over tired?"  
He was getting ready for a nap and it was "almost two" by "that" time.  

note now he uses "we" and "we decided" which means that a disagreement or discussion took place, at "that" time and "we were going to go a little exploring" which is to say that he was going to leave the area with the mother, perhaps.  

He was "going to be good with grandpa" and this was "by the campfire", which mentions "fire", highlighting another possible accident along with falling or drowning.  




J: ten minutes

D: fifty yards away and ten minutes, but for time, we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone and I come back up to the creek and I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love, so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa, um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr? He, immediately shock. He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? 


Furthering the possibility that DeOrre was neglected an an accident befell him.  

Note the change from past tense to present tense language reduces reliability and may be being made up as he went along. 

This would then mean that he had to convince the mother to go along with the story.  

Note at the point where he is communicating with "grandpa":

1.  "um" is to pause in mid-sentence.  Remember, this is a quote.  Did he really yell, "Grandpa, um, you know, where is little DeOrre?"

This is a most unreliable statement and likely to be untrue. 

2.  "you know" is to recognize the awareness of the interviewer's presence, not the grandfather's at this point. 

3.  "where is little DeOrre?" uses "little", which is not something expected at this time but gives the 'term of endearment' portion a precise usage (not a reference) which strongly suggests that the father, at this point, is trying to persuade the audience of something that he knows is not true.  

4.  Note:  "how could you let your child out of your sight" may be not only leakage, but an embedded admission of what happened to the child. 

"Child" is used in 'child abuse' scenarios, and certainly, at this specific point of the statement, the father is acknowledging that something neglectful took place. 

a.  Neglect on the part of the grandfather is not strong in the language
b.  The father is "in trouble" for neglect. 

The father has a need to share responsibility for what happened, going as far as saying what they both thought:  

This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found. That's the reason why they, this been called on the news a suspension, because it is not a suspension, but there's not s single trace of him. This child loses stuff. He's two, almost three, anybody who has a child that age range knows, they leave trails, they lose stuff..

"...and you can say" is to 'prove' 
"what we thought" is repeated and shows a need to share.  

Note the missing words here:  "...and just a split second your whole world is upside down and vanished, there's not a trace found" has no linguistic connection to DeOrre jr. 

This is to say:  he does not say DeOrre vanished.  He is not saying that there is not a trace of DeOrre to be found.  He wants us to believe these things, but in Statement Analysis, we do not interpret, but we listen.  

"This child loses stuff" also references him, at this point, as "child", one who may have been a victim of child neglect.  

J: shoes come off..anything

D: There's just nothing. There's a possibility that he may be with somebody, and that's giving us some hope. It's a bad thing that he will be not with us right now but it also means there is a good chance that he is alive and with somebody, so we're trying every aspect we can, any aspect we can..

Since there is not even a trace, and just "vanished", the only other conclusion, after all the amazing searches, is that he is with someone, yet he only uses the word "possibility" here.  


Interviewer: is that what your gut tells you?

D: Yes. As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore. The searching advances they used, and was just very thorough for miles, there wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't, and we're going to continue to search, but being his father also, that's what my heart and my gut tell me but I'm not sure, so that's where I'm asking the public's help -anything - I'm, Lhima HC Sherriff are handling this but they're not designed for systems quite like this, they've got two phone lines, and please be patient, they're doing the best they can, and we all are, and we will find him.

"As his father" may be why "I" and "trouble" enters:  taking responsibility.  Also, "as his father" takes ownership of the child while the child is missing.  
Note also, "as his father" can be an expression of responsibility, and instinct:

"I believe and I think after being up there..." is weak, and shows an insecurity and need to "have others join in" with "a lot of people agree with me a lot"

This is to say that he is very insecure, which is seen in his constant sharing of responsibility with the word "we" in his statement.  

I : do you plan to hold a vigil down here? I guess you haven't even thought about it. Do you want the community in Idaho Falls to rally? I know they don't want a lot of people up there.

D: that's what we're not real sure. I don't, yet again, as a father who's very concerned, with the whole family, we'll tell you 'yes, if we can get the whole state of Idaho up there we would love to' - but in such a small area that has been combed and combed and combed, something may have been missed but I don't know. 

The subject has done a lot of 'self-censoring' or interrupting of himself, which may indicate missing information.  It would be interesting to learn if this is his normal speech pattern, but this could only be learned in listening to him on a topic unrelated to the disappearance of his son. 

Please note that he says, "as a father who's very concerned" is a need to persuade his audience that his is concerned.  This is sensitive and indicative of emphasis and focus upon himself, and not his son's well being. 


The pronoun "I" comes in "I don't know", of which context is him not knowing if his son could still be there, but missed since they searched "combed", "combed" and "combed" (3 times).  

The broken "I" earlier, where he introduces himself as a father (see above), this broken "I" is not completed.  



I've been trying,,,I'm gonna be getting with the Lhima HC Sherriff in Snake River, sorry, the Salmon - Snake and River-.Salmon Search and Rescue, to see what their thoughts on everything is, and trust me with such a small area, one hundred and seventy five people, there was nowhere to park, nowhere to walk, there was grid searches up from one end - there's ridges from one side to the other and they're not very far apart, and they was all searched, all the way down to the bottom all the way above the reservoir. The rest itself, not a lot of people know the place. The reservoir itself isn't but maybe a few feet deep. If you're up on top you can see the bottom of the centre. If you're looking at the middle you can see the bottom of it, so everything has been 100% thoroughly checked but nobody can guarantee me 100% so I'm gonna keep looking.
"I've been trying...I'm gonna be getting with the Lhima HC Sheriff" is an incomplete sentence, with missing information. 
1.  "I've been trying", in context, is connected to the Sheriff Dept (law enforcement).  He self censors, and it appears that this may be to avoid a direct lie: 

He did not, at this point in the statement, "try" to contact this specific Sheriff Dept (or Sheriff), so he 'corrects' his information with "I'm gonna", which is future tense. 

This is concerning as it indicates a need to place himself as "with the good guys" in helping.  

Next, we see the word "sorry" in his language.  This may also be leakage as we note it does surface in the statements of the guilty, including Casey Anthony and others.  


If it is leakage, it is likely indicative of an unintended death, as "my son", that is, in part one, we saw that the father referenced his child as "my son" in a critical point in the statement, something habitual child abusers avoid.  

Did DeOrre meet his death accidentally, only to now have his father involved in covering the accident?  It is a possibility. 


D: somebody will come forward wondering where this child has come from. That may not be the case, but it could be, so that's why we're trying to look at this aspect as well.


The use of the word child could:

a.  Be a signal that he, father, was a victim of child abuse in his life
b.  a signal of abuse of the son, which is not consistent with other language 
c.  a signal of fear that a child molester has him 
d.  An admission that he knows that his son was a victim of child neglect.  


I: and you want people to keep sharing?



J: yes, please keep sharing photos.


D: yes. Keep sharing his photos, keep him in your mind, your hearts and your prayers, and just keep looking, keep your eyes open, please. Social media in general, in public just keep your eyes open and keep sharing.


I: tell me about the blanket.


Jessica: this is his blanket. He doesn't go anywhere without his blanket, his cup, or his monkey, and all three of them were left at the campground. And since he..

D: All three has to be with him.


It is not unusual for husbands and wives to finish each others' sentences.  The majority of finishing sentences comes from wives. Here, he is the dominant speaker 

J: Yes.


D: He will trip over them if he has to, but they are going with him, and this is the first time since he's been born, pretty much, that he's been without these things...and that's another reason why we were wondering.


Thus far, there have been no subtle blaming of the child but here, he says, "he will trip over them" (the there blankets) which causes me to pause.  Did he 'trip'?  

I would have liked to hear the child's name.  If this is an accident/cover up, the guilt can cause such distancing language.  By this time, I had expected to hear DeOrre's name but I have not.  This is distancing language.

J: Yes, because this is the blanket that we brought him home in from the hospital, this is his, this is what comforts him and at all times.


D: This is an exact replica of a security blanket, for everybody this is his actual blanket - he does not go anywhere without it, that's our other concern of why.


J: Yeah, and I..


Interviewer: should he be out there and happen to see this, what would you say?


Keep in mind that the Interviewer directed them to speak directly to their son: 

D: We're looking for you, son, and we will find you, and we love you more than anything in the world. You have a lot of people who love you and who are looking for you, buddy, we'll find you - Daddy will find you.



With all of his focus upon himself, I had expected him to say "I am looking for you and I will find you" because he references himself as a father, including father or paternal instincts regarding the search. 

I consider this, therefore, to be also distancing language, even though the mother is present. This is a 'contextual judgment call' on my part.  He uses "buddy" here and then "Daddy will find you", but only after the use of "we."

The distancing language of "we" suggests, along with so much else, including the praise of those who failed to find him, that the father does not have an expectation of success.  

J: We won't stop looking until we get you home.


I: [inaudible].- is there anything you want to add?


J: Just if somebody has him, please don't hurt him, just bring him home safely to us.


Mother introduces "hurt" in her language.  




D: No matter what it takes.

J: ..where he belongs. Even if you have to just leave him at a store where somebody else will see him and bring him home safely to us. I don't - just drop him off somewhere where -

D: And if that's not the case..

J: - somebody is at so they can see him and bring him home.

D: And if that may not be the case, I will, we will search for you, and search for you, and search for you, until we find you, no matter how long it takes, no matter what we gotta overcome, we will find you,son.

Here we have another 'confused pronoun' with "I will, we will search for you..."

The father does not hold to strong language of finding his son, even though he so regularly uses the pronoun "I" to talk about himself.  When it comes to losing his son, it is "we" and "child" and when it comes to the search, it is "we", sharing responsibility. 

When it comes to choosing the location, it is "I", as it was closed in, but when it comes to not finding him, it is "we", sharing the responsibility. 

Leakage and Observations

I began this second round of analysis specifically looking at leakage.  Here is what we have:

1.  The father expressed concern for himself, and not what his son was going through.  The father gave indication that the public should have sympathy for him, rather than his son. 

2.  The concern he expressed was in the past tense, at one point, which leads us to:  

If the father knows the son is deceased, there is no cause to be concerned about what he may be going through. 

3.  The language of chronic child abuse is not here, but situational neglect is. 

4.  The father ascribes "luck" and "blessing" to himself, not his child, regarding his wife's ability to call 911, even though he called 911. 

5.  The father used the word "dead" in his statement about his missing son.  

6.  The father said he, himself, was in trouble, regarding his missing son. 

7.  The father vehemently praised law enforcement, who failed to find his son. 

8.  The father gave indication of a disagreement with DeOrre's mother about calling police.

9.  The father gave indication that there was not only a disagreement, but a delay. 

10.  The father gave sensitivity indicator about him being in his truck, giving way to wondering if the child came to an inadvertent death, and the father had to transport him to cover up. 

11.  The phrase "put to rest" was also found in his language. 

12.  Regarding the encounter with the grandfather, the father went to present tense language whereas his statement is consistently in the past tense.  This reduces reliability of his conversation with the grandfather.  

13.  The father has a need to portray him as "on the side" of law enforcement, including name dropping, so as to be seen in favorable light. 

14.  The father has a need to portray him as a responsible father, further strengthening the hypothesis of an accident or unintended event.  "As any father..." showing a need to persuade that he acted immediately, and responsibly.  

This is only seen when one does not act immediately, as there is no reason to think that one would discover his own child missing, and then take a siesta or break before searching for seeking intervention.  This is most unnecessary, therefore, indicative of a problem. 

There are many problems in the language, including 'confused' pronouns.  Since pronouns are instinctive, deception is indicated where he is unable to keep his account straight.  Elsewhere, the pronoun 'confusion' suggests a need to share responsibility as he moved from "I", self censored (stopped himself) and moved to "we", that is, to share with the child's mother.  

It may be that DeOrre came to his demise in an unintended manner, but one in which the father is concerned (or was concerned) would not be seen that way, by police, or perhaps, later, by the public, therefore, his need to persuade that he is a good and responsible father. 

The portion of the story where DeOrre was missing is not truthful nor reliable.  

The following words or phrases used are most unexpected and may be leakage; that is, information that he gave out in which he did not intend to communicate.  This means that he was thinking of one thing which he did not want to say, while saying something else: 


I.  "I didn't think."  

This is in the the language, is repeated, and could be leakage of an inadvertent accident in which he did not "think", literally, of his son during a specific time he should have, as a father, been thinking.  


II.  "hauling" was used to describe him as going quickly, as in an emergency, and is most unnecessary as no one would think that the father of a missing child would take a break and relax.  Yet, "hauling", even if it meant "moving quickly" is also a word used to carry.  

Is it possible that he had to carry his son a long way, if there was an unintended event that caused his death?  This is not a very strong point, but one that would have led me to ask questions, particularly around the "exploration" part of the story.  



III.  The word "Dead" as in "dead panic."  This is simply not something anyone would expect to hear from the mouth of a parent of a missing child.  Although its context is in describing the emotion that was felt during the search for his missing son, it is still most unexpected. 

Further, the emotions came at the "perfect" or "logical" part of his story which suggests artificial placement of them, or "editorializing" of his story, since this interview was given close to the date of his son's disappearance.  

The word "dead" may be his acknowledgement that his son was deceased at the time of this interview. 


IV.   The word "Sorry" is always flagged in analysis.  In this case, it may be that he uses it as in an acknowledgement that he was responsible for the "not thinking" that led to his son's unintended death. 



V.  "put to rest" was a phrase about searchers in the area but is not something that we would ever expect to hear from a parent of a missing child unless the parent knows or believes his child is dead.  In context, it is not an appropriate use and police gave no indiction that the child was deceased.  

VI. "Dead on" has the word "dead" in it and this is the second use of the same term.  

Coincidence?  It is possible, but even one use of it is most unexpected.  To have it enter a second time is even more unexpected.  

How would this case be brought to a successful conclusion?

With the father's publicly stated cooperation. 

1.  Conduct a general interview (re-interview) with only open ended questions and follow up questions based upon sensitivity indicators.  

With no interruptions, he may reveal, even via leakage, the location of the remains.  Many questions should be towards the truck, which is to say:  aim at the places where the most sensitivity exists.  

Allow him what he desires most:  to distance himself from sole responsibility.  Allow him to talk about his truck, as it was so sensitive to him, but allow him plenty of time to talk about his parenting, even boasting.  Allow him to blame conditions, distractions, even others.  Give him plenty of room to not be interrupted and not judged.  

2.  Let him align himself with searchers.  Ask him questions about how professional they were, and how they cared for his son (reflecting his own words) to the point where he only sees "one team", which is "us", and how any of them, as parents, could have an accident.

3.  Talk about the site, and how only a good father would choose such a safe site and how he took his family camping and how he had others come along and what a good guy he is, and so on...

Keep him talking without disruption nor with the introduction of any language.  

Lots of empathy about fatherhood, responsibilities, fatigue, and how, (eventually) accidents happen to anyone and everyone.  See if he has a need such as Deborah Bradley did (though she was a narcissist) with "adult time." This is the time to learn if marijuana entered the equation. 

