Peter is jealous of KM? LOL...oh, my sides!!! To the people over on the Justice for DeOrr FB page: It's over. The collapse of KM is complete. He has proven himself a quack, has made up lie after lie, has encouraged his followers to make up lies to LE in order to further his own agenda, his investigating skills include analyzing movie sounds in the background of a home video tape. He's done, irrelevant. Let it go. Focus your time and energy into someone/something that truly matters.
Dear Kara Rowyourboat....err.....Roxbury.... Damn autocorrect!!!
We might not know where Snake River is, but we know this.....
Peter's work is better and more relevant.
You know what isn't?
Listening to a video of a mother and child playing, and analyzing it and then posting for the world to see.....only to find out it was the movie StepBrothers playing in the background.
Peter also doesn't tell his followers to make false police reports, as he has a lot of respect for LE to do their jobs right.
Hope that bites ya right in the streaky blonde shorthairs.
There is something particularly strange about Trina's quivering voice saying the focus should be on "this baby" after she had referred to DeOrr as "that baby".
I can't quite put my finger on it.
You asked
"Was the "kidnapping" designed by one party or a close family member to bring them closer together?*
It could be. There is something so strange about the family relations, and something so odd about Trina's language.
Have their homes been searched?
I thought it was odd in the interview with Isaac, I noticed and I saw one of the commenters noticed that he is holding the door with his arm outside the door as if he is trying to keep something from pushing the door open and getting out of the house. I will post link below.
I think it is very unlikely DeOrr is alive, but I very much wonder if any of their homes have been searched, and I am guessing they have not been.
Isaac says to reporter "Um...as far as I know, he just disappeared is all." Why does he minimize it like it's not even a big deal? Could he be hiding something? Or even hiding DeOrr? It is so strange how he minimizes a 2 year old going missing by saying "he just disappeared is all"
They seem a bit bored - they must be feeling at a bit of a loose end since their honourable leader had to remove all his 'reverse speech is never wrong' reversals from his site, and also to delete or deactivate his Facebook. it must be difficult to accept that they've been had by a comedy hypnotist, but is posting their drama here really necessary?
I hate to disillusion you people, but I wouldn't count on the FBI divulging anything. They "keep close to the vest" (God, I hate that term) whatever suits them for whatever personal reasons of their own that might sway them not to act.
They didn't bother to divulge their findings up in Satsuma when they whipped their black SUVs up to Putnam County, surrounded a holding bay of water and searched for Ronald Cummings' haul of illegal firearms. Sure enough they dragged them all out of the water; ahh... they belonged to Ronnie alright, and never said another damned word nor did they file charges against this conniving dope head thug, KNOWN drug dealer, woman and child abuser; even though two or three other illegal firearms had already been pulled out of a ditch near Tommy Croslins' place of abode, ALSO belonging to the fair-haired Ronnie boy.
Ditto for the headless rat ole Ron placed in Tommys' mailbox as a warning to him and ALL the Croslins to keep their stupid mouth shut. They did, becoming the scapegoats.
They ALSO have not commented about those multiple tens of thousands of adult AND kiddie porn images they reviewed off Billie Jean Dunn and Shawn Adkins' computers and thumb nail drives, OR those found in Billies' home. They suck. ABB
I think Peter is surprised and bemused that anybody seriously believes reverse speech has any merit as an investigative tool. Perhaps he overestimates people's intelligence.
It would be wonderful if reverse speech could detect truth and/or deception. It would be marvellous if psychics could predict the future, know the unknowable and/or commune with the spirits of the dead. I understand why people want to believe.
Too bad it's all bullshit.
BSG's analysis of what he claimed to be audio of DK and was, in fact, the movie, Stepbrothers, was hilarious.
The door step interview with IR is bizarre. "He just disappeared is all" is so unexpected. The arm over the door is strange, too. Is it possible that he was promised money in exchange for a brief interview and the body language displayed is his impatience to receive it?
His language displays cognitive dissonance. He is barely coherent.
I can't understand the IR connection to this case. Was he brought along as some kind of patsy? That speaks to premeditation. Could he be responsible for baby DeOrr's disappearance? I keep going round in circles.
Quote from Kara Roxbury: "Statement Analysis of Peter Hyatt." "He is very biased of reverse speech and psychics and anything spiritual." ANYTHING spiritual?
Grow a brain. You can't get inside Peters' head to know that he is biased against "anything spiritual". In fact, he ISN'T. Peter has a spiritual life of his own that you know nothing about; how could you, when you have no spirit of discernment and don't even know what this means. You are blindly deceived. Don't be a fool. NO ONE has an all-seeing eye other than God Almighty Himself.
Peters' disdain for psychics and backward reverse speech practitioners (another form of psychics), all liars and deceivers; is directly in line with the teachings in the Holy Bible, where we are WARNED not to call on or follow these false teachers. They will ALL be cast into the lake of fire and you right there with them if you don't get your head up out of the sand, turn to REAL wisdom, repent of this evil that is against God, and learn these spiritual matters for yourself before it's everlastingly too late. Consulting with, following, and cavorting with evil spirits is not a game. ABB
After reading everything you post are you really going to ask that question?? I mean- as far as covering what may have happened to this little boy- I am pretty sure you have ALL of your bases covered! Everything!
Um....aren't you re one that called her a drama queen?
Anon @5:46, I don't think Peter really over estimates anyone's intelligence, I just think that sometimes he tries to soft-peddle it with some that he fully recognizes are less intelligent than he is; in other cases I would tell some of these ding-a-lings to pound salt where he doesn't. But it's not for lack of not realizing their stupidity or an IQ that is way less than his own. This takes practice.
One of my greatest disappointments in life has been the realization of just how dumb some people are and how to handle them without making your own self look like a crazy idiot. Few smart people can master this affect.
Let's face it; if at least 51% of our voting population were not as close-minded and dumb as they are, this country would not be in the condition it's in.
Peter frequently tries to give them a break where I wouldn't be able too. ABB
To those who seem to be leaning towards thinking the disappearance of little DeOrr was some big conspiracy in the making between the parties, I don't think so at all. We're not dealing with smart people here, alrighty? Nor are they moneyed people.
They are opportunists of the red-neck sort, none of them real bright, but not street-thug smart enough to set up this elaborate conspiracy among themselves; but ARE of the hill-jack mentality who will cover up for each other til dooms day. What personal gain would there be for each of these people to jump into a conspiracy to kill and dispose of little DeOrr and cook up this eleaborate scheme to hide it so well? None.
None of them have c'rap, do they? Do they owe each other that kind of favor? For doing what? I rather doubt it. UNLESS Issac has somehow been involved with one or more of them in sexually abusing this baby; THEN the plot thickens.
I wouldn't be at all surprised though, if one is covering for another, and another is covering for another and so on down the line. They ARE rather dumb however, so I'm just waiting for one of them to crack, which also might be unlikely. ABB
Where are the polygraph results? Where is DK's 911 call? Where is the sketch of the suspicious Swan River staring man in the black Rubicon? Where is the FBI report? What happened to baby DeOrr? Why do some cases grip our attention like this?
Where's the $20,000 reward coming from - is he maybe not anticipating playing it out?
The sketches are taking a while. Does it take longer to produce a sketch based entirely on imagination, I wonder?
Anon @6.15 - Somewhere along the way I did make the uncharitable observation that Kara is a drama queen, yes - she seems to have taken it pretty hard to still be performing over it after all this time, but perhaps it touched a nerve. It must be hard for them to admit that they jumped on a cowboy's bandwagon, but we all make mistakes. :)
You can't edit once you have posted, or delete, if you post as anon or just with a name - I'm not sure if those who post with a linked profile can edit but they are able to delete their posts - I don't know if they need to prove they're not robots. Previewing your posts is the nearest you can get to editing.
I am surprised we haven't heard anymore about the "staring" man. Wasn't there supposed to be a composite drawing made? If they think he is the kidnapper, you would think there would be some urgency?
IFF there was a staring man, it was probably someone who had his system shocked at seeing such a motley crew, particularly if baby DeOrr was traveling with them (doubtful!) in filth.
Not buying their shyt that the staring man could have followed them in his expensive black rubicon all the way back to the campsite and could have snatched the baby. Without them being aware that they were being followed; nor did they see him when he took the baby in a campsite that was so 'open' to all for observation, where one could practically hear a pin drop it was so quiet?
More bs just trying to wring out something to reinforce their weak alibi. They went into town for one reason only, to make a purchase where they would get a receipt to try to wing it from there. ABB
If there had been a staring man he would have been mentioned, at least, in the first interview, and the parents wouldn't have tried to discount the black truck sighting of the gentleman and little boy 'matching our description of our son'. There was no staring man, and Jessica was not in the store at six. The receipt purchases were made on the Friday, by Jessica and DeOrr 'as a family', during the alibi creating trip to the store, by which time little DeOrr was long gone. IMO. The staring man reminds me of how Jerry McCann belatedly figured out an abductor must have been hiding behind the bedroom door when he went to check on Madeleine. The length of time it has taken them to come up with the staring man story suggests no urgency, more desperation, but not towards the truth.
Welcome! Backward Speech has been sold for the amount of $233,000. This domain and site content, along with Facebook pages etc are NO longer affiliated with it’s previous owner. We will continue to provide reverse speech services and will continue the work of the previous owner. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We hope to have our site up soon and would love if you would continue to follow the wonderful world of reverse speech."
Posted on September 21, 2015 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Oq74c0h5ht4J:backwardspeech.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Anon @ 3:21pm - I don't see that verbiage (the sold part) on the link you provided. Why in the world would someone want the amount they paid for that website announced like that? I doubt very seriously someone paid Kellen Marson that much money for the backwardspeech.com domain. More bs being spread around.
This is Google's cache of http://backwardspeech.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Sep 23, 2015 10:25:25 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more Full versionText-only versionView sourceTip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar. Skip to content Backward Speech
Just another WordPress site
Menu and widgets Search for: Recent Posts
Backward Speech has been sold Recent Comments
Archives
September 2015 Categories
Uncategorized Meta
Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org Backward Speech has been sold
Welcome! Backward Speech has been sold for the amount of $233,000. This domain and site content, along with Facebook pages etc are NO longer affiliated with it’s previous owner. We will continue to provide reverse speech services and will continue the work of the previous owner. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We hope to have our site up soon and would love if you would continue to follow the wonderful world of reverse speech.
Posted on September 21, 2015September 21, 2015Leave a comment on Backward Speech has been sold Proudly powered by WordPress
Use of the WHOIS privacy service prevents determining the identity of the owner of the domain. It was bought or renewed on July 18, 2015 and expires on July 18, 2016. He was not thinking too long term, then, with just a one year renewal.:)
I would be surprised if the backwardspeech.com domain would sell at all in the current climate given the negative publicity associated with it, and if someone did buy it, it would maybe go for a couple of hundred dollars, tops. It is rare for domains to go for even more than a few hundred dollars, a couple of thousand on a good day, if someone wanted it badly enough, maybe. So there may be a mistake with a decimal point there. :). Really, who is buying this? - which new owner announces that a domain has been 'sold' rather than that they have purchased it? Lols. Who would want to associate, rather than disassociate themselves from the previous owner - at least when it is not looking so great for the 'previous' owner?
Still, 'new' owner is working on setting up a shiny new orangey blog theme at the minute - will not watch with interest. :-/
'New' owner shares ego of 'previous' owner - first post 'Hello, world!' - indicates anticipated audience/interest? :). Some people are just a tad transparent.
Lol - here is his new Facebook, run by four experts, one an attorney, so watch it, guys. Lols. You couldn't make this stuff up- oh, wait - some people can. :)
Backward Speech Investigations 23 hrs · Edited · This is the new page of Backward Speech. As the new page owner of Backward Speech and a certified analyst myself I will continue to share the amazing power of Backward Speech. Due to the DeOrr case, Kellen has recently received some serious threats towards his family, among other things, and has decided to step away from this case publicly. Despite the rumors, Kellen is still very much involved and invested in finding closure for DeOrr. I will be posting my own reversals as well as reversals that Kellen may find on this case, but for his safety all reversals will come from me. Further, this page has 4 admins, all of which are certified reverse speech analysts with one being a full-time practicing attorney. Before doing a screen shot, copying posts and acting like children because you don't agree with our work, I would think twice. Our attorney has recently subpoenaed Facebook and received the real names of two Facebook page owners. These cowards will be facing serious legal action. If you disagree with us, there are other places for you to voice this. It will not be here, nor will your messages or posts be acknowledged. We understand everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but this page is for those that enjoy this technology and want answers.
Well.....that escalated quickly.
So....how does one become a "certified" reverse speech analyst? Is it listening to "Paul is dead" over and over or......??? Possibly Step Brothers??
I'm going to put my nutsack on your drum set!!! Hahaha
The door step interview with IR is bizarre. "He just disappeared is all" is so unexpected. The arm over the door is strange, too. Is it possible that he was promised money in exchange for a brief interview and the body language displayed is his impatience to receive it?
His language displays cognitive dissonance. He is barely coherent.
I can't understand the IR connection to this case. Was he brought along as some kind of patsy? That speaks to premeditation. Could he be responsible for baby DeOrr's disappearance? I keep going round in circles.
I agree. "He just disappeared is all" is unexpected. It is such a minimization and said with such nonchalance.
You asked "Was he brought along as some kind of patsy?" I believe he was.
I do believe it was premeditated.
I have to disagree with ABB. I believe this was a premeditated plan, a complicated plan, and we do not know the intelligence of these people, as ABB pointed out that he or she feels these people are not intelligent enough to premeditate any kind of complicated scheme. Oftentimes, people who possess diabolical intelligence, the ability and desire to carefully plan and scheme, will present themselves as "dopey" or "not very bright" or "oblivious".
Especially "careful schemers" wear a masque. What does the masque do? It covers the fact that they are always carefully scheming. None of the 3 (Grandma, Jessica, Dad DeOrr) strike me as such bumbling idiots that they could not be wearing a mask to cover the ability to carefully scheme. A lot of Dad DeOrr's more "white trash" language seems contrived, like when he calls his kid "a mover and a goer" or says he "hauled" up the road, it doesn't quite match up with the rest of his speech which seems quite coherent. It's almost like he's intentionally dumbing down some of his vocabulary without changing the fact that he is quite conscious of what he is saying, he is coherent, he does not seem unintelligent, and he seems to be carefully weighing his words.
Layna Hauser @Steve Pitzing...do you know if Kellen does anymore reversals on this case? I have tried to go to his website and it says that the website has been sold...WTH? No new information from Kellen in quite awhile. Like · Reply · Yesterday at 01:32 · Edited Kellen Marson Kellen Marson Layna Hauser I recently sold a portion of my business to another analyst. I am still doing reversals and have many pulled from the PI investigation, but my website and facebook page will no longer be updated or ran by me. It's up to the new owner if he chooses to post my reversals or not. Most of my time will be spent now working with a volunteer cold case team. Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 02:11 · Edited
----
'MY website and Facebook page will no longer be updated or ran by me. It's up to the new owner if he chooses to post my reversals or not.'
Well, it's still his, apparently despite the new owner claiming it's been 'sold' for hundreds of thousands of dollars - and the new owner has already conveniently announced that he is going to be posting Kellen's reversals, because anyone just would pay that much for the privilege of running and updating someone else's' website, and filling it with the previous owner's material, wouldn't they? Such an investment opportunity. Lols. Does he think we're all ten? 'Childish' is a word which figures quite frequently in Marson's posts -seems he has yet to grow out of imaginary friends/web site purchasers.
Sara Williams There's really not Kellen. More people are with them then against. Have you ever had a missing child? If you haven't then how can you say their behavior makes them look guilty? Seems how you all want them to be puppets why don't you enlighten everyone on how they should be acting? If you haven't then I think you and everyone else running their mouths have no reason to judge them on how they are acting... This type of thing doesn't happen to everyone so how can people say, "well if it was me I would do this or that" .. It's not you!!! Have you ever been in the parents position? No! so how can you truly know what's right and what's wrong when it comes to their actions throughout all of this... More · 4 hours ago
Kellen Marson You are misinformed! No I have not had a missing child and I hope I never do, but I have worked with several investigators and parents of missing children and have with the use of reverse speech helped solve 8 missing person cases that involved children and 1 that was an adult all of which had or were about to go cold. These are just a few of hundreds of cases I've been involved in. I've seen investigators who are willing to hear the reversals and use them shocked when they see the truth come out. If you don't think the government uses reverse speech you are also wrong. The government has attempted to control reverse speech for years. The point is, I believe in my work, you don't. Not ONCE have I tried to convince people that reverse speech exists. It's not my job! There are substantial studies that prove it's validity.
What you are referring to is physical behavior, I am referring to there unconscious behavior that is displayed through reverse speech. I go off my speech reversals which is a persons true unconscious behavior. I don't expect everyone to believe in my work that wasn't my intention of any of this. I simply do the analysis and post it for those that want to see a different perspective. I wasn't the first to claim they harmed their child and I won't be last. You and I will never agree on which has more supporters, I only go off what the polls say and they are overwhelmingly not in favor of the parents.
Lastly, I agree no one can predict how one will behave physically in a situation. However, a google search will bring up hundreds of studies of thousands of cases that document what is typically behavior among one who is innocent and typical behavior of one who is guilty. This is why ones behavior is admissible in court. I do work often with a behavioral analysts who has testified in hundreds of court hearings on the behavior of suspects. In her words, "Human behaviors is incredibly predictable. People respond very similar based on the specific emotions they are feeling." Although I'm not an expert on human behavior, it's not hard to see that the parents behavior is not typical of one who is innocent, but with one who is either guilty or hiding something.
I respect your opinion as I have everyone's. The only ones personally attacking are people such as yourself towards those that believe otherwise. The only people I ever attacked were the parents. It's amazing how you maintain the childish belief of attacking, under a fake profile, to those who disagree with your ideology on page created for those that have enough common sense to see through the parents. Again, you are hypnotized by the parents! smfh. The only ones doing any attacking are those who agree with the parents and it's against anyone that doesn't agree with them. Yet, those who disagree with the parents, the only ones they attack are the parents.
As soon as everyone puts emotion aside and is able to see how bizzar and messed up this entire case is, the sooner the parents will buckle. The only ones truly keeping the parents out of jail are those that support the parents. When they have no one else to turn to, the truth comes out.
Kelley Marson has now solved 8 missing persons cases and one adult missing persons case using reverse speech technology. These are only a few of hundreds of cases he is involved with working on.
You can say he is pretty tight with LE Right now.
I am thinking that Kellen Marson is who they are keeping close to the vest right now. Bahahahaha!! I am amazed at his ability to continually lie, and lie, and lie some more. Just to make something that got made fun of in the 60's/70's that nobody believed in (reverse speech) look relevant.
Unfortunately all this does, instead of making me believe in his technology, (which he seems like a very well educated man, until he gets online and starts typing) is make me feel bad for the family, since it seems he could care less as long as he is offending or terrorizing them along with Kara Rowberry. It's more just to get his name out there. He says he does it in Deorr Jr.s name, but his own words show that he wants to be front and center of this freak show. :(
DeOrr is very conscious to avoid the past tense, even when it isn't necessary - he tries so hard and overdoes it. He's aware that speaking in the past tense about his son is a giveaway sign that he knows or believes his son to be dead. This is the Monday interview, and he's had since Thursday/Friday to practise and work on that - it's something anyone who is a fan of true crime shows would be aware of, so that he keeps or tries to keep everything in the present tense doesn't have to mean premeditation, but the fact he does it where it's unnecessary does point to guilty knowledge. I think the few things they said about DeOrr were all rehearsed to be present tense. When he's more spontaneous he overdoes it, thus 'not a stone left unturned, there still isn't'. Those few words have caused some people, including Marsdon, to suspect little DeOrr will be found under a rock, but I think it's just another instance of DeOrr turning past into present tense.
From the beginning I saw parallels with the Madeleine case, and wondered if someone had followed that closely, especially the 'confusion is good' aspect, and if there were not some imitation of that - still, even if that were the case, it would not necessarily point to premeditation, more mirroring, but after the fact.
I still want to tend towards a terrible accident followed by panic and a cover-up, possibly involving other family members. I think phone calls and texts between Jessica and her mother could be so accounted for, as could the family's defence of them, closing ranks, the vague narrative, misleading timeline. If there was evidence of an insurance policy on the baby I would have to think differently - as in why would anyone insure a baby's life, and as there then being a motive for someone who was desperate for money to cause or have harm caused to him. I can't think of any other motive anyone might have to cause him harm - if the parents did not want to care for him, someone else in the family would have taken him, or they could have put him into care. I still believe DeOrr was a much loved baby. There's Jessica's 'Who would harm us in this way?,' too - which does still leave me wondering if DeOrr was possibly a victim of a drug debt related revenge attack, which they covered up, out of fear of further harm. I still have the idea that something happened at a different campsite - but still, that six o clock sighting puts them and Little DeOrr in Leadore at six on the Thursday.
I don't consider the family to be lacking in intelligence - intelligence is not exclusive to a certain 'class' of people, and snobbery is for snobs. I can't be bothered with ABB's wild judgements concerning them - it's just being unpleasant towards the family for the sake of it, creating supposed 'facts', rather than trying to look at what is actually known, or what might be the case.
I saw Kellen and Kara piling into Sara last night, once they had decided she was Tanisha. They should step back and listen to themselves - it's incredible that they, thinking they were interacting with Tanisha, would treat her as they did, with Kara accusing her of having said something which was not said - but Marson and Kara are the victims of the family, poor dears. They worry for their own safety, and for their children - so much that they carry on just as before. :) They all need a psychiatrist, yesterday - not Tanisha, btw, whether she is Sara or not. She seems to have been given little choice in the affair, they have decided she is Tanisha and are filing more complaints about her on the basis of something 'Sara' didn't even say - thus the unreasonable nature of these people. By now it seems they could not care less about little DeOrr - all they care about is being proved right.
Do we need to have Marson's outpourings posted here - is there no sanctuary? It's like the Day of the Triffids, though the Triffids were less invasive.
My "wild judgments", Juliet? Let me tell you something sweet pea, since the initial interview posted by Peter and the attached video, I haven't clicked on the first one of the links throughout all these posts, I couldn't tell you who said what regarding who and what or where and when, nor have I run off foaming at the mouth which you certainly have done numerous times with your many lengthy posts twisting this way and that way; but I CAN tell you this:
These people LIED from the moment they checked into the campsite, whenever that was. They initially SAID they had arrived on Friday, set up camp, decided to take a walk, weren't gone exploring more than ten minutes, came back and found the baby missing that they thought was getting ready for his nap and 'thought' great granddaddy would be looking out for and wasn't; looked around for him about ten minutes then proceeded to call S & R separately and bla bla); which, in fact, put their whereabouts of 'missing' time well into Friday afternoon. And on and on. ALL bull shyt lies. Right there they had already covered their trail for all of Thursday evening & night and all of Friday morning into the middle of the afternoon. And THIS is my wild imagination? Facts honey, facts.
It turns out they arrived on THURSDAY. God only knows how much earlier in the day they arrived; Dad DeOrr was seen at the store with a screaming, filthy, painfully hysterical baby DeOrr in his black truck at around 6:00 pm that day, (this TOO they tried to hide); no mention of mama Jessica being there, so neither you or anyone else knows where she was; was she inside the cab of the truck, could have been lying down, or just WHERE? She and DeOrr know, certainly not you or I. Definitely NOT taking care of her baby. Wherever it was they had hunkered down Thursday evening? Probably. But you can't answer that nor can anyone else, but you sure as hell have done a lot of "wild" speculating about it.
You have speculated wildly about some insane conspiracy where they ALL want to kill the baby, which I highly doubt, maybe they did and maybe they didn't, more than likely it is the cover up they are conspiring to do; as it turns out that their RSO camping bud Issac has ALSO lied a blue streak, and great granddaddy at 70ish isn't as lethargic as some might think, after all, he IS able to drive his camper, take a PORTABLE oxygen tank, walk about and sit up and take nourishment; so much bla bla bla for his failing health. THEN it is further revealed that some of these yo-yos ALSO have unsavory relatives in their not so distant background; but I AM A SNOB? Lady, the facts speak for themselves.
I don't need to go on and on speculating endlessly about what each one has done and said and yada yada like you do over and over, sitting there and reviewing all these links over and over; PLUS claim this is some sort of accident. Why would you look for excuses for a rotten no-good negligent mother who won't even clean up her kid or buy him a decent fitting pair of shoes, or use sun protection on his burning sensitive skin? ....ummm, Are you one yourself, so you can relate to this? You've got a few lose screws in your head if you actually believe this is some sort of pitiful accident. Jessica is no mother; take it or leave it, THAT is a fact. And DeOrr ain't nothin' but a lair. BOTH liars to the end. A piece of dirt. Period.
JUST from the initial lies of these hill-billy ner'do-well cons, it's pretty clear they have done something with this baby whether the REST of this motley bunch sits back and covers for them or not, which they ARE doing. They are ALL deceivers in one way or another, but this is NO accident. And THATS no wild speculation honey pot; THAT is just common sense. Pound salt. ABB
Justice4DeOrr: I'm betting they will be relieved as hell when October rolls around, and the hunting season cranks up, and the snow flies and covers the area; then they won't have to fake searching for him anymore.
They can happily go home, sit back and wait for spring. Wallow in their misery. Maybe collect a little money off GoFundMe for a while. Afterall, baby daddy DeOrr has lost all this time from work. Yep. I can see it comin'. ABB
Rave on for Juliet as long as you hold up, makes no difference to me, but if you're really astute you will learn sooner or later than the woman is a loose hinge whose own family would be better off if she spent at least SOME of her valuable time giving them a little of her attention. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Obviously you can't see the forest for the trees.
Nonetheless, I have enjoyed many of your posts and some of hers. She just needs to get a life, that's all, and quit making excuses for baby killers while she slams me, one of the few here who can actually see a little further down the road.... Enjoy your day. Have at it. ABB
What's most pathetic to me regarding the Fight for Justice for DeOrr Facebook page is that it's the same small group of bat-shit-crazy nut jobs all talking to themselves: Kellen Marson, Kara Rowbury, Cindy Park Schiller, Holly Massey Tomlinson, Dexter Beasly, Damon n Jess Ball, Mindy Washburn Espeseth, Wanda Johnson, Kaylaylariee Hoflack, and the owner of the page (Kara). The page has a total of 129 likes, as opposed to the THOUSANDS that the other DeOrr pages have. Nobody cares about the Fight for Justice page lol... they are just making fools of themselves.
As for Kellen, he must think that we are really stupid to believe that he has sold his backward speech pages to someone for hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially considering the tarnished reputation of his "business". Who in their right mind would do so, and then turn around and continue to post Kellen's drivel to the website? (as Juliet already mentioned). But this doesn't surprise me...raging egomaniac narcissists like Kellen think that they are smarter than everyone else. He looks like a total fool to everyone else except his loyal 8-10 followers that post with him on the FFJFBD page. It's really kinda sad. And funny!
In your speculations that are not yet given facts; some of you might want to consider that baby daddy DeOrr and mama Jessica had all night to dispose of this poor baby; from the last known verifiable sighting of little DeOrr and baby daddy DeOrr when they were seen in the store at around 6:ish pm on Thursday evening until nearly mid-afternoon on Friday when they finally decided to report him 'missing'.
(Common sense will dictate that when one does not report an "accidental" death of their child, there is a reason that outweighs any guilt they might feel for the actions they took, including abandoning and not even giving the child a proper burial. Uh... that would be obvious INJURIES, okay?) ABB
From the time they left the store and stopped off at another store to obtain verification of their 'family visit' there, would give them in the neighborhood of 20 hours to travel across two states to dispose of his precious little broken body, and back, during which time they hoaxed up their 'plan'. Of course, daddy DeOrr insinuates loud and clear that the baby will not be found anywhere on the campsite, every stone and rock having been overturned and every inch and body of water having been searched, already knowing he is not there.
I learn towards believing, (as Juliet and several others do), that the poor little thing died on that Thursday night; having been beaten to death in a fit of anger by daddy DeOrr, or both parents, (which was no damned accident) shortly after the humiliating trip to the store where he bought candy for the baby, trying to quiet him down; when all either he or Jessica had to do was clean up the little boy, remove the boots that were causing him sores and blisters on his little feet, soothe his painful diaper rash and doctor his burning sensitive skin.
Oh yeah, they had plenty of time to haul the poor little thing many miles away. It wouldn't surprise me if this child is not found for the next several years and then in some park or other hidden isolated area far far away, if ever. Just speculating, of course. ABB
I agree with you, Anon @9:36, even though I haven't read any of their posts or any of the links posted here either. That's just plain nuts to think anyone would pay that sort of money for some non-producing website and pages when it's so easy to set up your own website for mere peanuts by comparison. I know, I've done it. You don't suppose some fool really did that, do you? Enjoyed your post! ABB
Hi. I've been reading this site and have found it very informative. I should day that I've been applying some of these techniques without knowing about them in my own personal life. I've been lied to, about, betrayed by close relatives for decades. I'm looking into the purchase of your book on Kindle.
As far as this case is concerned, I think poor Deorr met an unintended death elsewhere with a burial and cover up by family, at the campsite or buried elsewhere, with the family 'staging' a campout to move away from actual events and burial site.
If Deorr was ever at the campsite he would have left the following 'clues' as a 2+ year old :
more than 1 diaper soiled
tracks
finger marks and scents from playing with dirt, sticks, stones, etc
possible urine or feces if parents were trying to potty train, or let him loose without a diaper
drool, snot, or slobber, or even dried tears scents,
markings or scents of favorite blanket/toys being dragged as he carried them around with him
things that were once placed in his mouth then dropped
****** just some thoughts from a female experienced with caring for children for over 30+ years- since I was in my teens
ABB - it's unfair to portray little DeOrr as chronically neglected and abused - there is no basis for it. So he was attached to a pair of boots which were too big for him, so what? - some little kids get like that over clothes and shoes, and there's not much reasoning with them. We don't know that there weren't other shoes of his which did fit, but that he still insisted on putting on the boots. We don't know what 'not a trace found' means - there has been no confirmation that nothing of his, besides the cup, monkey and blanket, was at the campsite. We don't know, yet you jump effortlessly to him owning just the one pair of ill-fitting boots resulting in blisters - you make the same effortless jump to sunburn and diaper rash. All that, you claim to be fact - it's as unfair and unreasoned as it is cruel. His big brother could have given him the boots, he might have been attached to them because they had belonged to his hero big brother, or a grandparent or aunt could have got them in the hope they would fit - people seem mainly to be assuming that the boots were his only and serious footwear, which I find unlikely and illogical - realistically, the cowboy boots were probably more something additional to his proper footwear and which everyone just had to put up with, because he really liked them. Little kids love footwear they can put on and take off all by themselves, did anyone who has ever had a child in the family ever notice? People who keep asking the question "why would you put him in boots which didn't fit to go camping?' seem to be missing the obvious, well, you wouldn't - it would be too much hassle, so they more than likely had suitable footwear for him, too, but he still just wanted to wear those boots because he could put them on himself - it's a toddler thing. Not that he could have gone far in them, not that they wouldn't have fallen off as an abductor fled with him - still, I think it's unlikely he had only the cowboy boots.
We also don't know what the lady in the store regards as "filthy' - was he covered in industrial waste, had he evidently been playing in dirt at some stop along the way, was he just a bit grubby, was he snotty nosed, sticky faced - some people take great pleasure in exaggeration, drama and overstatement. What's her definition of 'filthy'? Again, we don't know, only that Jessica did not want that to be taken to be her son even though he 'matches our description of our son'. I doubt they had described him as filthy and bawling.
Whatever has happened, and no matter how much anyone might want to condemn the parents in advance of the facts being established, I don't see what your justification is for inventing all that cruel and emoting stuff and claiming it as fact - it seems unnecessary and sadistic when, so far as we know, there is no factual basis for it.
Hi. This is momE again. I commented a few minutes ago to voice my rationale of choosing choice A, on the poll that is the topic of this blog post.
I find Peter Hyatt's, statement analysis posts very fascinating, on this blog. I'm learning so much, not just in Deorr's case but also in the other cases he discusses.
As far as the sketch, I'm going to guess that maybe someone informed the PI it is unnecessary, or he was making a cookie crumb promise-easily made easily broken, or it is delayed for another reason. Maybe some info from the FBI is starting to come back and he is rethinking strategy.
How many interviews has the parents of Deorr, given , and where can I find the videos and unedited transcripts? I've seen portions but not all. Was there a video/transcript of the vigil? Thanks.
I understand where you are coming from, but ABB is just stating their opinion. The parents (and grandparent-Grandpa DeOrr) all admitted that the "cowboy boots" (which were actually pull-up work boots, see image https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153249669586553&set=pcb.10153249671316553&type=3&theater ) would fall off of DeOrr frequently. So it does make one wonder why any parent would put their two-year-old in ill-fitting footwear while out camping in woodsy areas with potentially hazardous terrain.
As for the child being filthy, the parents themselves were the ones that brought that "rumored" sighting up, Daddy DeOrr made it clear that it WAS he and DeOrr that were seen at the store, just not at the time that the store clerk claimed. JM did NOT imply that she "did not want that taken to be her son even though he 'matches the description of our son'." Neither JM or DK denied that he was the child that was seen, they never denied that he was filthy and bawling; they also never gave an explanation as to why he was filthy and bawling. Also, if you look at photos of DeOrr, even ones that have been included in the "missing" posters, in many of them DeOrr does look dirty, especially his face. So if little DeOrr was dirty and bawling in the store I have no reason not to believe it.
Anne (sorry I keep forgetting to "sign" - also anon 9/24 12:35am and anon 9/25 9:36am)
You can't account for all their lies right from the beginning Juliet; you go right over them as if they don't even exist; but you can account for his boots being too large and rubbing his feet, his seriously sun poisoned delicate red skin with rash over his little body, untreated, (that Peter first posted, a bona-fide witness saying he was filthy dirty and bawling hysterically when his baby daddy stopped in the store to purchase candy trying to calm him down; but you can see only the bright sun when it comes to this child not suffering any neglect or abuse. You're in for a rude awakening one of these days, Juliet... Have a nice day. ABB
Here is the "unedited" (it's edited lol) interview (the only actual interview thus far with the parents) one on July 13th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwM1oG3z358
Here is a transcript of the interview: http://pdfsr.com/pdf/parentsofdeorrkunztranscript.pdf
After you watch the interview and read the transcript, come back here and read Peter's analysis of the interview, it is very eye-opening!
Here is a link to a news report that includes additional footage from the July 13th "unedited" interview, this is where the parents talk about someone taking DeOrr in order to hurt them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqtP8dqKdC8
(this section is not included in the transcript I posted before)
ABB - you do like to twist things. I suppose if it's in your nature there's not much you can do about it, but that might have to negate your Christian beliefs, just somewhat. :)
Anon at 12.31 - ABB is not stating that what she writes is just speculation or her own opinion, she presents her claims as facts.
Juliet; you can think whatever you like... WRONGLY! Just goes to show how thick-headed you are. Negate my Christian beliefs? You're a fool.
You are so pathetically think-headed that you can't see the signals in front of you, (these parents have already proven themselves to be liars from the very beginning); you are so busy looking for an accidental excuse "from liars" that you can't see the red flags waving or the caution sign in your face. Dumb as a rock. And THAT'S a fact. But that's your problem. Movin' on..... ABB
ABB you are clearly just trolling now, no need to be so nasty. We aren't going to let you derail this discussion so slither on back to whatever rock you crawled out from under, unless you can be civil, as I really do like to hear your thoughts when you're not being nasty.
OT Posting here for anyone who has followed the Dylan Redwine case. Items of interest have been found, and Dylan's death has now been ruled a homicide.
ABB (male or female, I think you are male) your writing, as I pointed out long ago, resembles the writing of someone who was commenting for an entire year on a newspaper article about the Ayla Reynolds case slamming what a terrible mother Trista Reynolds allegedly was over and over and over. Are you that same person because I notice it comes out here in your venom towards Jessica, not that she doesn't deserve any, but you seem particularly focused on it.
Justice4Deorr said... I'm betting they get more and more nervous as October comes closer. Just a hunch...lol. September 24, 2015 at 12:26 PM what happened to grace/bessie justice4deorr blog? September 25, 2015 at 5:18 AM
ABB - Well, how can you even try to evaluate anything fairly when it seems you've basically invented a history of chronic neglect for little DeOrr? I haven't seen his medical records, or heard of any involvement by CPS - your attempt to manipulate people's emotions on that is wrong - it all seems rather primitive and self-serving. I am pretty sure the parents know what happened, also I'm glad I'm not your dog.
Juliet; I awakened this morning thinking how wrong this is. We need to stop this slamming at each other. For my part, I sincerely apologize for every hurtful or condemning way I have spoken to you. I was wrong, no matter how silly or ridiculous I might think some of your posts are. I was out of line.
You have every right to post your opinions just as I do; which ARE in fact, ONLY opinions, which I have stated many times over. JUST opinions, as I don't have x-ray eyes any more than you do.
I wish you well; in fact, I hope you are right in some ways and that I am wrong; particularly that I am wrong as I hate to think how this precious child could have been brutally killed in a hot rush of anger and callously disposed of without even a proper Christian burial, not even by his own mother. It hurts me to think of this and how this little boy was being neglected by BOTH his parents. AND he was.
BTW, I do not have a dog now as I was unable to take him for his walks without my son here to do it for us. He was a very big dog and sweet as the day is long but strong and rambunctious; the sweetest dog that ever lived. It broke my heart to have to let him go. I miss him terribly and wish there had been some way I could have kept him. I had a cat too, whom I dearly loved, but had to place him with others after I moved to the gated community as he would not stay indoors; cats in this community are not allowed to roam free which he had been accustomed to doing.
Again, I am sorry for every mean thing I have said or insinuated towards you. This is wrong, Juliet, WRONG. Please, let's just let it go. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Thank you... ABB
Angelica, your post @12:48; you could be entirely right. As to how little DeOrr was killed and 'gone missing', particularly that he was more than likely not ever at the campsite, I tend to agree since there was no evidence found that he WAS ever there; however, we may never know exactly what happened to this poor little boy.
This is a clever bunch; at least they think they are. I just HOPE that what they did with this child does come to light, that baby DeOrr is found and they are prosecuted. My reason for thinking that he was beat to death in a fit of rage was because baby daddy DeOrr WAS seen in his truck (which he admitted, but denied the timing, like liars do who are hiding something, but DO leak a little truth into their lies); WITH the child at the store, where he was said to be filthy dirty and screaming and brawling hysterically.
DeOrr bought him candy to try to calm him; my supposition is that it did NOT calm the suffering and miserable child whose feet were hurting and blistered from wearing boots that were too large for his little feet, and who needed cleaning up, his clothing changed and his miserable sun burn poisoning treated, etc., and THIS is when baby daddy DeOrr went bonkers, stopped his truck somewhere down the road and beat him to death.
You know, it is not always easy to maintain your composure and patience when your kid is driving you over the edge and you are off in a hurry to do something else, particularly by a hot headed controlling fool like DeOrr appears to be, and this is why I am seeing this as being what happened to the poor neglected child.
But where was mama Jessica? Back at some other campsite where they had first set up or was she sitting or lying down in the cab of the truck while DeOrr went into the store? We have not heard of her being seen at the store so at this point we do not know and from my point of view it is impossible to know. We can only guess. But I DO think that somehow they are and WERE both involved. Their initial lies, evasiveness and deceit speaks loud and clear against both in my opinion. ABB
Nobody owes these parents the benefit of the doubt.
When asked to address the rumors about their involvement in their son's disappearance, DeOrr Sr. chose to defend his employer and Jessica chose to pick nits about the timing of the store clerk's sighting, while still encouraging us to believe that it was DeOrr. They have declined every opportunity for a denial of any kind, let alone a reliable one.
Sure, people think you murdered your baby, so by all means, correct our misconceptions about your boss.
Now they have stopped talking to the media altogether, under the guise that it is "distracting" the public from finding DeOrr. Distraction seemed to be much less of a concern when DeOrr regaled us with his endless flattery of law enforcement and search and rescue equipment without a word about how his toddler went missing in a mountain campground accessible by a single road. "Um, what questions do you guys have?"
Tell us how your son went missing comes to mind. What's his name? What does he look like? Who was at the campground? Any cars you saw at the store that are memorable enough to recall months later, but not significant enough in your mind to tell us about now? Any strange men staring obsessively at your son hours before he went missing?
Any "business" being conducted between your elderly babysitter and his "personal friend", the 35 year old stranger with the felony rape arrest?
Sheriff Dave is important enough to DeOrr Sr. to be mentioned twice by name. Great! If we spot Sheriff Dave filthy and bawling at the mall with an obsessively staring stranger, now we'll know what name to call out to him so we can get him back home where he belongs! By the way, what's your son's name again?
And it's not the parents' fault he's missing. After all, they left their son in the watchful guardianship of a man on oxygen who is allegedly infirm both physically and mentally.
Of course, any adult who noticed that a toddler was missing would just assume that he wandered down to the creek. No problem there! Jessica and DeOrr Sr. went exploring, which means standing still, so they'll see him right away. Did I say exploring?
I meant searching for a fishing hole.
But even if "exploring" and "searching" both imply moving, that's okay! DeOrr Sr. and Jessica are upstream and Isaac is fishing downstream, so if his parents don't see him before he drowns in the creek, the alleged rapist they brought along will. Did I say Isaac was fishing downstream?
I meant he was at the campsite with grandpa.
But hey, any adult can be standing there with a toddler, turn his head, and find him gone. Did I say turn his head?
I meant go into the trailer.
K.M.
P.S. I mean no disrespect to anybody who hasn't reached a conclusion about the parents, and I think it's admirable that you are withholding judgement. My point is that they aren't owed the benefit of the doubt, not that you aren't entitled to give it to them.
Anon @12:40 am, I AM NOT MALE; I am a female. You sitting here and supposedly practicing statement analysis, I would think you would KNOW this already and not be second guessing. Proves how little you think you know.
CORRECTION: I was NOT as critical of Trista Reynolds as you have accused me of being. YES, I did point out that since she was an alcoholic, she was not the all-perfect mother herself, which she wasn't; getting pie-eyed drunk all the time and her with a baby to raise. This was a choice she made herself. One does not become an alcoholic all in one day so this had been her lifestyle for a very long time. However, I DID respect her for making arrangements to have her baby taken care of while she went off to rehab and got herself straightened around.
If I sound a little more critical towards women who neglect their children it is because I was once a probation officer and I have seen a lot of this. It sickens me. I am no more critical of negligent mothers though, than I am of abusive and negligent fathers, but I understand LESS how any mother could neglect her baby when that baby came via creation from her OWN body. SHE bore the pain to bear this child, created from her suffering, and she above all others is the protector of HER helpless flesh and blood baby who is at her mercy as well as all those she subjects her baby; whether she takes care of her baby or not, it is HER responsibility to protect and make SURE no one else abuses her child. I will NEVER understand a negligent or abusive mother; however, Trista WAS attempting to correct her lifestyle. For THIS I give her credit due.
It was just a damned shame that all the forces of hell conspired against Trista, swooped in and took her baby while she was off at rehab, through no fault of her own; THEN murdered her baby, primarily over child care and support issues, IMO.
Little Ayla was one of the sweetest and most beautiful babies I have ever seen; I could not imagine that anyone would not want and love this precious child, including low-life POS Phoebe. There was no reason she couldn't take care of that baby herself. She could have dropped her off at day care every day and picked her up in the evenings, it was just for a short while; but she had no time for her and would rather see her dead than bear any of the responsibility. She meant evil towards Trista as she is the one who set up the grabbing of the poor baby; KNOWING her freak evil son would not be able to love and care for this precious baby. But AGAIN, just my opinion.
You can stop slamming at me. I use my real initials, I am no fake and no liar, I AM who I say I am. And I AM a woman.
ABB - I wasn't holding onto it, so there's nothing to let go. Don't apologise - i don't need it, plus give it two weeks and you'll be at it again, if not toward me, then to somebody else - to thine own self be true. :). It must get to be something of a self-defeating exercise, after all. I might be sorry about you losing your dog, that would depend on how you treated him.
Let brotherly love continue, and all that. :) Thanks for the almost thought, anyway.
EXCELLENT post, K.M at 9:00 am. VERY well thought out. Excellent.
Only, I'm not as able to give some the benefit of the doubt as well some do. I wish I were. I've lost my patience and empathy for killer parents along the way; whether it was through drug usage, irresponsible negligence, handed over to a child beating and/or molesting boyfriend/girlfriend, or their own abuse. I despise them all, truly they disgust me.
KM - to be clear, I like to look at things from different perspectives, rather than simply assume the worst about the parents. That's not to give the parents' the benefit of the doubt, or to seek to make excuses for them having apparently lost their son, as they have so obviously misled and witheld information. They are persons of interest, which gives a good enough indication as to where the investigation has been heading since quite early on - but as the Sheriff said, the FBI report will be critical.
--
I still tend towards the baby falling into the campfire, not necessarily at that site, followed by panic and cover up - that may be due to it being my earliest thoughts on it, and so it's stuck in my mind, despite other scenarios lookimg more likely, and the 'grandpa watching little DeOrr' narrative seemingly a fabrication. It was their attempt to place the baby with grandpa at the campfire which makes me think in that way. As though an attempt might have been made to hide all evidence, but just in case any should remain - well, it was grandpa at the fire with him, sort of thing.
DeOrr Sr's distress does Give rise to the thought that it may be him who is largely responsible for whatever caused the baby to 'vanish' - and that it's guilt and grief which are evident. Even so, he would be experiencing those regardless, if an accident had befallen the baby, or an unintended death. I don't see how beating the baby to death in an uncontrolled fit of rage could also be premeditated and related to an insurance policy - there's no logic in that, and there also would very likely be physical evidence if that had happened. We don't know what evidence there is.
KM - the later creek story, in which all the adults were a short distance from each other when they said DeOrr disappeared differs quite a bit from Nate Eaton's early report which included a shot of where the parents headed off to explore. He had been speaking with Deputy Penner, so there is good reason to believe that Nate is relaying the information he received from the deputy, and that it could only have come from the parents:
I don't believe it was premeditated. If this child was murdered for money ( insurance policy) there would be a body. How difficult would it be to stage the accidental death of a child? He drowned, he fell. It is sickening to think.
I hope he did not (but I wonder if he did) fall into a fire and was found by the parents horribly burnt, but maybe still alive. It is difficult to speculate like this. Could it have been a "mercy killing" ? Was he suffering so badly and close to death that they felt they had to "put him out of his misery?"
And then the cover up?
Between some time after Thursday 9 th July at 6.00 pm at Leadore , if this last sighting by the store clerk to be believed, until 2.28pm Friday 10 th July, were grandpa and Isacc enlisted as unsuspecting "witnesses?" to baby DeOrrs disappearance.
Or are they accessories after the fact? Repeat. Accessories after the fact.
Were grandpa and Isaac at the campground on Thursday night or did they arrive on Friday? It seems clear that DK and Jessica wanted people to believe they all arrived on Friday 10th July.
Did store clerk sighting of DeOrr on Thursday 9th throw a great big spanner in the works?
This case is doing my head in. I think about it every day.
Anon - that's been some of my wondering, too. It seems to lack the organisation which would be necessary to premeditation - the story is a shambles, and as you say, there is no body (still). An accident too horrible to want known and made public seems not an unreasonable thing to surmise from the story, or behaviour. If he fell in the fire, they might cover it up out of shame and fear. There are few other types of accident which might cause such a reaction, and for both parents to be complicit in a cover up - if they left him, he fell in the fire, they would be equally responsible. If one caused his death, why should the other cover it up, deny the baby a proper burial, and leave the wider family without closure? Mostly it's the mention of grandpa by the campfire which causes me to think that's a possibility, and that grandpa was meant to be watching him - now grandpa apparently left the campfire and went inside his trailer. I can see where that might be heading, as abduction has been pretty much ruled out.
ABB that was very big of you. It was not lost on me. You are right, lets stop the fighting.
Juliet I know you are angry but it's probably best to just drop it, even if you don't forgive her.
Let's focus on what we know, and hopefully what is coming soon to our knowledge. Working together will get us a whole lot farther than squabbling back and forth.
If he fell into the campfire, and some time had passed before they realised it, ( 10 - 15 minutes) and instead of seeking medical attention when they did find out, they chose to "put him out of his misery", it is murder. It is not unheard of. There was a case recently where a woman shot her boyfriend and couldn't stand to see him writhing in pain and "gurgling" so she shot him again....and killed him. She thought she was doing him a favour.
I think JM will crack soon, too, if she hasn't already. There was no statement to analyse from her from the last interview. Not a single word. Only behaviour. IMO her behaviour displayed profound grief and shame.
Anon at 2.18pm - yes, that does give rise to the question, was Jessica even there, or aware of what might have happened to little DeOrr? Grandpa and Isaac didn't seem too sure.
--
Bethany - that wasn't anger - I was taking the rise. :) I don't take offence easily, so there's nothing to forgive.
I admire you for thinking the case through so thoroughly, but I think it is so unlikely that it could have been a "mercy killing". They had cell phones with them. It is not as if they were stranded on a dessert island with no way to access civilization for months, so were their child to fall in the fire, as you suggested as a possibility, it would make no sense for one of the parents not to immediately call 911.
I hesitate to imagine what may have happened, unfortunately, one must if everyone is going to keep discussing the case: I believe what may have happened is that they killed DeOrr for the life insurance, but "botched" the killing of him. In other words, it didn't look "accidental" when they were done. This is utterly horrendous, and sickening for the mind to comprehend, however, the Ayla Reynolds case involved life insurance, absolutely, and I believe it was the motive in that case also. However, yes, the question is, why would these people think they could collect life insurance without a body in this case as well as the Ayla case? But yet, I believe both killings were to get life insurance and something in their diabolical plan "went wrong". Either that, or, in this case, or horrible as it may be to imagine, one of those involved may be planning to move the remains at a later time to somewhere where they will be discovered when enough time has gone by when cause of death can't be determined so that it won't be ruled a homicide and they will be able to collect the money. Unfortunately, there is a very evil side to human nature. I do get the sense that that kind of ugly evil has played a role in this case.
Well, if great grandpa is in need of a carer, he maybe just got taken along after the fact, if Trina had no choice but to take him - once he was there it could have been convenient for DeOrr and Jessica to make out that he was meant to be watching the baby. It would be interesting to know if grandpa and Isaac even laid eyes on the baby, or just thought he was asleep, or off exploring with his parents. We don't know when really they arrived. Trina said the trip was grandpa's idea. I don't recall anyone asking specifically for that information - I think she just volunteered it, but I can't be sure. Perhaps she suggested the trip to him after Jessica called, and asked Isaac along, too, and neither of them knew what they were getting into. That's not to say Trina necessarily knew either - it seems possible there were family members or friends up there in the two vehicles the family asked people to look out for - comings and goings they didn't want connected to them, perhaps. This despite them having seen nor heard any vehicles, apparently. Well, a slight problem there. And the 'little business' - what was that about?
Would anyone remember, by any chance, on which thread Lynda posted her transcript of Nate Eaton's interview with the Sheriff - or have a link to another transcript of it - I've googled but can't find one.
I think it is very unlikely that DeOrr died in the campfire, there were cadaver dogs on the scene on at least two separate occasions, certainly they would have hit on the campfire if that had been the case.
Where is this information regarding a life insurance policy coming from? From what I recall, didn't that originate from Kellen from one of his ridiculous backward speech analyses? Please post evidence that this life insurance policy existed, as I strongly doubt it's true.
Also, Juliet at 9:10pm I too am wondering where something about a "business" originated from (I think this is in reference to Isaac and GGF?) and what it's about?
Really good post K.M. at 9:00 am, my thoughts are aligned with yours regarding this case.
As it stands right now, based on what has been revealed to us thus far, I lean towards daddy DeOrr losing his temper and harming DeOrr, resulting in his death; drugs may have been involved. Jessica is standing by her man. Trina, deep down, knows or at the very least suspects the truth, but pride and fear will be the reason she continues to support her daughter and DK. GGF and Isaac at the very least suspect foul play. Isaac does not want to get involved, lawyered up asap. GGF is being protected by DK, JM, and Trina. GGF is the scapegoat, that has been obvious from day one. And it continues...it was very obvious to me that the entire "re-enactment" by PI Vilt was done to thinly disguise his agenda to once again remind the public that it was GGF who was responsible for DeOrr, GGF is ultimately to blame for his disappearance BUT WAIT GGF is "not well" both physically and mentally so it really was just an accident so don't be too hard on a feeble old man. A scapegoat if there ever was one.
So right now, DK and JM sit quietly, waiting for either the ax to fall or for the disappearance to turn into a cold case; in all likelihood it will all depend on whether DeOrr's body turns up. Meanwhile, just in case, PI Vilt will continue to throw shade at GGP and will continue to built up reasonable doubt with tales of old men with gray curls in Jeeps stalking little blonde boys.
I haven't had the chance to read the interviews or watch the videos, yet.
I do have a few things to say.
Fire and oxygen tanks do not mix. I don't think ggp was sitting quite close to the fire. If there was one going. It may have been just the campfire area that was referred to. But then again everything is all mixed up.
Hopefully the FBI will have some answers soon.
I still wonder if little Deorr was ever alive at the campfire being searched.
Wonder if the dogs ever were reported to have searched anywhere else OTHER than the campsite? Such as the store? Other nearby campsites? Everyone's (all family members)yards, property? All vehicles? Hunting season, and snow is coming soon...something will give begore the ground freezes.
While looking through youtube videos of news clips and interviews, I read in the comment section under 2 different videos that Jessica had posted very briefly on her facebook page that there had been a life insurance policy on DeOrr, and that she shut down her FB page soon after she posted that info. When she reactivated her page, she had deleted that info about the life insurance policy. I tend to believe it, as it is too detailed a thing for 2 people to make up (she shut down her page, she reactivated, she deleted the info, etc.
Separately, this is addressed to everyone:
I've read so much about Dad DeOrr taking a filthy screaming baby DeOrr to buy him candy "to calm him". This all sounds fine and dandy until you really think about it. Abusive parents who fly into fits of rage and end up killing their toddler are not normally known to do sweet grandmotherly-like things like stop at the store with a screaming baby to buy him candy "just to calm him". Are we to believe Dad DeOrr was a Mary Poppins buying a lollipop for baby DeOrr before he went into a brutal rage and killed him for crying?
This image does not make sense to me. Unfortunately, as I see it brought up over and over again, a more disturbing image has entered my mind. What if Dad DeOrr had been doing something terrible to baby DeOrr beforehand that caused him to be screaming, and he stopped for candy for baby DeOrr, because he actually felt guilty for something he had done to the baby and/or also felt completely desperate to calm the baby before returning to be around other people at the campsite so they would not know what he had done to Baby DeOrr?
Unfortunately, I have literally read people talking about "the filthy screaming baby DeOrr and Dad DeOrr stopping to buy him candy to calm him", and it just makes no sense. This guy is not Mary Poppins. I feel something very bad had been done to baby DeOrr that had either terrified him or caused him physical pain and Dad Deorr was buying him candy to calm him because he actually felt guilty or because he desperately wanted to calm him down so that others would not catch on to what he had done to him.
I think that it is far too simplistic to paint it as Dad DeOrr had a cranky baby on his hands (why was he even alone with the baby in the truck away from the campsite? why not leave him there with Mom?, bought candy to calm him, and then flew into a brutal rage and killed him.
Maybe he and baby Deorr was alone in the truck traveling to the campsite from Idaho Falls. Was tired from trip and little Deorr was ready for bed, hungry, upset for being alone with dad so long, and wanting mommy. Maybe mom was with ggp in the other vehicle? momE
Have they said who traveled in which vehicles on the way up to the campsite?
Regardless, odd that the baby would be with Dad and not Mom. Also, why was the baby filthy if they were on the way to the campsite?