3.  Construct seven or eight very simple questions based only upon his language, (this is a very strict use of the word "only") for the polygraph. 

3.  Get him to agree to the polygraph and agree to the questions ahead of time, and how he, as one of the team, is just assisting his own team.  

  These questions must be solely based upon the words he used.  Do NOT introduce morally charged language (neglect, abuse, etc) 

4.  No confrontation; no interrogation. 

5.  With polygraph result in hand, acknowledge that an accident of sorts took place, allowing him to face other potential consequences, of much lesser severity, due to being in a "dead panic" over being blamed.  

What I am able to glean about his personality from this interview, he is not going to be combative or difficult.  

The Analytical Interview, employing his own language, bringing him to a level of real comfort, and he will: 

He will give up the location. 

He is a talker, which, with the right questioning, gives us everything we need to know about what happened.  





198 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow, what an analysis! Also see this new article:

http://m.localnews8.com/news/onemonth-mark-of-the-search-for-deorr-kunz-jr/34638970

Anonymous said...

Dad uses the term "back up" a lot. This, coupled with his Truck sensitivity, reinforces my belief that Little Deorr was hit by a vehicle. Coincidentally, Great GrandFather got a speeding ticket on July 31 in Idaho Falls. See Idaho Repository, case CR-2015-0009559-IN, Robert C. Walton (DOB 1939).

Sus said...

Thanks anon. That's what I don't understand. According to Ggp's daughter, Trina Bates Clegg, he drove his suburban and camper to the campsite. It was Ggp's favorite site and he used to camp there a lot.

Yet, the sheriff makes ggp out to be mentally and physically incapable of functioning. They won't even officially release his name...the last person to supposedly witness Little Deorr before he disappeared.

TBC also said he was on oxygen "24 hours." I found a court case where a Robert Walton sued for being exposed to some chemical and causing him lung damage. He was replacing fiberglass for the company. I suppose this could be him.

Anonymous said...

I suppose it's possible that Mom and Dad really did go off "exploring," and either GGF or Isaac went to move the truck (or pull something out of it), and hurt Baby Deorr in the process. Turning your head for a minute sounds like looking into a rear view mirror. But then there would be no need to make up some other story.

Carnival Barker said...

I think the most concerning sentence in his whole statement is: "helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this"

I can't fathom a parent thinking there is ANY situation worse than their child going missing, let alone there being situations that are "a lot worse" than your child going missing. At that moment his options are: 1)Someone kidnapped his son and could be violating him in ways he can't even imagine and then killing him 2) His son drown or was run over and is dead or 3)An animal took his son and devoured him. So please explain to me how ANY situation in the world could be, quote, "a lot worse" than the situation Dad is in right now????!?!?!?!

John mcgowan said...

Amazing analysis Peter.

Of all the cases i have read, of which you have analyzed. For me, this is second to none. Your talent never ceases to amaze.

I don't know if it was intended?. Your analysis was placing me there in the situation of D, empathizing, if you will. Each word spoken and the analysis that followed was like pictures traversing before me of the events that may have taken place. I wonder if anyone else got the same sense?

...............................................


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.


Something knew learned. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Re GGF driving: Almost every day, I read about someone with Alzheimer's who drives away alone in a vehicle, ends up at some distant and unfamiliar location, and has no idea how they got there.

Betty said...

Although I think the parents are involved in the disappearance I think his "worse than this" is referring to the terrain. However, that is an assumption on my part since the dad rambled on and on about SAR efforts.

Kathead said...

Awww that toddler chub!! I miss it. I miss rocking my youngest to sleep. She would position her arm just so along her side and suck her fingers on the other hand. Then, that sweet heaviness would set in, letting you know she was asleep.

She's 9 now. Too big to rock, but still likes snuggling with me.

Ok, going to read the article now. The picture at the top made me nostalgic for those toddler days.

Buckley said...

John mcgowanAugust 10, 2015 at 8:39 PM
Amazing analysis Peter.

Of all the cases i have read, of which you have analyzed. For me, this is second to none. Your talent never ceases to amaze.


Yes! What John said.

Lily said...

It was good to read this after some distance of time. It is amazing what you can pick up even after having read it several times before.

What struck me this time was twice saying he was "two, almost three". But he isn't. He's 2 and a half. That is unexpected. You would think a parent would be emphasizing his age in the OTHER direction, to stress the missing baby's vulnerability.

Sus said...

I agree with John. This is Peter's best analysis work to date.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Reading three-fourths of the way through this and I just realized 2 things. The first may be nothing- why would they have a campfire on a hot July afternoon around 2:00? I realize a campfire is a part of the whole camping experience (I've camped quite a bit), but we only built a fire to cook over or an evening campfire(to cook or to relax/sing and roast the prerequisite marshmallows).

The second one just now struck me- both LE and Jessica's mom have made it clear that Great Grandpa is in very poor health. As a matter of fact, Jessica's mom stated that he's on oxygen 24/7. Oxygen is extremely flammable. Who would leave an elderly man, on oxygen, sitting around a campfire? It is so incredible flammable, oxygen suppliers post warning signs on the outside windows telling people not to even light a cigarette in the home (no helium balloons either). Yet, they left Deorr with Great Grandpa by the campfire ??? Jessica's Facebook page says she's a CNA-there's no way she/they could not have known about the oxygen being flammable-either as a CNA or just a family member caregiver. My next-door neighbor was on oxygen 24/7, with the posted signs on the windows and door. Great Grandpa shouldn't have been anywhere near a campfire.

lynda said...

Agreed about Peter

Anonymous said...

Is this the same Rebecca Cox?

http://m.localnews8.com/news/onemonth-mark-of-the-search-for-deorr-kunz-jr/34638970
http://www.isp.idaho.gov/sor_id/SOR?id=6888&sz=1920

Ali said...

Thank you for this analysis. It's true. There is much to be gained in revisiting a statement. The things that interest me are:

1) Where Vernal (Deoor) chose to begin his story.
2) how "out of sequence" the story was.
3) the story did not fit the " 25%, 50%, 25% pattern of a truthful recount.
4) the disproportionate amount of time spent praising the search and rescue team and equipment. He mentions "Sheriff Dave"by name multiple times, but does not say Deorr's name once.
5) "Snake River" leapt, unbidden, from his mouth, not once but twice, while he was trying to say "search and rescue". Why? (Anyone?)

Anonymous said...

Someone just posted this on another site:

http://www.isp.idaho.gov/sor_id/SOR?id=26224&sz=1920

This sex offender's Temporary Summer Address is the same as that of the Leadore Ranger District of the USDA Forest Service.

trustmeigetit said...

Good catch. I had assumed up there it may have been cooler.

Also with the grandfather, I also find it odd that if on oxygen he would be camping. My great aunt was on oxygen and because of the tubes and everything, she rarely let her home and when she did it was for short periods of time. Why would they take him so far away from electricity (my aunts was plugged in) and medical attention.

They need to ask why he was there.


trustmeigetit said...

Anyone have any ideas of what kind of accident would need to be covered up?

Or what they would be doing while camping with a sick old man and a toddler presented there.


Ok, say they were off smoking pot and the lil boy drowns...you rush him to the hospital. It was an accident..grandpa thought he was with you, you thought grandpa. Accident period

The only thought I had was he was left in the truck and that what killed him. But again, it's an accident. The only case I really recall where charges were filed was the dad that searched how long it would take for a child to die in a car before he claimed he did it accidentally...

Just struggling with accident as I can't not think of any type that would explain a need to fake a missing child.

Just curious of other thoughts..

Anonymous said...

Has anyone noticed that the person who gave an interview from leadore today is also a registered sex offender, a child molester.

Anonymous said...

This was upthread:

Is this the same Rebecca Cox?

http://m.localnews8.com/news/onemonth-mark-of-the-search-for-deorr-kunz-jr/34638970
http://www.isp.idaho.gov/sor_id/SOR?id=6888&sz=1920

Juliet said...

Thanks for the further analysis, Peter. There is too much to absorb in a first reading, but one thing I found especially interesting is 'that was our concern' - he says it again, too, at some point. I had noticed it was past tense but It seemed okay, and just that the parents had noted the creek as a potential hazard at the time they were choosing a camping spot. I can see now that it should have been of continuing concern to them and DeOrr should have said 'this is our concern', at least if he believed his son might still be alive and in danger from the creek, or yet be found to have fallen into it and drowned. A thought arising from that is that at the time of interview, DeOrr wasn't as one hundred percent certain as he says the sheriffs were that his son wasn't in the creek, which has to make him using the past tense even more odd - if he was thinking the baby might be in the creek, despite assurances that he wasn't, it's interesting that it wasn't reflected in his language as a present concern.

Also, whilst I noticed he said very little about baby DeOrr, and a lot about the search, I didn't pick up how he kept drawing the focus towards himself - again it seems obvious now that you've pointed it out. His concern is not about the condition of the baby, he doesn't worry that DeOrr is alone, scared, injured, hungry, thirsty - it's about him being in trouble, and there being a problem, namely that he drives a black truck - their son is missing but the problem is that he drives a black truck. The creek was only a concern but the truck is an actual problem. ;-/ A concern, a problem, and a missing two year old to whom the parents don't refer by name, neither do they say it's a nightmare, or devastating, which one would expect. Jessica tries when she's given the opportunity, to reach out to the kidnapper she doesn't 't seem, really, to believe exists. Mostly, a month on, it comes across as a strange celebration (of the failure) of search and rescue

Anonymous said...

"Anyone have any ideas of what kind of accident would need to be covered up?"

Child ingested illegal drugs, or got hold of a firearm, or got struck by a flying object thrown by someone there, or was punished (slapped) too hard.

Carnival Barker said...


Also, the part about the sighting by the cashier is VERY concerning. Dad admits that it was, in fact, him that the cashier saw, but it was earlier in the day. He said he was with Search and Rescue until quarter to 4, so this sighting by the cashier could very well be the "kidnapper" that has their son. Why are they dismissing this as a rumor and lamenting that this information will only get Dad in trouble, because he also drives a black truck, instead of moving the search closer to the city where their son was spotted alive???!?!?

I don't know what kind of store this is, but I highly doubt that a cashier that is most likely working either a day shift or a night shift would be off on the time by 5+ hours. If they first went there in the morning it probably wouldn't even be the same cashier ringing them up after 6.

sure-thing said...

Like kidnapper is going to take the child they just abducted to the local store used by local campers, less than a mile away, so suspect can be seen with abducted child. Not likely~

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Five-year-old boy who went missing near the Grand Canyon five days ago is found dead five days after he vanished while 'chasing grasshoppers'

The body has been found of a five-year-old boy who went missing five days ago near the Grand Canyon.
Jerald Joseph Williams of Colorado City wandered off on Thursday afternoon while chasing grasshoppers.

Coconino County sheriff's officials said his body was discovered on Monday. No other details about the death were immediately released.
Jerald had been staying with about 20 friends and family members at a remote campsite in Kaibab National Forest - north of the Grand Canyon

Jerald and his mom had wandered about 100 or 200 yards from the main camp site, according to sheriff’s deputies, and the five-year-old was busy chasing grasshoppers when his mom 'lost sight' of him at around 1.30pm on Thursday.
No signs of an abduction or foul play have surfaced, said police. Gerry Blair, a spokesman for the Coconino County Sheriff's Office, said the child's parents were devastated.

'I don't think the mother has left the command post,' he said. 'She had been there the whole time.' He added that Jerald's father had been 'very involved' in the search.
Blair said the group at the campsite - which is 12 miles south of Jacob Lake - didn't immediately call authorities because they thought they would easily find Jerald. But about four hours later, they called police.

'We didn’t get this thing until 5:30pm (Thursday),' said Blair. 'We did as much as we could with both operations on the ground and in the air, but we were short on daylight.'
Around 400 people took part in the five-day search, which involved military helicopters equipped with night-vision equipment, ground crews with dogs and ATVs.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3193159/Body-five-year-old-boy-went-missing-chasing-grasshoppers-near-Grand-Canyon-five-days-ago-found.html

Peter Hyatt said...

Thank you for the kind words.

What is submitted to L/E is often much deeper than the blog, as is strategy.

A cursory read of how I would proceed in the case could lead some to say that I am giving the father strategy.

Not so.

It is just a skeleton view of Analytical Interviewing and he could study it until it is memorized but still give away the truth in the interview process.

Peter

Cornelia Norway said...

This reminds me of the case of Garrett Bardsley. In both cases, the fathers were stupid. But they did not harm or kill their sons. Not accidental, not on purpose.

C5H11ONO said...

we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone
--Did he see his son to the point that he figured out he was "gone". Isn't gone another word for "dead"? This is leakage in my opinion as he may feel comfortable stating the truth with others to interpret gone to mean missing.

"and I come back up to the creek and I actually seen.."
--there is confusion here as to how many times did he go up to the creek. He went with his wife for 10 minutes, then the previous statement "we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone" indicates he had come down from the creek, only now to be "back" up to the creek. How many times did he go up the creek?

Is it possible that he may have had his dead son's body in his truck while they were calling 911 and he was desperately seeking a place to hide him or bury him? that may explain his sensitivity to his truck. His language shows that he is "impressed" with the search and rescue efforts because he is terrified they would have found his son. He would portray those search efforts as very thorough hoping they would stop since they were able to locate a can, but not his son, confirming a "kidnapping".

The police needs to go with him in his vehicle to see exactly where he travelled in his car before returning. He had stated that he drove approximately half a mile so he can demonstrate where he went. They also should search inside trees and other coverings.

Trigger said...

Great post!

I thought about little DeOrr ingesting pills. Toddlers will put anything and everything into their mouths that they can hold in their hands.

"I knew I was in trouble" is something unexpected from DeOrr Sr.

Was there something in the truck that was illegal to possess? That needed to be discarded before LE arrived?




Anonymous said...



Vicki said

My first read of this was that the father accidently backed up over "little" Deorre with his truck and killed him and is afraid of being charged with involuntary manslaughter...losing his freedom and maybe his job. Also, that he drove Deorre "halfway down the mountain", and put him to "rest" somewhere, and maybe by another creek.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much Peter, for going into more detail concerning leakage, (viz a viz marbles and the like), including the possible misuse of some instances of what appears to be leakage. There have been many occasions of some posters here who pick up the phrase 'marbles slipping' or rolling, and ect., making it always appear that the subject in question is guilty just based on those few slippages of what they deem to be 'marbles' and in some other instances based on just a few questions of 'possible' deception. It is a serious matter to come right out and accuse someone!

It is very wise of you to warn the readers and clarify these possible misuses, always leaving yourself with a way out. Also, I've noticed in several of your more recent articles how careful you are being in not labeling anyone 'guilty' per'se, on those occasions of deception that you do arrive at, basically questioning the 'possibility' of their guilt. It is very smart indeed to protect yourself even when you already know the person is guilty as hell, but not leaving yourself libelous. (By golly, nobody can accuse you of being a stupid man!)