When Mom and Dad discussed the "sighting" of the black truck they did not want people to know that it was Dad DeOrr, so it is safe to assume that whatever reason he was with a filthy baby DeOrr (or, even traveling separately with him in that truck) was not an innocent reason like they were just merely traveling separate from Mom. Whatever reason he was with baby DeOrr in that truck buying him candy was not a good reason. In fact, I think whatever was going on was quite nefarious.
Did this toddler not have a pacifier? It is unusual to buy candy to "calm" a toddler.
My gut instinct tells me that Dad DeOrr had already begun harming baby DeOrr in some way at that point, however hideous of a thought that is, and was buying him candy out of guilt, or perhaps to calm him, but it was because he had already done something harmful to him at that point (mentally terrorizing him or physically harming him or both at that point). And who knows what it was that he had done to him??? Because the fact of the matter is, most people are assuming baby DeOrr is now dead. I have a feeling baby DeOrr had been traumatized in some way at that point. I really have a feeling that the Dad did something very bad to him, and I also do not think that others were oblivious to what was going on, as why was he traveling with the Dad in the first place, alone, in a pick up truck, Mom traveling separate, and the baby ends up dead.
Let's try to see things in context. We know we are not talking about Mary Poppins. We know that baby DeOrr is most likely dead and his remains disposed of.
Juliet posted this on another Deorr thread, September 14th, 2015 @3:48 (I think its the one two threads back on Deorr)
Trina Bates Clegg They had to go to Leadore for female items and bought my Dad and baby DeOrr candy. This has been verified by the cashier.
Candy was bought for Baby Deorr and GGP. If Deorr was Mary Poppins I am pretty sure he would have had an umbrella and been singing "Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious" and the cashier would have noticed (joking) (Totally spelled that wrong not even going to correct it)
It is possible what you are saying, but I will tell you this. I have a child the same age as Deorr Jr. He went into a full on tantrum last week while we were grocery shopping, bc he wanted to go see the arcade (Wal-Mart) and I said no. I didn't give in, knowing it was past his nap time, and we had to pick up our F150 for an oil change in the automotive dept. He was asleep before I pulled that big ol' pick up out of the parking lot.
But if his Daddy would have been with us that day, or Daddy was doing the shopping alone, he definitely would have bought him some candy to keep his mind off of whatever it was that he wanted (he loves Kit Kats, I have to hide them), and to make him smile again, stop crying, even with nap time around the corner.
I'm not saying it didn't happen the way you are saying it happened, just that sometimes dad's alone are a little more unconventional in their methods. Not all dad's but there are some.
I however would never buy candy for him if he was tantruming, bc that teaches him he will be rewarded for it, and never before his naptime. Ever! Haha
Anon @ 8:40 pm; are you drunk, doped up or crazy, or all three? I am NOT a man. YOu know so much about statement analysis that you can call me a liar and accuse me of being a MAN? You cannot recognize a woman just because I have knowledge and compassion for a woman in child procreation and childbirth, so you think this HAS to be a man? Honey, whoever you are you are nuttier than a fiken' fruitcake, sitting there calling me a liar when I'm NOT a liar.
I could easily post my website and email addy for you just to prove how wrong you are but I will not cause myself potential problems by proving you are wrong. I will say this however, you need to get back to studying your statement analysis a little more in depth; actually I would suggest that you are wasting your time entirely in pursuing statement analysis as you are obviously incapable of learning if you actually do believe that I am a man. Good Lord! I don't need to be trolling myself here as a woman if I am not one. How stupid does this get! ABB
Angelica and others, You make very good points. When was the Dad and baby Deorr-man with baby buying candy- seen at the store, Thurs. night or Friday? momE
IMO, there would be nothing so highly out of the ordinary as baby daddy DeOrr stopping at the store and buying candy for his screaming brawling little boy; nor anything unusual about him having the child in the truck alone with him. A man doesn't have to be a Mary Poppins to spend time alone with his son, or to take him riding, or to try to pacify him when he is out of control. The trick is, do what you have too, but don't let him get out of control in the first place.
What would be unusual is the rumor that we've heard that DeOrr took baby DeOrr (even younger) with him to repair automobiles at a greasy filthy garage where he was working as a mechanic. THIS I would not have allowed, not only because it is dirty but because it could be dangerous. IMO, any man with good sense wouldn't do this in the first place, nor would any caring mother allow it.
My husband traveled alone with our little boy all the time, from the time he was a toddler just out of diapers until he passed away. They were very close, beginning as an infant. My husband, a very distinguished and intelligent man, was the best and most devoted babysitter I could ever have had.
He even took our toddler with him on business trips, taking him right with him into offices and facilities he was there to visit; when he had to leave him a little while with a secretary it was no biggie; sometimes flying and sometimes by rental car, taking him out to eat, going through drive-thrus and staying in motels. They had a ball together! They even went camping alone in the woods for a week-end once when our son was around ten. I had no reason to prevent any of this, he was a very good father and loved his little boy dearly. My husband died of diabetes when our son was only fifteen, and our son (born with a heart defect) died of a massive heart attack at age 41, just last year; and I am SO glad they had these times together. I just wish I'd gone on more of these trips with them.
However, as it relates to baby daddy DeOrr, neither he nor mama Jessica really knew how to take care of their little boy, or either just plain didn't care; otherwise he would not have been seen filthy dirty, in pain caused by whatever the (numerous) reasons were, and screaming hysterically and inconsolably. He would have been a well-cared for happy child.
Let us not forget, DeOrr was a truck driver. He would know many areas where he could have dumped his little boy, not around the campsite, and had all night into the next afternoon to do it. He DOES establish his well thought-out 'opinion' that little DeOrr is nowhere around there. Something to think about. ABB
Angelica - why do you have that feeling though - if nothing happens in a vacuum, what's the facilitating narrative?
--
In more general response to this discussion, I don't find it implausible that the baby was fed up after the long journey and DeOrr bought him some candy to distract him and calm him down before continuing on to the campsite, nor do I think it strange that a father should be travelling with his little son and without the mother.
What I'm not sure about is where the store is in relationship to the campsite - is it on the way to Timber Creek from Idaho Falls, or is it miles out from the campsite in the opposite direction? I've been thinking it's on the way in, and that he just ran out of snacks or forgot to also to take candy, so stopped on the way in, but maybe it's a journey out in the opposite direction. Driving out for miles just to get candy would seem strange, as it would have been easier to stop and unload at the campsite, and give him whatever treat stuff was already packed for him - even if only some of the supplies were in the truck, and the others were arriving later with the rest, there would have been some snacks and treats for the baby amongst the truck stuff, as it was long journey. There's always the possibility he ran out, if he had put it all in one bag or cool box in the cab, and then ended up snacking on it himself as well as giving some of it to little DeOrr, on the way. Little DeOrr might have been sticky-faced and crying because he'd eaten too much and felt sick - dads are not always the best at judging when enough is enough, especially if it is helping keep a bored two-year old quiet. I'm not too convinced of the 'filthy' description - how filthy can a child get on a car journey? Pretty messy from snacking at that age, for sure. Whatever, going to the store just to buy candy would only make sense if the store was on the way in. I suppose it could make sense, possibly, if it was on the way out, if he thought he had better go and replenish/replace the treat supply before the others arrived because Jessica might hassle him if she found out the snack/treat stuff was all gone so soon when it was meant to last the whole weekend. Whoever found it unusual to calm a toddler with candy, it's not unusual on my high street - some parents allow their children candy earlier than others, but I don't want to get into a mumsnet debate. :)
I think there can be ordinary explanations for why things happened. It's difficult to think up a scenario whereby the baby becomes ominously filthy, rather than merely messy-faced, whilst confined in a vehicle, and whereby his father either unnecessarily stops (why bother if he was next intending to kill him?) or otherwise drives miles beyond the campsite in order to display his filthy, bawling baby at the local store - like a public death row last meal/candy request for an at-risk looking baby who also turns out to be highly insured? I don't see how, logically, the attention-drawing store visit can fit with the idea that it was premeditated murder. As forDeOrr having been doing something to the baby - I can only think, from the information available, none of which can be relied upon, that he might have been guilty of feeding him some stuff which made him messy en route. I also think it's possible, and as others in much earlier threads have said, that the lady in the store was exaggerating, and maybe only decided she had seen a filthy bawling child rather than a messy, tired, grizzly child once she was involved in the drama of having possibly seen him. How much happens out there at The Stage Stop - not a great deal - some people would be quite likely to want to make the most of it. I'm trying to be logical. I think the parents are deceptive and have guilty knowledge, but that doesn't have to mean they planned and intended harm to befall their son.
The insurance discussion - I haven't seen a post of Jessica's about insurance mentioned anywhere but here, I know of no-one first hand who has said they saw that post on Jessica's own page, but I have been thinking that if it was there, and Angelica seems convinced it was, then it may not have been posted by Jessica herself. Wouldn't it be crazy to post that just after her son had gone missing, if she had indeed taken out an insurance policy on him with the intention of making a claim? If a post was made, someone else might have taken the opportunity to post on her page from her own account, if she had left her phone/tablet/computer accessible to others without logging out of Facebook. The reaction to seeing such a post, supposedly made by herself, would be to panic, delete and deactivate, no doubt, and to hope no-one had seen it or taken a screenshot. It's too much speculation, though, without having seen such a post or screenshot. Marson claimed DeOrr went nuts on him during the store encounter on account of what he'd written about them having a VUL policy - he claimed DeOrr said he did have a VUL policy, but of a different type, as I recall, and on himself, not on the baby? As everything which comes out of Marson's mouth has to be considered dubious, I don't find it possible to view that with anything but caution.
If it is true that the baby was insured, it might lend some weight to the idea that someone has been instrumental in some things, and is now trying to frame them, or more likely, expose them. But to me, the store sighting seems so random and inconvenient to the idea they had a plan to kill to their baby. Wouldn't they think they had messed up by creating the sighting and abandon any plan for that weekend, think up some other idea or another date? Also, they are all called DeOrr - someone could have glimpsed an insurance policy, got the wrong end of the stick, thought it was for the baby when actually it was for the father or grandfather. Not so likely, but they do all share the name 'DeOrr' with additional fore or middle names - it's possible someone mistakenly suspected them on the strength of having seen a policy for a DeOrr, and made that post, if there was one, on Jessica's FB, and have since learned their mistake. Well, they would all go at least a bit crazy, and maybe even start suspecting the worst of each other in the terrible circumstances, so someone might have drawn a hasty conclusion about what an insurance policy meant, and who, actually was insured.
Agreed, ABB, about the garage. At first I thought he meant he knew Deorr Sr. From when his Dad worked at the garage (when Deorr Sr. Was a teenager, before Jessica and little deorr, so Deorr Sr. And Grandpa Deorr ya follow me) but I see he was talking about little Deorr now. I can't imagine being able to get any kind of work done in a garage with a small child running around. Lifts, air guns, loud generators, oil, grease, small nuts and bolts to be placed in little mouths.....yikes!
It was also very nice to hear about your son and your husband. It is wonderful to hear that they had such a great relationship in the short time they had together. And how your husband made him his priority and wanted that closeness. It sound like you and your son were very close as well.
My husband is a contractor, we also have rentals as well. He works in upwards of 12 to 16 hour days, every single day. I always bring the kids to see him. Our oldest is old enough now to work along with Dad, and he loves it. It's so important to spend that time with your children. Tomorrow is never promised. I try and gently remind my husband of that. I don't want him to miss everything.
I thought PI Vilt said that he had seen little DeOrr on a couple of occasions as Jessica had popped into the workshop with him - where does he say that DeOrr actually took the baby to work with him?
Unintentional/Negligent homicide- Giving a bawling, distressed toddler a hard piece of candy to shut him up, deciding to firmly ignore him from that point on (because you're at your absolute breaking point) and keeping your eyes strictly on the road as you drive away from the candy store...whilst said distressed child sitting next to you chokes to death on his "treat".
Was there ever any mention of the specific type candy that was bought?
I can't say exactly when it was I read the rumor that DeOrr Sr took baby DeOrr to the garage to work with him when he was an auto mechanic, who said it, or who posted it; but I do know that I read it here on one of the posts from a previous article Peter posted.
I can safely say that I read it here as I have never clicked on a one of the links that has been posted here, or anyone's facebook or otherwise, as I just don't do that; nor do I save any of the links. I need my storage for other things.
The most time I spend here is when I make posts, having read posts that are made here and even then sometimes I skip pages and days of those posts. I just don't take the time to read all these click on links, not that I'm not interested; it would take too much of my time and could become an obsessive habit when I can't do anything about any of it anyway.
I drew my conclusions that baby DeOrr is deceased and disposed of, killed most likely at the hands of crafty lying DeOrr Sr with full guilty knowledge (at least by this time) of mama Jessica, based on the initial interview posted by Peter and subsequent articles that have been posted here. I was looking for key statements that would have made it an accidental death (as Peter believed it to be) in the earlier stages, but fairly quickly came to the conclusion that this was no damned accident that needed to be lied about repeatedly and sneakily covered up.
If it 'was' an accident it would have to be of a sort that was brutal and due to extreme criminal negligence that could have been avoided; in any case that left severe injuries on the child's little body for which there would be no reasonable explanation, which made it necessary to hide the little boy and remove all traces of evidence if there ever was any in the area where searchers have been looking.
It just doesn't happen that a child mysteriously disappears with no trace of evidence whatsoever and all parties are 'innocent' of any wrong doing or knowledge of what happened to the child, when it is clear they are all lying through their eye teeth. ABB
KLV, I can't quiet fathom that daddy DeOrr, driving along and keeping his eyes on the road, would have let his baby choke to death on a piece of candy; not when he could have pulled his truck over to the side of the road and dislodged the piece of candy.
What I CAN fathom is that the candy did not suffice to calm down little DeOrr, dirty and sitting in his filth and in pain from being chaffed and rubbed raw, and with his little feet hurting from the blisters that were caused by wearing boots that were too large for him; PLUS his tender sensitive skin being in acute pain from sun poisoning due to not having sun protective lotion on his little body (we SAW the photo of this childs' sunburns posted by Peter in an earlier article). We also don't know if he was wearing a nasty diaper that was rubbing his little raw and inflamed bottom; a two nearly three year old is not too old to put into a diaper, which he likely was.
I do not believe the child was pitching a tantrum simply because he wanted a piece of candy, although he WAS more than likely hungry on top of all his other suffering; I believe his bawling and screaming hysterically was the only way he had of trying to tell his daddy (and VERY likely mama too) that he was in pain. The candy was an effort made in vain in my opinion.
I can see a more likely scenario that daddy DeOrr, in his frustration and hot-headed temperament at not being able to pacify his screaming child; slammed the truck over to the side of the road and beat the hell out of him, perhaps not deliberately intending to kill him but not caring if he did either. Mama Jessica could have been sitting right there for all we know; we don't know that she wasn't.
Even this scenario is not a certainty (none of these speculations are with any certainty as we don't KNOW what happened); however, I STILL have some doubts in my mind about that was going on there with great grandfathers bud, the RSO Issac. Why was he hanging out with this old man and the family; a registered sex offender traveling off in the woods with a little boy and an old grandpa? Isn't he somewhere in his 30's and the old man in his 70's?
WHAT in hell was DeOrr and Jessica doing in allowing this monster around their child, AND unprotected? They claim they walked off on an exploration and left him ALONE with a RSO and an old man not able to care for him? Issac has lied about his own whereabouts! WHY?! What was going on with Issac (or was his name Isiah),and perhaps one or more others? Was this baby being sexually abused? Perhaps THIS is part of the reason he was so hysterical at the country store?
There certainly IS a reason one covers up for another and another covers for another and so on and on. The mind wanders into others areas of possibilities.
"I specialize in recovering abducted or missing children, and I knew Deorr's - the boy's - father because he worked in a body shop in monteria and I'd had my cars worked on down there and I'd seen the little boy [something] in the shop a few times, and it was a month since he was missing and nothing was happening so I kinda got myself involved because I wanted to help out and find out what was going on."
This was on this thread, transcribed September 18th posted by Anonymous. 11:18 am. Private Investigator Vilt's last interview part one I believe.
Juliet I just listened again to Frank Vilts interview and he does say that he seen the little boy and Jessica down at the garage, but he doesn't say that she brought him there.
I am going to go ahead and assume she did though, as I can't imagine Deorr Sr.trying to work on cars with little deorr running around.
I think it's wrong to be stating as fact that DeOrr had blistered feet, severe sunburn and a painful diaper rash. There is no evidence for any of that.
There is another post somewhere, Bethany, that states DeOrr was watching the baby at the garage while he was at work. I just can't tell you where it is or who posted it. Meanwhile, thanks for posting the above PI comments.
Thank you so much for your kind words above and for your condolences. Yes, it has been very hard. It was hard enough when I lost my husband, I cried for years; and so very hard for our son who never got over losing his father, then I lost our son from a sudden massive heart attack in the wee hours last Sept 20th, one year ago.
He had little warning. He quickly gathered up a few important things he had put away in his room that he wanted me to take care of, sat them where I would see them; vacuumed the area rug at the foot of his bed, sat the vacuum cleaner upright at the end of the rug and laid down on it and died. His girlfriend was lying across the bed and had fallen asleep there looking at his big aquarium, she said. She woke me at around 2:00 a.m. telling me that he was lying on the floor and she could not make him get up. I rushed in, took one look and knew he was gone. Broke my heart forever.
Yes we were very close. We both knew that he had congestive heart failure and I didn't see how he could live to be an old man, but neither did I see it coming so suddenly. My heart is broken 'til the end. Thank you for caring. ABB
"Wrong"? Well. It's for durn sure that we will never know, now will we, Anon @ 4:22? However, it is NOT unreasonable to ascertain that a child (OR an adult) would have blisters on their feet from boots that are too large and flopping around on their feet! Why don't you just try it sometime and let's see how YOU like it!
It is also NOT unreasonable to be able to determine that the child was filthy dirty AND very likely wearing a heavily soiled diaper since the ONLY witness in the store SAID he was filthy dirty. Haven't you ever seen a child that has been left too long in a filthy stinky diaper? Why would these parents bother to keep his diaper changed when they weren't keeping him clean or taking care of him in others way? They wouldn't. Should I draw you a picture of the raw bottom of a neglected baby?
YOU didn't see sun burn poisoning on this child in the photo Peter initially posted of this poor neglected child? Then this is your OWN fault. Before you go jumping at me, why don't you just go find it and take a look for yourself!
In fact, why the f'ck are you slamming me anyhow? You can have your opinions without labeling me "wrong" when you obviously don't know that I AM wrong, and I can have MY opinions. They are ALL just opinions, alrighty? ABB
The boots were too big - his grandfather said they would not stay on his feet, he kept stepping out of them - how could they be his serious footwear, let alone remain on him for long enough to cause blisters? More to the point how, if they would not stay on his feet, could he have been 'wearing' them when he disappeared, and how could the boots not be found? Were they hidden/disappeared with him, not because he was wearing them, but because he really liked them, and they were numbered amongst his favourite items? Perhaps his actual blanket and his cowboy boots are with little DeOrr, wherever he is.
ABB - your unfounded accusations are degrading, not only of little DeOrr and of his memory to those who knew and loved him, but also of yourself - trying to balance out what you are saying with sentimental claptrap about 'his precious little body' etc in order to make yourself sound better, and not quite so bloody sadistic, doesn't work - is nothing sacred to you? The stuff you revel in writing Is not only unkind, it's gratuitous and cruel. It must satisfy something in you, but have some respect - Little DeOrr does not deserve it, and neither does his family.
If someone transcribes speech into written words, and it is missing words - the transcription is WRONG. (Which by the way is the definition of transcribe btw)
Why the f'ck don't you get off my back Juliet? You don't need to be chastising ME. I am probably old enough to be your mother, not to mention more than smart enough. You dingbat, you think you can tell me how I FEEL, like you think you can get inside my head? None but Jesus can do this, certainly NOT you. You make me sick with your lack of perspective and ridiculous bleeding heart nonsense.
Gimme a break, wouldcha? I have apologized to you for whatever it was I said wrong to you but even then you kept on digging at me. AND still are. NOW, buzz off chickie. I have asked you to PLEASE stop it. Wouldcha PLEASE?
Your opinion of anything here doesn't mean more to me than my OWN does, in fact, LESS; in fact, whatever you think doesn't mean squat to me. Really, I do not care to address you ever again and would APPRECIATE the same courtesy from you. ABB
I will write more when I have more time but wanted to respond to Juliet's question
Angelica - why do you have that feeling though - if nothing happens in a vacuum, what's the facilitating narrative?
(About the candy store)
Many of you are looking at Dad DeOrr buying candy through the lenses of you having upstanding, kind spouses. This is not what we are looking at here.
To answer Juliet's question: The surrounding narrative of why I view the candy store visit in a nefarious light is that 1) There is no evidence baby DeOrr was ever at the campsite 2) The baby was FILTHY as well as bawling 3) Mom and Dad DeOrr did not want it known that it was Dad DeOrr in the truck at the store! This is quite clear in the parent interview. If it was merely an innocent caring gesture of buying candy why hide it if there is nothing to hide? 4) Baby DeOrr ended up dead within a short time after the candy stop. 5) Someone, most likely Dad DeOrr disposed of his remains.
If it was just an innocent candy stop, why did the parents not want it known when the "black truck" got brought up in the interview?
I think it is wise to view it in a nefarious light. There is something about it, connected to it, that they do not want known.
Anon at 7.51 - Incomplete rather than wrong, I'd say - if the words were inaudible, that would not make a mistake, just an incomplete transcript. Presumably the missing words were inaudible. It's better for there to be a blank than a guess - which would make it wrong if the guess was wrong.
ABB - we all prefer our own opinion, this is common knowledge, but it doesn't mean we are right. You put your comments out there, and therefore they are presumably up for response. You're quite at liberty not to read or respond to my posts. Insults and drama, waste of time and not an interest, thanks.
Angelica - that has shape now. Certainly, they wanted the store sighting discounted - it may even have been their reason for agreeing to do the interview. I think they wanted it discounted because it placed them there on Thursday, and because DeOrr is most likely to have disappeared on the Thursday - the sighting showed up discrepancies in the story, particularly the impression people had of their arriving on the Friday. I'd still say the baby was described as filthy, rather than that we can know definitely he was - it might make a difference, because it could just be that he was bit travel-weary and grubby, or that something had happened to cause him to become (really) filthy and distressed, at some site along the way. It could be they had stopped, or even been camped somewhere else, before finally arriving in Leadore. That can only be conjecture, though. All we have learned if the journey is from the Sheriff interview - that there was a diesel-stop, but no surveillance cameras there.
If there is an insurance policy it changes the complexion of things. I initially thought that if there was an insurance policy that a body would have been produced so that the money could be collected. However, as Angelica pointed out: a) the body may be hidden - waiting to be "discovered" when the time is right and b) little Ayla had an insurance policy and her body has not been found (yet) which leads to speculation that the "accident" was botched in some way and no longer looked like an accidental death. Maybe something similar happened to baby DeOrr. I hadn't thought of that.
Perhaps the safest thing to do would be to wait 7 years (I think one is presumed dead for all intents and purposes after 7 years (?))and make the claim without having to produce the body.
For now, I still think the death was the result of a horrible accident, a fatal beating, drug ingestion or hot car, and a coverup which may involve the GGpa as either patsy or accessory after the fact.
Angelica, if it turns out that there is no insurance policy, what do you think happened?
Anon at 2:09 pm - When did Isaac lie about his whereabouts? There is no evidence of this that I am aware of, please post if you know something, otherwise it is incorrect to say that Isaac lied about anything to do with this case.
Juliet and Angelica - Neither JM or DK were trying to HIDE the black truck/filthy bawling baby/gentleman sighting at the Stage Stop, I don't know why both of you continue to claim this. JM herself brought it up in the interview, and then DK elaborated on it, don't you remember? They WANTED to talk about it! What we SHOULD be discussing about this sighting is:
1) Why, if the sighting happened at 6:00pm on Friday as the clerk claimed, why would the parents automatically discount this as a rumor, and not a lead as to what happened to their missing son? ESPECIALLY if they thought he was abducted?
As for the "sighting" itself, DK himself admitted that it was him, and by not denying that DeOrr was with him, we can infer that he indeed was. Neither DK nor JM denied that DeOrr was filthy and bawling, therefore it is reasonable to assume that he was. How was DK so sure that the Fri 6pm sighting was actually a mistake? Black trucks are common, how did he know for sure that this wasn't an abductor with his child? So bizarre, that they went with abduction theory from day one but didn't at least suspect that this was a valid sighting of DeOrr with an abductor.
2) When did the store clerk actually see filthy bawling DeOrr and gentleman DK at the Stage Stop? IIRC the Stage Stop closes at 6:00pm but I am going to call them to check for sure tomorrow. Anyways, was the sighting on Thursday evening at about 6pm? Was it on Friday at around noon as DK claims? Or was it on Friday evening at around 6pm as the clerk claims? We know that the clerk could not have seen DK and DeOrr at 6pm on Friday so if there was a sighting at that time, it wasn't DK/DeOrr. If the clerk was mistaken about the time/date, the sighting could have happened either Thurs at 6pm or Fri at noon, OR they could have been there on BOTH of those occasions. What doesn't make sense is that Trina claims the campers arrived at the campground about 9pm Thurs. The Stage Stop closes at 6pm so they would have had to have been at the Stage Stop no later than 6pm, leaving several hours in between the time they were at the Stage Stop and the time that they arrived at the campground. So what were they doing for those hours in between?
3) It is entirely possible that DeOrr never was at the Stage Stop, and that is why DK/JM jumped on the clerk's sighting of a bawling filthy blonde boy and the gentleman in the black truck. The sighting would place DeOrr at the campground, but the time didn't fit. So DeOrr claimed that the clerk was mistaken and it actually happened earlier in the day, around noon when they went into town for feminine products and a cell phone charger.
I don't know what to make of the sighting anymore tbh. Neither LE nor the store clerk have discussed the sighting publicly. The only thing the Sheriff has said is that a store receipt for Friday was provided to him; the Sheriff refused to say that he was 100% sure that DeOrr was actually there at the campground. This tells me that there is no video evidence of DeOrr at the store, the campground, or anywhere. Nor does there appear to be any photographic/video evidence of DeOrr at the campground, which is odd imo, nobody stopped to snap a photo of the little boy on a camping trip?
Anne - I don't have time/energy to respond to all your questions right now, but here is what Trina said about Isaax:
Trina Bates Clegg I was told Isaac was at creek but his interview was different. My Dad said Isaac was fishing at the creek Like · 8 · 8 hrs
I have been informed Isaac was at the creek but the interview he stated something different Like · 2 · 8 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg "My father has severe COPD and Prostate Cancer. The trip is 2 hours. I asked Isaac questions the weekend it happened without getting straight answers.
--- There's another quote too but I can't find it- along the lines that she was shocked when Isaac said he had been with grandpa (as opposed,to fishing at the creek).
1) Why, if the sighting happened at 6:00pm on Friday as the clerk claimed, why would the parents automatically discount this as a rumor, and not a lead as to what happened to their missing son? ESPECIALLY if they thought he was abducted?
As for the "sighting" itself, DK himself admitted that it was him, and by not denying that DeOrr was with him, we can infer that he indeed was. Neither DK nor JM denied that DeOrr was filthy and bawling, therefore it is reasonable to assume that he was. How was DK so sure that the Fri 6pm sighting was actually a mistake? Black trucks are common, how did he know for sure that this wasn't an abductor with his child? So bizarre, that they went with abduction theory from day one but didn't at least suspect that this was a valid sighting of DeOrr with an abductor."
I did watch the interview and he does not admit it was him. They mention the sighting as being a lead, but then Dad DeOrr says (and I paraphrase) 'there's just one problem--I have a black truck."
He doesn't say "yeah that was me, I was at the store, getting candy". My interpretation of it is that he does not like the fact that HE was sited at the store, it's like he's trying to brush it under the rug, like "yeah someone sighted a black truck, only problem is I actually have a black truck...let's talk about something else."
I have watched the interview many times, and it seems very apparent Dad DeOrr does not want anyone focusing on the "sighting". He at no point says "Actually, that was me." He is evasive as can be, saying "only problem is I have a black truck", but he does not say "yes that was me".
He does not want to discuss the sighting (of himself). It is very apparent in the interview.