I am interested in purchasing the book you mentioned in this article as soon as you announce it's availability. If you would like purchasers to have you hold a copy on reserve, I certainly can do that by paying for it now via debit card. I would take the course you are offering but realize I would never have a need to use it, practically speaking, since my business has never required this type analysis, so taking the course would make its' cost prohibitive for me, as well as the time involved to take the course that I would never need to use; however, I do wish you all good luck and success in its' future sales. If I can ever recommend it to someone else I certainly will!

Finally, I have one question to ask you that is very important to me: Why do you consider the word "WITH" to be distancing? If you could take the time to carefully expound on this one word, I would be grateful. I consider 'with' to be close and do not understand how this could be viewed as distancing. For example: I went WITH my husband to the mall, which I rarely did. To me this delineates closeness. Or, I met up WITH my husband for dinner later that evening (separate cars). I went WITH my son to his gallery opening, when normally I might have showed up during the evening, but this particular evening was special so I went WITH him. Please explain. Thank you very much!

Anonymous said...

The whole situation doesn’t make much sense to me. What type of parents think an accident would lead to incarceration and choose to dispose of the body?

Drown, run over by truck, tripped and hit head, fell and hit head, fell into fire and hit head, attacked by animal, died from overdose, shot self with firearm, shot with gun by accident….all are accidents. What isn’t an accident? Killed by another person during punishment. I struggle to understand how you could kill a 2.5 year old during punishment however. Shaken baby syndrome? Smothered with pillow? Perhaps the Grand father caused the “accident”. Perhaps the father himself isn’t sure of exactly what happened, he comes back up the creek and the baby is dead and Grandpa can’t explain how or what happened?

Maybe it was really an accident, and the father is one of those people who is conditioned not to trust the police or our court system via personal experience.¬¬

I’m an Eagle Scout and have vast experience camping. Having a fire even in summer is completely normal and I didn’t question it when I read about it. The feeling of their being little danger in the immediate area with adult supervision jives with my thinking/feeling and experience of camping with small children. I’m troubled with both of the parents leaving the child with the grandfather, but let us not forget there was an additional adult present. We got NO details on him do we? That’s 2 adults at camp that can watch the 1 child. Assuming those 2 are worth anything, there should not have been a problem. The exploring done by the parents is odd to me. I would have left the kids with the wife to explore on my own. Looking upstream and then down for the perfect spot to bring the child back to. Or I would have gone exploring with the child and wife.

Drug use. There would be no need for the parents to go off exploring to smoke some dope. They could have walked off 20’, turned their back to the child and smoked. It’s easily hidden. Unless the others at camp didn’t approve, then they might have needed to go away for a little while. Perhaps if they were doing heroin and needed to shot up they would go away from camp, I highly doubt that however.

Anonymous said...

Dying from an overdose may not be an accident if illegal drugs are involved, especially if they are given to "help" a child sleep.

"I struggle to understand how you could kill a 2.5 year old during punishment however."

Maybe a slap that causes the child to fall and fatally hit his head?

Dad uses the word "twisted" several times. Strangulation? Broken neck?

Anonymous said...

"I struggle to understand how you could kill a 2.5 year old during punishment however."

Peter wrote several times that the language used by the father doesn't support allegations of Child Abuse. I consider punishment exceeding a proper spanking to be child abuse, which would include slapping so hard as to knock one down. I just don't see an "accidental" death coming from the literal hands of the parents.

I see your point about using illegal drugs to get the child to pass out, or go to sleep. I would also classify that as Child Abuse. A set of loving and caring parents do not give medicine unless it is needed. Perhpas he was stung and was given to much benadryl.

I wonder if statistics exist about head tramua's in toddlers. I highly doubt that the todler triped and fell down hard enough to kill himself. Even young children instinctively put their hands out to break a forward fall.

My WAG is ran over by the truck or drown in the stream.

Sus said...

I still think that Deorr sr went on about the creek because it was his greatest fear. Especially after learning Isaac Reinwand was fishing at the creek and lied to investigators about it. I feel he was praising the fact they "cleared" the creek...they didn't find a body.



~mj said...

I share your concern here. I would expect that the sightingbe treated as viable and a possible kidnapper. I doubt Deorr Sr. has the only black truck - I'd bet in that part of the country trucks are very common. Therefore a sighting of a black truck wouldn't automatically mean his own truck. Unless of course he has reason to discount that sighting.

Anonymous said...

John, your post @8:19, I am highly suspicious as to why the parents involved did not call for help from LE until five hours after they discovered the little boy missing! WTH is wrong with people! Don't they realize that it doesn't cost them anything to call 911???? IT's FREE! LE is already paid with local and state dollars.

THAT is five hours lost when numerous LE searchers might have been searching for the boy, also down on the road, off the road on little pig trail paths and off freeway exits. By the time they finally did call for help it was almost dark.

Oh yeah, don't need any marbles rattling around to be suspicious of this situation. No kidding. A five hour fruitless search, when their child could have been long gone up the road? Maybe they are as innocent as the day is long, but why wouldn't they want all the help they could get as quickly as they could get it? There are some very dumb and careless, non-thinking people on this earth.

Sus said...

I am beyond disturbed that an RSO is the park ranger for this camp site. Secondly, that he moved into the ranger cabin at the end of June. Third, that his offense is aggravated child abuse. Fourth, that he is from the same Idaho city as IR's family and where IR has lived.

Even if he had nothing to do with Little Deorr's disappearance, why is an RSO a park ranger? Why is he allowed to live in a ranger cabin? Was he part of the search?

Oh, I did some searching last night, and I haven't firmed this up. But I'm putting it anyway. Someone in the RSO's family (son? Brother?) runs a camping business. They sell camping equipment. From obits I have learned GGp and his family were big campers. GGp brought his own camper to this camping trip. Isaac Reinwand also camps a lot. What are the odds they know each other?

Shannon Duane said...

I can't find anywhere else to put this, but have you considered doing an analysis of jay wilds and adnan syed in the hae min lee murder? I'm pretty sure jay wilds, who gave multiple inconsistent statements to police which ended up being the biggest evidence against adnan, is lying. I'm not sure about adnan, although he seems suspicious, too.

Anonymous said...

If that was Deorr at the store it was shortly before being reported missing. If so, why was he filthy and "just bawling"? What kind of filthy was he? Food on his face, dusty from playing in dirt, muddy, wet, sweaty, snotty or what? Why wouldn't his parents do a quick wipe down before taking him into a store? Why weren't they sensitive to their child being called filthy? Most would never acknowledge that a child in their care was filthy without getting defensive and stating how he got that way.

Was he "just bawling" the entire time he was in the store? Why didn't dad stay in truck with his bawling, filthy kid while mom ran in to get her female products and candy? Could he have been suffering and dying from an injury or overdose when they took him to the store? Did he even make it back to the campsite?

Fatally injuring a child with a vehicle, while using drugs, would be detrimental to a truck driving career and future freedom. So would admitting that your child died from ingesting your illegal drugs. Also if the mother lost custody of her other children for poor parenting, she might not want to admit to carelessly allowing a toddler to overdose. Whatever happened to Deorr, his parents would probably be in jail right now if they had not covered it up.

Deejay said...

I agree that there is no need to cover up an accident befalling a two year old while camping. Wandering off, falling, drowning, choking on food, being backed over- what would be the point of changing the story?? The quote 'I knew I was in trouble' is an admission of something.

So if the father (and mother) hid the child's death, there has to be a more purposeful or criminally neglectful act on the part of the father. Something happened that could not be passed off as an accident. Maybe that is why dad does not let the mother speak, his fear that she might slip up the story. What if he was the man seen with a screaming over-tired child at a store? What if he smacked the child in frustration, causing a fatal injury? Or shook him. It could also be drugs. But for this 'disappearing child' scenario to make sense, the dad (or mom) has to be legally responsible. (a la JonBenet Ramsey- a murder passed off as a kidnapping.)

Peter's favorite question should be asked of both parents separately- "Tell me what happened that day? And then what?" Listen to see if there is a time indication in dad's or mom's speech past where child is no longer referenced as alive. Was this time hours or just minutes before 911 is called? The child who is confidently no longer 'up' the mountain, was driven 'down' the mountain in the truck. The time lag is how far the body was driven. Maybe there are just a couple of access roads. Likely father did not drive farther than a two-year-old could go or bury the child, since he would be 'creating' a plausible accident scene. Some sort of ridge to fall over? Although- if he did bury the child- he would definitely need the kidnapping story. Did he have a shovel? Are there cliffs?

Anonymous said...

Male RSO may not be an actual park ranger. The Forest Service hires seasonal workers to do maintenance, cleaning and the like. Or, this may be a court-ordered Community Service fulfillment. Or, he may be related to someone there and is visiting for the Summer. But, in any case, it frightens me. Female RSO works at the local saloon. I'm sure local law enforcement has checked them out, but I can't help but wonder if Male RSO befriended GGF.

Katprint said...

The other meaning of "hauling" in a truck = carrying cargo. Like, we hauled 10 bales of hay over to the pasture to feed the cattle. When he was "hauling" down the mountain in his truck, was he carrying his son's dead body in the truck bed, maybe hidden beneath some tarps?

~mj said...

I was thinking the term "hauling" would be part of his internal subjective dictionary due to his profession as a truck driver. (assuming that bit has been accurately reported) - the question remains though, does he use it in meaning going fast or carrying a load?

Anonymous said...

MJ - Yeah, I guess we can overanalyze at times.

Anonymous said...

I had raised the question earlier this morning but don't see the post now; (if I overlooked it in Peters' article) if he might have questioned if mother Jessica showed guilty knowledge? I thought she did almost from the beginning. Could I have been wrong about this? What say you, other posters and Peter?

Anonymous said...

Pewter has written several articles about the Deorr case. In one, he said this:

"Analysis Conclusion:

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

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/07/statement-analysis-911-call-of-missing.html

Anonymous said...


Jessica: we'll continue to look until he is found - we don't care how long it takes, we, and we think as many people that have shared the story and continue to share his pictures and things like that, if somebody has him, they'll eventually bring him back...and they will come forward with some sort of information.

Peter Hyatt: Guilty parents sometimes say they will "never stop searching."

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/07/part-two-of-deorre-analysis.html

trustmeigetit said...

Also wondering.. Sedation..to make the child sleep like most believe the McCanns did.

It would then make more sense leaving the baby with grandpa. He was "asleep".

Only one theory.

And dad and baby being at the store at 6pm I don't think is feasible. With police and search and rescue being there.... At least I'm assuming they didn't just all pack up and live at 6pm...so can't imagine dad being able to leave undetected..

ima.grandma said...

Double Ditto! on the praise for Peter. As an old timer here, I recognize Peter's cautiousness in this case. He has stepped back, waited for additional information and re-analyzed the situation. It's evident he has much time and serious attention invested. I've read almost everything he has written since July 2008 and am so proud to be a witness to his progression of knowledge.

We've been through so many heartbreaking cases involving little ones, haven't we Peter? I've been able to feel yours and Heather's pain, especially with Miss Caylee Anthony. I fear we have lost another child...pam

Anonymous said...

"And dad and baby being at the store at 6pm"

Grandma Trina Bates Clegg (Jessica's Mom) posted on a news station Facebook page that the family actually arrived in Leadore on Thursday evening at 9:30 pm, so the 6:00 pm sighting could have been Thurs. But, that's the first time we heard about them arriving on Thursday, so it's odd. (And there is a 3.5 hr time gap there.) A young relative also said the family was seen on the store's security tapes. But a store clerk told a reporter that they didn't have any security cameras.

tania cadogan said...

D: Yes. As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore
If he is no longer UP the mountain then he has to be down the mountain.
This got me to thinking, are there any waterfalls in the area?

If this were an accidental death, why the need to fabricate an abduction (which they then disproved)

Accidents happen all the time, we see it in the media on an almost daily basis, kids falling into pools,ponds, streams, rivers, getting blown out to sea on inflateables, then we have them falling over or falling onto or into things, getting stuck etc.

We hear of genuine cases of kids wandering off or 'going missing' only to be found asleep in their house under the bed or hiding, or genuinely getting lost (most often autistic kids getting the attention)

The parents cooperate fully, answering all questions, taking polygraphs, searching till they drop.
Their langiage reveals no red flags though it may show some sensitivity due to expected parental guilt that they blinked or turned away for a moment, long enough for their child to do a runner, or, when missing from their bed and despite sear5ching almost everywhere, the kid turns up sleeping in some cubby hole or behind something which, in all the panic, gets overlooked or they simply don't see them sleeping there (the can't see for looking problem)

That the dad in particular shows sensitivity regarding his truck and feeling lucky and blessed and praising the searchers and LE even though the child has not been found, indicates he has a reason for the sensitivity.
If it was related to parental guilt for not keeping the child safe it would show.
The mom shows no red flags, she may believe her son has genuinely gone missing (allegedly abducted)
There is a problem over making the initial 911 call, was there disagreement?
Who said what regarding calling 911?

Did the dad do something to his son and then lied to cover it up.
It would explain him going half a mile down the road to 'get a signal' even though his wife had a signal and he had 1 bar meaning he had a signal as well.

We only have his word he drove half a mile down the road, how long was he gone in his truck?

He has also admitted there is a problem with him being at the stroe and claiming the staff had the time/ day wrong.
If they had CCTV it will be time stamped and could lead to awkward questions.

When did the mom actually last see her son?
Where did she see him?
Was he awake?
What was he doing?
What was he wearing?
Are their any issues between the mom and dad?
Has there ever been complaints from them or about them?
Have they had any contact with LE prior to this trip?
Have they ever had any prior contact with CPS?

The mom comes over as passive, the dad as controlling.
Why does the mother not be more forward about her missing child?

ima.grandma said...

I still don't believe the parents reporting of how the 911 call went down. I "feel" deception in their explanation of sequences. The truck is also involved in his story; I dont know how but I do believe the FBI will break his story down and we'll hear more about the truck later. He seems to lead and divert attention from actions taken upon discovering Deorr Jr. missing.

Juliet, I concur with your observations of the father using the word "concern." it's one of the first oddities that jumped out for me.

Sus, everytime the theory of Deorr Jr. possibly being "backed over" is mentioned, it reminds me of little Myra, it's such a damn shame she was never found.

All the goings-on in that little town is beginning to remind me of Hailey Dunn's disappearance. The town is experiencing division and becoming more publicly vocal. There is so much controversery on the web regarding the family's behavior. I admit I have read several facebook groups and discover all sorts of personal opinions of those who know (or claim to know) the family. It.'s reminiscent of Billie Jean Dunn's experience. The local search currently being organized is feeding the "us" vs. "them" mentality. If someone doesn't find Deorr soon, the town may become scarred through this tragedy and thus, the town becomes another victim through unintended consequences. I know little town behavior and I guarantee most citizens of the town have heard about this and have their own theory of what happened. It is the topic of conversation at all diners, truck stops, beauty shops, barbers and coffee shops.

Sus said...

Ima.grandma,
I wish they would find Myra, also. That police force went all out to find her and prove the mother guilty. It has to be so heart- breaking for them.

I also know small town mentality. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's why I've paid no attention to the 6:00 siting at the store from the very beginning. They're all certainly into the drama.

I'm still cautious where these parents are concerned. I need more proof to be convinced they harmed Little Deorr, even by accident. At this point I believe the sensitive points can be explained by their background.

trustmeigetit said...

I find it so odd how some cases are in the news and others are not. Just saw an article on Facebook about a missing boy who's body has been found. I don't recall seeing anything about the case (and it's in my state) and even now, all I can find is that his mom lost sight of him while camping around 1:30 and they called 911 at 5:30.

Also found it odd that only a couple of photos of the boy were shared and he's wearing the same shirt in all of them and appears to have so scabs on his eye.

Anyone else know anymore about this case?

Anonymous said...

Was Deorr sr. Current,y employed as a truck driver? If so, unlikely he was doing/taking drugs. Truck drivers are drug tested at random, frequently. I was selected twice in 40 days.

trustmeigetit said...

The mom has clearly moved on.

In May she posted a happy Mother's Day to herself and thanked God for her blessings. Interesting while your child is missing..

She does mention her "daughter being missing" but her name is not used and she says God told her he "will return to her one day".

trustmeigetit said...

I agree with the passivity of the mom. I'm a mom and I would be talking to anyone who would listen. Finding my son would be my only mission in life.

There's something big missing from this story.

And I too wonder about the drive in the truck to get service. I personally think I would keep looking while the other one called.

Something's just off.

Anonymous said...

Frank Vilt, a former U.S. Marshal and private investigator working with the family, tells EastIdahoNews.com that the public can call 1-888-852-6505 and submit tips regarding the case.

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/national-hotline-set-up-for-tips-on-deorr-kunz-disappearance/

So why would the family need to hire a PI?

trustmeigetit said...

Peter separated that statement into 2 forms of that phrase...

"We will never stop searching"

And

"We will not stop searching until he/she is found"

The searching with no end for guilty. Searching "until found" innocent.

Anonymous said...

From a Poster on another blog:

"I called the P.I. He is not a current LEO but is working with them. He said LE was aware of the RSOs and had checked them out and doesn't consider them suspects. He said he did, though. He said he personally cleared the parents. He suspects abduction."

ima.grandma said...

Sus, that's funny because I haven't either. I cant really tell you why but I don't think the diner gave accurate information, probable unreliable source.

I have to tell you that this is the first parent/parents/POI that I've for some odd reason, given them the benefit of the doubt. I'm so cynical I'm prone to judge them guilty right off the bat. Especially now since I read about all the family and town local dynamics. I've gotten an impression the mother and the father's sister might exhibit a little "toughness", let's say. Kinda how they roll. If I have suspicions, it's not because of her initial Facebook remarks or her alleged aggressive behavior in the "locals" thing. I have more faith in her than him, but I'm not convinced of the father's guilt. He has passed a few tests for innocence, so I just dont know. I hope they arent guilty but I'm preparing for disappointment. I know it's coming!

I'm so reminded of the late sixties when I spent summers with my grandma in a little town. My dad was the oldest of twelve so there were still plenty of aunts and uncles around to "go out on the town" We'd start on Main Street and go from place to place. Everyone knows everthing about everyone. And the gossip I couldn't believe, most of which at didn't understand at my age but was fascinated by anyway. Jessica and Deorr Sr. represent the area's culture and seem like a typical couple. I'm definitely open on the verdict here but they aren't being honest about their version of 911 call and the truck is involved in something they did wrong. It still doesn't mean they killed their child.



I remember several of the group were faithfully concerned about Myra. The letdown experienced when she wasn't found was tough on us. You know too, that participation here can be tough. I become aware of so many many crimes against children that I would never have known about, if not for this blog. I'm such a crybaby when it comes to someone harming the defenseless. I become emotionally invested and then...I remember the perpetrator involved is the worst part of our society and humans are capable of anything. It is reality. Crimes do happen. Horrible people exist. Children suffer. Children die. Chidren disappear forever. Justice is rare. I stay involved here to remind myself of how lucky I am in my little world of family, kids, granddaughters, laughing, crying, chaos, stress, fun and love.

Anonymous said...

They are from Colorado City, it's speculated that they are FLDS. That would explain the same shirt. Cute lil boy, sad situation. I've not read the updated news on him today but I think they found him in a pond.

Juliet said...

Trustmeigetit asked:
"Anyone have any ideas of what kind of accident would need to be covered up?"

Any type of accident might be covered up if a long period of time had elapsed between the accident and the discovery of the body, as that would point to extreme negligence. The same would apply to an accident which happened as a result of adults being intoxicated by alcohol or under the influence of drugs, when an accident could go unnoticed for some hours.

The campfire, I thought a possibility, not only because it is would be such a dreadful type of accident, but also because of the parents attempt, straight off, to put responsibility for DeOrr onto grandpa, who they placed at the campfire, with DeOrr going off to be good or to nap, with grandpa by the campfire. Photos from the scene, however, show that the baby would not be tall enough to topple over into that type of fire-barrel, and it would be too hot for him to get close enough to do that. He also could not trip into that type of fire, no matter how prone to falling over he was. If, however, the fire had been lit the previous night, it may have been out, or looked out, and the barrel may not have been too hot to approach. It's possible the baby may have pulled over a camping seat and stood on it to look in, toppled headfirst, or had dropped his toy truck in, and fell in as he tried to retrieve it. If he fell in he would not be able to climb out, but if they were not too far away, they should have heard him scream at least once. (The parents screamed his name/nicknames, but there was no crying, no sound - anything in the negative needs attention?) I wonder if they screamed In response to hearing him scream, but then could not find him because he was in the fire. 'You couldn't not see him in such an open area' but they wouldn't see him in the fire if they were scanning the open landscape, looking in the creek for twenty minutes, or if they didn't think first to look in the fire. I wonder if they have established if that is the fire barrel which belongs to that camp site, if they can be moved, or if one might be missing. Isaac has said both that he was with grandpa, and that he was up fishing in the creek - so where was grandpa - with Isaac at the creek? I also wonder if DeOrr was so filthy at the store because he'd somehow got into the unlit fire the day before - he would have no concept that the embers would still be hot and burning, had it been lit and left to die down in the interval. Too awful to contemplate, and I prefer to think he was either not at the campsite, or more simply, fell into the creek and drowned.

There, too, are questions. Did DeOrr compare the depth of the water to his own height, or to baby DeOrr's height? If to the baby's height, then is he telling us little DeOrr was in the creek at some point, for him to be able to make the comparison? When would he have been in the creek? Possibly the evening before, if that was the easiest way to clean him up after his trip to the store. Maybe, if that was so, he liked the water, and wandered back to it later. Speculation, and we're not meant to bespeculating, but I also am trying to do that round their words, at least to some extent. :-/ I believe the store sighting because no-one has come forward to say it was them rather than DeOrr, and because such a tiny place probably knows all their regulars, and would remember strangers, especially if there was a reason to, such as concern over a child.

Juliet said...


I may be going against the flow here, but it seems possible the parents are covering up a terrible accident, maybe because they could not face their families with the truth, and out of fear of Jessica being unable to see her other children. I don't think they have deliberately harmed their baby, or have killed him for insurance payout - they love their little boy, and if he has died, and if they have covered up his death, it will be out of shame and desperation, and they will be regretting it and wanting a proper burial for him more and more as each day passes.

----

Peter, why do you keep saying you don't know who search and rescue are? Is it because it's strange the parents thought to call for search and rescue rather than simply 911? If it's the same in the U.S. as here, a call to 911 (we have 999) will trigger search and rescue or the coastguard through the emergency operator - emergency services send whatever service the caller asks for, or if the caller is not sure what's needed altogether, they send whoever they deem necessary, police, ambulance, fire brigade, search and rescue, or any combination. If they had just called 911 they wouldn't have been in the position of having a lone police officer coming out, all suspicious of their story, they still would have got search and rescue, as he was a baby and had already been missing for an hour. Or is it because they were thinking in terms of search and rescue as a great distraction from the lone cop, who would be asking a lot of questions, focussing only on the veracity of the story, maybe? Or is it because, if they really thought he was kidnapped, then they would know the police would be of more assistance in the first instance -they would want the police, and an amber alert issued -that would be their priority? Maybe I answered my own question there, :)

Anonymous said...

Link to interview with local Female RSO:
http://www.localnews8.com/news/onemonth-mark-of-the-search-for-deorr-kunz-jr/34638970

Statement Analysis, anyone?

Anonymous said...

I wonder who is paying for the family's Private Investigator. Donations?

Juliet said...

It would be ridiculous, though, to assume kidnap, when it's much more likely a child would just be lost. It's all so confusing. They knew he wasn't kidnapped, or thought it unlikely, as nobody was around. So weird, then, that they so willingly latched onto the suggestion, and from then on seemed convinced he was kidnapped, whilst also staying at the campsite, or returning regularly to search for him there. They want to believe he was abducted because that can mean he's still alive, said grandpa Kinz, and a deputy - yet to begin, they did not seem to think he was kidnapped. Also, I can't find it now, but early on there were requests to look out for some other vehicles which had been seen in the area. I don't know who made the requests, police or parents, but wondered if any of the extended family's vehicles might have matched, and if DeOrr owns more than one black truck, or if a family member owns a similar truck.

Anonymous said...

Either the Aunt or Grandma Trina mentioned a late 80's/early 90's blue truck. The male RSO did own a blue truck, but it's a 2001 model. See this old mugshot:
http://mugshots.com/US-Counties/Utah/Utah-County-UT/Ferrin-Kay-Bodily.20282673.html

Anonymous said...

Family members have taken to Facebook:

An aunt posts: "Little man is missing and has possibly been abducted. Vehicles to look out for is older light blue GMC/Chevy late 80s early 90s, also possibly a black truck - unknown model."

http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/idaho/2015/07/12/search-for-missing-2-year-old-continues-in-lemhi-county/30058523/

Anonymous said...

Here's a brand new interview with the PI:

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/kunz-family-investigator-everything-points-to-an-abduction/

Peter, your thoughts?

Anonymous said...

Kunz family investigator: Everything Points to an Abduction


http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/kunz-family-investigator-everything-points-to-an-abduction/


http://frankvilt.com/about/

“I feel that he was abducted,” Vilt said in an interview with EastIdahoNews.com Tuesday. “Everything points to an abduction.”

“I’ve talked to Lemhi County deputies and I’ve talked to Bonneville County,” Vilt said. “The parents are being very forthright and have nothing to hide.”

“When [the family] went into town the morning after they arrived, they picked a few groceries up and bought some French fries for DeOrr Jr.,” Vilt said. “There was a man who was staring at DeOrr and this made Jessica feel kind of eery. I’m looking into it.”

“I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that these are grieving parents and I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something,” Vilt said.

Anonymous said...

DeOrr Kunz private investigator ENTIRE INTERVIEW - East Idaho News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-78P5ayOlRc

Anonymous said...

Isaac did it. Search the mine shafts.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 12:57 today, I am aware that Peter said earlier on that there was nothing to suggest the mother had guilty knowledge. But that was in the initial stages of the investigation. At that time little was known about either her, daddy DeOrr or their families.

I was wondering if Peter had found something in her lifestyle that we did not know at that time, coupled with statements mother Jessica has made since then that might have swayed his opinion, that's all.

Anonymous said...

I think comments may have 'vanished' from around here. What do you think, Peter?

Anonymous said...

I think comments may have 'vanished' from here. What do you think, Peter?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info about the truck and the Chevy, Anon. Is it possible that some other family member was called out to the camp, and went in a black truck, which replaced DeOrr's? If the person who owned the replacement truck could not use DeOrr's because it needed to be hidden or disposed of to prevent forensic examination, the Chevy driver would be needed to take that person back to his/her own home after the expedition. Just a wild theory, but is any family member minus a black truck, I wonder? Do we know who saw these vehicles, and when, as the family said they didn't see or hear any vehicles?

Juliet said...

My post at 7.35pm -sorry, I pressed the wrong button. Enough of this armchair detective stuff now, for me, anyway - it's not as if LE hasn't already thought of and checked out all this stuff. Anon - PIs hired by the family always find the family's version of events, honestly, and in their heart of hearts, deep inside al ofl their other hearts, to be credible - that's what they're paid for. PI is PR.

Anonymous said...

Speculation:

The parents "decided [they] were going to go a little exploring", while DeOrr "was getting ready for a nap".

"[B}y that time it was almost two,"

If DeOrr was "really filthy" and "just bawling", "earlier that day", even though he had his "security blanket", which "is what comforts him and at all times", and the parents had tried "buying candy for him", then the parents may have been looking forward to the time when DeOrr "usually takes his nap, um.."

So, HOW was DeOrr "getting ready for a nap"? DeOrr is "a three year old", "a two, almost three year old". Dad says "He's pretty small for his age [....], and that was our concern." Age and body weight are important factors when deciding on dose of drug, but Dad says he "didn't think".

If Mother's Little Helper did come to rescue, "he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire." and they'd "finally, [been] able to put that to rest". Dad had "seen him to the point I figured out he was gone".

Then, there was the "dead panic" and Dad says "I knew I was in trouble". Nevertheless they "decided to call search and rescue". It was "2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road", and DeOrr "vanished, there's not a trace found".

ima.grandma said...

Aug 11, 2015
LEADORE, Idaho (KBOI) -- Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman says all the evidence regarding missing toddler DeOrr Kunz has been turned over to the FBI.

Sheriff Lynn Bowerman updated KBOI 2News on the case of missing Idaho boy DeOrr Kunz, who was last seen July 10.

Bowerman said Tuesday that everything has been turned over to the FBI, which includes interviews, recordings and physical evidence.

The FBI told the Lemhi County Sheriff's Office that it could be at least six weeks before it receives any information back from federal investigators.

Kunz and his family were camping in the Leadore area -- not far from the Montana border when he disappeared. No one has seen him since.

The sheriff also said on Tuesday that deputies are still searching for the missing boy, although they're not up at the Leadore site 24 hours a day. Deputies have received numerous reports of people finding human bones, but they turn up to be false reports (or in most cases, animal bones).

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

Anyone with information is asked to call 846-7676.


Physical evidence? What could it be?

Anonymous said...

You'll also notice a 911 fee on your telephone bills. That money goes directly to the 911 service.

Anonymous said...

The FBI told the Lemhi County Sheriff's Office that it could be at least six weeks before it receives any information back from federal investigators.

http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/DeOrr-Kunz-Missing-Idaho-321484631.html

Oakley A said...

This father gave a lengthy free edited statement, he was wound up to speak and had a interviewer who didn't direct the interview. So everything he said was coming from him and not in response to a question. While this is frustrating to someone like Mr. Peter Hyatt, who would have asked poignant questions in order to glean it also produced a vast amount of words to sift through. All of them stated without prompting and without being asked. This allowed for the masterful analysis Mr. Hyatt has been able to give. Really excellent. Although you, Peter Hyatt, didn't mention it so it probably isn't relevant I still wonder if this little 2 yr old boy is not in or near the Salmon or Snake River.

Apple said...

Fascinating analysis, Peter.