And, there is a reason he does not want to discuss it. My theory is that he had already harmed the baby at the point.
“Isaac (Walton’s friend) was in the same general proximity,” Bowerman said. “He’s downstream, they’re upstream and they’re all within probably 100 to 150 feet of each other.” -Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman to East Idaho News
PS - I am not anon at 2.09 - I just had the quotes about Isaac to hand.
I don't say they were trying to hide the sighting at the store, neither has Angelica as far as I recall - the parents acknowledged it, but only in order to discount as rumour and hearsay that DeOrr had been at the store with the baby at six. DeOrr says it was him, but earlier. They do not want people to believe DeOrr was there at six with the baby, filthy and crying - by'y reckoning because that was on the Thursdsy, while they claimed not to have arrived until the Friday. I have already written quite a few comments on the various DeOrr threads on the questions you ask. It's too much to go through it all again now, but my thoughts are already here somewhere.
Good luck with the phone call - they might not be at liberty to say much. :)
"Angelica, if it turns out that there is no insurance policy, what do you think happened?"
Well, the more I follow this case and read everyone's discussions, if it turns out there is NO insurance policy, I would, unfortunately, tend to think that something very sick was going on regardless of no insurance policy.
Something about the candy store visit to "calm" a filthy, bawling DeOrr, the cast of characters involved (one of whom is a sex offender with no real connection to the family except he's "friends" with the grandfather who is like 40 yrs older and on oxygen), the BS story about "they turned their heads for a second" and he was snatched away by Big Foot, and there is no sign of him anywhere, not a single sign he was ever even at the campsite, I get a sick feeling in my stomach that baby DeOrr may have been the victim of sexual abuse. And I am wishing I had watched the interviews looking for more clues in the words. It was odd the fixation on the blanket in the interview especially how it was supposedly a replica blanket. But looking for other words like water, washing, lights, door etc. except in a camping setting there are no lights and doors.
Juliet - I'm aware of what Trina has said on social media, but to be honest it doesn't really mean anything. Her priority is clearly to protect JM/DK, that is evident by the way she allows them (and their sleazy PI) to continually throw her own father under the bus. I don't think Trina was as much surprised at Isaac's interview as she was ready to sh*t her pants at the thought that Isaac was going "off-script" lol.
Isaac looked barely functional in that "interview"... but I think that Isaac is actually very clever. Isaac had two choices when Nate asked him those questions...either play dumb, nod, and mumble "mmm hmmm", or say "no, that's not what happened..." and put himself in the position of having to explain what DID happen. Isaac is not stupid. Someone told him to respond that way, either his own lawyer, or LE.
Angelica - you have to consider the entire exchange to make sense of the interview (where DK/JM are discussing the Stage Stop sighting):
Reporter: Are there any rumors that you've seen or anything that you want to clear up Jessica?
JM: I just, somebody at the store um in Leadore said...it was one of the ladies that 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-
DKS: Here's the problem, my pickup truck is black...
JM: He drives a black truck...
DK: As a family, we went down to get a few things...
Reporter: So it could have been...
JM: Earlier. It was earlier that day.
DK: They claim it was at 6:00 in the evening and I, we, were still with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four?
JM: Yeah, from...
DK: We didn't, we haven't left the camp since 1:00 that afternoon so it's just a lot of hearsay and...
You can see that DK states that they went as a family [to the Stage Stop] to get a few things (admits they were there) and JM backs him up by clarifying that it was earlier that day. So they don't have a problem with being seen at the Stage Stop, they have a problem with THE TIME that was alleged that they were there. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but extensive searching has been done to try to find the source of this "rumor" of the sighting; nobody has been able to find ONE THING about it ANYWHERE, EXCEPT for the parents themselves. This was not a social media rumor they wanted cleared up, they brought it up themselves for a purpose. They are the only ones who have ever discussed it; if they didn't want people knowing about it, why bring it up in the first place? The mystery is, what purpose did bringing it up serve for them?
1) I believe some kind of major clue to what happened can be found in figuring out WHY the father fixates on the searchers, search equipment, best search equipment in the world, the layout of the land, etc....what is he thinking about? It really does not seem like he is thinking about his son or finding him, he is fixated on the act of searching itself and on the layout of the land.
2) This is important: Listen carefully. Jessica does not say that it was the baby that was filthy. She says it was the "gentleman" with "the younger blond boy" that was "filthy". Therefore: It is Dad DeOrr that was filthy, covered in dirt.
Hi Anon, Weird, I was just rewatching it at the same time you were!
Haven't read your whole post yet, but please notice, linguistically she is actually saying that it was the Dad that was filthy.
JM: I just, somebody at the store um in Leadore said...it was one of the ladies that 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-
Juliet, I'm not going to need any luck with my phone call to the Stage Stop, unless you think that they will have a problem telling me their hours of operation? That's all I said that I was going to ask them so I'm ??? by your comment. Also, you don't seem to have a problem posting long and frequent posts, but when you are asked to support something that you have said, all of a sudden you are too exhausted to type a response? I have read the entire thread, thanks; I'm sorry that none of your posts stood out enough to me to remember them all as you seem to expect. I'm not going to go read through the thread again just to find your posts, so that's fine if you choose not to respond :).
"They are the only ones who have ever discussed it; if they didn't want people knowing about it, why bring it up in the first place? The mystery is, what purpose did bringing it up serve for them?"
That is VERY interesting. And now it makes more sense to me the way they "addressed" this "rumor". So, they may have actually "fabricated" this sighting.
Do you have any ideas about why they would have done that?
Is there any way that it could be some kind of damage control, meaning, that they feared he could have been "sighted" somewhere else doing something far worse, so they threw the candy store story out there??
Sorry, that was me at 12:50am, I forgot to sign - Anne.
Angelica, yes I also considered that JM might have actually meant that the man was filthy, but I don't think so. She refers to him as a "gentleman"; gentleman is generally not congruent with filthy. I think that she just phrased it funny, I think that she meant the blonde boy was bawling and filthy.
Angelica - Since nobody was ever able to trace back the source of the Stage Stop sighting "rumor", and since the clerk, LE, MSM, and most importantly, the family's own Private Investigator has never mentioned it, I have considered that it MIGHT have been fabricated by JM and/or DK. It would be easy for them to claim that while searching for DeOrr, one of the volunteers told them about a rumor that there was a sighting. They could claim that they don't remember who told it to them, as they were so distraught, and there were so many people there...you get the idea.
IF they did make it up, the question is, WHY? What purpose did it serve? Well, it would place DeOrr at the Stage Stop and make DeOrr alive at the time of the sighting...about noon on Friday. This would benefit DK/JM, IF DeOrr were NOT alive at the time. It makes their story fit.
Regardless, LE surely would have checked out this sighting and interviewed the clerks at the Stage Stop. Funny that it has not been mentioned again though, especially by the PI.
I would just like some evidence that a clerk actually reported a sighting, either through rumor, or through contact with LE, as I don't believe any exists. I thought that early on there was a MSM report that mentioned that a clerk was contacted about a sighting but didn't want to discuss with MSM, but then that clerk was found to be one from the WalMart sighting, not the Stage Stop. If anyone knows differently, please post.
They probably won't be able to give Anne any info about the case, but I am pretty sure they can give store hours Juliet. That shouldn't a problem. She didn't say she was calling for anything else.
I would never call the Stage Stop and ask them anything about the case lol. I just want to know their store hours (for the summer season, when DeOrr disappeared). I think the hours could be important, especially if the sighting was on Thurs instead of Fri...it is more realistic to think that the family stopped at the store on Thursday at 8 or 9 as opposed to 6 since it fits in better with their alleged arrival time to the campground. If the store is only open until 6, it is very odd that the family would have been seen at the store so early on Thursday...also what luck, just making it to the store right as it's closing.
Juliet...Theres no need to be rude to Anne, she was only asking a question. Really you have been persnickity lately. You say you are anti drama, but you keep kicking it back up with ABB. Your condescending tone, for what it's worth, is getting old.
We have listened to you literally drivel on about some of the most ridiculous things, but anytime anyone has an idea, or something new to add, you completely dismiss it. Even if you have already thought about it yourself and went over it 500 times.
Perhaps it might be time to take a time out as you seem to be getting a bit jaded.
Perhaps the clerk was right in both the time and the day. (6.00 Friday). Maybe she did see a man with a toddler but it was not (could not have been) DK and baby DeOrr. In DK and Jessica's desperation to make it appear that Deoor was with them at around lunchtime Friday, and make the alibi stick, they have claimed it was them.
DK. "It was me...earlier"
They didn't realise the opportunity they had to pin it on the man in the black truck at 6.00 FRIDAY.
In re the opinion that (hypothetically) when the poster says that the clerk's comment can be interpreted that it was daddy DeOrr who was filthy dirty, (read on), that the clerk does not say that it was baby DeOrr who was filthy dirty; then she would also have been stating that it was daddy DeOrr who was bawling. Notice where the commas are placed and how the wording is placed (not in order) and the meaning of the comment changes.
Of course, daddy DeOrr was not at the store bawling, so why interpret that it was HE who was filthy dirty? Look at the statement carefully; the implication of the statement is ALSO that it was daddy DeOrr who was bawling. Reasonable logic will dictate that it was the BABY who was filthy dirty, AND bawling, not daddy DeOrr. It's all in where you place the commas in the statement and it's wording.
Peter has already pointed out to us that by moving a comma over by just one word or simple phrase, or by running a statement together when it should not have been run together, that it can change the meaning of a statement entirely. An example would be how some scriptures have had their meaning changed entirely simply by moving a comma over by one or two words in what would otherwise be a simple statement with a profound meaning that was changed with the use of the comma which gives the statement an entirely different meaning.
IMO, it was the baby who was filthy dirty AND BAWLING, which is what the clerk is trying to say; not daddy DeOrr like the way the statement is worded would imply. Make sense? ABB
Daddy DeOrr was caught red handed when it was revealed by Jessica's mother that they had arrived at the campsite on Thursday evening at around 9:30 pm according to a text message Jessica had sent her; which, if I recall correctly, she also said that Jessica told her they had gone to purchase feminine products and a cell phone charger. It was THEN that we learned they had set up camp on THURSDAY, not Friday morning like DeOrr, Sr said in his initial interview.
The liar SAID they had arrived at the campsite on Friday morning, (which doesn't add up either, when you consider the Friday morning timeline he gave) had set up camp and that he and Jessica took a ten minute walk exploring, came back and found little DeOrr missing and had looked for him about ten minutes before calling S&R, WHICH he made a big deal out of inasmuch as it was NOT necessary for him to haul ass down the road to make his call since Jessica had already obtained a new cell phone charger. This fool (Jessica too) must think everyone is stupid but him/them.
I did not find Jessica's mother to be lying and trying to help them cover up anything at this point as she would not have revealed that they actually arrived on Thursday evening, thereby revealing their lies, had she known lying Daddy DeOrr had said (with Jessica in concurrence) that they had arrived on Friday morning and had she been trying to help them cover up her grandsons disappearance.
When his Friday morning lie is revealed baby daddy DeOrr is forced to admit they were actually there on Thursday evening, but I have no doubt he never would have had he not gotten caught in this fat lie, just like he got caught in his trip to the store with his bawling, filthy dirty (pathetic) baby that he never intended for anyone to know about. I SOOO hope they are hung for this baby's death.
Further, Jessicas mother revealed at that time (if I RCC), that they had gone to a store on Thursday to purchase the feminine products AND the cell phone charger; NOT on Friday morning like liar DeOrr stated they did. In ANY event, whether purchased on Thursday evening or Friday morning; Jessica HAD her new cell phone charger and there was no need for anyone to fake bad cell phone service due to a weak battery. Is this not correct? Seems to me like it is, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I also did not find Jessicas mother to be lying when she related that Issac stated he was down at the creek fishing when baby DeOrr supposedly went missing, then subsequently stated he was at the campsite. IMO, it is Issac who was the liar, not Jessicas mother who was not there at the time and was only restating what she had been told. I also believed her when she related how shocked the GGF was when he was accused of being responsible for watching baby DeOrr and did not know anything about it. Something ain't right here.
The point I'm making is that we can consider everything DeOrr said from the point where they actually arrived at the campsite, before AND after, to be twisted lies trying to cover his own tracks. AND Jessicas. God only knows what they have done with that precious little boy. We may never know. ABB
Yes anon 2:28's post is a possible scenario that has been speculated on quite a bit in this case and I also mentioned in my earlier post. Again, here's the problem: if the sighting at the Stage Stop really did happen, then why, if you feel that your son was abducted, why would you not FIRST consider that maybe that was your son with the gentleman (abductor) in the black truck? Why would you discount it as the clerk had made a mistake about the time/people seen so quickly? More incredulous, if you are trying to sell an abduction story, WHY would you not jump on the opportunity to latch on to a possible sighting of your son? The date and time of the sighting was perfect for them to use to further their abduction story.
But they didn't. Instead, they treated the sighting as "hearsay", dismissing it as a mistake on the clerk's part as to the time she actually saw the boy and man. They assumed that the clerk actually saw DK and DeOrr in DK's black truck, only earlier in the day. But if the sighting were real, then how would they know for sure that this wasn't a separate incident altogether, and this strange man in a black truck might have their little son?
The likely answer is that it was more important in their minds to place DeOrr at the campground/Stage Stop ALIVE in that timeframe on that day.
Again, you have to look at the whole Stage Stop sighting in context... the parents brought it up in order to clear up "the rumor". But there has never been any source of "rumor" located. Where did this "rumor" originate? Certainly LE would have investigated the Stage Stop sighting in the 3 days before the parents did the interview. If there was anything nefarious about the alleged sighting, you can bet that LE would have been on it. But nothing, LE has never mentioned it, neither has the clerk, nor MSM, nor the family's PI. So WHY was that so important for the parents to "clear up" when it apparently wasn't really an issue in the first place? Strange.
Also, they made sure to clear up the Stage Stop sighting rumor that nobody even knew about, but they refused to discuss the EMT bag when asked to do so, twice.
Ha... Anon @ 7:36, I had already told Anon @2:28 good point. I just forgot to sign. your 'very good point' post is even better. Actually, it was a very VERY good point. LOL...
The dumb bunny tripped himself up when it could have used it to his advantage. They both did. Just goes to show ya how stupid some people really are, especially cons who think they are on a roll. ABB
You also make some excellent points, Anne. And, quite possibly correctly. It just remains to be seen.
I do question however, why Jessicas mother said DeOrr, Sr had gone to that store to purchase candy for little DeOrr and her father; also, why neither daddy DeOrr or Jessica did not bother to deny that the baby was filthy and bawling if it is true that they had never been there at all?
Seems to be like they wouldn't want their child described as being in such a negligent condition and would have at least shown some defense of this offensive description. ABB
Anne was asking about things I have already written about numerous times, as you point out, so there would be little point repeating it all yet again, but it's there somewhere if she wants to read it. Besides, she was asking questions at 6am my time, and I do like to sleep sometimes. :)
Hmmmm.....maybe if that was the only way they could have proof he was still alive at that time, that the clerk had said he was filthy and bawling, they figured they would have to take it. Idk
Juliet, your sense of self-importance is unreal. If you don't want to answer my questions, simply don't. I am not here to engage with you only, my questions/comments are posted for all to respond to if they wish. I realize that in your mind, everything is about YOU but that is not the case. Nor did I demand you answer anything at 6am your time lol... why would you think that you had to answer immediately? So strange.
Anyways, the Stage Stop's hours are 8:30am-7:00pm Mon-Fri, and 10:00am-5:00pm on Sunday. Just FYI in case others were wondering.
ABB, I think that JM/DK did not show defense of the filthy, bawling description of their son because in the grand scheme of things, it just wasn't important to them. Or at least, it wasn't important to DK, who was running the show during the interview. The entire interview revolved around the needs, wants, and ultimately the reputation of Daddy DeOrr. There was little to no concern shown for their missing son...how terrified he might be, how he might be hungry, thirsty, in pain.
I think that the purpose of the interview was: 1) to kiss ass to LE/search teams, who's eyes DK thought he had pulled the wool over, and 2) to clean up the reputation of the parents which was allegedly being tarnished by "rumors", and to show what a great guy DK is.
One more thing...can we stop with the blanket JM was holding being a replica? It wasn't a replica, it was DeOrr's actual blanket. Daddy DeOrr clearly isn't the most educated man, when he said "this is an exact replica of a security blanket" he meant that this blanket is exactly what a security blanket is to DeOrr. He used the word replica erroneously but common sense tells us what he meant.
Thank you Anne for a very good post above, good thoughts, well presented. I agree.
Also, concerning the blanket replica, I get your point, but I have never questioned this particular item that baby daddy DeOrr threw out in his ignorant manner of speech in the first place, which is what I sort of thought him to be; rather ignorant and somewhat stupid.
I have always referred to the baby's blanket as his "blankey" the same as I did with my own sons special blankies they dragged around with them everywhere FOR YEARS. Little boys that age (girls too) are just so cute and special. They really are precious. They make you just want to pick them up and hug them all the time.
I can't imagine that not a one of these four adults were paying any attention to this child. I just can't. I would have never let him OR his little blankie out of my sight. On the other hand, I have questioned that this sweet boy ever made it to the campsite to begin with. ABB
Anne - you addressed some questions to me, which looks a bit like wanting a response -I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, but also had already posted about those things. It seems this discussion has more or less exhausted its usefulness, as it's reached the stage of mostly going over what others have already posted weeks and months ago. I don't think I have any thing new to contribute to it, so I'll take my leave till there is more information or developments in the case.
I can see why she doesn't want to go through the comments, she has 140 of them on this thread alone. So if the conversation is exhausted, well we definitely know who was a contributing factor.
The problem is I enjoyed some of her posts, but she has gotten almost cocky. An overinflated ego. This is probably why we don't see any of the regular posters here anymore.
Add that to her biting passive aggressiveness, and then automatically assuming the role of the confused victim, I can see why some posters are getting a bit fed up.
She will be back on the next blog post about Deorr though, so she can regale us with how she thought up however this poor, helpless little boy is found, if he ever is. And that is only because aside from Bigfoot, she has thought of every other theory. Oh wait. She did think of Bigfoot too.
Anon, re your post at 2:53; the worst of her posts that bothered me were those (several days ago), even worse than those where she was slamming and insulting me; was where she was speculating that little DeOrr could have died in the campfire. I didn't respond to it because I couldn't.
It made me feel so sick to my stomach just to think momentarily of such a scenario, knowing that the baby would have let out horrible screams that would have been heard by anyone even passing by, not to mention any adults that were there, and all the animals in the woods. No baby, toddler, child, could have been burned to death without trying to get out of the fire immediately unless it would be one who had been bound and gagged and tossed into the fire.
The very thought of it gave me knots in my stomach and still does. I cannot fathom saying this could have happened (no evidence, of course) or even thinking it. ABB
he heee, that's a good one Anon @5:39! Love it. She might have for all I know. I skipped the first 200 posts on this thread and quite a few on the beginning of those on this last page and decided at that point to even stop reading here for a good week to ten days, maybe permanently.
It got too nerve-wracking for me, especially the non-ending discussing IN DEPTH about the backward speech guy, over and over and over, weighing every word he said repeatedly and non-stop. Several of us had already said that we're not into psychic stuff (myself included, and consider it to be the works of demons) but she just would not let it go. WOULD NOT. Like she enjoyed digging it in deeper and deeper. I actually felt like rebuking satan in my house from time to time, not wanting this to take roots in my own life. Maybe this is finally the end of it.
But the worst was answering detailed questions that she would ask repeatedly, then when you did she would not accept the answers and would start all over detailing them again and again. It really did start to wear my last nerve raw and I reacted badly at times. I'm sorry, but my patience doesn't endure forever. I know I did sometimes react badly and was sorry I did, but she would never let it go. ABB
I just wish the little boy would have had a nice big loving guard dog to love and to love him. At least he would have had someone to love and help protect him. ABB
"the Stage Stop's hours are 8:30am-7:00pm Mon-Fri, and 10:00am-5:00pm on Sunday. Just FYI in case others were wondering." That may be true now, but what were they back in July? No Saturday hours?
ABB, I'm with you on the fire aspect. The thought of it turns my stomach. I'm also very upset by his disappearance as are so many others. Your description of a guard dog made me smile but also made me sad at the same time. I can picture his little arms wrapped around the neck of a big dog. Sadly, no guard, whether it be animal or human, could save this little boy. I hope a resolution comes soon. I know what it's doing to me. I can only imagine what it's doing to his family, extended family, and close friends.
Anon @2:53, she went way beyond being cocky many times. She would even tell others what they should and shouldn't say, like she was the boss of this blog site and everybody posting here. Many times others were a lot more diplomatic in their responses than I ever could have been. My fuse actually isn't very long anymore considering that I've already been through the tortures of the damned where it really counts and there isn't much left that I actually will take off anybody.
Good heavens, she even told (I think it was Anne, but I haven't looked back to see who it was) that she shouldn't call the store to ask what their hours were, speculating WHY she shouldn't, questioning why she would; like WHY would she care? Actually, I thought it would be interesting to know their hours and any other info she might be able to get out of them. Oh well. Hopefully I am beating a dead horse! ABB
Thank you anon @ 6:27 for reposting the hours of operation of the store. I had read it this morning when it was first posted and wondered myself why they were not open on Saturdays? It seems to me that being open on Saturdays would be more profitable than being open on Sundays, but then, what do I know about the area?
BTW, I do still think that it really was baby daddy DeOrr who was in the store with hysterical inconsolable baby DeOrr and not someone else who had the same description as they did. I think that would just be too much of a coincidence.
I think daddy DeOrr lied a blue streak when he said it couldn't have been them because the clerk said it happened on Friday evening after they had already reported the baby missing, then turned around and said they WERE there just not at the time the clerk said they were. I think it was Thursday evening, and since we don't have any reference witness words to refer back too, IF it actually DID happen, the clerk more than likely said it was Thursday evening and NOT Friday evening. We DO know the b'stard has lied to a fare thee well in other instances.
But since several here have pointed out that it could have been someone else entirely on Friday evening who stopped in at the store, fitting the exact descriptions, truck and all, then in fact it should have been of major concern to freak DeOrrs big ass lies that this MIGHT have been the abductor of his baby; but NO, he showed no such concerns about this. He knows it really WAS him in the store on Thursday evening or either has made up the entire lie that he calls a rumor in an effort to set up an alibi for himself. I've come to feel puke towards this guy.
Ha....! Yes it would be a big laugh and a gas if she winds up being totally ignored when she comes back; AND she will. I think she is totally obsessed with this case, to the point of OCD, where she can't function doing anything else but this and allows it to keep her mind in a spin day and night.
She's mentioned other threads concerning the DeOrr disappearance that she reads/posts on, so that's probably where she's sitting right now. Perish the thought of those having to tolerate the non-ending c'rap over and over.
Oh well, I don't run this site and am lucky I haven't been kicked off myself a few times! God knows, I can certainly be outspoken sometimes; however, I AM capable of backing down, and do; but not this ding-a-ling. NEVER. EVER. She just comes back at you another way and carries the same drivel right on and on. God help her. ABB
Anon @6:33, I would imagine that the disappearance of little DeOrr is disturbing his older siblings more than it is anyone else. They are just children, and children have very sensitive and tender emotions. I would imagine this would be almost more than they can bear; thinking they probably have nightmares and cry themselves to sleep many nights. Probably scared to death too.
You know, their father said in the earlier stages that they were close to their little brother and that he visited them all the time. It sounds to me like Jessicas ex-old man must have babysat him a lot during those times DeOrr stayed with his own kids.
I know he hired a private plane and small search party to go looking for the baby. IF IRCC, he said earlier on that he had a lot that he could have said and was furious when he was told not to make any more statements. Don't you know, this is VERY hard for those children, and with their own dad's hands tied where he can do or say nothing? More than anyone else, my heart really goes out to them.
Do you or anyone know if he has a Facebook page, or a thread of his own? ABB
Everyone I am so sorry, I made a mistake when I typed in the Stage Stop hours...yes, they are open on Saturday, I meant to type Mon-Sat but put Mon-Fri by mistake. So the hours are: 8:30am - 7:00pm Mon-Sat and 10:00am - 5:00pm on Sun. Also, those are the current hours AND those were the hours for summer as well, I specifically asked when I called. Sorry again for the mix-up!
ABB, just wanted to clarify that my comment re: DeOrr's blanket was not directed to you at all, I just happened to comment on it after responding to you, sorry for not making that clear in my post!
Jessica's ex has a Facebook page, here is the link:
That's okay Anne, No need to clarify anything about the blankie. I knew you were not speaking to me specifically about the replica blanket as I knew that I had only ever referred to baby DeOrrs blanket as his blankie; besides, I realized that baby daddy DeOrr didn't know what the hell he was talking about in the first place. Dumb ass. There is no such thing as a 'replica blanket' unless it would be a knock off copy of a costly Paris original, one of a kind, which I'm sure they would never own.
Thanks for clarifying the store hours. No problem whatsoever. It was real nice of you to call up there and get this information. I really had been curious about it.
The snow will be flying up there real soon so I don't think I'll be making the trip anytime soon, will you? All kidding side, I don't even know where the place is! And since I'm not a camper I don't think I'll ever be looking for it either. I just know there is some beautiful country up there. Thanks again for the clarifications.... Have a good evening. ABB
Oh, and thanks for the Facebook link. I may try to look it up tomorrow. I am real interested in this other side of the family. This is tragic for those children, heartbreaking. ABB
Linguistically, Jessica is stating that the "gentleman" was filthy.
I stand by that.
It is easier to realize this by listening to it spoken aloud in the interview, but even written down, yes, she is technically saying the "gentleman" was "filthy".
"F they did make it up, the question is, WHY? What purpose did it serve? Well, it would place DeOrr at the Stage Stop and make DeOrr alive at the time of the sighting...about noon on Friday. This would benefit DK/JM, IF DeOrr were NOT alive at the time. It makes their story fit."
Bingo. I couldn't agree more. I have always thought there was something odd like they were "latching" onto the story while simultaneously downplaying it the way they bring it up in the interview, and NOW it makes sense that they are the only ones who know about this sighting and probably fabricated it.
Extra important then to consider what they are saying as leakage.
"Filthy"------------THIS word troubles me. "Just bawling" "Truck"
"Also, they made sure to clear up the Stage Stop sighting rumor that nobody even knew about, but they refused to discuss the EMT bag when asked to do so, twice."
Another thing that is strange is how when Dad DeOrr is raving about the helicopter searcher zeroing in on an orange insect repellent can, the mother sheepishly interjects "they thought it might be a PART of a shoe or something". I have read over and over here that baby DeOrr was wearing oversized cowboy boots. So, he was not even wearing shoes nevermind orange shoes, yet the mother acts like this was a potential "lead" to finding baby DeOrr.
It's like the clues they are presenting as valid are NOT, the "sighting" they are presenting as valid are NOT...none of them are! Meanwhile Dad DeOrr just raves about the advanced search equipment and them not finding anything and the layout of the land. (Which concerns me more each time I watch the video.)
What is starting to concern me deeply is that if they seem to be focusing so much on creating a puzzle while also handing people fake puzzle pieces to try to put together I just wonder how sick their minds are and what they might have done to their poor son and if it involved psychological torment and some kind of sick game they put him through.
ABB, I have no problem when things are stated as your opinion. If you re-read my comment, I said it is wrong to state them as FACTS without evidence. We can speculate and draw conclusions all day, but it gives more weight to one's thoughts when it's clearly stated as opinion or speculation rather than fact when there's no evidence. Stating things as facts with no evidence undermines one's credibility.
Yes, I saw the pic first posted, when DeOrr was at least a year younger. He's fair skinned like my daughter and she used to turn bright red in the heat, too, and it wasn't sunburn. I have also seen other photos from that day and the other children are there and not sunburned. Therefore *my opinion* is that he was not sunburned in that photo.
Anon @ 4:26; it is MY OPINION that little DeOrr had sun poisoning on the previous photo Peter published. You can see the little red welts all over his skin caused by sun exposure. If it isn't sun poisoning, this would require a physicians diagnosis because this is certainly what it appears to be. THAT is my opinion.
SOOOo, you have your opinion and I have mine. That doesn't make either of us right. However, I am NOT going back on a wild search looking for one of your posts, nor do I intend to argue with you about it.
BTW, how do YOU know the photo was taken when he was a year younger? YOU DON'T. Conjecture, posturing, guessing, bickering. You just want to argue, and I'm sick of it AND YOU. ABB
Angelica; your post at 1:21 a.m., you could be entirely right. I have only ever listened to the video of the interview once and that was at the time Peter posted it. At no time have I ever gone back and replayed any of the videos or linked onto any of the links that have been posted. (Maybe I should).
However, it was in the early stages that I picked up on the posts that said (*he said, she said) the BABY was filthy and bawling, which neither he or Jessica denied; it had NOT been inferred that it was DeOrr, Sr who was filthy, and had no reason at the time to question what may have actually been said or not said. It has only been more recently that the statement was analyzed by a few other posters here to mean that it was DeOrr, Sr who was filthy; which could be the truth of the matter.
However (in my 'opinion'!), now keeping in mind that it was a smart-ass, uneducated, near-retard who made the statement in the first place, hypothetically quoting what the clerk supposedly "said" in his manner of speaking, that " bla bla bla.......and bla bla bla.." which is now questionable at best; leaving me to wonder if there ever was any such sort of sighting or statement made by any store clerk in the first place.
However you determine the supposed statement to be made is fine by me, whether it is that it was DeOrr, Sr who was the filthy one and not the baby, or vice-versa or both, since I wasn't there anyhow and don't even know if any such sighting even occurred to begin with. Thank you for the clarification if that is what this is. I take your word for it. Sincerely, ABB
Re your post @ 10.01 Anon; this always amazes me, how anyone could expect a two to three year old toddler to be able to read their post even if the child is alive. What do they think; the child has access to a computer? The child can read? The abductor is allowing the child access to the computer? The abductor is reading the post TO the child? Where IS the rationale of some people?
It really gets my goat when someone says to the missing little child "stay strong." My heavens, how in this world could a child be so strong under such conditions of fear and abuse, that they would be capable of even thinking strong; EVEN if they were to hear their loved one say so! People truly astound me.
THEN there is the hope and the miracle. Oh yes, I believe in miracles and I believe in hope; I've personally seen many miracles in my lifetime, things that occurred that there was no way they could have happened other than by a miracle performed by God himself. BUT, if you foot is missing, gone, amputated; would you actually expect, or even ask, for Jesus to grow you a new one?
It's not that I don't have sympathy for them, and I could understand if someone were to say something like, if anyone is able to contact our baby, would you please tell him thus and so on? But this is not what they are doing. They are actually anticipating that this child will read and understand their post. ABB
635 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 635 Newer› Newest»Peter is jealous of KM? LOL...oh, my sides!!! To the people over on the Justice for DeOrr FB page: It's over. The collapse of KM is complete. He has proven himself a quack, has made up lie after lie, has encouraged his followers to make up lies to LE in order to further his own agenda, his investigating skills include analyzing movie sounds in the background of a home video tape. He's done, irrelevant. Let it go. Focus your time and energy into someone/something that truly matters.
Dear Kara Rowyourboat....err.....Roxbury....
Damn autocorrect!!!
We might not know where Snake River is, but we know this.....
Peter's work is better and more relevant.
You know what isn't?
Listening to a video of a mother and child playing, and analyzing it and then posting for the world to see.....only to find out it was the movie StepBrothers playing in the background.
Peter also doesn't tell his followers to make false police reports, as he has a lot of respect for LE to do their jobs right.
Hope that bites ya right in the streaky blonde shorthairs.
Hahaha
Foolsfeedonfolly,
Good observations.
There is something particularly strange about Trina's quivering voice saying the focus should be on "this baby" after she had referred to DeOrr as "that baby".
I can't quite put my finger on it.
You asked
"Was the "kidnapping" designed by one party or a close family member to bring them closer together?*
It could be. There is something so strange about the family relations, and something so odd about Trina's language.
Have their homes been searched?
I thought it was odd in the interview with Isaac, I noticed and I saw one of the commenters noticed that he is holding the door with his arm outside the door as if he is trying to keep something from pushing the door open and getting out of the house. I will post link below.
I think it is very unlikely DeOrr is alive, but I very much wonder if any of their homes have been searched, and I am guessing they have not been.
Isaac says to reporter "Um...as far as I know, he just disappeared is all."
Why does he minimize it like it's not even a big deal?
Could he be hiding something? Or even hiding DeOrr? It is so strange how he minimizes a 2 year old going missing by saying "he just disappeared is all"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01DB2lqpWcs
They seem a bit bored - they must be feeling at a bit of a loose end since their honourable leader had to remove all his 'reverse speech is never wrong' reversals from his site, and also to delete or deactivate his Facebook. it must be difficult to accept that they've been had by a comedy hypnotist, but is posting their drama here really necessary?
Angelica - their homes and cars were searched, I think the FBI has had access.
Isaac has a cat - perhaps it's a house cat.
I hate to disillusion you people, but I wouldn't count on the FBI divulging anything. They "keep close to the vest" (God, I hate that term) whatever suits them for whatever personal reasons of their own that might sway them not to act.
They didn't bother to divulge their findings up in Satsuma when they whipped their black SUVs up to Putnam County, surrounded a holding bay of water and searched for Ronald Cummings' haul of illegal firearms. Sure enough they dragged them all out of the water; ahh... they belonged to Ronnie alright, and never said another damned word nor did they file charges against this conniving dope head thug, KNOWN drug dealer, woman and child abuser; even though two or three other illegal firearms had already been pulled out of a ditch near Tommy Croslins' place of abode, ALSO belonging to the fair-haired Ronnie boy.
Ditto for the headless rat ole Ron placed in Tommys' mailbox as a warning to him and ALL the Croslins to keep their stupid mouth shut. They did, becoming the scapegoats.
They ALSO have not commented about those multiple tens of thousands of adult AND kiddie porn images they reviewed off Billie Jean Dunn and Shawn Adkins' computers and thumb nail drives, OR those found in Billies' home. They suck. ABB
I think Peter is surprised and bemused that anybody seriously believes reverse speech has any merit as an investigative tool. Perhaps he overestimates people's intelligence.
It would be wonderful if reverse speech could detect truth and/or deception. It would be marvellous if psychics could predict the future, know the unknowable and/or commune with the spirits of the dead. I understand why people want to believe.
Too bad it's all bullshit.
BSG's analysis of what he claimed to be audio of DK and was, in fact, the movie, Stepbrothers, was hilarious.
PS. Anyone with Google knows where Snake River is.
The door step interview with IR is bizarre. "He just disappeared is all" is so unexpected. The arm over the door is strange, too. Is it possible that he was promised money in exchange for a brief interview and the body language displayed is his impatience to receive it?
His language displays cognitive dissonance. He is barely coherent.
I can't understand the IR connection to this case. Was he brought along as some kind of patsy? That speaks to premeditation.
Could he be responsible for baby DeOrr's disappearance? I keep going round in circles.
Quote from Kara Roxbury: "Statement Analysis of Peter Hyatt." "He is very biased of reverse speech and psychics and anything spiritual." ANYTHING spiritual?
Grow a brain. You can't get inside Peters' head to know that he is biased against "anything spiritual". In fact, he ISN'T. Peter has a spiritual life of his own that you know nothing about; how could you, when you have no spirit of discernment and don't even know what this means. You are blindly deceived. Don't be a fool. NO ONE has an all-seeing eye other than God Almighty Himself.
Peters' disdain for psychics and backward reverse speech practitioners (another form of psychics), all liars and deceivers; is directly in line with the teachings in the Holy Bible, where we are WARNED not to call on or follow these false teachers. They will ALL be cast into the lake of fire and you right there with them if you don't get your head up out of the sand, turn to REAL wisdom, repent of this evil that is against God, and learn these spiritual matters for yourself before it's everlastingly too late. Consulting with, following, and cavorting with evil spirits is not a game. ABB
Juliet 1:08
After reading everything you post are you really going to ask that question??
I mean- as far as covering what may have happened to this little boy- I am pretty sure you have ALL of your bases covered!
Everything!
Um....aren't you re one that called her a drama queen?
Nobody cares. Really.
IR: Yeah, I don't have any questions. I'm sorry.
I guess he meant to say "answers" but since he didn't say it, I'm not going to say it for him. Maybe he really doesn't have any questions.
I wish I didn't have so many.
Also noted: I'm sorry.
Anon @5:46, I don't think Peter really over estimates anyone's intelligence, I just think that sometimes he tries to soft-peddle it with some that he fully recognizes are less intelligent than he is; in other cases I would tell some of these ding-a-lings to pound salt where he doesn't. But it's not for lack of not realizing their stupidity or an IQ that is way less than his own. This takes practice.
One of my greatest disappointments in life has been the realization of just how dumb some people are and how to handle them without making your own self look like a crazy idiot. Few smart people can master this affect.
Let's face it; if at least 51% of our voting population were not as close-minded and dumb as they are, this country would not be in the condition it's in.
Peter frequently tries to give them a break where I wouldn't be able too. ABB
To those who seem to be leaning towards thinking the disappearance of little DeOrr was some big conspiracy in the making between the parties, I don't think so at all. We're not dealing with smart people here, alrighty? Nor are they moneyed people.
They are opportunists of the red-neck sort, none of them real bright, but not street-thug smart enough to set up this elaborate conspiracy among themselves; but ARE of the hill-jack mentality who will cover up for each other til dooms day. What personal gain would there be for each of these people to jump into a conspiracy to kill and dispose of little DeOrr and cook up this eleaborate scheme to hide it so well? None.
None of them have c'rap, do they? Do they owe each other that kind of favor? For doing what? I rather doubt it. UNLESS Issac has somehow been involved with one or more of them in sexually abusing this baby; THEN the plot thickens.
I wouldn't be at all surprised though, if one is covering for another, and another is covering for another and so on down the line. They ARE rather dumb however, so I'm just waiting for one of them to crack, which also might be unlikely. ABB
Where are the polygraph results? Where is DK's 911 call? Where is the sketch of the suspicious Swan River staring man in the black Rubicon? Where is the FBI report? What happened to baby DeOrr? Why do some cases grip our attention like this?
Another question. How do I edit posts on this blog? Swan Valley not Swan River.
Where's the $20,000 reward coming from - is he maybe not anticipating playing it out?
The sketches are taking a while. Does it take longer to produce a sketch based entirely on imagination, I wonder?
Anon @6.15 - Somewhere along the way I did make the uncharitable observation that Kara is a drama queen, yes - she seems to have taken it pretty hard to still be performing over it after all this time, but perhaps it touched a nerve. It must be hard for them to admit that they jumped on a cowboy's bandwagon, but we all make mistakes. :)
You can't edit once you have posted, or delete, if you post as anon or just with a name - I'm not sure if those who post with a linked profile can edit but they are able to delete their posts - I don't know if they need to prove they're not robots. Previewing your posts is the nearest you can get to editing.
I am surprised we haven't heard anymore about the "staring" man. Wasn't there supposed to be a composite drawing made? If they think he is the kidnapper, you would think there would be some urgency?
Maybe it turned out like Bigfoot and they had to start again.
IFF there was a staring man, it was probably someone who had his system shocked at seeing such a motley crew, particularly if baby DeOrr was traveling with them (doubtful!) in filth.
Not buying their shyt that the staring man could have followed them in his expensive black rubicon all the way back to the campsite and could have snatched the baby. Without them being aware that they were being followed; nor did they see him when he took the baby in a campsite that was so 'open' to all for observation, where one could practically hear a pin drop it was so quiet?
More bs just trying to wring out something to reinforce their weak alibi. They went into town for one reason only, to make a purchase where they would get a receipt to try to wing it from there. ABB
If there had been a staring man he would have been mentioned, at least, in the first interview, and the parents wouldn't have tried to discount the black truck sighting of the gentleman and little boy 'matching our description of our son'. There was no staring man, and Jessica was not in the store at six. The receipt purchases were made on the Friday, by Jessica and DeOrr 'as a family', during the alibi creating trip to the store, by which time little DeOrr was long gone. IMO. The staring man reminds me of how Jerry McCann belatedly figured out an abductor must have been hiding behind the bedroom door when he went to check on Madeleine. The length of time it has taken them to come up with the staring man story suggests no urgency, more desperation, but not towards the truth.
I'm betting they get more and more nervous as October comes closer. Just a hunch...lol.
Juliet said...
'There wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't'
- that's bit of a mind bender, but it's not a double negative, is it? It's another unnecessary self-edit into the present tense.
That statement is troublesome. If there was not a stone left unturned, why the need to say there still isn't?
There would be a need to make that statement if little DeOrr was buried somewhere and a stone was placed over the grave and had not been moved.
Agreed Anon at 12:08
That's what I have been feeling all along too.
Sadly that Deorr maybe hidden under a rock.
That poor baby.
Anon at 12:38 I mean
"Backward Speech has been sold
Welcome! Backward Speech has been sold for the amount of $233,000. This domain and site content, along with Facebook pages etc are NO longer affiliated with it’s previous owner. We will continue to provide reverse speech services and will continue the work of the previous owner. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We hope to have our site up soon and would love if you would continue to follow the wonderful world of reverse speech."
Posted on September 21, 2015
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Oq74c0h5ht4J:backwardspeech.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Anon @ 3:21pm - I don't see that verbiage (the sold part) on the link you provided. Why in the world would someone want the amount they paid for that website announced like that? I doubt very seriously someone paid Kellen Marson that much money for the backwardspeech.com domain. More bs being spread around.
This is Google's cache of http://backwardspeech.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Sep 23, 2015 10:25:25 GMT.
The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Full versionText-only versionView sourceTip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.
Skip to content
Backward Speech
Just another WordPress site
Menu and widgets
Search for:
Recent Posts
Backward Speech has been sold
Recent Comments
Archives
September 2015
Categories
Uncategorized
Meta
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org
Backward Speech has been sold
Welcome! Backward Speech has been sold for the amount of $233,000. This domain and site content, along with Facebook pages etc are NO longer affiliated with it’s previous owner. We will continue to provide reverse speech services and will continue the work of the previous owner. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We hope to have our site up soon and would love if you would continue to follow the wonderful world of reverse speech.
Posted on September 21, 2015September 21, 2015Leave a comment on Backward Speech has been sold
Proudly powered by WordPress
Long-winded version - search here:
http://www.netim.com/domain-name/whois-search.html
Concise:
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=backwardspeech.com&type=domain
Use of the WHOIS privacy service prevents determining the identity of the owner of the domain. It was bought or renewed on July 18, 2015 and expires on July 18, 2016. He was not thinking too long term, then, with just a one year renewal.:)
I would be surprised if the backwardspeech.com domain would sell at all in the current climate given the negative publicity associated with it, and if someone did buy it, it would maybe go for a couple of hundred dollars, tops. It is rare for domains to go for even more than a few hundred dollars, a couple of thousand on a good day, if someone wanted it badly enough, maybe. So there may be a mistake with a decimal point there. :). Really, who is buying this? - which new owner announces that a domain has been 'sold' rather than that they have purchased it? Lols. Who would want to associate, rather than disassociate themselves from the previous owner - at least when it is not looking so great for the 'previous' owner?
Still, 'new' owner is working on setting up a shiny new orangey blog theme at the minute - will not watch with interest. :-/
'New' owner shares ego of 'previous' owner - first post 'Hello, world!' - indicates anticipated audience/interest? :). Some people are just a tad transparent.
You guys aren't doing it right. It's 000,332.
K.M.
May it's code for $ooo3.32
LMAO Juliet
Good catch with the "sold" instead of "purchased."
Lol!!!
thank you hacker
Lol - here is his new Facebook, run by four experts, one an attorney, so watch it, guys. Lols. You couldn't make this stuff up- oh, wait - some people can. :)
https://www.facebook.com/Backward-Speech-Investigations-172765066394945/timeline/?ref=tsp
That's all about the Marson from me now, he is not worthy. :-)
Backward Speech Investigations
23 hrs · Edited ·
This is the new page of Backward Speech. As the new page owner of Backward Speech and a certified analyst myself I will continue to share the amazing power of Backward Speech. Due to the DeOrr case, Kellen has recently received some serious threats towards his family, among other things, and has decided to step away from this case publicly.
Despite the rumors, Kellen is still very much involved and invested in finding closure for DeOrr. I will be posting my own reversals as well as reversals that Kellen may find on this case, but for his safety all reversals will come from me. Further, this page has 4 admins, all of which are certified reverse speech analysts with one being a full-time practicing attorney.
Before doing a screen shot, copying posts and acting like children because you don't agree with our work, I would think twice. Our attorney has recently subpoenaed Facebook and received the real names of two Facebook page owners. These cowards will be facing serious legal action.
If you disagree with us, there are other places for you to voice this. It will not be here, nor will your messages or posts be acknowledged. We understand everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but this page is for those that enjoy this technology and want answers.
Well.....that escalated quickly.
So....how does one become a "certified" reverse speech analyst?
Is it listening to "Paul is dead" over and over or......???
Possibly Step Brothers??
I'm going to put my nutsack on your drum set!!!
Hahaha
It's not hacking, it's research. :) Know the difference.
Isa said -
Well.....that escalated quickly.
:-D
Anon wrote:
The door step interview with IR is bizarre. "He just disappeared is all" is so unexpected. The arm over the door is strange, too. Is it possible that he was promised money in exchange for a brief interview and the body language displayed is his impatience to receive it?
His language displays cognitive dissonance. He is barely coherent.
I can't understand the IR connection to this case. Was he brought along as some kind of patsy? That speaks to premeditation.
Could he be responsible for baby DeOrr's disappearance? I keep going round in circles.
I agree. "He just disappeared is all" is unexpected. It is such a minimization and said with such nonchalance.
You asked "Was he brought along as some kind of patsy?"
I believe he was.
I do believe it was premeditated.
I have to disagree with ABB. I believe this was a premeditated plan, a complicated plan, and we do not know the intelligence of these people, as ABB pointed out that he or she feels these people are not intelligent enough to premeditate any kind of complicated scheme. Oftentimes, people who possess diabolical intelligence, the ability and desire to carefully plan and scheme, will present themselves as "dopey" or "not very bright" or "oblivious".
Especially "careful schemers" wear a masque. What does the masque do? It covers the fact that they are always carefully scheming. None of the 3 (Grandma, Jessica, Dad DeOrr) strike me as such bumbling idiots that they could not be wearing a mask to cover the ability to carefully scheme. A lot of Dad DeOrr's more "white trash" language seems contrived, like when he calls his kid "a mover and a goer" or says he "hauled" up the road, it doesn't quite match up with the rest of his speech which seems quite coherent. It's almost like he's intentionally dumbing down some of his vocabulary without changing the fact that he is quite conscious of what he is saying, he is coherent, he does not seem unintelligent, and he seems to be carefully weighing his words.
One more gem from the fantasist Kellen Marson:
DeOrr Jr Voices
Layna Hauser @Steve Pitzing...do you know if Kellen does anymore reversals on this case? I have tried to go to his website and it says that the website has been sold...WTH? No new information from Kellen in quite awhile.
Like · Reply · Yesterday at 01:32 · Edited
Kellen Marson
Kellen Marson Layna Hauser I recently sold a portion of my business to another analyst. I am still doing reversals and have many pulled from the PI investigation, but my website and facebook page will no longer be updated or ran by me. It's up to the new owner if he chooses to post my reversals or not. Most of my time will be spent now working with a volunteer cold case team.
Like · Reply · 2 · Yesterday at 02:11 · Edited
----
'MY website and Facebook page will no longer be updated or ran by me. It's up to the new owner if he chooses to post my reversals or not.'
Well, it's still his, apparently despite the new owner claiming it's been 'sold' for hundreds of thousands of dollars - and the new owner has already conveniently announced that he is going to be posting Kellen's reversals, because anyone just would pay that much for the privilege of running and updating someone else's' website, and filling it with the previous owner's material, wouldn't they? Such an investment opportunity. Lols. Does he think we're all ten? 'Childish' is a word which figures quite frequently in Marson's posts -seems he has yet to grow out of imaginary friends/web site purchasers.
Sara Williams
There's really not Kellen. More people are with them then against. Have you ever had a missing child? If you haven't then how can you say their behavior makes them look guilty? Seems how you all want them to be puppets why don't you enlighten everyone on how they should be acting? If you haven't then I think you and everyone else running their mouths have no reason to judge them on how they are acting... This type of thing doesn't happen to everyone so how can people say, "well if it was me I would do this or that" .. It's not you!!! Have you ever been in the parents position? No! so how can you truly know what's right and what's wrong when it comes to their actions throughout all of this...
More · 4 hours ago
Kellen Marson
You are misinformed! No I have not had a missing child and I hope I never do, but I have worked with several investigators and parents of missing children and have with the use of reverse speech helped solve 8 missing person cases that involved children and 1 that was an adult all of which had or were about to go cold. These are just a few of hundreds of cases I've been involved in. I've seen investigators who are willing to hear the reversals and use them shocked when they see the truth come out. If you don't think the government uses reverse speech you are also wrong. The government has attempted to control reverse speech for years. The point is, I believe in my work, you don't. Not ONCE have I tried to convince people that reverse speech exists. It's not my job! There are substantial studies that prove it's validity.
What you are referring to is physical behavior, I am referring to there unconscious behavior that is displayed through reverse speech. I go off my speech reversals which is a persons true unconscious behavior. I don't expect everyone to believe in my work that wasn't my intention of any of this. I simply do the analysis and post it for those that want to see a different perspective. I wasn't the first to claim they harmed their child and I won't be last. You and I will never agree on which has more supporters, I only go off what the polls say and they are overwhelmingly not in favor of the parents.
Lastly, I agree no one can predict how one will behave physically in a situation. However, a google search will bring up hundreds of studies of thousands of cases that document what is typically behavior among one who is innocent and typical behavior of one who is guilty. This is why ones behavior is admissible in court. I do work often with a behavioral analysts who has testified in hundreds of court hearings on the behavior of suspects. In her words, "Human behaviors is incredibly predictable. People respond very similar based on the specific emotions they are feeling." Although I'm not an expert on human behavior, it's not hard to see that the parents behavior is not typical of one who is innocent, but with one who is either guilty or hiding something.
I respect your opinion as I have everyone's. The only ones personally attacking are people such as yourself towards those that believe otherwise. The only people I ever attacked were the parents. It's amazing how you maintain the childish belief of attacking, under a fake profile, to those who disagree with your ideology on page created for those that have enough common sense to see through the parents. Again, you are hypnotized by the parents! smfh. The only ones doing any attacking are those who agree with the parents and it's against anyone that doesn't agree with them. Yet, those who disagree with the parents, the only ones they attack are the parents.
As soon as everyone puts emotion aside and is able to see how bizzar and messed up this entire case is, the sooner the parents will buckle. The only ones truly keeping the parents out of jail are those that support the parents. When they have no one else to turn to, the truth comes out.
Kelley Marson has now solved 8 missing persons cases and one adult missing persons case using reverse speech technology. These are only a few of hundreds of cases he is involved with working on.
You can say he is pretty tight with LE Right now.
I am thinking that Kellen Marson is who they are keeping close to the vest right now.
Bahahahaha!! I am amazed at his ability to continually lie, and lie, and lie some more. Just to make something that got made fun of in the 60's/70's that nobody believed in (reverse speech) look relevant.
Unfortunately all this does, instead of making me believe in his technology, (which he seems like a very well educated man, until he gets online and starts typing) is make me feel bad for the family, since it seems he could care less as long as he is offending or terrorizing them along with Kara Rowberry. It's more just to get his name out there. He says he does it in Deorr Jr.s name, but his own words show that he wants to be front and center of this freak show. :(
DeOrr is very conscious to avoid the past tense, even when it isn't necessary - he tries so hard and overdoes it. He's aware that speaking in the past tense about his son is a giveaway sign that he knows or believes his son to be dead. This is the Monday interview, and he's had since Thursday/Friday to practise and work on that - it's something anyone who is a fan of true crime shows would be aware of, so that he keeps or tries to keep everything in the present tense doesn't have to mean premeditation, but the fact he does it where it's unnecessary does point to guilty knowledge. I think the few things they said about DeOrr were all rehearsed to be present tense. When he's more spontaneous he overdoes it, thus 'not a stone left unturned, there still isn't'. Those few words have caused some people, including Marsdon, to suspect little DeOrr will be found under a rock, but I think it's just another instance of DeOrr turning past into present tense.
From the beginning I saw parallels with the Madeleine case, and wondered if someone had followed that closely, especially the 'confusion is good' aspect, and if there were not some imitation of that - still, even if that were the case, it would not necessarily point to premeditation, more mirroring, but after the fact.
I still want to tend towards a terrible accident followed by panic and a cover-up, possibly involving other family members. I think phone calls and texts between Jessica and her mother could be so accounted for, as could the family's defence of them, closing ranks, the vague narrative, misleading timeline. If there was evidence of an insurance policy on the baby I would have to think differently - as in why would anyone insure a baby's life, and as there then being a motive for someone who was desperate for money to cause or have harm caused to him. I can't think of any other motive anyone might have to cause him harm - if the parents did not want to care for him, someone else in the family would have taken him, or they could have put him into care. I still believe DeOrr was a much loved baby. There's Jessica's 'Who would harm us in this way?,' too - which does still leave me wondering if DeOrr was possibly a victim of a drug debt related revenge attack, which they covered up, out of fear of further harm. I still have the idea that something happened at a different campsite - but still, that six o clock sighting puts them and Little DeOrr in Leadore at six on the Thursday.
I don't consider the family to be lacking in intelligence - intelligence is not exclusive to a certain 'class' of people, and snobbery is for snobs. I can't be bothered with ABB's wild judgements concerning them - it's just being unpleasant towards the family for the sake of it, creating supposed 'facts', rather than trying to look at what is actually known, or what might be the case.
I saw Kellen and Kara piling into Sara last night, once they had decided she was Tanisha. They should step back and listen to themselves - it's incredible that they, thinking they were interacting with Tanisha, would treat her as they did, with Kara accusing her of having said something which was not said - but Marson and Kara are the victims of the family, poor dears. They worry for their own safety, and for their children - so much that they carry on just as before. :) They all need a psychiatrist, yesterday - not Tanisha, btw, whether she is Sara or not. She seems to have been given little choice in the affair, they have decided she is Tanisha and are filing more complaints about her on the basis of something 'Sara' didn't even say - thus the unreasonable nature of these people. By now it seems they could not care less about little DeOrr - all they care about is being proved right.
Do we need to have Marson's outpourings posted here - is there no sanctuary? It's like the Day of the Triffids, though the Triffids were less invasive.
Justice4Deorr said...
I'm betting they get more and more nervous as October comes closer. Just a hunch...lol.
September 24, 2015 at 12:26 PM
what happened to grace/bessie justice4deorr blog?
My "wild judgments", Juliet? Let me tell you something sweet pea, since the initial interview posted by Peter and the attached video, I haven't clicked on the first one of the links throughout all these posts, I couldn't tell you who said what regarding who and what or where and when, nor have I run off foaming at the mouth which you certainly have done numerous times with your many lengthy posts twisting this way and that way; but I CAN tell you this:
These people LIED from the moment they checked into the campsite, whenever that was. They initially SAID they had arrived on Friday, set up camp, decided to take a walk, weren't gone exploring more than ten minutes, came back and found the baby missing that they thought was getting ready for his nap and 'thought' great granddaddy would be looking out for and wasn't; looked around for him about ten minutes then proceeded to call S & R separately and bla bla); which, in fact, put their whereabouts of 'missing' time well into Friday afternoon. And on and on. ALL bull shyt lies. Right there they had already covered their trail for all of Thursday evening & night and all of Friday morning into the middle of the afternoon. And THIS is my wild imagination? Facts honey, facts.