Anonymous said
"“I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that these are grieving parents and I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something,” Vilt said."
-----
Oh boy, this statement is convincing. Grieving? :(

Anonymous said...

Family's PI:

Frank Vilt
Candidate for Idaho House of Representatives, District 32b at State of Idaho

Anonymous said...

Ah, I can't resist it. Ima.grandma - they would send little DeOrr's hairbrush or toothbrush so his DNA profile could be made and entered into the FBI missing persons database. If there's no cctv at the store, his DNA could also be used to compare with any DNA found on the French fries wrapper (if they have it and if it can be verified it was bought at the store) to establish that he was on the camping trip - they would need something that could connect him to being there besides the items that would already have his DNA all over them, and could just have been taken along. Possibly the 'insect repellant can', if its contents, presence and location opened any questions. Probably the remnants of the campfire, just to establish there was no trace of DeOrr, in order to rule out an accident involving it. The diaper/s if they were retrievable may also have been sent. Also, forensic samples from the vehicles if anything had been found which might raise questions. I think those are the type of things which are classed as physical evidence - it doesn't mean evidence of a crime, just items and samples relating to the case, which may or may not hold significance, but which are sent for analysis, in case they might provide more information.

Juliet said...

My post at 10.19.

Anonymous said...

Family PI sounds more like a defense attorney. Tips sent to him may or may not end up in the hands of LE.

Juliet said...

Anon at 9.41 - Private Investigator - did he really say he has a pre-existing acquaintance/friendship with DeOrr?, and knows he's a good guy, and stuff. I'm sure he is, but his son is missing in inadequately explained circumstances, and that's the primary concern, not what a nice guy couldn't possibly have done just because he's a nice guy. Maybe he's working with law enforcement, as this can't possibly be for real, can it?

Anonymous said...

I think the PI knows the child's paternal grandfather. PI is 75 yrs old. He has some pretty radical stuff on his own blog.

Anonymous said...


PI: As an example, we're trying to find a lead at the Stage Stop. Uh, when they went into town, uh, the morning after they arrived to pick a few groceries up they bought some french fries for Deorr Jr. and there was a man who was staring at this little boy. And this made Jessica feel kind of eerie that this old man was staring at the boy. That's unusual. But we haven't found who this person is yet.

This is the first we've heard about French Fries. I thought the trip was for Feminine products. An does the "morning after they arrived" mean they arrived Thursday night, or they arrived Friday morning, went to the camp, and then "back up" [my quote] to the store? And who gives a 2 year old French Fries for breakfast?

Juliet said...

I hope he's not going to be to little DeOrr what Clarence and the McCann PIs have been to Madeleine. :-/ Interesting they are still going with abduction, but strange they have taken so long to begin to seek out national attention. Why did they turn down Nancy Grace if they were not afraid of the questions, really believed he had been abducted, had nothing to gain by staying at the campsite, and nothing to hide?

foodnerd said...

As others have pointed out, had the father accidentally ran over his son while substance impaired, that would explain a reluctance and debate over calling 911. If that delay waiting until he felt confident he would test clean caused his son's death that could also explain the panicked decision to stage a disappearance.

What nobody connected with the story is discussing is that the enormous area the searchers are covering, the rugged terrain and special equipment required to search it, is obviously far beyond what even the most energetic, elusive undersized 2-year-old could possibly cover in that short of time.

So the searchers are obviously looking more for a dead body than a live one, regardless of who caused his death and transported him or his body that far into the dense forest. An innocent parent unwilling to give up hope even when everything points to a dark conclusion, would be screaming in frustration why are they wasting all that manpower and resources where my little boy couldn't possibly have wandered?

What isn't clear is whether Jessica is covering for him just like parents inexplicably cover for a child who killed a sibling, or if she's delusional and can't wrap her brain around the truth or accept how it would change her standard of living for the worse.

Anonymous said...

The private investigator said this in the interview:

Just days ago he learned something he believes may be useful in the case.

“When [the family] went into town the morning after they arrived, they picked a few groceries up and bought some French fries for DeOrr Jr.,” Vilt said. “There was a man who was staring at DeOrr and this made Jessica feel kind of eerie. I’m looking into it.”

SO WHY DIDN'T JESSICA TELL LE ABOUT THIS?

Bethany said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bethany said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Juliet said...

Apple - one way or another, the parents have lost their little child, so they are very likely to be grieving their loss and his absence, even if they know what happened to him- with that bit of the sentence I take no issue, but the rest is unbelievably non-committal and unconvincing. This guy is a gift to statement analysis!

---

Anon at 10.43 -they arrived 9.30 Thursday evening according to grandma Clegg.

foodnerd said...



Again when offered the chance to speak directly to little DeOrr and presumably to adults who might have him or saw,heard something, the father never once uses his son's name. It isn't a common first name,so you'd think innocent parents would be especially anxious to saturate the news and net with it hoping it triggers something.

You'd think also that at least his mother would want to comfort him if she really thought there was the slightest chance he could be seeing and hearing her, and for that reason keep saying his name plus any affectionate names she regularly called him.

Peter, do his three security items which he would reportedly take everywhere he went fall under the liar's number theory? It seems at least an attempt to persuade that DeOrr could not have left voluntarily, laying groundwork for the abduction theory.
Just like when they emphasize a missing woman would never intentionally have left behind her phone, credit cards,wedding ring, etc.

And as a man who appreciates irony, do you find it amusing that a reliable denial must have three – "not two or four, but exactly three" of the key components to be considered most likely truthful? :^D

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-78P5ayOlRc @ 2:00

Anahata Love 2 hours ago
the private investigator thinks that deorr is still alive yet says his father 'loved him'? speaking in past tense usually means you don't think that person is around anymore. ooops mr PI you slipped up... and thanks for giving us the accident and burial scenario. something else to chew on while we ignore your abduction theory that the police already ruled out! GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

Jules P said...

Peter, I haven't had time to read all if the responses so please forgive me if I'm repeating a question, but given the sensitivity surrounding the truck , and!his use of the word "hauling" in reference to going up the hill to call 911: Is it possible he was hauling little Deorr's body away in a hurry? The lack of sensitivity by the mom, could he be hiding what happened from her as well? You pegged sensitivity in regard to a possible argument over placing the call, I was wondering if he told he he had to go up the hill to call 911 to get away from her and hide the body?

Jules P said...

C5h, I should have read a bit further before questioning Peter! I had this same thought about hiding the body while allegedly going to call 911!

lynda said...

So the PI complete interview is on youtube I started this transcription at the 2:20 mark where it starts to get weird.

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.

I: Why wasn't an Amber Alert issued?

PI: Didn't fit the uh, entire criteria for an Amber Alert. There was no vehicle they could give, there's no mother or father a suspect that they could name as being with, so this is why it didn't fit criteria. Now, don't get me wrong, the sheriff's office in Lemhi County did their very best. The search coordinator, uh, was a good man, he had prior LE experience in Nevada before he comin up to Lemhi county. (PI covers his mouth at this point and gives a small cough saying, excuse me) "so these guys are seasoned veterans and they want to find the boy. The whole end result was to FIND THE BOY. And so they aren't going to do anything to be counterproductive, but I just think that there has to be now, there's been yesterday a month from the time he was missing, and there has to be another scenario. We have to look at the other possibilities so that's why i wanted to hopefully go nationwide. We have a nationwide telephone number for tips, I was hoping that people might uh, say, well the so and so couple didn't have a boy last week and now they have a boy. Where'd that boy come from? That's unusual. Anything like that could be as a, as a, good tip.

I: You mentioned that one of the first things LE does is narrow in on potential suspects, the parents,

PI: Yes

I: ..the GF, the friend, and um, thusfar, no suspects have been named. In the majority of cases is it, of abductions, is it normally somebody that knows the child? Or is it a stranger?

PI: Normally, it could be a, a, friend of a friend, of the family. Like normally break-ins, house burglaries, if somebody has been there before, and then but, is there friends there? With uh, with DEORR'S mom and dad, (clear throat) course they're suspect, in fact maybe they had a, THERE WAS AN ACCIDENT, and they decided to cover the accident up, because they couldn't explain the accident, so let's just bury the body and say he's missing, we have no idea...that, that investigation was a zero, that uh, there's no probability of that, so they want to do the people they have in hand first investigate because sometimes there are sinister things that occur.

lynda said...

continued..


I: Have the parents been completely cooperative with the investigation?

PI: Absolutely. I've talked to Lemhi county deputies, i've talked to uh, uh, Bonneville county here,(...section??) they've been VERY cooperative, VERY forthright, nothing to hide.

I: One of the things that uh, has really been different with this case as compared to a missing child 4-5 years ago is social media, and I don't know how closely you followed it but there has been, you name it rumor, it's been there. How is that impacting the family and the investigation? Does it?

PI: Well, it may not hurt the investigation but it hurts the family. Especially when you're accusatory. You say, well I wouldn't have done that, or er, if it was my kid I wouldn't have put camo pants on him exactly cuz it only hurts more. Those people are just agitators just like Fergusens Missouri's..same thing..they just want to agitate, agitators, because they have nothing better to do, instead of concentrating on what the real possibility may be an really helpin.
Now when I was up in uh, Lemhi county,I've interviewed, uh, people who were on the SRO list to clear them.

I: were they cleared?

PI: They were cleared yes. And uh, it is why I've checked everything it could possibly be. Uh, maybe duplication with what the sheriff did and I try uh, not to impede investigations, and I always tell the sheriff's office where I'm gonna be and what I'm gonna do, so that if they have a problem with it, they would tell me, let me know, particularly if they were workin a particular theory. But it was, "Fine, go ahead."


I: And what have they been telling you? Have they been giving you the information?

PI: They didn't share exactly their, uh,uh, investigative results but of all occasions are, we're here to find the child.

I: Why have the parents been so quiet?

PI: Course a few people out there in the social media have uh, accused them of doing things and my advice to uh, to uh, Deorr and to Jessica was to cooperate, keep the hope, and I feel, I felt totally the boy is still alive out there. Better to think he's alive and somebody has em then well, he's dead but we don't know where the body is.Particularly, uh, you look into a mother's eyes with their children missing...that's real and I don't think the parents did anything that any normal parents would be involved with going to a camping trip. I mean, I was (quite) it was the grandfather, I thought it was the parents, I thought it was here and there, things happen and I don't think anything was planned, anything sinister happened, this was just a possibility of someone who was lurking in the shadows. Uh, as an example we're trying to follow a lead at the Stage stop when they went into town the MORNING AFTER they arrived. They picked a few groceries up, they bought some fries for Deorr Jr. and was a man staring at the little boy. And this made Jessica feel kinda eerie that this old man was staring at the little boy. That's unusual but haven't found who this person is yet.









Anonymous said...

Some random thoughts... 1) Jessicas' mother, Trina Clegg, stated that the family had arrived at the campsite at 9:30 on Thursday evening. Let's assume for a moment that she is correct, she knows, since daughter Jessica either texted or called and told her this, so let's go with that as being factual. This means they did not arrive on Friday morning, they arrived on Thursday evening. Who can say if Issac and the GGF also arrived at that time since they were traveling together in a separate automobile? Perhaps they arrived the next morning. Unknown.

2) According to the clerk in the store, little DeOrr was seen either inside or outside (it was never made clear)the nearby store at around 6:00 p.m., which would have had to be on Thursday evening; filthy dirty and crying, traveling in a black pickup truck; his father DeOrr Sr purchased candy for him. It was not mentioned whether anyone else was with the baby other than the father. Was mother Jessica also there? Unknown.

(All hell had broke lose; According to Trina Clegg, Jessica needed feminine products. Jessica had got her period, was feeling like hell, and the baby was tired, hungry and pitching a hysterical fit. Total frustration. It was NOT a pretty picture).

3) There is an approximate 3-1/2 hour time difference between when DeOrr, Sr and baby DeOrr was seen at the local store and the time Trina Clegg says they arrived at the campsite at around 9:30 p.m.. Plenty of time for something to have happened to this baby and to dispose of him before heading on down to the campsite at 9:30 p.m. Where was mother Jessica during this time? Unknown. I trust her about as much as I trust DeOrr, Sr., and let me tell ya folks, that ain't much!

4) It was said they searched ten minutes (Friday, mind you, when they had already arrived on Thursday evening), looking for the baby before search & rescue was called; later this turned into an HOUR from the time they claim they noticed him missing and the time they called for help. An HOUR and your baby is missing, possibly abducted, and you allow the abductor an HOUR's head start on running with your child? THEN you finally decide to call for help? Time to get completely away with your child?! Gimme a break! You wouldn't even give an abductor a ten minute jump start before calling for help! THEN you have a fight between yourselves as to whose going to make the call?! He hauls ass and does it his way, she does it her way.

5) Mother Jessica said that little DeOrr was getting ready for his nap when they left to take their ten minute exploration. Getting ready to take his nap? Is she kidding, or what? What two to three year old gets himself ready to take his nap!! NONE, that's how many. No small child gets himself ready to take his nap. YOu get the child ready yourself to take his nap! Without his prized blankie, his toy monkey and his little cup!? Liar. No WAY would this child take a nap without his sleepy time love things. Ain't no way! Funny thing, those items were in the truck, yet he never left them? Right there they tripped themselves up, right?

6) So the old GGF is too old, sickly and decrepit to understand his surroundings? In a pigs eye! He wasn't too old to sit up and take nourishment, get his automobile and travel 100 miles plus out to the wilderness to take a camping trip, carrying his portable condensed-air oxygen tank with him. These portable oxygen machines travel lightly, not like the old style oxygen tanks. No trouble whatsoever. Ha... but it is possible he knew nothing about little DeOrr missing because it's entirely possible that he wasn't even there when little DeOrr went missing. ALSO possible that Issac wasn't there either at the time. Or was he?

7) Mother Jessica says they will search forever if they have too? 'ER, excuse me? Already planning not to find the baby? She knows he will never be found. Just my thoughts; which may of course, be entirely wrong. But I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Lynda, for posting the interview with the PI. However, wasn't it already established prior to DeOrr hiring the PI, that with Daddy DeOrr, it's all about HIM and not the baby?

I give the PI credit for his years of experience and credentials, but I give more weight to Peters' expertise in his years of hard study and the practice of Statement Analysis. Peter has definitely found deception in statements made by DeOrr, Sr. At this point, he's remaining tongue-in-cheek on whether Jessica has shown any guilty knowledge since making his initial analysis of their earlier comments.

Also, John, one of our in-house posters has a rather large amount of training in body language analysis. Look back to the video tape of the interview where DeOrr & mother Jessica are sitting apart on the couch. There is something missing in their body language towards each other. They do not present the typical picture of innocent parents of a baby gone missing under what might be considered normal circumstances.

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

Re: the PI

Amongst many red flags, this stands out. Given this seems to be said in the "free editing stage" and he isn't using the interviewers language (reflective) concerns me.


I: ..the GF, the friend, and um, thusfar, no suspects have been named. In the majority of cases is it, of abductions, is it normally somebody that knows the child? Or is it a stranger?

PI: Normally, it could be a, a, friend of a friend, of the family. Like normally break-ins, house burglaries, if somebody has been there before, and then but, is there friends there? With uh, with DEORR'S mom and dad, (clear throat) course they're suspect, in fact maybe they had a, there was an accident, and they decided to cover the accident up, because they couldn't explain the accident, so let's just bury the body and say he's missing, we have no idea...that, that investigation was a zero, that uh, there's no probability of that, so they want to do the people they have in hand first investigate because sometimes there are sinister things that occur.

Words do not come from a vacuum!

Why does this enter (he introduces the idea) his language?

Anonymous said...

In the full PI interview, at about 2:20 he says that DeOrr LOVED his son. [Past tense]

Emmy said...

Reading the father's sensitivity to the truck made me think of reading through the many stories of parents accidentally backing into their kids. Or the possibility that, being naptime, the little guy napped in the truck and on a hot day was quickly overwhelmed. Particularly if the little boy's things were in the truck.

http://www.kidsandcars.org/kate-auriemma.html

There are many sad narratives like the one above, and considering the amount of guilt that the parents show in them for events that have legally been deemed accidental, I don't think it's impossible that covering up such an accident might seem like the best idea in the heat of the moment.

In an interesting coincidence, reading up on the death of Cooper Harris is what first brought me to this blog, which I have followed ever since, and reading Peter's analysis here was something fresh in my mind when I first read some of the narratives on Kids and Cars.

Juliet said...

Local News 8 Facebook - it may or may not be interesting how grandma Clegg's ears prick up at this comment/suggestion/typo:

Nikki Fields I still don't get how a little boy disappears from a camp site when they said there was 5 adults watching him. Lie detector or not, something is fishy. I would have NEVER let my kids out of my sight no matter where I am. I just pray this little boy is found alive and safe.
Like · Reply · 32 · Yesterday at 00:54

Trina Bates Clegg 5 adults???????
Like · 3 · Yesterday at 01:23

--------
Lynda - thanks for the PI transcript, the guy's a disaster., he's all over the place. :)

---
I can't find the post again, but someone here wonders if DeOrr's comfort items might be the liar's three. There's a photo heading up aunt Tanisha's Facebook with DeOrr snuggled up with his cup, monkey and blanket, and these items also feature in other photos he is in on other pages, so I don't think they are lying about DeOrr liking to have these items with him.

John mcgowan said...

Juliet said...


Lynda - thanks for the PI transcript

Yes, thank you too Linda.

Anonymous said...

Peter - here is an update on this case. What do you think about the PI's statements?
http://q13fox.com/2015/08/11/private-investigator-helping-family-of-missing-idaho-toddler-deorr-kunz-jr/

Sus said...

The way I understand it, the PI from Isaac Reinwand's hometown and LDS church offered his services.

Here's what he had to say about IR in his interview,
"The other GENTLEMAN who, Isaac, HE WAS THERE. He was a person of interest. SO I think outside the box."

Just who is the PI helping with the abduction theory?

Anonymous said...

Recently posted on another site:

"response I received from Sheriff Bowerman yesterday (he gave me permission to share):

"Rebecca Cox [RSO] is not the one spreading cremains and Ferrin [RSO] works at Meadow Lake CG, approx 25 miles away from the scene, and he lives at this CG with his wife…..Sheriff Bowerman"

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Sus

I would sack him then and there after listening to what he said. The "abduction" theory seems to be side stepped by all involved, direct or indirect.

Anonymous said...

More from PI interview:

"with DEORR'S mom and dad, (clears throat) course they're suspect, IN FACT [emphasis added] maybe they had a, there was an accident, and they decided to cover the accident up, because they couldn't explain the accident, so let's just bury the body and say he's missing, we have no idea..."

Sus said...

It's obvious he's trying to move away from the campsite, huh? But is it for the parents or the friend, Issac Reinwand? Even the quote below about an accident and burial begins with the thought of "friend."

Anonymous said...


PI: ..so they want [LE?] to go through the people they have in hand first because sometimes there are SINISTER [emphasis added] crimes that occur."

Tanisha O'Neal Tompkins (baby Deorr's aunt, or maybe cousin?) Instagram ID is frozen_sinister.
https://instagram.com/frozen_sinister/

Juliet said...

I have been thinking about the parents' interview, and DeOrr's comment about the helicopter being used in 'much worse situations than this'. I agree with those who think he meant worse conditions/tougher terrain; Peter would probably say that is not what DeOrr actually said, so we can't say it for him - in which case it's probably back of the class for some of us. :-/ I am likely to persist in thinking that's what DeOrr meant - I think he has difficulty in articulating his thoughts, and gets his words mixed up.

What occurred to me today, though, was how Jessica let that comment pass. She jumped in at other points to correct him, but here she is silent. If I was in her position, I would have contradicted that strongly, at some point during the interview. Even if she is used to him getting his words wrong ('they were on our way', 'of a two year old' etc) and normally just edits his words in her own mind, on that I think it strange that she stayed silent, not only because I would expect her to feel protective towards her man and not want the interviewer or viewers to misunderstand what he meant, but because the mistake would cause her such upset and personal indignation that she wouldn't/shouldn't be able to let it pass. If she didn't want to interrupt or embarrass him by saying something like, 'That's not what he means, obviously there is no worse situation - sometimes he gets his words mixed up' - she could still have contradicted him, and anticipated his agreement with her and thereby rectification of his own words, at some point, just by saying on her own behalf, 'There's no worse situation than this, obviously -it's a nightmare, etc', and DeOrr would have likely agreed. So, it's interesting that she let that pass. I think her mind was almost completely elsewhere; she was so nervous, distracted, not fully engaged throughout. I wondered if maybe she was expecting them to be arrested at any moment.

This may be too harsh. My alternative take, then, is that Jessica was zoned out by stress and worry; she has long been resigned to DeOrr enthusing over anything with an engine, so her mind turned back to little DeOrr, and she was only half listening; she only took part in the interview because she wanted to make an appeal to an abductor, and to try to comfort her son if by any chance he might be watching; she doesn't care what anyone thinks or says about anything they do or say, her only concern is to have her son back (excepting that she does care, very much, about
the store sighting). She was distracted, but only by the thought of getting out of the studio, and back to the search.

I still think, even if everything there applied, that she would not have missed it, and should not have been able to let it pass, so it's interesting that she did. I don't know what to think next, though.

Anonymous said...

It's also possible Jessica had taken some medicine to calm herself.

But if Dad is enthralled by anything with an engine, Baby Deorr might be as well.....and may have run towards/after a vehicle of some sort. Did Isaac WALK to the fishing hole?

wreyeter72 said...

In all oof the parents statement's they DO speak of Deorr in present tense. The only time they use past tense is when they are referring to a past event. They talk about their son, though, in present tense. I believe any indicators of deception stem from. Terrible guilt they feel because their son did go missing because of their neglect. They don't know where he is. I'm certain this will pan out. If he fell in the water, it could be years or never before he is found. I don't believe they can search and say he isn't in the water. Did they search every inch to wherever the creek ends? Not likely and probably not possible. They likely decided his little body could have only gone so far and didn't search further. Stranger things have happened. And an animal could've drug his body away after he drowned.

Peter Hyatt said...

wreyeter72,

interesting theory.

Peter

Anonymous said...

PI: "He loved his son, that was his son, that was his blood, that was his heart, that was his life"

Past Tense. Words "blood" and "life." (If not referring to Baby Deorr, did Jessica have a miscarriage?)

Anonymous said...

or did Jessica terminate a pregnancy?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thinking about the interview, Peter's excellent analysis, the PI's accidental death and burial scenario, the truck sensitivity, and Emmy's Post here at 9:06...

Thinking about Dad Deorr's odd statement about the blanket not being a replica (said in the negative), but little DeOrr's actual/exact blanket that he never goes anywhere without. It was DeOrr's naptime and he'd need that blanket to sleep. Dad and Mom discussed and decided to go exploring, Grandpa was "near the fire", Isaac wanted to go fishing. How to contain a tired two-year old in the woods with no playpen/baby gate/room to put him in? Put him, with his blankie, in the truck-we're only going to be gone a few minutes. There's a reason "replica" was in Dad DeOrr's mind when introducing the blanket. When someone begins by telling you what something is NOT, you should always pay attention because it's sensitive to the person. They should be telling you what something is.I would not surprised if they had two of DeOrr's blanket, so he has one while they wash one (many families have twin items). It may have been an older version of the blanket or a substitute blanket while his favorite was being washed.

Theory only here: they put little DeOrr in the truck, with his blankie, to nap and he died from heat stroke/exhaustion. Dad Deorr was in a panic because he seen him til he figured he was gone and little DeOrr was dead. DeOrr knew "he was in trouble" because the location was his idea (maybe that is was so remote from help) and perhaps he was the one pushing and persuading to go exploring, when Jessica knew she should stay for little DeOrr's nap (hence, the "decision"). The second "decision" of the day centered around calling 911. Him "hauling" while Jessica was calling likely was a necessity. It would be difficult to explain to friends, family, the public how you left your child in a vehicle to indulge in a little free time; even more so, if they were impaired in any way (alcohol or drugs). Impairment may involve more serious charges (child neglect, child endangerment, etc.) and either could likely lose Jessica her CNA license/DeOrr his trucking job. Forgive me for saying so, but I wouldn't be surprised if little DeOrr wasn't buried with his blanket somewhere (water, tree hollow, under a fallen tree, shallow grave, etc.). IMO, the PI is floating the accidental death and cover-up to see how the public /family/friends will react.
So many of you are spot on with the Pi's language too. He provides a treasure trove for statement analysis in just a few sentences. He doesn't even believe the abduction theory, with his "I think", "I believe", "I'd rather not think", "I can't imagine", "in my heart of hearts".
At the end of the day, DeOrr is still missing. No one wins, when people lie/deny/deceive. People may think they're getting away with the deception, but the secret will eat them alive.

Anonymous said...

https://twitter.com/frankvilt

"Ex law enforcement specializing in locating kidnapped children. Too many pedophiles on the lose and too many liberal judges. More protection needed for kids."

-------

According to a certain Comedy Hypnotist:

"After much research I have been unable to find information that shows Frank Vilt runs a private investigation business. The only information I could find was relating to him and his desire to be a politician.

He has known the family for a while and may simply be using his experience as a former U.S. Marshal to assist the family. His theory is that the child was abducted and all signs point to an abduction."

trustmeigetit said...

Interesting LE didn't feel there were any signs that pointed to abduction.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Re: Wreyeter72
That is a good theory we haven't really considered here. I'm wondering though about decomp in the water, as well as in the dragging process if an animal removed the body (sorry to be somewhat graphic here). The Forestry Dept. and Search & Rescue familiar with the area would know about how fast surrounding creeks typically run in a given season and their course. Also thinking about the clothing/boots issue. Wouldn't there still be some evidence of that, even just some shred? Thinking about the wilderness areas and clearings I'm familiar with in my area- often remains are accompanied by buzzards/vultures/other birds of prey doing their circling/gathering thing.
It is the wilderness though and sometimes people are never found or it's years later, as you said.

Anonymous said...

Interesting theory about the blanket. Early on, they referred to it as being the one he came home from the hospital in (presumably, right after his birth). However, that's likely to be a newborn size one, so they may have gotten a larger blanket (but with the same pattern) later on. But this also makes me wonder if Little DeOrr had also been hospitalized at some subsequent point.

Anonymous said...

Comedy Hypnotist did one of his ever-amusing backwards speech analyses of the PI's interview, and came up with a pregnancy reference.

http://backwardspeech.com/category/deorr-jr/

Anonymous said...

http://frankvilt.com/about/

"He is presently completing a book about his years as a Deputy U. S. Marshal that involved the stopping a hijacking at the Los Angeles International Airport, making many high profile arrests and locating his two kidnapped children that were missing in Mexico for over two years."

Juliet said...

Also, on the parents' interview, and Jessica. I think, as she spoke when she wanted to, that she could have said more, had she wanted. Before the interview, she and DeOrr are likely to have discussed, even if just a bit, what questions were likely to be asked, and what they most wanted to say during the airtime available to them - they would have tried to prepare, if only somewhat, so as not to waste that time, and to put out whatever useful information they could. Airtime is precious, and for all they knew, it might be the only interview they would be given. Did they decide, then, or did Jessica find it convenient, that DeOrr should fill most of it with talk about the search, which in terms of helpfulness to the public, and appeal to an abductor, was, basically, useless waffle? The appeal, when it came, was half-hearted; talk about the blanket was what it was to him, the blanket in which he was brought home from hospital, the blanket he always has with him, the one he doesn't go anywhere without, not the one he will be pining for, and needing now. He's a baby who needs his parents and his blanket, yet they don't actually say that, nor even his name.

I think DeOrr's 'replica' just slipped out, because he was trying so hard not to let it. I think it is also little DeOrr's actual genuine blanket, just not the one he had with him, which is the same. I may be wrong, obviously; some of the extended family will know if little DeOrr had one or more of those blankets. If they all said they just didn't know, I wouldn't believe them because if a baby is attached to a blanket, the whole family is likely to have heard at least one saga involving the blanket being mislaid, or in the washing machine, or whatever, and how in the end, and after searching twenty towns or websites, they were finally able to find an identical other.

Anonymous said...

Vilt was removed from his position of deputy U.S. marshal on charges of issuing bad checks, failure to pay debts, and inattentiveness to duty.

See last paragraph here:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1059628.html

Anonymous said...

Vilt v. United States Marshals Service, Department of Justice, 16 M.S.P.R. 192 (1983)

(30-day suspension proper where law enforcement officer kited checks and his failure to pay just debts to agency and hotel used by employees disrupted office operations).

Anonymous said...

I do not think he was taken by a wild animal. I have a toddler at home who is also almost 3. Thinking logically and judging by his size, there is not a single animal in the Idaho forest that would be able to swallow little DeOrr whole without some trace left behind, like blood. An animal would have to drag his little body through the woods and into its nest, den, up a tree, whatever. If that were the case, the animal would likely excrete the baby's bones and clothing (if swallowed whole) via poop or vomit; or would eat around those if dragged "home". There would be some sort of evidence of his presence, alive or dead, somewhere in the forest.

I think poor little DeOrr was either abducted; met with an accident that the parents are trying to cover up, or not at the campsite to begin with, since he went missing only a few hours after they arrived there.

lynda said...

continues..

I: Up in Lemhi?

PI: Yes

I: and they stopped for french fries

PI: Yes

I: And there was an old man staring at the child?

PI: Just staring at the child, alot of times, an older person, a grandparent, will stare at a child but this kinda lends to my theory that maybe this man saw that's my grandchild, uh, my granchild, that's my grandson, maybe beause of a grandson who passed away years before, alot of things happen, alot of people will simulate, uh, and see somebody that uh, reminds them of someone else.

I: So if you were the lead investigator on this case believing that there was an abduction, that he was an abduction, where do you go from here?