It turns out they arrived on THURSDAY. God only knows how much earlier in the day they arrived; Dad DeOrr was seen at the store with a screaming, filthy, painfully hysterical baby DeOrr in his black truck at around 6:00 pm that day, (this TOO they tried to hide); no mention of mama Jessica being there, so neither you or anyone else knows where she was; was she inside the cab of the truck, could have been lying down, or just WHERE? She and DeOrr know, certainly not you or I. Definitely NOT taking care of her baby. Wherever it was they had hunkered down Thursday evening? Probably. But you can't answer that nor can anyone else, but you sure as hell have done a lot of "wild" speculating about it.
You have speculated wildly about some insane conspiracy where they ALL want to kill the baby, which I highly doubt, maybe they did and maybe they didn't, more than likely it is the cover up they are conspiring to do; as it turns out that their RSO camping bud Issac has ALSO lied a blue streak, and great granddaddy at 70ish isn't as lethargic as some might think, after all, he IS able to drive his camper, take a PORTABLE oxygen tank, walk about and sit up and take nourishment; so much bla bla bla for his failing health. THEN it is further revealed that some of these yo-yos ALSO have unsavory relatives in their not so distant background; but I AM A SNOB? Lady, the facts speak for themselves.
I don't need to go on and on speculating endlessly about what each one has done and said and yada yada like you do over and over, sitting there and reviewing all these links over and over; PLUS claim this is some sort of accident. Why would you look for excuses for a rotten no-good negligent mother who won't even clean up her kid or buy him a decent fitting pair of shoes, or use sun protection on his burning sensitive skin? ....ummm, Are you one yourself, so you can relate to this? You've got a few lose screws in your head if you actually believe this is some sort of pitiful accident. Jessica is no mother; take it or leave it, THAT is a fact. And DeOrr ain't nothin' but a lair. BOTH liars to the end. A piece of dirt. Period.
JUST from the initial lies of these hill-billy ner'do-well cons, it's pretty clear they have done something with this baby whether the REST of this motley bunch sits back and covers for them or not, which they ARE doing. They are ALL deceivers in one way or another, but this is NO accident. And THATS no wild speculation honey pot; THAT is just common sense. Pound salt. ABB
Justice4DeOrr: I'm betting they will be relieved as hell when October rolls around, and the hunting season cranks up, and the snow flies and covers the area; then they won't have to fake searching for him anymore.
They can happily go home, sit back and wait for spring. Wallow in their misery. Maybe collect a little money off GoFundMe for a while. Afterall, baby daddy DeOrr has lost all this time from work. Yep. I can see it comin'. ABB
Thank you Juliet for the tip about editing posts on this blog.
I wonder if Jessica chose to hold baby DeOrrs blanket rather than his monkey because the parallels between monkey and cuddle cat would be too obvious.
Juliet, I think your contributions to this blog display your keen intellect, sense of humour and generous spirit. I enjoy them very much.
Juliet
Amen to your 4:50am post.
Rave on for Juliet as long as you hold up, makes no difference to me, but if you're really astute you will learn sooner or later than the woman is a loose hinge whose own family would be better off if she spent at least SOME of her valuable time giving them a little of her attention. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Obviously you can't see the forest for the trees.
Nonetheless, I have enjoyed many of your posts and some of hers. She just needs to get a life, that's all, and quit making excuses for baby killers while she slams me, one of the few here who can actually see a little further down the road.... Enjoy your day. Have at it. ABB
What's most pathetic to me regarding the Fight for Justice for DeOrr Facebook page is that it's the same small group of bat-shit-crazy nut jobs all talking to themselves: Kellen Marson, Kara Rowbury, Cindy Park Schiller, Holly Massey Tomlinson, Dexter Beasly, Damon n Jess Ball, Mindy Washburn Espeseth, Wanda Johnson, Kaylaylariee Hoflack, and the owner of the page (Kara). The page has a total of 129 likes, as opposed to the THOUSANDS that the other DeOrr pages have. Nobody cares about the Fight for Justice page lol... they are just making fools of themselves.
As for Kellen, he must think that we are really stupid to believe that he has sold his backward speech pages to someone for hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially considering the tarnished reputation of his "business". Who in their right mind would do so, and then turn around and continue to post Kellen's drivel to the website? (as Juliet already mentioned). But this doesn't surprise me...raging egomaniac narcissists like Kellen think that they are smarter than everyone else. He looks like a total fool to everyone else except his loyal 8-10 followers that post with him on the FFJFBD page. It's really kinda sad. And funny!
In your speculations that are not yet given facts; some of you might want to consider that baby daddy DeOrr and mama Jessica had all night to dispose of this poor baby; from the last known verifiable sighting of little DeOrr and baby daddy DeOrr when they were seen in the store at around 6:ish pm on Thursday evening until nearly mid-afternoon on Friday when they finally decided to report him 'missing'.
(Common sense will dictate that when one does not report an "accidental" death of their child, there is a reason that outweighs any guilt they might feel for the actions they took, including abandoning and not even giving the child a proper burial. Uh... that would be obvious INJURIES, okay?) ABB
From the time they left the store and stopped off at another store to obtain verification of their 'family visit' there, would give them in the neighborhood of 20 hours to travel across two states to dispose of his precious little broken body, and back, during which time they hoaxed up their 'plan'. Of course, daddy DeOrr insinuates loud and clear that the baby will not be found anywhere on the campsite, every stone and rock having been overturned and every inch and body of water having been searched, already knowing he is not there.
I learn towards believing, (as Juliet and several others do), that the poor little thing died on that Thursday night; having been beaten to death in a fit of anger by daddy DeOrr, or both parents, (which was no damned accident) shortly after the humiliating trip to the store where he bought candy for the baby, trying to quiet him down; when all either he or Jessica had to do was clean up the little boy, remove the boots that were causing him sores and blisters on his little feet, soothe his painful diaper rash and doctor his burning sensitive skin.
Oh yeah, they had plenty of time to haul the poor little thing many miles away. It wouldn't surprise me if this child is not found for the next several years and then in some park or other hidden isolated area far far away, if ever. Just speculating, of course. ABB
I agree with you, Anon @9:36, even though I haven't read any of their posts or any of the links posted here either. That's just plain nuts to think anyone would pay that sort of money for some non-producing website and pages when it's so easy to set up your own website for mere peanuts by comparison. I know, I've done it. You don't suppose some fool really did that, do you? Enjoyed your post! ABB
Hi. I've been reading this site and have found it very informative. I should day that I've been applying some of these techniques without knowing about them in my own personal life. I've been lied to, about, betrayed by close relatives for decades. I'm looking into the purchase of your book on Kindle.
As far as this case is concerned, I think poor Deorr met an unintended death elsewhere with a burial and cover up by family, at the campsite or buried elsewhere, with the family 'staging' a campout to move away from actual events and burial site.
If Deorr was ever at the campsite he would have left the following 'clues' as a 2+ year old :
more than 1 diaper soiled
tracks
finger marks and scents from playing with dirt, sticks, stones, etc
possible urine or feces if parents were trying to potty train, or let him loose without a diaper
drool, snot, or slobber, or even dried tears scents,
markings or scents of favorite blanket/toys being dragged as he carried them around with him
things that were once placed in his mouth then dropped
******
just some thoughts from a female experienced with caring for children for over 30+ years- since I was in my teens
signed momE
ABB - it's unfair to portray little DeOrr as chronically neglected and abused - there is no basis for it. So he was attached to a pair of boots which were too big for him, so what? - some little kids get like that over clothes and shoes, and there's not much reasoning with them. We don't know that there weren't other shoes of his which did fit, but that he still insisted on putting on the boots. We don't know what 'not a trace found' means - there has been no confirmation that nothing of his, besides the cup, monkey and blanket, was at the campsite. We don't know, yet you jump effortlessly to him owning just the one pair of ill-fitting boots resulting in blisters - you make the same effortless jump to sunburn and diaper rash. All that, you claim to be fact - it's as unfair and unreasoned as it is cruel. His big brother could have given him the boots, he might have been attached to them because they had belonged to his hero big brother, or a grandparent or aunt could have got them in the hope they would fit - people seem mainly to be assuming that the boots were his only and serious footwear, which I find unlikely and illogical - realistically, the cowboy boots were probably more something additional to his proper footwear and which everyone just had to put up with, because he really liked them. Little kids love footwear they can put on and take off all by themselves, did anyone who has ever had a child in the family ever notice? People who keep asking the question "why would you put him in boots which didn't fit to go camping?' seem to be missing the obvious, well, you wouldn't - it would be too much hassle, so they more than likely had suitable footwear for him, too, but he still just wanted to wear those boots because he could put them on himself - it's a toddler thing. Not that he could have gone far in them, not that they wouldn't have fallen off as an abductor fled with him - still, I think it's unlikely he had only the cowboy boots.
We also don't know what the lady in the store regards as "filthy' - was he covered in industrial waste, had he evidently been playing in dirt at some stop along the way, was he just a bit grubby, was he snotty nosed, sticky faced - some people take great pleasure in exaggeration, drama and overstatement. What's her definition of 'filthy'? Again, we don't know, only that Jessica did not want that to be taken to be her son even though he 'matches our description of our son'. I doubt they had described him as filthy and bawling.
Whatever has happened, and no matter how much anyone might want to condemn the parents in advance of the facts being established, I don't see what your justification is for inventing all that cruel and emoting stuff and claiming it as fact - it seems unnecessary and sadistic when, so far as we know, there is no factual basis for it.
--
Anon and Bethany - thanks.
Where's the sketch of the creep in the jeep?
Hi. This is momE again. I commented a few minutes ago to voice my rationale of choosing choice A, on the poll that is the topic of this blog post.
I find Peter Hyatt's, statement analysis posts very fascinating, on this blog. I'm learning so much, not just in Deorr's case but also in the other cases he discusses.
As far as the sketch, I'm going to guess that maybe someone informed the PI it is unnecessary, or he was making a cookie crumb promise-easily made easily broken, or it is delayed for another reason. Maybe some info from the FBI is starting to come back and he is rethinking strategy.
How many interviews has the parents of Deorr, given , and where can I find the videos and unedited transcripts? I've seen portions but not all. Was there a video/transcript of the vigil? Thanks.
momE
Juliet,
I understand where you are coming from, but ABB is just stating their opinion. The parents (and grandparent-Grandpa DeOrr) all admitted that the "cowboy boots" (which were actually pull-up work boots, see image https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153249669586553&set=pcb.10153249671316553&type=3&theater ) would fall off of DeOrr frequently. So it does make one wonder why any parent would put their two-year-old in ill-fitting footwear while out camping in woodsy areas with potentially hazardous terrain.
As for the child being filthy, the parents themselves were the ones that brought that "rumored" sighting up, Daddy DeOrr made it clear that it WAS he and DeOrr that were seen at the store, just not at the time that the store clerk claimed. JM did NOT imply that she "did not want that taken to be her son even though he 'matches the description of our son'." Neither JM or DK denied that he was the child that was seen, they never denied that he was filthy and bawling; they also never gave an explanation as to why he was filthy and bawling. Also, if you look at photos of DeOrr, even ones that have been included in the "missing" posters, in many of them DeOrr does look dirty, especially his face. So if little DeOrr was dirty and bawling in the store I have no reason not to believe it.
Anne (sorry I keep forgetting to "sign" - also anon 9/24 12:35am and anon 9/25 9:36am)
You can't account for all their lies right from the beginning Juliet; you go right over them as if they don't even exist; but you can account for his boots being too large and rubbing his feet, his seriously sun poisoned delicate red skin with rash over his little body, untreated, (that Peter first posted, a bona-fide witness saying he was filthy dirty and bawling hysterically when his baby daddy stopped in the store to purchase candy trying to calm him down; but you can see only the bright sun when it comes to this child not suffering any neglect or abuse. You're in for a rude awakening one of these days, Juliet... Have a nice day. ABB
Hello MomE,
Here is the "unedited" (it's edited lol) interview (the only actual interview thus far with the parents) one on July 13th:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwM1oG3z358
Here is a transcript of the interview:
http://pdfsr.com/pdf/parentsofdeorrkunztranscript.pdf
After you watch the interview and read the transcript, come back here and read Peter's analysis of the interview, it is very eye-opening!
Anne
MomE,
Here is a link to a news report that includes additional footage from the July 13th "unedited" interview, this is where the parents talk about someone taking DeOrr in order to hurt them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqtP8dqKdC8
(this section is not included in the transcript I posted before)
Anne
Does anyone know why Jessica doesn't have custody of her two other kids
MomE - this link will take you to all the news reports by East Idaho News related to DeOrr:
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=east%20idaho%20news%20deorr%20kunz&sm=
ABB - you do like to twist things. I suppose if it's in your nature there's not much you can do about it, but that might have to negate your Christian beliefs, just somewhat. :)
Anon at 12.31 - ABB is not stating that what she writes is just speculation or her own opinion, she presents her claims as facts.
Juliet; you can think whatever you like... WRONGLY! Just goes to show how thick-headed you are. Negate my Christian beliefs? You're a fool.
You are so pathetically think-headed that you can't see the signals in front of you, (these parents have already proven themselves to be liars from the very beginning); you are so busy looking for an accidental excuse "from liars" that you can't see the red flags waving or the caution sign in your face. Dumb as a rock. And THAT'S a fact. But that's your problem. Movin' on..... ABB
Y'all need to take your fight elsewhere
Anonymous said...
Y'all need to take your fight elsewhere
September 25, 2015 at 5:56 PM
let me guess the "elsewhere" you want everybody directed to is mrmorons new site? clear as glass alas
ABB you are clearly just trolling now, no need to be so nasty. We aren't going to let you derail this discussion so slither on back to whatever rock you crawled out from under, unless you can be civil, as I really do like to hear your thoughts when you're not being nasty.
Anne
OT
Posting here for anyone who has followed the Dylan Redwine case. Items of interest have been found, and Dylan's death has now been ruled a homicide.
http://www.9news.com/story/news/investigations/2015/09/14/dylan-redwine-murder-search/72269830/
ABB (male or female, I think you are male) your writing, as I pointed out long ago, resembles the writing of someone who was commenting for an entire year on a newspaper article about the Ayla Reynolds case slamming what a terrible mother Trista Reynolds allegedly was over and over and over. Are you that same person because I notice it comes out here in your venom towards Jessica, not that she doesn't deserve any, but you seem particularly focused on it.
Anon @ 11:25,
I agree. I am someone who does not believe that baby DeOrr was ever at the campsite.
ABB,
I don't believe baby DeOrr was killed in a fit of rage. I believe it was a premeditated killing.
Justice4Deorr said...
I'm betting they get more and more nervous as October comes closer. Just a hunch...lol.
September 24, 2015 at 12:26 PM
what happened to grace/bessie justice4deorr blog?
September 25, 2015 at 5:18 AM
ABB - Well, how can you even try to evaluate anything fairly when it seems you've basically invented a history of chronic neglect for little DeOrr? I haven't seen his medical records, or heard of any involvement by CPS - your attempt to manipulate people's emotions on that is wrong - it all seems rather primitive and self-serving. I am pretty sure the parents know what happened, also I'm glad I'm not your dog.
Juliet; I awakened this morning thinking how wrong this is. We need to stop this slamming at each other. For my part, I sincerely apologize for every hurtful or condemning way I have spoken to you. I was wrong, no matter how silly or ridiculous I might think some of your posts are. I was out of line.
You have every right to post your opinions just as I do; which ARE in fact, ONLY opinions, which I have stated many times over. JUST opinions, as I don't have x-ray eyes any more than you do.
I wish you well; in fact, I hope you are right in some ways and that I am wrong; particularly that I am wrong as I hate to think how this precious child could have been brutally killed in a hot rush of anger and callously disposed of without even a proper Christian burial, not even by his own mother. It hurts me to think of this and how this little boy was being neglected by BOTH his parents. AND he was.
BTW, I do not have a dog now as I was unable to take him for his walks without my son here to do it for us. He was a very big dog and sweet as the day is long but strong and rambunctious; the sweetest dog that ever lived. It broke my heart to have to let him go. I miss him terribly and wish there had been some way I could have kept him. I had a cat too, whom I dearly loved, but had to place him with others after I moved to the gated community as he would not stay indoors; cats in this community are not allowed to roam free which he had been accustomed to doing.
Again, I am sorry for every mean thing I have said or insinuated towards you. This is wrong, Juliet, WRONG. Please, let's just let it go. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Thank you... ABB
Angelica, your post @12:48; you could be entirely right. As to how little DeOrr was killed and 'gone missing', particularly that he was more than likely not ever at the campsite, I tend to agree since there was no evidence found that he WAS ever there; however, we may never know exactly what happened to this poor little boy.
This is a clever bunch; at least they think they are. I just HOPE that what they did with this child does come to light, that baby DeOrr is found and they are prosecuted. My reason for thinking that he was beat to death in a fit of rage was because baby daddy DeOrr WAS seen in his truck (which he admitted, but denied the timing, like liars do who are hiding something, but DO leak a little truth into their lies); WITH the child at the store, where he was said to be filthy dirty and screaming and brawling hysterically.
DeOrr bought him candy to try to calm him; my supposition is that it did NOT calm the suffering and miserable child whose feet were hurting and blistered from wearing boots that were too large for his little feet, and who needed cleaning up, his clothing changed and his miserable sun burn poisoning treated, etc., and THIS is when baby daddy DeOrr went bonkers, stopped his truck somewhere down the road and beat him to death.
You know, it is not always easy to maintain your composure and patience when your kid is driving you over the edge and you are off in a hurry to do something else, particularly by a hot headed controlling fool like DeOrr appears to be, and this is why I am seeing this as being what happened to the poor neglected child.
But where was mama Jessica? Back at some other campsite where they had first set up or was she sitting or lying down in the cab of the truck while DeOrr went into the store? We have not heard of her being seen at the store so at this point we do not know and from my point of view it is impossible to know. We can only guess. But I DO think that somehow they are and WERE both involved. Their initial lies, evasiveness and deceit speaks loud and clear against both in my opinion. ABB
Nobody owes these parents the benefit of the doubt.
When asked to address the rumors about their involvement in their son's disappearance, DeOrr Sr. chose to defend his employer and Jessica chose to pick nits about the timing of the store clerk's sighting, while still encouraging us to believe that it was DeOrr. They have declined every opportunity for a denial of any kind, let alone a reliable one.
Sure, people think you murdered your baby, so by all means, correct our misconceptions about your boss.
Now they have stopped talking to the media altogether, under the guise that it is "distracting" the public from finding DeOrr. Distraction seemed to be much less of a concern when DeOrr regaled us with his endless flattery of law enforcement and search and rescue equipment without a word about how his toddler went missing in a mountain campground accessible by a single road. "Um, what questions do you guys have?"
Tell us how your son went missing comes to mind. What's his name? What does he look like? Who was at the campground? Any cars you saw at the store that are memorable enough to recall months later, but not significant enough in your mind to tell us about now? Any strange men staring obsessively at your son hours before he went missing?
Any "business" being conducted between your elderly babysitter and his "personal friend", the 35 year old stranger with the felony rape arrest?
Sheriff Dave is important enough to DeOrr Sr. to be mentioned twice by name. Great! If we spot Sheriff Dave filthy and bawling at the mall with an obsessively staring stranger, now we'll know what name to call out to him so we can get him back home where he belongs! By the way, what's your son's name again?
And it's not the parents' fault he's missing. After all, they left their son in the watchful guardianship of a man on oxygen who is allegedly infirm both physically and mentally.
Of course, any adult who noticed that a toddler was missing would just assume that he wandered down to the creek. No problem there! Jessica and DeOrr Sr. went exploring, which means standing still, so they'll see him right away. Did I say exploring?
I meant searching for a fishing hole.
But even if "exploring" and "searching" both imply moving, that's okay! DeOrr Sr. and Jessica are upstream and Isaac is fishing downstream, so if his parents don't see him before he drowns in the creek, the alleged rapist they brought along will. Did I say Isaac was fishing downstream?
I meant he was at the campsite with grandpa.
But hey, any adult can be standing there with a toddler, turn his head, and find him gone. Did I say turn his head?
I meant go into the trailer.
K.M.
P.S. I mean no disrespect to anybody who hasn't reached a conclusion about the parents, and I think it's admirable that you are withholding judgement. My point is that they aren't owed the benefit of the doubt, not that you aren't entitled to give it to them.
Anon @12:40 am, I AM NOT MALE; I am a female. You sitting here and supposedly practicing statement analysis, I would think you would KNOW this already and not be second guessing. Proves how little you think you know.
CORRECTION: I was NOT as critical of Trista Reynolds as you have accused me of being. YES, I did point out that since she was an alcoholic, she was not the all-perfect mother herself, which she wasn't; getting pie-eyed drunk all the time and her with a baby to raise. This was a choice she made herself. One does not become an alcoholic all in one day so this had been her lifestyle for a very long time. However, I DID respect her for making arrangements to have her baby taken care of while she went off to rehab and got herself straightened around.
If I sound a little more critical towards women who neglect their children it is because I was once a probation officer and I have seen a lot of this. It sickens me. I am no more critical of negligent mothers though, than I am of abusive and negligent fathers, but I understand LESS how any mother could neglect her baby when that baby came via creation from her OWN body. SHE bore the pain to bear this child, created from her suffering, and she above all others is the protector of HER helpless flesh and blood baby who is at her mercy as well as all those she subjects her baby; whether she takes care of her baby or not, it is HER responsibility to protect and make SURE no one else abuses her child. I will NEVER understand a negligent or abusive mother; however, Trista WAS attempting to correct her lifestyle. For THIS I give her credit due.
It was just a damned shame that all the forces of hell conspired against Trista, swooped in and took her baby while she was off at rehab, through no fault of her own; THEN murdered her baby, primarily over child care and support issues, IMO.
Little Ayla was one of the sweetest and most beautiful babies I have ever seen; I could not imagine that anyone would not want and love this precious child, including low-life POS Phoebe. There was no reason she couldn't take care of that baby herself. She could have dropped her off at day care every day and picked her up in the evenings, it was just for a short while; but she had no time for her and would rather see her dead than bear any of the responsibility. She meant evil towards Trista as she is the one who set up the grabbing of the poor baby; KNOWING her freak evil son would not be able to love and care for this precious baby. But AGAIN, just my opinion.
You can stop slamming at me. I use my real initials, I am no fake and no liar, I AM who I say I am. And I AM a woman.
Forgot again. Ref my post at 9:26, I am ABB. Sorry.
ABB - I wasn't holding onto it, so there's nothing to let go. Don't apologise - i don't need it, plus give it two weeks and you'll be at it again, if not toward me, then to somebody else - to thine own self be true. :). It must get to be something of a self-defeating exercise, after all. I might be sorry about you losing your dog, that would depend on how you treated him.
Let brotherly love continue, and all that. :) Thanks for the almost thought, anyway.
EXCELLENT post, K.M at 9:00 am. VERY well thought out. Excellent.
Only, I'm not as able to give some the benefit of the doubt as well some do. I wish I were. I've lost my patience and empathy for killer parents along the way; whether it was through drug usage, irresponsible negligence, handed over to a child beating and/or molesting boyfriend/girlfriend, or their own abuse. I despise them all, truly they disgust me.
Good good post, K.M. ABB
Juliet, there you go insulting me again. Apparently you don't know what brotherly live is, nor do you recognize a sincere apology.
I'm not taking you up on the baited derogatory comments slamming at me again. I apologized and pleaded for you to let it go.
I've done what I know to be the right thing to do. It's the best I can do. ABB
I meant to say "brotherly LOVE"... Sorry bout that. ABB
Are you guys gonna sell tickets to the boxing match?
KM - to be clear, I like to look at things from different perspectives, rather than simply assume the worst about the parents. That's not to give the parents' the benefit of the doubt, or to seek to make excuses for them having apparently lost their son, as they have so obviously misled and witheld information. They are persons of interest, which gives a good enough indication as to where the investigation has been heading since quite early on - but as the Sheriff said, the FBI report will be critical.
--
I still tend towards the baby falling into the campfire, not necessarily at that site, followed by panic and cover up - that may be due to it being my earliest thoughts on it, and so it's stuck in my mind, despite other scenarios lookimg more likely, and the 'grandpa watching little DeOrr' narrative seemingly a fabrication. It was their attempt to place the baby with grandpa at the campfire which makes me think in that way. As though an attempt might have been made to hide all evidence, but just in case any should remain - well, it was grandpa at the fire with him, sort of thing.
DeOrr Sr's distress does Give rise to the thought that it may be him who is largely responsible for whatever caused the baby to 'vanish' - and that it's guilt and grief which are evident. Even so, he would be experiencing those regardless, if an accident had befallen the baby, or an unintended death. I don't see how beating the baby to death in an uncontrolled fit of rage could also be premeditated and related to an insurance policy - there's no logic in that, and there also would very likely be physical evidence if that had happened. We don't know what evidence there is.
ABB - enough with the drama already. :). Your sincere, genuine humble pleas for mercy have not gone unnoticed.
Anon - regrettably there are no tickets, as the conclusion is foregone. - ABB, Saint and Martyr, victor every time.:)
sincerely,
Heartless Inc.
Y'all act like a bunch of children
KM - the later creek story, in which all the adults were a short distance from each other when they said DeOrr disappeared differs quite a bit from Nate Eaton's early report which included a shot of where the parents headed off to explore. He had been speaking with Deputy Penner, so there is good reason to believe that Nate is relaying the information he received from the deputy, and that it could only have come from the parents:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qvZbH7NSadA
I don't believe it was premeditated. If this child was murdered for money ( insurance policy) there would be a body. How difficult would it be to stage the accidental death of a child? He drowned, he fell. It is sickening to think.
I hope he did not (but I wonder if he did) fall into a fire and was found by the parents horribly burnt, but maybe still alive. It is difficult to speculate like this. Could it have been a "mercy killing" ? Was he suffering so badly and close to death that they felt they had to "put him out of his misery?"
And then the cover up?
Between some time after Thursday 9 th July at 6.00 pm at Leadore , if this last sighting by the store clerk to be believed, until 2.28pm Friday 10 th July, were grandpa and Isacc enlisted as unsuspecting "witnesses?" to baby DeOrrs disappearance.
Or are they accessories after the fact? Repeat. Accessories after the fact.
Were grandpa and Isaac at the campground on Thursday night or did they arrive on Friday? It seems clear that DK and Jessica wanted people to believe they all arrived on Friday 10th July.
Did store clerk sighting of DeOrr on Thursday 9th throw a great big spanner in the works?
This case is doing my head in. I think about it every day.
Anon - that's been some of my wondering, too. It seems to lack the organisation which would be necessary to premeditation - the story is a shambles, and as you say, there is no body (still). An accident too horrible to want known and made public seems not an unreasonable thing to surmise from the story, or behaviour. If he fell in the fire, they might cover it up out of shame and fear. There are few other types of accident which might cause such a reaction, and for both parents to be complicit in a cover up - if they left him, he fell in the fire, they would be equally responsible. If one caused his death, why should the other cover it up, deny the baby a proper burial, and leave the wider family without closure? Mostly it's the mention of grandpa by the campfire which causes me to think that's a possibility, and that grandpa was meant to be watching him - now grandpa apparently left the campfire and went inside his trailer. I can see where that might be heading, as abduction has been pretty much ruled out.
ABB that was very big of you.
It was not lost on me.
You are right, lets stop the fighting.
Juliet I know you are angry but it's probably best to just drop it, even if you don't forgive her.
Let's focus on what we know, and hopefully what is coming soon to our knowledge.
Working together will get us a whole lot farther than squabbling back and forth.
Any new news?
If he fell into the campfire, and some time had passed before they realised it, ( 10 - 15 minutes) and instead of seeking medical attention when they did find out, they chose to "put him out of his misery", it is murder. It is not unheard of. There was a case recently where a woman shot her boyfriend and couldn't stand to see him writhing in pain and "gurgling" so she shot him again....and killed him. She thought she was doing him a favour.
G Grandpa might well have been a willing accessory after the fact. As might Trina.
It's just a matter of time until JM cracks
At the candlelight vigil, DK say " there's not much to be said.". Obviously he is wrong judging by the thousands of posts.
There is a lot to be said.
" other than a...one small mistake as a parent"
As a parent. Singular. A parent.
Not parents. A parent.
He is taking about himself.
I think JM will crack soon, too, if she hasn't already.
There was no statement to analyse from her from the last interview. Not a single word.
Only behaviour.