PI: *Sigh* Well hopefully counting on the uh, media, uh to take the case up, and take an interest in it and want to cooperate with it by uh,broadcasting our nationwide tip line put into effect this morning, and try to get the word out, take an interest, and uh, try to have the people out there bein involved. Alot of good people out there. There's alot of people out there that like to stir it up and uh, and uh, muddy the water and uh, for no reason except just to do it. But there's alot of good people up there that will look and be surprised..some of these crimes are solved by a person just observing or hearing something and just this is the tip of the iceberg and it leads to eventually solving the crime. I honestly believe in my heart of hearts that these are grieving parents and uh, I wanna hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something. We just have to get the word out and bring Deorr home.


*** This is the end of the interview.The first thing that discredits this whole PI thing with me is that he knows the father and has had prior dealings with him, and does not feel he would do this. uh...predisposed much? Certainly not impartial. Some of his answers are simply bizarre. An old man staring at the boy??
What does everyone make of this?












lynda said...

this so-called private investigator is not only all over the place but his language is just plain bizarre. An old man staring at him? Taking the boy thinking its HIS grandchild? Most of the interview makes absolutely NO sense, it sounds like he is making sense but when you trnascribe..it's just bullshit and out there theories. The fact that he knows the family discredits him immediately in my book and I think his SOLE purpose was to talk to media because everyone is getting suspicious of parents NOT talking and that if speech analysis is done on HIM..that's ok. The parents just don't want speech analysis done on THEM.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the old man just couldn't see very well, or was staring at something behind the child.

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Lynda

His language is disturbing!

trustmeigetit said...

The old man staring thing reminds me of the McCanns.

The odds that this old man followed them to their camp site and waited for a moment to snatch the child while not impossible, highly unlikely. 1 child with a group of adults is risky.

lynda said...

Hot off of Backward Guy FB page....

"Today, I can confidently say that in my eyes, the missing link to what happened to DeOrr Jr. is solved. This is the one speech reversal that police MUST follow up on. It could potentially lead to not only DeOrr Jr. but to those who are responsible for his disappearance. It's now entirely up to the police whether they will follow this lead or dismiss it.
Many will questions this reversal, but it took me hearing it once for the hair to stand up on my neck and the unanswered questions to be answered. Hands down Rebecca Cox knows more than she is telling. She is the SMOKING GUN! There were other reversals found as well that I didn't post that may solve a second missing person case from 2010"

http://backwardspeech.com/speech-reversals-of-rebecca-cox/

Anonymous said...

Someone actually accused Backward Speech Guy of kidnapping Baby Deorr himself!

lynda said...

BSG is gonna get himself into trouble..he is now advising people to lie to the police to get his "reversals" heard.

Taken from FB page

Damon N Jess Ball: Hair on end, no joke. How sick! How does one get this tip to police or FBI?
Like · Reply · 26 mins

Backward Speech My recommendation, someone call and say they were in the bar and overheard a conversation that Rebecca was paid a $1000. Remain anonymous. That's the best I can think of because they won't go off the reversals.
Like · 24 mins · Edited

Anonymous said...

and then post that a public website!

Anonymous said...

Well, at least we can talk (and laugh) about this here. Another "sleuth" site has banned many discussions so, after hundreds of posts about Mountain Lions, Bears, Cougars, Bigfoot and the like; its users are now reduced to lengthy discussions of the merits of French Fries v. Baked Potatoes as they relate to the eating habits of toddlers.

Anonymous said...

Wow...so, of course while just posting that comment, I had to prove I was a human by clicking on pics of (what else?) FRENCH FRIES!

Anonymous said...

A private detective working for the family of 2-year-old DeOrr Kunz believes the boy is probably alive and was probably abducted.

Detective Frank Vilt was critical of the Lemhi County Sheriff's office for failing to follow up on potential leads. One of them was a tip from a woman who said she saw a boy matching DeOrr's description in Caldwell, Idaho. The boy was with a man in a gold van with Oklahoma license plates.

http://www.localnews8.com/news/private-detective-joins-search-for-missing-toddler/34678944

John mcgowan said...

"It could potentially lead to not only DeOrr Jr. but to those who are responsible for his disappearance. It's now entirely up to the police whether they will follow this lead or dismiss it"

The passivity is glaring. Why now, does he say "who are responsible when he was adamant it was the parents, previously, in his fb post's.

He is really starting to grate on me.

I'm annoyed that i'm even giving him a response, on here anyway.

His type (pseudo science) and others of his ilk, do more harm than good. I hope LE are reading what he is posting!

Anonymous said...

PROBABLY alive and PROBABLY abducted....

Well, that's reassuring (not).

"failing to follow up on potential leads..." Like every toddler boy with blond hair?

lynda said...

John McG....ITA, that PI is whacked and you're damn right...his language in of itself is disturbing.. It's as if he is just talking gibberish half the time. He sounds like a moron! "Kidnappings are usually a friend, or friend of a friend? Where can I see this statistic?

Juliet said...

Anon at 2.40 - that's quite possible. Here that would be encouraged as medication is a pretty routine offering in cases of shock, bereavement, and events causing similar levels of distress -I should imagine that's pretty standard everywhere.

I don't go with a truck accident because the dogs would have sussed that out early on -there would be tracks, footprints or impressions all round the area, as it would cause such panic. The scent of DeOrr would be on the ground, and on the truck tyres, perhaps also more than scent, not necessarily visible to the eye, but identifiable by forensics. I'm not saying a truck accident isn't it, one may have happened, perhaps not at the campsite - the truck may have been swapped for another, but that's wild speculation. Also, if an accident had just occurred there might still be chance of saving him, he could possibly be resuscitated, even if he looked dead, and to hell with the consequences. Wouldn't that be the more likely response? I don't know. I also don't see why Jessica would cover for him, and not call emergency services, if there was any chance her son might be saved. Well, if she was aware of it, and if that happened. It seems more likely, if there was an accident, that it would have involved negligence and quite a delay in finding him, with no chance of his being saved. A truck accident, even if under the influence, is still a truck accident, and they happen all the time - call emergency services and take the consequences. Being in trouble should hardly figure in such an emergency. Unless it happened and DeOrr drove away, unaware of the accident and a long time passed before someone discovered him. The deputy did say the dogs kept returning to the campsite, so it seems little DeOrr may have been there, or perhaps his things had been lain on the ground and gave that impression. We don't have enough information about the dogs, or where in the campsite they kept returning, but 'not a trace' might mean they weren't sure he was ever there. Surely, a truck accident would turn up at least a trace, and while tragic and terrible, would not be reason enough to fake a disappearance, if they have.

Anonymous said...

Maybe PI and Backward Speech Guy can hang out together with RSO saloonkeeper.

Anonymous said...

http://frankvilt.com/about/

"He is presently completing a book about his years as a Deputy U. S. Marshal that involved the stopping a hijacking at the Los Angeles International Airport, making many high profile arrests and locating his two kidnapped children that were missing in Mexico for over two years."

https://twitter.com/frankvilt

"Ex law enforcement specializing in locating kidnapped children. Too many pedophiles on the lose and too many liberal judges. More protection needed for kids."

https://frankvilt.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/girl-reported-missing-since-2006-found-safe-in-sterling-the-washington-post/

A link to the story below was posted twice, without comment, at one of PI's old blogs. Maria E. Cano is a Hispanic name, right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/girl-reported-missing-since-2006-found-safe-in-sterling/2012/04/20/gIQAHFt3bT_story.html

Girl reported missing since 2006 found safe in Sterling
By Caitlin Gibson April 23, 2012

A child abducted from California in 2006 was found safe in Sterling last week, the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office said.

The girl was 6 when her father reported her missing from their home in Los Angeles. The child, now 12, was found Monday living with her mother, Maria E. Cano, and Cano’s boyfriend in a home on West Nettle Tree Road, the sheriff’s office said.

After the girl’s disappearance, authorities suspected that Cano had taken the girl and left the country. The pair were thought to be traveling in a stolen car that was never recovered, authorities said.

The girl was found after Los Angeles police received a tip through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Web site this month, the sheriff’s office said.

Cano, 39, was arrested April 6 and being held at the Loudoun County Adult Detention Center without bond. She is awaiting extradition to California, where she is wanted on charges of child concealment and multiple counts of grand theft, the sheriff’s office said.

The girl, who was enrolled at Sterling Middle School, has had no contact with her father for six years, said Liz Mills, spokeswoman for the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office. She is in the process of being returned to her father, Mills said.

“It’s a sad story, but with a good outcome,” Mills said. “It gives other families hope that they can be reunited with their loved ones. So it’s a positive outcome that the girl is safe.”

lynda said...

John McG said..

"He is really starting to grate on me.

I'm annoyed that i'm even giving him a response, on here anyway.

His type (pseudo science) and others of his ilk, do more harm than good. I hope LE are reading what he is posting"

I know it! haha...but it's like that irresistible urge to watch a train wreck or rubberneck at a car accident! He's just getting more and more outrageous that you just HAVE to watch! haha.
You can bet your ass that LE is watching him and reading his FB. I want to see how long before he takes his suggestion for someone to lie to the police down.

John mcgowan said...

Lynda,

He is introducing his own words/language from his "personal, internal, subjective dictionary" without prompt, or using reflective language. I would run a million miles away from him, and advise others to do the same.

lynda said...

Ha! That didn't take long...BSG took down his request for someone to lie and say they overheard someone taking money so his reverse speech could "blow the case wide open"

Juliet said...

Anon at 5.32 - please -this is the Statement Analysis website, after all: admit it, you did not have to prove that you are human, only that you are not a robot. In this instance it may work out the same, but that's really not the point. :)

lynda said...

John...Seriously, I fail to understand how someone could lack such impulse control or whatever you want to call it, that he would post such things with no thought.

As for Peter's analysis that may suggest an accidental death, I have to get behind that. Several scenarios are reasonable such as, "backing over" him with truck. This would more than likely leave some sort of blood which could be dissipated with water, dirt, etc. and no longer seen by the naked eye. It may also account for the fact that the dogs kept returning to camp. Drowning, very likely especially if unsupervised. Drug overdose, very likely. The body was put in the truck and transported away from site. We have a whole hour at least unaccounted for (1:30-2:30) so as the crow flies...plenty of time to dispose of him quite a distance away.
Why would there be a cover-up? Person driving truck was high or drunk? Overdose, that's obvious, drowning, I would think because perhaps the parents were off getting high or drinking and they would at least be arrested for something. Mom has already given up or lost 2 of her children. But WHY would she go along with cover-up? I still have that niggle in my head that her "feminine products" trip to the store could have been a pregnancy test and she feared losing this child also. Or perhaps upon finding out that Deorr was dead, she was easily manipulated by dad into covering up so she wouldn't lose him also? The only thing that bothers me about the whole "cover-up" accidental death theory is that both mom and dad KNOW that their child was in the elements and/or buried and rotting away without a proper burial. That's alot. I don't know if I could go on normally knowing my kid was rotting/being scavanged by animals, decomposing, etc. out in the wilderness somewhere.

Sus said...

I have refrained from talking about the guy and giving him any credibility, but at last I can't resist.

Poster: Have you given this to the police?
BSG: No. They won't listen.

Yet on August 3,
BSG: ...after spending several hours with police last night, discussing my reverse speech with them. They were intriguiged and I found out that police ARE and have already been using speech reversals to assist in there [sic] investigation which I was not aware of.

When questioned about this very thing by a poster, here is his answer:
BSG: This was lemhi I talked to. They have no affiliation to the case anymore. It's all in the hands of the FBI.

Twist and turn. Slip and slide.

Juliet said...

Lynda - reverse speech guy's ethics leave such a lot to be desired. It's incredible he has 'faithful' followers when just a glance at his website or glimpse at his Facebook makes it so plain. I think they are egging him on without necessarily believing in him, it's rubbernecking plus, and all those 100% supporters will scarper if/when he comes undone. And he's just admitted the police give no credence to his reversals. Lols.:) Priceless, and good you got it before he deleted.

I need to watch/listen to the PI YouTube again, before joining in on that, but I am enjoying your transcript and all the comments so far. :)

Oakley A said...

Anom 3:22
As a contrast, I had two babies born in Feb.(4 yrs apart). They were made and given so many blankets. Their special ones weren't newborn size they were crib size.

Anonymous said...

This made me laugh! I was just over there reading all the French fry talk. Haha!

Oakley A said...

SENSITIVITY/TRUCK
Deorr Sr. towards the end of the interview, when discussing the store sighting, he says "there's a problem MY truck is black."
He took possession of the truck.
When he was asked by the interviewer about being in the truck and being the first to realize Deorr's not there, he gave the statement about searching 20 mins up and down the creek and his son was not there. He says "he wasn't there, that's when I got in MY pick up truck". He took possession of the truck.
He did not use a pronoun in his initial mentioning  which was free spoken though saying "when she called I was in THE truck...".  He did not claim possession of the truck. Using "the" which I think is a distancing word? He did not take possession of the truck.
 I wonder why possession in the other recounts and an article in this particular one?
He seems to be distancing himself from the truck at this very critical time while he is attempting to explain to and convince us why he was in the truck when she called 911.


lynda said...

So the PI said LAST NIGHT...see my transcript above but now is saying this? A complete contradiction of practically everything he said last night. Plus, he has a 10 minute interview and fails to tell everyone about a reported sighting with a woman and a man and a tan car? HUH? I also like that now he is described as a 'former friend" and says Deorr was "probably" abducted. I think this man might have some sort of mental/physical problem. Just bizarre.

Private detective joins search for missing toddler
By Luke Jones
Staff Writer
Published On: Aug 12 2015 03:34:57 PM CDT

Updated On: Aug 12 2015 09:45:19 PM CDT
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on google_plusone_shareShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services
DeOrr Kunz Jr.
DeOrr Kunz Jr.
MONTPELIER, Idaho -
A private detective investigating the case of missing 2-year-old DeOrr Kunz Jr. believes the boy is alive and was probably abducted.

“I feel that there is a possibility that he is still alive. Other kids have been abducted and located months, sometimes years later," said Frank Vilt, a retired federal marshal with 19 years law enforcement experience.

Kunz turned up missing during a camping trip with his family at the Timber Creek Campground at Stone Reservoir in Lemhi County on July 10.

Vilt, a former Kunz family friend who now works as a private detective in Montpelier, was critical of the Lemhi County Sheriff's office for failing to follow up on potential leads. One of them was a tip from a woman who said she saw a boy matching Kunz's description near Caldwell, Idaho. The boy was with a man in an older model tan Buick with Oklahoma license plates and had taken a ride with the woman to get gas.

“I'm not saying that the Lemhi County Sherrif's Office had tunnel vision, but they should have expanded their search and put out an amber alert," said Vilt.

Vilt said that had the Sheriff's Office acted sooner, he believes they could have gotten surveillance footage from the gas station near Caldwell.

“I've called the department several times and they've never returned my call," said Vilt.

Vilt established a national tip-line on Tuesday. He says the line has received about 30 tips so far, from as far away as the Caribbean.

The hotline number is 1-888-852-6505

MzOpinion8d said...

Clearly the mountain lions were attracted to the little boy because he smelled like fries. It was an old mountain lion, missing his mountain grandlion.