IMO her behaviour displayed profound grief and shame.
Anon at 2.18pm - yes, that does give rise to the question, was Jessica even there, or aware of what might have happened to little DeOrr? Grandpa and Isaac didn't seem too sure.
--
Bethany - that wasn't anger - I was taking the rise. :) I don't take offence easily, so there's nothing to forgive.
It has always bothered me that we have never heard from GGP, just what Trina has stated.
I don't know why but it has.
ABB,
You wrote
"SHE bore the pain to bear this child, created from her suffering,"
You are male. There is no way a woman would sample from misogynistic ideas from the Bible which involve women "suffering" more than men.
I am very good at SA, and you are male.
KM @ 9:00 am,
Good post.
Anon 12:55,
I admire you for thinking the case through so thoroughly, but I think it is so unlikely that it could have been a "mercy killing". They had cell phones with them. It is not as if they were stranded on a dessert island with no way to access civilization for months, so were their child to fall in the fire, as you suggested as a possibility, it would make no sense for one of the parents not to immediately call 911.
I hesitate to imagine what may have happened, unfortunately, one must if everyone is going to keep discussing the case: I believe what may have happened is that they killed DeOrr for the life insurance, but "botched" the killing of him. In other words, it didn't look "accidental" when they were done. This is utterly horrendous, and sickening for the mind to comprehend, however, the Ayla Reynolds case involved life insurance, absolutely, and I believe it was the motive in that case also. However, yes, the question is, why would these people think they could collect life insurance without a body in this case as well as the Ayla case? But yet, I believe both killings were to get life insurance and something in their diabolical plan "went wrong". Either that, or, in this case, or horrible as it may be to imagine, one of those involved may be planning to move the remains at a later time to somewhere where they will be discovered when enough time has gone by when cause of death can't be determined so that it won't be ruled a homicide and they will be able to collect the money.
Unfortunately, there is a very evil side to human nature. I do get the sense that that kind of ugly evil has played a role in this case.
Well, if great grandpa is in need of a carer, he maybe just got taken along after the fact, if Trina had no choice but to take him - once he was there it could have been convenient for DeOrr and Jessica to make out that he was meant to be watching the baby. It would be interesting to know if grandpa and Isaac even laid eyes on the baby, or just thought he was asleep, or off exploring with his parents. We don't know when really they arrived. Trina said the trip was grandpa's idea. I don't recall anyone asking specifically for that information - I think she just volunteered it, but I can't be sure. Perhaps she suggested the trip to him after Jessica called, and asked Isaac along, too, and neither of them knew what they were getting into. That's not to say Trina necessarily knew either - it seems possible there were family members or friends up there in the two vehicles the family asked people to look out for - comings and goings they didn't want connected to them, perhaps. This despite them having seen nor heard any vehicles, apparently. Well, a slight problem there. And the 'little business' - what was that about?
Would anyone remember, by any chance, on which thread Lynda posted her transcript of Nate Eaton's interview with the Sheriff - or have a link to another transcript of it - I've googled but can't find one.
I think it is very unlikely that DeOrr died in the campfire, there were cadaver dogs on the scene on at least two separate occasions, certainly they would have hit on the campfire if that had been the case.
Where is this information regarding a life insurance policy coming from? From what I recall, didn't that originate from Kellen from one of his ridiculous backward speech analyses? Please post evidence that this life insurance policy existed, as I strongly doubt it's true.
Also, Juliet at 9:10pm I too am wondering where something about a "business" originated from (I think this is in reference to Isaac and GGF?) and what it's about?
Really good post K.M. at 9:00 am, my thoughts are aligned with yours regarding this case.
As it stands right now, based on what has been revealed to us thus far, I lean towards daddy DeOrr losing his temper and harming DeOrr, resulting in his death; drugs may have been involved. Jessica is standing by her man. Trina, deep down, knows or at the very least suspects the truth, but pride and fear will be the reason she continues to support her daughter and DK. GGF and Isaac at the very least suspect foul play. Isaac does not want to get involved, lawyered up asap. GGF is being protected by DK, JM, and Trina. GGF is the scapegoat, that has been obvious from day one. And it continues...it was very obvious to me that the entire "re-enactment" by PI Vilt was done to thinly disguise his agenda to once again remind the public that it was GGF who was responsible for DeOrr, GGF is ultimately to blame for his disappearance BUT WAIT GGF is "not well" both physically and mentally so it really was just an accident so don't be too hard on a feeble old man. A scapegoat if there ever was one.
So right now, DK and JM sit quietly, waiting for either the ax to fall or for the disappearance to turn into a cold case; in all likelihood it will all depend on whether DeOrr's body turns up. Meanwhile, just in case, PI Vilt will continue to throw shade at GGP and will continue to built up reasonable doubt with tales of old men with gray curls in Jeeps stalking little blonde boys.
Anne
I haven't had the chance to read the interviews or watch the videos, yet.
I do have a few things to say.
Fire and oxygen tanks do not mix. I don't think ggp was sitting quite close to the fire. If there was one going. It may have been just the campfire area that was referred to. But then again everything is all mixed up.
Hopefully the FBI will have some answers soon.
I still wonder if little Deorr was ever alive at the campfire being searched.
Wonder if the dogs ever were reported to have searched anywhere else OTHER than the campsite? Such as the store? Other nearby campsites? Everyone's (all family members)yards, property? All vehicles? Hunting season, and snow is coming soon...something will give begore the ground freezes.
momE
Just some late night thoughts.
*alive at the campsite*
*before the ground*
momE
Anne @ 9:48,
While looking through youtube videos of news clips and interviews, I read in the comment section under 2 different videos that Jessica had posted very briefly on her facebook page that there had been a life insurance policy on DeOrr, and that she shut down her FB page soon after she posted that info. When she reactivated her page, she had deleted that info about the life insurance policy.
I tend to believe it, as it is too detailed a thing for 2 people to make up (she shut down her page, she reactivated, she deleted the info, etc.
Separately, this is addressed to everyone:
I've read so much about Dad DeOrr taking a filthy screaming baby DeOrr to buy him candy "to calm him".
This all sounds fine and dandy until you really think about it.
Abusive parents who fly into fits of rage and end up killing their toddler are not normally known to do sweet grandmotherly-like things like stop at the store with a screaming baby to buy him candy "just to calm him".
Are we to believe Dad DeOrr was a Mary Poppins buying a lollipop for baby DeOrr before he went into a brutal rage and killed him for crying?
This image does not make sense to me.
Unfortunately, as I see it brought up over and over again, a more disturbing image has entered my mind.
What if Dad DeOrr had been doing something terrible to baby DeOrr beforehand that caused him to be screaming, and he stopped for candy for baby DeOrr, because he actually felt guilty for something he had done to the baby and/or also felt completely desperate to calm the baby before returning to be around other people at the campsite so they would not know what he had done to Baby DeOrr?
Unfortunately, I have literally read people talking about "the filthy screaming baby DeOrr and Dad DeOrr stopping to buy him candy to calm him", and it just makes no sense. This guy is not Mary Poppins. I feel something very bad had been done to baby DeOrr that had either terrified him or caused him physical pain and Dad Deorr was buying him candy to calm him because he actually felt guilty or because he desperately wanted to calm him down so that others would not catch on to what he had done to him.
I think that it is far too simplistic to paint it as Dad DeOrr had a cranky baby on his hands (why was he even alone with the baby in the truck away from the campsite? why not leave him there with Mom?, bought candy to calm him, and then flew into a brutal rage and killed him.
Maybe he and baby Deorr was alone in the truck traveling to the campsite from Idaho Falls. Was tired from trip and little Deorr was ready for bed, hungry, upset for being alone with dad so long, and wanting mommy. Maybe mom was with ggp in the other vehicle?
momE
Anon (momE),
Have they said who traveled in which vehicles on the way up to the campsite?
Regardless, odd that the baby would be with Dad and not Mom. Also, why was the baby filthy if they were on the way to the campsite?
When Mom and Dad discussed the "sighting" of the black truck they did not want people to know that it was Dad DeOrr, so it is safe to assume that whatever reason he was with a filthy baby DeOrr (or, even traveling separately with him in that truck) was not an innocent reason like they were just merely traveling separate from Mom. Whatever reason he was with baby DeOrr in that truck buying him candy was not a good reason. In fact, I think whatever was going on was quite nefarious.
Did this toddler not have a pacifier?
It is unusual to buy candy to "calm" a toddler.
My gut instinct tells me that Dad DeOrr had already begun harming baby DeOrr in some way at that point, however hideous of a thought that is, and was buying him candy out of guilt, or perhaps to calm him, but it was because he had already done something harmful to him at that point (mentally terrorizing him or physically harming him or both at that point). And who knows what it was that he had done to him??? Because the fact of the matter is, most people are assuming baby DeOrr is now dead. I have a feeling baby DeOrr had been traumatized in some way at that point. I really have a feeling that the Dad did something very bad to him, and I also do not think that others were oblivious to what was going on, as why was he traveling with the Dad in the first place, alone, in a pick up truck, Mom traveling separate, and the baby ends up dead.
Let's try to see things in context.
We know we are not talking about Mary Poppins. We know that baby DeOrr is most likely dead and his remains disposed of.
Angelica,
Juliet posted this on another Deorr thread, September 14th, 2015 @3:48
(I think its the one two threads back on Deorr)
Trina Bates Clegg They had to go to Leadore for female items and bought my Dad and baby DeOrr candy. This has been verified by the cashier.
Candy was bought for Baby Deorr and GGP.
If Deorr was Mary Poppins I am pretty sure he would have had an umbrella and been singing "Supercalifragilisticexpialidotious" and the cashier would have noticed (joking)
(Totally spelled that wrong not even going to correct it)
It is possible what you are saying, but I will tell you this.
I have a child the same age as Deorr Jr.
He went into a full on tantrum last week while we were grocery shopping, bc he wanted to go see the arcade (Wal-Mart) and I said no. I didn't give in, knowing it was past his nap time, and we had to pick up our F150 for an oil change in the automotive dept.
He was asleep before I pulled that big ol' pick up out of the parking lot.
But if his Daddy would have been with us that day, or Daddy was doing the shopping alone, he definitely would have bought him some candy to keep his mind off of whatever it was that he wanted (he loves Kit Kats, I have to hide them), and to make him smile again, stop crying, even with nap time around the corner.
Just wanted to throw that one out there.
I'm not saying it didn't happen the way you are saying it happened, just that sometimes dad's alone are a little more unconventional in their methods. Not all dad's but there are some.
I however would never buy candy for him if he was tantruming, bc that teaches him he will be rewarded for it, and never before his naptime. Ever! Haha
Anon @ 8:40 pm; are you drunk, doped up or crazy, or all three? I am NOT a man. YOu know so much about statement analysis that you can call me a liar and accuse me of being a MAN? You cannot recognize a woman just because I have knowledge and compassion for a woman in child procreation and childbirth, so you think this HAS to be a man? Honey, whoever you are you are nuttier than a fiken' fruitcake, sitting there calling me a liar when I'm NOT a liar.
I could easily post my website and email addy for you just to prove how wrong you are but I will not cause myself potential problems by proving you are wrong. I will say this however, you need to get back to studying your statement analysis a little more in depth; actually I would suggest that you are wasting your time entirely in pursuing statement analysis as you are obviously incapable of learning if you actually do believe that I am a man. Good Lord! I don't need to be trolling myself here as a woman if I am not one. How stupid does this get! ABB
Angelica and others,
You make very good points.
When was the Dad and baby Deorr-man with baby buying candy- seen at the store, Thurs. night or Friday?
momE
IMO, there would be nothing so highly out of the ordinary as baby daddy DeOrr stopping at the store and buying candy for his screaming brawling little boy; nor anything unusual about him having the child in the truck alone with him. A man doesn't have to be a Mary Poppins to spend time alone with his son, or to take him riding, or to try to pacify him when he is out of control. The trick is, do what you have too, but don't let him get out of control in the first place.
What would be unusual is the rumor that we've heard that DeOrr took baby DeOrr (even younger) with him to repair automobiles at a greasy filthy garage where he was working as a mechanic. THIS I would not have allowed, not only because it is dirty but because it could be dangerous. IMO, any man with good sense wouldn't do this in the first place, nor would any caring mother allow it.
My husband traveled alone with our little boy all the time, from the time he was a toddler just out of diapers until he passed away. They were very close, beginning as an infant. My husband, a very distinguished and intelligent man, was the best and most devoted babysitter I could ever have had.
He even took our toddler with him on business trips, taking him right with him into offices and facilities he was there to visit; when he had to leave him a little while with a secretary it was no biggie; sometimes flying and sometimes by rental car, taking him out to eat, going through drive-thrus and staying in motels. They had a ball together! They even went camping alone in the woods for a week-end once when our son was around ten. I had no reason to prevent any of this, he was a very good father and loved his little boy dearly. My husband died of diabetes when our son was only fifteen, and our son (born with a heart defect) died of a massive heart attack at age 41, just last year; and I am SO glad they had these times together. I just wish I'd gone on more of these trips with them.
However, as it relates to baby daddy DeOrr, neither he nor mama Jessica really knew how to take care of their little boy, or either just plain didn't care; otherwise he would not have been seen filthy dirty, in pain caused by whatever the (numerous) reasons were, and screaming hysterically and inconsolably. He would have been a well-cared for happy child.
Let us not forget, DeOrr was a truck driver. He would know many areas where he could have dumped his little boy, not around the campsite, and had all night into the next afternoon to do it. He DOES establish his well thought-out 'opinion' that little DeOrr is nowhere around there. Something to think about. ABB
Angelica - why do you have that feeling though - if nothing happens in a vacuum, what's the facilitating narrative?
--
In more general response to this discussion, I don't find it implausible that the baby was fed up after the long journey and DeOrr bought him some candy to distract him and calm him down before continuing on to the campsite, nor do I think it strange that a father should be travelling with his little son and without the mother.
What I'm not sure about is where the store is in relationship to the campsite - is it on the way to Timber Creek from Idaho Falls, or is it miles out from the campsite in the opposite direction? I've been thinking it's on the way in, and that he just ran out of snacks or forgot to also to take candy, so stopped on the way in, but maybe it's a journey out in the opposite direction. Driving out for miles just to get candy would seem strange, as it would have been easier to stop and unload at the campsite, and give him whatever treat stuff was already packed for him - even if only some of the supplies were in the truck, and the others were arriving later with the rest, there would have been some snacks and treats for the baby amongst the truck stuff, as it was long journey. There's always the possibility he ran out, if he had put it all in one bag or cool box in the cab, and then ended up snacking on it himself as well as giving some of it to little DeOrr, on the way. Little DeOrr might have been sticky-faced and crying because he'd eaten too much and felt sick - dads are not always the best at judging when enough is enough, especially if it is helping keep a bored two-year old quiet. I'm not too convinced of the 'filthy' description - how filthy can a child get on a car journey? Pretty messy from snacking at that age, for sure. Whatever, going to the store just to buy candy would only make sense if the store was on the way in. I suppose it could make sense, possibly, if it was on the way out, if he thought he had better go and replenish/replace the treat supply before the others arrived because Jessica might hassle him if she found out the snack/treat stuff was all gone so soon when it was meant to last the whole weekend. Whoever found it unusual to calm a toddler with candy, it's not unusual on my high street - some parents allow their children candy earlier than others, but I don't want to get into a mumsnet debate. :)
I think there can be ordinary explanations for why things happened. It's difficult to think up a scenario whereby the baby becomes ominously filthy, rather than merely messy-faced, whilst confined in a vehicle, and whereby his father either unnecessarily stops (why bother if he was next intending to kill him?) or otherwise drives miles beyond the campsite in order to display his filthy, bawling baby at the local store - like a public death row last meal/candy request for an at-risk looking baby who also turns out to be highly insured? I don't see how, logically, the attention-drawing store visit can fit with the idea that it was premeditated murder. As forDeOrr having been doing something to the baby - I can only think, from the information available, none of which can be relied upon, that he might have been guilty of feeding him some stuff which made him messy en route. I also think it's possible, and as others in much earlier threads have said, that the lady in the store was exaggerating, and maybe only decided she had seen a filthy bawling child rather than a messy, tired, grizzly child once she was involved in the drama of having possibly seen him. How much happens out there at The Stage Stop - not a great deal - some people would be quite likely to want to make the most of it. I'm trying to be logical. I think the parents are deceptive and have guilty knowledge, but that doesn't have to mean they planned and intended harm to befall their son.
The insurance discussion - I haven't seen a post of Jessica's about insurance mentioned anywhere but here, I know of no-one first hand who has said they saw that post on Jessica's own page, but I have been thinking that if it was there, and Angelica seems convinced it was, then it may not have been posted by Jessica herself. Wouldn't it be crazy to post that just after her son had gone missing, if she had indeed taken out an insurance policy on him with the intention of making a claim? If a post was made, someone else might have taken the opportunity to post on her page from her own account, if she had left her phone/tablet/computer accessible to others without logging out of Facebook. The reaction to seeing such a post, supposedly made by herself, would be to panic, delete and deactivate, no doubt, and to hope no-one had seen it or taken a screenshot. It's too much speculation, though, without having seen such a post or screenshot. Marson claimed DeOrr went nuts on him during the store encounter on account of what he'd written about them having a VUL policy - he claimed DeOrr said he did have a VUL policy, but of a different type, as I recall, and on himself, not on the baby? As everything which comes out of Marson's mouth has to be considered dubious, I don't find it possible to view that with anything but caution.
If it is true that the baby was insured, it might lend some weight to the idea that someone has been instrumental in some things, and is now trying to frame them, or more likely, expose them. But to me, the store sighting seems so random and inconvenient to the idea they had a plan to kill to their baby. Wouldn't they think they had messed up by creating the sighting and abandon any plan for that weekend, think up some other idea or another date? Also, they are all called DeOrr - someone could have glimpsed an insurance policy, got the wrong end of the stick, thought it was for the baby when actually it was for the father or grandfather. Not so likely, but they do all share the name 'DeOrr' with additional fore or middle names - it's possible someone mistakenly suspected them on the strength of having seen a policy for a DeOrr, and made that post, if there was one, on Jessica's FB, and have since learned their mistake. Well, they would all go at least a bit crazy, and maybe even start suspecting the worst of each other in the terrible circumstances, so someone might have drawn a hasty conclusion about what an insurance policy meant, and who, actually was insured.
Agreed, ABB, about the garage.
At first I thought he meant he knew Deorr Sr. From when his Dad worked at the garage (when Deorr Sr. Was a teenager, before Jessica and little deorr, so Deorr Sr. And Grandpa Deorr ya follow me) but I see he was talking about little Deorr now.
I can't imagine being able to get any kind of work done in a garage with a small child running around. Lifts, air guns, loud generators, oil, grease, small nuts and bolts to be placed in little mouths.....yikes!
It was also very nice to hear about your son and your husband.
It is wonderful to hear that they had such a great relationship in the short time they had together. And how your husband made him his priority and wanted that closeness.
It sound like you and your son were very close as well.
My husband is a contractor, we also have rentals as well.
He works in upwards of 12 to 16 hour days, every single day.
I always bring the kids to see him. Our oldest is old enough now to work along with Dad, and he loves it.
It's so important to spend that time with your children.
Tomorrow is never promised.
I try and gently remind my husband of that.
I don't want him to miss everything.
Thank you for sharing anyway
have - has
I thought PI Vilt said that he had seen little DeOrr on a couple of occasions as Jessica had popped into the workshop with him - where does he say that DeOrr actually took the baby to work with him?
Unintentional/Negligent homicide- Giving a bawling, distressed toddler a hard piece of candy to shut him up, deciding to firmly ignore him from that point on (because you're at your absolute breaking point) and keeping your eyes strictly on the road as you drive away from the candy store...whilst said distressed child sitting next to you chokes to death on his "treat".
Was there ever any mention of the specific type candy that was bought?
I can't say exactly when it was I read the rumor that DeOrr Sr took baby DeOrr to the garage to work with him when he was an auto mechanic, who said it, or who posted it; but I do know that I read it here on one of the posts from a previous article Peter posted.
I can safely say that I read it here as I have never clicked on a one of the links that has been posted here, or anyone's facebook or otherwise, as I just don't do that; nor do I save any of the links. I need my storage for other things.
The most time I spend here is when I make posts, having read posts that are made here and even then sometimes I skip pages and days of those posts. I just don't take the time to read all these click on links, not that I'm not interested; it would take too much of my time and could become an obsessive habit when I can't do anything about any of it anyway.
I drew my conclusions that baby DeOrr is deceased and disposed of, killed most likely at the hands of crafty lying DeOrr Sr with full guilty knowledge (at least by this time) of mama Jessica, based on the initial interview posted by Peter and subsequent articles that have been posted here. I was looking for key statements that would have made it an accidental death (as Peter believed it to be) in the earlier stages, but fairly quickly came to the conclusion that this was no damned accident that needed to be lied about repeatedly and sneakily covered up.
If it 'was' an accident it would have to be of a sort that was brutal and due to extreme criminal negligence that could have been avoided; in any case that left severe injuries on the child's little body for which there would be no reasonable explanation, which made it necessary to hide the little boy and remove all traces of evidence if there ever was any in the area where searchers have been looking.
It just doesn't happen that a child mysteriously disappears with no trace of evidence whatsoever and all parties are 'innocent' of any wrong doing or knowledge of what happened to the child, when it is clear they are all lying through their eye teeth. ABB
KLV, I can't quiet fathom that daddy DeOrr, driving along and keeping his eyes on the road, would have let his baby choke to death on a piece of candy; not when he could have pulled his truck over to the side of the road and dislodged the piece of candy.
What I CAN fathom is that the candy did not suffice to calm down little DeOrr, dirty and sitting in his filth and in pain from being chaffed and rubbed raw, and with his little feet hurting from the blisters that were caused by wearing boots that were too large for him; PLUS his tender sensitive skin being in acute pain from sun poisoning due to not having sun protective lotion on his little body (we SAW the photo of this childs' sunburns posted by Peter in an earlier article). We also don't know if he was wearing a nasty diaper that was rubbing his little raw and inflamed bottom; a two nearly three year old is not too old to put into a diaper, which he likely was.
I do not believe the child was pitching a tantrum simply because he wanted a piece of candy, although he WAS more than likely hungry on top of all his other suffering; I believe his bawling and screaming hysterically was the only way he had of trying to tell his daddy (and VERY likely mama too) that he was in pain. The candy was an effort made in vain in my opinion.
I can see a more likely scenario that daddy DeOrr, in his frustration and hot-headed temperament at not being able to pacify his screaming child; slammed the truck over to the side of the road and beat the hell out of him, perhaps not deliberately intending to kill him but not caring if he did either. Mama Jessica could have been sitting right there for all we know; we don't know that she wasn't.
Even this scenario is not a certainty (none of these speculations are with any certainty as we don't KNOW what happened); however, I STILL have some doubts in my mind about that was going on there with great grandfathers bud, the RSO Issac. Why was he hanging out with this old man and the family; a registered sex offender traveling off in the woods with a little boy and an old grandpa? Isn't he somewhere in his 30's and the old man in his 70's?
WHAT in hell was DeOrr and Jessica doing in allowing this monster around their child, AND unprotected? They claim they walked off on an exploration and left him ALONE with a RSO and an old man not able to care for him? Issac has lied about his own whereabouts! WHY?! What was going on with Issac (or was his name Isiah),and perhaps one or more others? Was this baby being sexually abused? Perhaps THIS is part of the reason he was so hysterical at the country store?
There certainly IS a reason one covers up for another and another covers for another and so on and on. The mind wanders into others areas of possibilities.
Juliet
"I specialize in recovering abducted or missing children, and I knew Deorr's - the boy's - father because he worked in a body shop in monteria and I'd had my cars worked on down there and I'd seen the little boy [something] in the shop a few times, and it was a month since he was missing and nothing was happening so I kinda got myself involved because I wanted to help out and find out what was going on."
This was on this thread, transcribed September 18th posted by Anonymous.
11:18 am. Private Investigator Vilt's last interview part one I believe.
Juliet
I just listened again to Frank Vilts interview and he does say that he seen the little boy and Jessica down at the garage, but he doesn't say that she brought him there.
I am going to go ahead and assume she did though, as I can't imagine Deorr Sr.trying to work on cars with little deorr running around.
So that transcription is wrong :(
I think it's wrong to be stating as fact that DeOrr had blistered feet, severe sunburn and a painful diaper rash. There is no evidence for any of that.
There is another post somewhere, Bethany, that states DeOrr was watching the baby at the garage while he was at work. I just can't tell you where it is or who posted it. Meanwhile, thanks for posting the above PI comments.
Thank you so much for your kind words above and for your condolences. Yes, it has been very hard. It was hard enough when I lost my husband, I cried for years; and so very hard for our son who never got over losing his father, then I lost our son from a sudden massive heart attack in the wee hours last Sept 20th, one year ago.
He had little warning. He quickly gathered up a few important things he had put away in his room that he wanted me to take care of, sat them where I would see them; vacuumed the area rug at the foot of his bed, sat the vacuum cleaner upright at the end of the rug and laid down on it and died. His girlfriend was lying across the bed and had fallen asleep there looking at his big aquarium, she said. She woke me at around 2:00 a.m. telling me that he was lying on the floor and she could not make him get up. I rushed in, took one look and knew he was gone. Broke my heart forever.
Yes we were very close. We both knew that he had congestive heart failure and I didn't see how he could live to be an old man, but neither did I see it coming so suddenly. My heart is broken 'til the end. Thank you for caring. ABB
"Wrong"? Well. It's for durn sure that we will never know, now will we, Anon @ 4:22? However, it is NOT unreasonable to ascertain that a child (OR an adult) would have blisters on their feet from boots that are too large and flopping around on their feet! Why don't you just try it sometime and let's see how YOU like it!
It is also NOT unreasonable to be able to determine that the child was filthy dirty AND very likely wearing a heavily soiled diaper since the ONLY witness in the store SAID he was filthy dirty. Haven't you ever seen a child that has been left too long in a filthy stinky diaper? Why would these parents bother to keep his diaper changed when they weren't keeping him clean or taking care of him in others way? They wouldn't. Should I draw you a picture of the raw bottom of a neglected baby?
YOU didn't see sun burn poisoning on this child in the photo Peter initially posted of this poor neglected child? Then this is your OWN fault. Before you go jumping at me, why don't you just go find it and take a look for yourself!
In fact, why the f'ck are you slamming me anyhow? You can have your opinions without labeling me "wrong" when you obviously don't know that I AM wrong, and I can have MY opinions. They are ALL just opinions, alrighty? ABB
It's not wrong, Bethany - there are just a few words missing. Whoever did it made a very good job of it, IMO.
I'm pretty sure that's all we have on baby DeOrr being in the workshop, that he was with his mother and not taken to work by his father.
The boots were too big - his grandfather said they would not stay on his feet, he kept stepping out of them - how could they be his serious footwear, let alone remain on him for long enough to cause blisters? More to the point how, if they would not stay on his feet, could he have been 'wearing' them when he disappeared, and how could the boots not be found? Were they hidden/disappeared with him, not because he was wearing them, but because he really liked them, and they were numbered amongst his favourite items? Perhaps his actual blanket and his cowboy boots are with little DeOrr, wherever he is.
ABB - your unfounded accusations are degrading, not only of little DeOrr and of his memory to those who knew and loved him, but also of yourself - trying to balance out what you are saying with sentimental claptrap about 'his precious little body' etc in order to make yourself sound better, and not quite so bloody sadistic, doesn't work - is nothing sacred to you? The stuff you revel in writing Is not only unkind, it's gratuitous and cruel. It must satisfy something in you, but have some respect - Little DeOrr does not deserve it, and neither does his family.
End of rant.
If someone transcribes speech into written words, and it is missing words - the transcription is WRONG.
(Which by the way is the definition of transcribe btw)
This is still Peter's blog right??
Hehehe
Why the f'ck don't you get off my back Juliet? You don't need to be chastising ME. I am probably old enough to be your mother, not to mention more than smart enough. You dingbat, you think you can tell me how I FEEL, like you think you can get inside my head? None but Jesus can do this, certainly NOT you. You make me sick with your lack of perspective and ridiculous bleeding heart nonsense.