Seriously. The internet sometimes...

Juliet said...

Oakley - very interesting. I don't know, but could it be that he was no longer in his own truck at that point -maybe he was driving a different truck?

Anonymous said...

This is unbelievable. Some here are still yammering on and on about the reverse speech guy, when Peter has already likened him to psychics whom he disdains as being charlatans and scammers as most of us here do. What more is there to say?

Now it's off and running with the PI sought out by DeOrr Sr, whose questionable and unsavory background already proves him not credible in his 'heart of hearts' or his word usages. Alrighty then, I guess we'll beat this dead horse to death for a while longer too, 'eh?

More specifically, when does it stop with the reverse speech garbage that keeps spinning on and on? This is a statement analysis site with nothing more to analyze concerning this lunatic. Except for Peters' forbearance, it's hardly worth even reading here anymore.

Buckley said...

"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it."

I'm not sure if someone has pointed this out- here, DK doesn't take ownership of his truck.

Oakley A said...

Juliet has left a new comment on the post  

Oakley - very interesting. I don't know, but could it be that he was no longer in his own truck at that point -maybe he was driving a different truck? 

Yea Juliet he used my and the about the same instance so not sure if it was the same truck.
I thought about Susan Smith reporting "my" car until.she confessed what she had done then it became "the" car.

Apple said...

Buckley said...
"I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it."

I'm not sure if someone has pointed this out- here, DK doesn't take ownership of his truck.
August 13, 2015 at 9:36 AM
------
Buckley!
I hadnt noticed that before! Now im interested if he spoke about the truck any other time in his interviews. Good catch.

Apple said...

SENSITIVITY/TRUCK
Deorr Sr. towards the end of the interview, when discussing the store sighting, he says "there's a problem MY truck is black."
He took possession of the truck.
When he was asked by the interviewer about being in the truck and being the first to realize Deorr's not there, he gave the statement about searching 20 mins up and down the creek and his son was not there. He says "he wasn't there, that's when I got in MY pick up truck". He took possession of the truck.
He did not use a pronoun in his initial mentioning which was free spoken though saying "when she called I was in THE truck...". He did not claim possession of the truck. Using "the" which I think is a distancing word? He did not take possession of the truck.
I wonder why possession in the other recounts and an article in this particular one?
He seems to be distancing himself from the truck at this very critical time while he is attempting to explain to and convince us why he was in the truck when she called 911.
------
You noticed at well. Why distance himself from the truck at that particular moment?

Apple said...

A change in reality^^^

Buckley said...

Apple, I’m wondering if Dad got in the truck for some reason, “hauled off” fast and accidentally hit him. THE truck hit him, not Dad; hence the distancing...

“he's a goer and a mover but he does not go away from his parents, he does not.”

Dad leaving; He followed Dad to the truck since he does not go away from his parents?

"This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down"

I’m unsure about the “in what we thought” but if it’s “is”, then part of it reads…

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

He backed up and didn't see him? It takes more than a “split second” for parents to go for 10 minutes. Accidentally hitting a child, that’s a split second.

“He will trip over them”

Leakage? Did he fall behind the truck?

Buckley said...

Oh, and by the way- I don't know the layout of the grounds there, but if your priority is finding a small missing child, do you get in a vehicle and drive fast? It makes no sense that he wouldn't be looking and cautious as he drove the truck. Call or no call, I'd be inching along, looking and driving carefully.

Apple said...

Blogger Buckley said...
Oh, and by the way- I don't know the layout of the grounds there, but if your priority is finding a small missing child, do you get in a vehicle and drive fast? It makes no sense that he wouldn't be looking and cautious as he drove the truck. Call or no call, I'd be inching along, looking and driving carefully.

August 13, 2015 at 2:20 PM
----
Interesting point, Buckley. "Hauling" I interpreted as driving fast. I shouldnt interpret. But when you mention that, i have thought about what i would do if one of my young children went missing. Ive imagined in my mind running to the pond behind my house while screaming for someone to stop traffic in front of my house while also telling 911 to have the response vehicles drive slowly into my driveway so as to best protect my missing child. Ive run this scenerio through my head. This darn blog, it can make a mama crazy.

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

"This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way youcouldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second yourwhole world is upside down"

Pronouns are instinctive. When something is universal, "you" is sometimes used. When something is up close and personal, we must question why one is using distancing or universal language.

Recall the Baby Ayla case, in which the deceptive grandmother took two unique, and terribly intrusive personal events and said:

"When you're waiting for someone to call about your missing granddaughter...when someone is casing your house..." PH

Buckley said...

Right but they "own it" a little with the "what we thought". And it's one person is sharing the thought of two.

Anonymous said...

As for the truck sensitivity, given that the kid is described as active and they were so careful to choose a safe camping spot where they thought he couldn't get into trouble, did they maybe put him in the truck as if it were a playpen and it got too hot? Or he got out?

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

Apple and Buckley I am thinking he wants his audience to believe he was in the truck to get better cell service down the road. I personally don't believe that makes sense alone and the fact that he chose unasked to try to explain that makes me believe it even less. He said "my" truck when he said he got in it after searching for the boy for 20 mins, which probably actually did happen, although imo likely knowing he wasn't going to find him. Then he used "the' truck when he was giving a  probably deceptive reason for being in the truck down the road when she called 911. I am thinking he is sensitive not because something happened at that moment but for the  reason he was in the truck. I don't know that is what I thought. The reason he was actually in the truck down the road is still the question... to haul away something before the police showed up ? Don't know.  

Oakley A said...

John mcgowan
Very acute.
In reading that same statement, it may have been discussed but his language is so odd.

"This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down"

Could not not see him? Negative? Rather than you would be able to see him. How do you not not see someone? :\

Anonymous said...

May I humbly submit; that it wasn't necessary for DeOrr Sr to drive down the road at all to call for search and rescue. Oh. Right. He only had one bar showing on his phone and he felt he needed more? Does this really make sense? Go figure.

Think. Mamma had her cell phone and it was working fine. The little boy had already been missing twenty minutes (according to them) before she made the decision to call 911. WHY? Didn't DeOrr Sr already imply that one quick look and you could see he wasn't there? Why the twenty minutes so-called search before a call was made? THINK. Twenty minutes would give an abductor plenty of time to get a head start if they really thought little DeOrr had been kidnapped.

WHY the delay in calling 911 by either DeOrr Sr OR mamma? WHY did DeOrr Sr haul ass off down the road to call for help TWENTY MINUTES LATER which wasn't even necessary since mamma's cell phone WAS working?

Something isn't adding up with either parent. IMO, one way or another; accidentally, unintentional or otherwise, they are in this thing together.

Clare said...

I cannot help to think that perhaps they let the baby nap in the car and forgot about him. His need to talk about the truck- the nap- the blanket.

And maybe he brings up the creek because of how sweat drenched his son was when be found him.

With all of the people leaving kids in cars lately.... Maybe he didn't want to admit to that neglect?

Jessica Blans said...

I'm learning a lot by carefully reading the DeOrr analyses and comments. The principles and explanations for the principles are carefully constructed for new readers to understand and then deconstructed so that we can understand "why" or "how" behind these principles.

Thank you, Peter, for providing the lessons gratis.

I've read a number of other posts, but do not remember enough from them, even though I understood while originally reading. I began reading this blog because of missing baby DeOrr, so I've focused on these articles more than others.

One thing that particularly baffles me about statement analyses is, who decides what is expected and unexpected? Who determined that "ver," or "honestly" weaken a statement? If I were accused of a crime, but innocent, I'd probably include a number of words like "absolutely not," or "I've never done anything like that." I'd expect that these would strengthen my denial, not weaken it. I know there is a good reason for the principle, but would appreciate a brief explanation if anyone is willing.

On the same subject, Peter said it was unexpected for the father to spend so much time praising SAR when they were unsuccessful. I'm trying not to have a "me" bias, but it's hard to get away from it. I've learned that people respond well to praise, and if there is something I'm asking someone else to do, I will praise their past work -- highlight what they did well and ignore the problems. Being appreciated motivates many people. So if my child were missing, I'd praise everyone who was helping because I'd want them to continue. I wouldn't want them to be discouraged or to "phone in" their search. To me, then, talking so highly of SAR seems to be expected from a father who has little power, but dispenses what he has -- admiration -- in order to keep the crew committed to the search.

Jessica Blans

Oakley A said...

Jessica,
Fellow newby here. I read alot about context. I gather it is really important.
FYI
If you were in an interrogation room after your husband was shot, in your home, and LE asked you, Did you shoot your husband? You don't say I would never do anything like that. You best say, No I did not shoot my husband or Peter will nail you to the wall! Hahaha


Sua said...

Jessica, (and Oakley)
Welcome to the blog. I'm no expert even after years here, but I'll try to answer a few of your questions. You can also read back posts. Peter often uses his posts to teach SA.

First, read the printed material expecting to hear the truth. Go in with the mind set of innocence on the part of the teller. It should be easy then to notice the unexpected, things that maybe don't need to be explained, unneccessay words, out of order events, using past tense, etc.

As to a reliable denial, yes, you may use "absolutely" and "honestly." But eventually, if innocent, you are going to issue a simple reliable denial. "I did not ----." Extra words weaken the denial because they show a need to bolster it...if that makes sense.

Praise. Think what a frantic parent wants more than anything...to find their lost child. Their mind should be on their lonely, hungry, cold, probably hurt child. As grateful as they are for help, those searchers haven't found their child yet.

In Deorr sr's case, he over praised the searchers. He spent an inordinate amount of time praising a group who did not bring him his son. Now, this is where Peter and I disagree a but. I think he praised the group that cleared the creek. And I think to him they did succeed by NOT finding his son in that creek. I think he was so worried that Little Deorr was in there, it was a great relief to be assured he was not, and thus the over praise was justified in this case.

That's my two- cents for what it's worth. I hope others chime in with theirs.


Sus said...

Uh, that should be Sus. Too big of a hurry.

Oakley A said...

Sus
I'm with yah. In our everyday situations we might do a lot of things like Jessica said use praise to motivate people. But when your child is missing all bets are off as they say and your major focus is them, finding them. Your words would reflect that. Deorr Sr's focus was askew in relation to words discussing & praising the rescue workers and words about his lost son. It isn't solely that he praised rescue workers it was that he over praised them.
Thank you.
And I am also with you on the Isaac Rienwand train. :) Somethin is up with him.

Sus said...

Oakley,
One thing I have to say is I would never trust that search, though. They called off the walk search within days. I grew up on a farm with forest. No way was every bit of ground searched, no way. I would form search parties to do grid searches.

And don't even get me started on the dogs. I've read many cases where dogs didn't find the scent of the body that was right there. I would hire trackers myself.

I'm sure the searchers were all experts, but see, that's how I would react as a parent. I want my baby found.

I do think Little Deorr is in that area. I don't know whether he wandered away or if someone put him there, though.

MzOpinion8d said...

It's not that it would be expected that DeOrr Sr would be criticizing the search team instead of praising it. A bit of random praise is expected "we're thankful to everyone who has been helping search" for example, is acknowledging the help they're receiving but not gushing on and on and attempting to establish the familiarity like D Sr does.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Thinking about the one time we thought a child we knew was missing- parents call 911 with the overwhelming expectation that LE/Search & Rescue/Searchers are going to find the child. I'm not sure if it's because the parents know and rely on their skill set, training, ability or if it's the parents' sheer desperation. It's akin to our unspoken expectation that the cancer specialist is going to be able to save our loved one. Maybe because there's so much riding on it, we unconsciously attribute god-like/superhuman status and abilities to that person (or people). So naturally, when we fail to get the quick and comforting resolution we need/expect, we feel frustrated, disappointed, and even angry (if we're honest *wink-wink). The more experts involved, the more frustrated, disappointed, and angry we feel. We may verbalize our gratitude for the help, but it is tempered by what we perceive as the failure to save.

Aside to Sus- I'm on the fence about the excessive praise issue. I see your point and I'm inclined to agree with you about Dad DeOrr being just so thankful little DeOrr wasn't in the creek. The creek would have been my biggest worry with a toddler.

Anonymous said...

I have reread Peter's article for the third time, each time picking up more reasoning that causes Peter to believe DeOrr, Sr unintentionally caused his sons' accidental death due to his careless neglect of his son. IMO, Peters' carefully substantiated statement analysis is as correct as it can possibly be without any physical evidence to the contrary.

Believing that Peters' statement analysis is correct; I do not believe that DeOrr was showing relief that the searchers did not find the babys' body in the creek, inasmuch as he already knew the baby wouldn't be found in the creek, but was genuinely showing his appreciation for their hard work, caused by the wild goose chase he led them on, perhaps mixed in with shame that he had caused them all this unnecessary work when he already knew the baby wouldn't be found in the creek. He also knew the baby would not be found in the reservoir as that is not where he placed his little body, knowing the baby would not have been able to make it to the reservoir on his own.

IMO, the same expressions of excessive gratitude and being in awe of the hard work of all the searchers, the equipment used and DeOrrs' great (uncalled for) respect and admiration for LE even though they did not find his child, could be attributed to his knowledge that he knew they would not find the baby but DeOrr wanted them to know how much he appreciated their dedicated efforts and all the time he caused them to waste in the search for his son, knowing from the outset he would not be found.

What I'm not as sure about is mother Jessicas' involvement, or her expressions of guilty knowledge that Peter has not been able to ascertain so far. I wasn't able to determine how Peter arrived at the conclusion that there had been an argument between the parents prior to the 911 calls, but take his word for it that there was a disagreement between them; which leads me to suspect that Jessica does have some guilty knowledge concerning little DeOrrs disappearance and the lies DeOrr, Sr has told to create the abduction theory when she either knows or suspects differently.

She was not sleeping in a vacuum (was she?) so the question IS; why isn't she telling LE the whole story, which she clearly hasn't? IMO, there's more and she knows there is. I suspect she is the key to forcing DeOrr, Sr to confess what she believes actually happened to their son but might think she would implicate herself if she were to do so.

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous said...

August 14, 2015 at 6:02 AM


I wasn't able to determine how Peter arrived at the conclusion that there had been an argument between the parents prior to the 911 calls, but take his word for it that there was a disagreement between them;

"I decided"

When i hear someone say this, it tells me that they have had an internal dialogue with themselves whether to do or say xyz.
"I was going to go to xyz, but decided on abc" tells us, that i was debating with myself where to go and "decided" on abc.

"We decide"

This tells us that there was a discussion between two people or more, whether to do xyz. Given that their son is missing, it is not expected for a decision, conversation or debate whether to call SAR/LE or not, it delays calling and vital time maybe lost. We also have to wonder why such a debate was necessary?

Peter Hyatt said...

Good commenting, John.

With a missing child, there is no "deciding" to call 911...it is just what we do.

"I called 911."

By using extra words, the subject told us that there was a "decision" that needed to be made, meaning a debate (not necessarily an argument) took place.

Why anyone would not call 911, but need to talk about it first, itself, is alarming.

Peter

Bethany said...
This comment has been removed by the author.