Gimme a break, wouldcha? I have apologized to you for whatever it was I said wrong to you but even then you kept on digging at me. AND still are. NOW, buzz off chickie. I have asked you to PLEASE stop it. Wouldcha PLEASE?
Your opinion of anything here doesn't mean more to me than my OWN does, in fact, LESS; in fact, whatever you think doesn't mean squat to me. Really, I do not care to address you ever again and would APPRECIATE the same courtesy from you. ABB
Juliet and others,
I will write more when I have more time but wanted to respond to Juliet's question
Angelica - why do you have that feeling though - if nothing happens in a vacuum, what's the facilitating narrative?
(About the candy store)
Many of you are looking at Dad DeOrr buying candy through the lenses of you having upstanding, kind spouses. This is not what we are looking at here.
To answer Juliet's question:
The surrounding narrative of why I view the candy store visit in a nefarious light is that
1) There is no evidence baby DeOrr was ever at the campsite
2) The baby was FILTHY as well as bawling
3) Mom and Dad DeOrr did not want it known that it was Dad DeOrr in the truck at the store! This is quite clear in the parent interview. If it was merely an innocent caring gesture of buying candy why hide it if there is nothing to hide?
4) Baby DeOrr ended up dead within a short time after the candy stop.
5) Someone, most likely Dad DeOrr disposed of his remains.
If it was just an innocent candy stop, why did the parents not want it known when the "black truck" got brought up in the interview?
I think it is wise to view it in a nefarious light. There is something about it, connected to it, that they do not want known.
Anon at 7.51 - Incomplete rather than wrong, I'd say - if the words were inaudible, that would not make a mistake, just an incomplete transcript. Presumably the missing words were inaudible. It's better for there to be a blank than a guess - which would make it wrong if the guess was wrong.
ABB - we all prefer our own opinion, this is common knowledge, but it doesn't mean we are right. You put your comments out there, and therefore they are presumably up for response. You're quite at liberty not to read or respond to my posts. Insults and drama, waste of time and not an interest, thanks.
Angelica - that has shape now. Certainly, they wanted the store sighting discounted - it may even have been their reason for agreeing to do the interview. I think they wanted it discounted because it placed them there on Thursday, and because DeOrr is most likely to have disappeared on the Thursday - the sighting showed up discrepancies in the story, particularly the impression people had of their arriving on the Friday. I'd still say the baby was described as filthy, rather than that we can know definitely he was - it might make a difference, because it could just be that he was bit travel-weary and grubby, or that something had happened to cause him to become (really) filthy and distressed, at some site along the way. It could be they had stopped, or even been camped somewhere else, before finally arriving in Leadore. That can only be conjecture, though. All we have learned if the journey is from the Sheriff interview - that there was a diesel-stop, but no surveillance cameras there.
If there is an insurance policy it changes the complexion of things. I initially thought that if there was an insurance policy that a body would have been produced so that the money could be collected. However, as Angelica pointed out: a) the body may be hidden - waiting to be "discovered" when the time is right and b) little Ayla had an insurance policy and her body has not been found (yet) which leads to speculation that the "accident" was botched in some way and no longer looked like an accidental death. Maybe something similar happened to baby DeOrr. I hadn't thought of that.
Perhaps the safest thing to do would be to wait 7 years (I think one is presumed dead for all intents and purposes after 7 years (?))and make the claim without having to produce the body.
For now, I still think the death was the result of a horrible accident, a fatal beating, drug ingestion or hot car, and a coverup which may involve the GGpa as either patsy or accessory after the fact.
Angelica, if it turns out that there is no insurance policy, what do you think happened?
Anon at 2:09 pm - When did Isaac lie about his whereabouts? There is no evidence of this that I am aware of, please post if you know something, otherwise it is incorrect to say that Isaac lied about anything to do with this case.
Juliet and Angelica - Neither JM or DK were trying to HIDE the black truck/filthy bawling baby/gentleman sighting at the Stage Stop, I don't know why both of you continue to claim this. JM herself brought it up in the interview, and then DK elaborated on it, don't you remember? They WANTED to talk about it! What we SHOULD be discussing about this sighting is:
1) Why, if the sighting happened at 6:00pm on Friday as the clerk claimed, why would the parents automatically discount this as a rumor, and not a lead as to what happened to their missing son? ESPECIALLY if they thought he was abducted?
As for the "sighting" itself, DK himself admitted that it was him, and by not denying that DeOrr was with him, we can infer that he indeed was. Neither DK nor JM denied that DeOrr was filthy and bawling, therefore it is reasonable to assume that he was. How was DK so sure that the Fri 6pm sighting was actually a mistake? Black trucks are common, how did he know for sure that this wasn't an abductor with his child? So bizarre, that they went with abduction theory from day one but didn't at least suspect that this was a valid sighting of DeOrr with an abductor.
2) When did the store clerk actually see filthy bawling DeOrr and gentleman DK at the Stage Stop? IIRC the Stage Stop closes at 6:00pm but I am going to call them to check for sure tomorrow. Anyways, was the sighting on Thursday evening at about 6pm? Was it on Friday at around noon as DK claims? Or was it on Friday evening at around 6pm as the clerk claims? We know that the clerk could not have seen DK and DeOrr at 6pm on Friday so if there was a sighting at that time, it wasn't DK/DeOrr. If the clerk was mistaken about the time/date, the sighting could have happened either Thurs at 6pm or Fri at noon, OR they could have been there on BOTH of those occasions. What doesn't make sense is that Trina claims the campers arrived at the campground about 9pm Thurs. The Stage Stop closes at 6pm so they would have had to have been at the Stage Stop no later than 6pm, leaving several hours in between the time they were at the Stage Stop and the time that they arrived at the campground. So what were they doing for those hours in between?
3) It is entirely possible that DeOrr never was at the Stage Stop, and that is why DK/JM jumped on the clerk's sighting of a bawling filthy blonde boy and the gentleman in the black truck. The sighting would place DeOrr at the campground, but the time didn't fit. So DeOrr claimed that the clerk was mistaken and it actually happened earlier in the day, around noon when they went into town for feminine products and a cell phone charger.
I don't know what to make of the sighting anymore tbh. Neither LE nor the store clerk have discussed the sighting publicly. The only thing the Sheriff has said is that a store receipt for Friday was provided to him; the Sheriff refused to say that he was 100% sure that DeOrr was actually there at the campground. This tells me that there is no video evidence of DeOrr at the store, the campground, or anywhere. Nor does there appear to be any photographic/video evidence of DeOrr at the campground, which is odd imo, nobody stopped to snap a photo of the little boy on a camping trip?
Anne
Anne - I don't have time/energy to respond to all your questions right now, but here is what Trina said about Isaax:
Trina Bates Clegg I was told Isaac was at creek but his interview was different. My Dad said Isaac was fishing at the creek
Like · 8 · 8 hrs
I have been informed Isaac was at the creek but the interview he stated something different
Like · 2 · 8 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg "My father has severe COPD and Prostate Cancer. The trip is 2 hours. I asked Isaac questions the weekend it happened without getting straight answers.
---
There's another quote too but I can't find it- along the lines that she was shocked when Isaac said he had been with grandpa (as opposed,to fishing at the creek).
Anon,
You wrote
1) Why, if the sighting happened at 6:00pm on Friday as the clerk claimed, why would the parents automatically discount this as a rumor, and not a lead as to what happened to their missing son? ESPECIALLY if they thought he was abducted?
As for the "sighting" itself, DK himself admitted that it was him, and by not denying that DeOrr was with him, we can infer that he indeed was. Neither DK nor JM denied that DeOrr was filthy and bawling, therefore it is reasonable to assume that he was. How was DK so sure that the Fri 6pm sighting was actually a mistake? Black trucks are common, how did he know for sure that this wasn't an abductor with his child? So bizarre, that they went with abduction theory from day one but didn't at least suspect that this was a valid sighting of DeOrr with an abductor."
I did watch the interview and he does not admit it was him. They mention the sighting as being a lead, but then Dad DeOrr says (and I paraphrase) 'there's just one problem--I have a black truck."
He doesn't say "yeah that was me, I was at the store, getting candy". My interpretation of it is that he does not like the fact that HE was sited at the store, it's like he's trying to brush it under the rug, like "yeah someone sighted a black truck, only problem is I actually have a black truck...let's talk about something else."
I have watched the interview many times, and it seems very apparent Dad DeOrr does not want anyone focusing on the "sighting". He at no point says "Actually, that was me." He is evasive as can be, saying "only problem is I have a black truck", but he does not say "yes that was me".
He does not want to discuss the sighting (of himself). It is very apparent in the interview.
And, there is a reason he does not want to discuss it.
My theory is that he had already harmed the baby at the point.
“Isaac (Walton’s friend) was in the same general proximity,” Bowerman said. “He’s downstream, they’re upstream and they’re all within probably 100 to 150 feet of each other.” -Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman to East Idaho News
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/lemhi-sheriff-opens-up-about-deorr-kunz-case/
K.M.
PS - I am not anon at 2.09 - I just had the quotes about Isaac to hand.
I don't say they were trying to hide the sighting at the store, neither has Angelica as far as I recall - the parents acknowledged it, but only in order to discount as rumour and hearsay that DeOrr had been at the store with the baby at six. DeOrr says it was him, but earlier. They do not want people to believe DeOrr was there at six with the baby, filthy and crying - by'y reckoning because that was on the Thursdsy, while they claimed not to have arrived until the Friday. I have already written quite a few comments on the various DeOrr threads on the questions you ask. It's too much to go through it all again now, but my thoughts are already here somewhere.
Good luck with the phone call - they might not be at liberty to say much. :)
Anon 9:55 asked
"Angelica, if it turns out that there is no insurance policy, what do you think happened?"
Well, the more I follow this case and read everyone's discussions, if it turns out there is NO insurance policy, I would, unfortunately, tend to think that something very sick was going on regardless of no insurance policy.
Something about the candy store visit to "calm" a filthy, bawling DeOrr, the cast of characters involved (one of whom is a sex offender with no real connection to the family except he's "friends" with the grandfather who is like 40 yrs older and on oxygen), the BS story about "they turned their heads for a second" and he was snatched away by Big Foot, and there is no sign of him anywhere, not a single sign he was ever even at the campsite, I get a sick feeling in my stomach that baby DeOrr may have been the victim of sexual abuse. And I am wishing I had watched the interviews looking for more clues in the words. It was odd the fixation on the blanket in the interview especially how it was supposedly a replica blanket. But looking for other words like water, washing, lights, door etc. except in a camping setting there are no lights and doors.
Juliet - I'm aware of what Trina has said on social media, but to be honest it doesn't really mean anything. Her priority is clearly to protect JM/DK, that is evident by the way she allows them (and their sleazy PI) to continually throw her own father under the bus. I don't think Trina was as much surprised at Isaac's interview as she was ready to sh*t her pants at the thought that Isaac was going "off-script" lol.
Isaac looked barely functional in that "interview"... but I think that Isaac is actually very clever. Isaac had two choices when Nate asked him those questions...either play dumb, nod, and mumble "mmm hmmm", or say "no, that's not what happened..." and put himself in the position of having to explain what DID happen. Isaac is not stupid. Someone told him to respond that way, either his own lawyer, or LE.
Angelica - you have to consider the entire exchange to make sense of the interview (where DK/JM are discussing the Stage Stop sighting):
Reporter: Are there any rumors that you've seen or anything that you want to clear up Jessica?
JM: I just, somebody at the store um in Leadore said...it was one of the ladies that 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-
DKS: Here's the problem, my pickup truck is black...
JM: He drives a black truck...
DK: As a family, we went down to get a few things...
Reporter: So it could have been...
JM: Earlier. It was earlier that day.
DK: They claim it was at 6:00 in the evening and I, we, were still with search and rescue until what, a quarter to four?
JM: Yeah, from...
DK: We didn't, we haven't left the camp since 1:00 that afternoon so it's just a lot of hearsay and...
You can see that DK states that they went as a family [to the Stage Stop] to get a few things (admits they were there) and JM backs him up by clarifying that it was earlier that day. So they don't have a problem with being seen at the Stage Stop, they have a problem with THE TIME that was alleged that they were there. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but extensive searching has been done to try to find the source of this "rumor" of the sighting; nobody has been able to find ONE THING about it ANYWHERE, EXCEPT for the parents themselves. This was not a social media rumor they wanted cleared up, they brought it up themselves for a purpose. They are the only ones who have ever discussed it; if they didn't want people knowing about it, why bring it up in the first place? The mystery is, what purpose did bringing it up serve for them?
Anne
I just rewatched half of the parent interview
2 things:
1) I believe some kind of major clue to what happened can be found in figuring out WHY the father fixates on the searchers, search equipment, best search equipment in the world, the layout of the land, etc....what is he thinking about? It really does not seem like he is thinking about his son or finding him, he is fixated on the act of searching itself and on the layout of the land.
2) This is important: Listen carefully. Jessica does not say that it was the baby that was filthy. She says it was the "gentleman" with "the younger blond boy" that was "filthy".
Therefore: It is Dad DeOrr that was filthy, covered in dirt.
Hi Anon, Weird, I was just rewatching it at the same time you were!
Haven't read your whole post yet, but please notice, linguistically she is actually saying that it was the Dad that was filthy.
JM: I just, somebody at the store um in Leadore said...it was one of the ladies that 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-
Thank you for transcribing.
Juliet, I'm not going to need any luck with my phone call to the Stage Stop, unless you think that they will have a problem telling me their hours of operation? That's all I said that I was going to ask them so I'm ??? by your comment. Also, you don't seem to have a problem posting long and frequent posts, but when you are asked to support something that you have said, all of a sudden you are too exhausted to type a response? I have read the entire thread, thanks; I'm sorry that none of your posts stood out enough to me to remember them all as you seem to expect. I'm not going to go read through the thread again just to find your posts, so that's fine if you choose not to respond :).
I just read your whole post Anne.
VERY interesting.
Thank you for pointing this out.
You wrote
"They are the only ones who have ever discussed it; if they didn't want people knowing about it, why bring it up in the first place? The mystery is, what purpose did bringing it up serve for them?"
That is VERY interesting. And now it makes more sense to me the way they "addressed" this "rumor".
So, they may have actually "fabricated" this sighting.
Do you have any ideas about why they would have done that?
Is there any way that it could be some kind of damage control, meaning, that they feared he could have been "sighted" somewhere else doing something far worse, so they threw the candy store story out there??
Sorry, that was me at 12:50am, I forgot to sign - Anne.
Angelica, yes I also considered that JM might have actually meant that the man was filthy, but I don't think so. She refers to him as a "gentleman"; gentleman is generally not congruent with filthy. I think that she just phrased it funny, I think that she meant the blonde boy was bawling and filthy.
Anne
Well, I can't quite see the point of phoning if only to ask that - if the store clerk saw them at six, they are open till around at least six.
Angelica - Since nobody was ever able to trace back the source of the Stage Stop sighting "rumor", and since the clerk, LE, MSM, and most importantly, the family's own Private Investigator has never mentioned it, I have considered that it MIGHT have been fabricated by JM and/or DK. It would be easy for them to claim that while searching for DeOrr, one of the volunteers told them about a rumor that there was a sighting. They could claim that they don't remember who told it to them, as they were so distraught, and there were so many people there...you get the idea.
IF they did make it up, the question is, WHY? What purpose did it serve? Well, it would place DeOrr at the Stage Stop and make DeOrr alive at the time of the sighting...about noon on Friday. This would benefit DK/JM, IF DeOrr were NOT alive at the time. It makes their story fit.
Regardless, LE surely would have checked out this sighting and interviewed the clerks at the Stage Stop. Funny that it has not been mentioned again though, especially by the PI.
I would just like some evidence that a clerk actually reported a sighting, either through rumor, or through contact with LE, as I don't believe any exists. I thought that early on there was a MSM report that mentioned that a clerk was contacted about a sighting but didn't want to discuss with MSM, but then that clerk was found to be one from the WalMart sighting, not the Stage Stop. If anyone knows differently, please post.
Anne
They probably won't be able to give Anne any info about the case, but I am pretty sure they can give store hours Juliet. That shouldn't a problem. She didn't say she was calling for anything else.
D
I would never call the Stage Stop and ask them anything about the case lol. I just want to know their store hours (for the summer season, when DeOrr disappeared). I think the hours could be important, especially if the sighting was on Thurs instead of Fri...it is more realistic to think that the family stopped at the store on Thursday at 8 or 9 as opposed to 6 since it fits in better with their alleged arrival time to the campground. If the store is only open until 6, it is very odd that the family would have been seen at the store so early on Thursday...also what luck, just making it to the store right as it's closing.
Anne
Juliet...Theres no need to be rude to Anne, she was only asking a question.
Really you have been persnickity lately.
You say you are anti drama, but you keep kicking it back up with ABB.
Your condescending tone, for what it's worth, is getting old.
We have listened to you literally drivel on about some of the most ridiculous things, but anytime anyone has an idea, or something new to add, you completely dismiss it.
Even if you have already thought about it yourself and went over it 500 times.
Perhaps it might be time to take a time out as you seem to be getting a bit jaded.
Anne...
Getting caught up.
Good ideas Anne.
How about this.
JM called the man spotted a "gentleman."
Considering she is thinking about Deorr Sr., if he was the gentleman, is that possible leakage bc DK was anything BUT GENTLE with Deorr that day?
Odd choice of words to describe someone who might have your child.
Esp since he was with someone that matches the description of your child.
Perhaps the clerk was right in both the time and the day. (6.00 Friday). Maybe she did see a man with a toddler but it was not (could not have been) DK and baby DeOrr. In DK and Jessica's desperation to make it appear that Deoor was with them at around lunchtime Friday, and make the alibi stick, they have claimed it was them.
DK. "It was me...earlier"
They didn't realise the opportunity they had to pin it on the man in the black truck at 6.00 FRIDAY.
There is a certain irony in the name "Stage shop"
In re the opinion that (hypothetically) when the poster says that the clerk's comment can be interpreted that it was daddy DeOrr who was filthy dirty, (read on), that the clerk does not say that it was baby DeOrr who was filthy dirty; then she would also have been stating that it was daddy DeOrr who was bawling. Notice where the commas are placed and how the wording is placed (not in order) and the meaning of the comment changes.
Of course, daddy DeOrr was not at the store bawling, so why interpret that it was HE who was filthy dirty? Look at the statement carefully; the implication of the statement is ALSO that it was daddy DeOrr who was bawling. Reasonable logic will dictate that it was the BABY who was filthy dirty, AND bawling, not daddy DeOrr. It's all in where you place the commas in the statement and it's wording.
Peter has already pointed out to us that by moving a comma over by just one word or simple phrase, or by running a statement together when it should not have been run together, that it can change the meaning of a statement entirely. An example would be how some scriptures have had their meaning changed entirely simply by moving a comma over by one or two words in what would otherwise be a simple statement with a profound meaning that was changed with the use of the comma which gives the statement an entirely different meaning.
IMO, it was the baby who was filthy dirty AND BAWLING, which is what the clerk is trying to say; not daddy DeOrr like the way the statement is worded would imply. Make sense? ABB
Daddy DeOrr was caught red handed when it was revealed by Jessica's mother that they had arrived at the campsite on Thursday evening at around 9:30 pm according to a text message Jessica had sent her; which, if I recall correctly, she also said that Jessica told her they had gone to purchase feminine products and a cell phone charger. It was THEN that we learned they had set up camp on THURSDAY, not Friday morning like DeOrr, Sr said in his initial interview.
The liar SAID they had arrived at the campsite on Friday morning, (which doesn't add up either, when you consider the Friday morning timeline he gave) had set up camp and that he and Jessica took a ten minute walk exploring, came back and found little DeOrr missing and had looked for him about ten minutes before calling S&R, WHICH he made a big deal out of inasmuch as it was NOT necessary for him to haul ass down the road to make his call since Jessica had already obtained a new cell phone charger. This fool (Jessica too) must think everyone is stupid but him/them.
I did not find Jessica's mother to be lying and trying to help them cover up anything at this point as she would not have revealed that they actually arrived on Thursday evening, thereby revealing their lies, had she known lying Daddy DeOrr had said (with Jessica in concurrence) that they had arrived on Friday morning and had she been trying to help them cover up her grandsons disappearance.
When his Friday morning lie is revealed baby daddy DeOrr is forced to admit they were actually there on Thursday evening, but I have no doubt he never would have had he not gotten caught in this fat lie, just like he got caught in his trip to the store with his bawling, filthy dirty (pathetic) baby that he never intended for anyone to know about. I SOOO hope they are hung for this baby's death.
Further, Jessicas mother revealed at that time (if I RCC), that they had gone to a store on Thursday to purchase the feminine products AND the cell phone charger; NOT on Friday morning like liar DeOrr stated they did. In ANY event, whether purchased on Thursday evening or Friday morning; Jessica HAD her new cell phone charger and there was no need for anyone to fake bad cell phone service due to a weak battery. Is this not correct? Seems to me like it is, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I also did not find Jessicas mother to be lying when she related that Issac stated he was down at the creek fishing when baby DeOrr supposedly went missing, then subsequently stated he was at the campsite. IMO, it is Issac who was the liar, not Jessicas mother who was not there at the time and was only restating what she had been told. I also believed her when she related how shocked the GGF was when he was accused of being responsible for watching baby DeOrr and did not know anything about it. Something ain't right here.
The point I'm making is that we can consider everything DeOrr said from the point where they actually arrived at the campsite, before AND after, to be twisted lies trying to cover his own tracks. AND Jessicas. God only knows what they have done with that precious little boy. We may never know. ABB
Good point, Anon @2:28 am...
Very good point anon@ 2:28!!!
Yes anon 2:28's post is a possible scenario that has been speculated on quite a bit in this case and I also mentioned in my earlier post. Again, here's the problem: if the sighting at the Stage Stop really did happen, then why, if you feel that your son was abducted, why would you not FIRST consider that maybe that was your son with the gentleman (abductor) in the black truck? Why would you discount it as the clerk had made a mistake about the time/people seen so quickly? More incredulous, if you are trying to sell an abduction story, WHY would you not jump on the opportunity to latch on to a possible sighting of your son? The date and time of the sighting was perfect for them to use to further their abduction story.
But they didn't. Instead, they treated the sighting as "hearsay", dismissing it as a mistake on the clerk's part as to the time she actually saw the boy and man. They assumed that the clerk actually saw DK and DeOrr in DK's black truck, only earlier in the day. But if the sighting were real, then how would they know for sure that this wasn't a separate incident altogether, and this strange man in a black truck might have their little son?
The likely answer is that it was more important in their minds to place DeOrr at the campground/Stage Stop ALIVE in that timeframe on that day.
Again, you have to look at the whole Stage Stop sighting in context... the parents brought it up in order to clear up "the rumor". But there has never been any source of "rumor" located. Where did this "rumor" originate? Certainly LE would have investigated the Stage Stop sighting in the 3 days before the parents did the interview. If there was anything nefarious about the alleged sighting, you can bet that LE would have been on it. But nothing, LE has never mentioned it, neither has the clerk, nor MSM, nor the family's PI. So WHY was that so important for the parents to "clear up" when it apparently wasn't really an issue in the first place? Strange.
Also, they made sure to clear up the Stage Stop sighting rumor that nobody even knew about, but they refused to discuss the EMT bag when asked to do so, twice.
Anne
Ha... Anon @ 7:36, I had already told Anon @2:28 good point. I just forgot to sign. your 'very good point' post is even better. Actually, it was a very VERY good point. LOL...
The dumb bunny tripped himself up when it could have used it to his advantage. They both did. Just goes to show ya how stupid some people really are, especially cons who think they are on a roll. ABB
You also make some excellent points, Anne. And, quite possibly correctly. It just remains to be seen.
I do question however, why Jessicas mother said DeOrr, Sr had gone to that store to purchase candy for little DeOrr and her father; also, why neither daddy DeOrr or Jessica did not bother to deny that the baby was filthy and bawling if it is true that they had never been there at all?
Seems to be like they wouldn't want their child described as being in such a negligent condition and would have at least shown some defense of this offensive description. ABB
Anne was asking about things I have already written about numerous times, as you point out, so there would be little point repeating it all yet again, but it's there somewhere if she wants to read it. Besides, she was asking questions at 6am my time, and I do like to sleep sometimes. :)
Hmmmm.....maybe if that was the only way they could have proof he was still alive at that time, that the clerk had said he was filthy and bawling, they figured they would have to take it. Idk
@ ABB
(Forgot to put)
Juliet, your sense of self-importance is unreal. If you don't want to answer my questions, simply don't. I am not here to engage with you only, my questions/comments are posted for all to respond to if they wish. I realize that in your mind, everything is about YOU but that is not the case. Nor did I demand you answer anything at 6am your time lol... why would you think that you had to answer immediately? So strange.
Anyways, the Stage Stop's hours are 8:30am-7:00pm Mon-Fri, and 10:00am-5:00pm on Sunday. Just FYI in case others were wondering.
ABB, I think that JM/DK did not show defense of the filthy, bawling description of their son because in the grand scheme of things, it just wasn't important to them. Or at least, it wasn't important to DK, who was running the show during the interview. The entire interview revolved around the needs, wants, and ultimately the reputation of Daddy DeOrr. There was little to no concern shown for their missing son...how terrified he might be, how he might be hungry, thirsty, in pain.
I think that the purpose of the interview was: 1) to kiss ass to LE/search teams, who's eyes DK thought he had pulled the wool over, and 2) to clean up the reputation of the parents which was allegedly being tarnished by "rumors", and to show what a great guy DK is.
One more thing...can we stop with the blanket JM was holding being a replica? It wasn't a replica, it was DeOrr's actual blanket. Daddy DeOrr clearly isn't the most educated man, when he said "this is an exact replica of a security blanket" he meant that this blanket is exactly what a security blanket is to DeOrr. He used the word replica erroneously but common sense tells us what he meant.
Anne
That's a good point too, Isa @ 10:59. ABB
Thank you Anne for a very good post above, good thoughts, well presented. I agree.
Also, concerning the blanket replica, I get your point, but I have never questioned this particular item that baby daddy DeOrr threw out in his ignorant manner of speech in the first place, which is what I sort of thought him to be; rather ignorant and somewhat stupid.
I have always referred to the baby's blanket as his "blankey" the same as I did with my own sons special blankies they dragged around with them everywhere FOR YEARS. Little boys that age (girls too) are just so cute and special. They really are precious. They make you just want to pick them up and hug them all the time.
I can't imagine that not a one of these four adults were paying any attention to this child. I just can't. I would have never let him OR his little blankie out of my sight. On the other hand, I have questioned that this sweet boy ever made it to the campsite to begin with. ABB
Anne - you addressed some questions to me, which looks a bit like wanting a response -I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, but also had already posted about those things. It seems this discussion has more or less exhausted its usefulness, as it's reached the stage of mostly going over what others have already posted weeks and months ago. I don't think I have any thing new to contribute to it, so I'll take my leave till there is more information or developments in the case.
Juliet is finally leaving!
I can see why she doesn't want to go through the comments, she has 140 of them on this thread alone. So if the conversation is exhausted, well we definitely know who was a contributing factor.
The problem is I enjoyed some of her posts, but she has gotten almost cocky.
An overinflated ego. This is probably why we don't see any of the regular posters here anymore.
Add that to her biting passive aggressiveness, and then automatically assuming the role of the confused victim, I can see why some posters are getting a bit fed up.
She will be back on the next blog post about Deorr though, so she can regale us with how she thought up however this poor, helpless little boy is found, if he ever is.
And that is only because aside from Bigfoot, she has thought of every other theory.
Oh wait. She did think of Bigfoot too.
Yes, but did she address alien abduction???
Anon, re your post at 2:53; the worst of her posts that bothered me were those (several days ago), even worse than those where she was slamming and insulting me; was where she was speculating that little DeOrr could have died in the campfire. I didn't respond to it because I couldn't.
It made me feel so sick to my stomach just to think momentarily of such a scenario, knowing that the baby would have let out horrible screams that would have been heard by anyone even passing by, not to mention any adults that were there, and all the animals in the woods. No baby, toddler, child, could have been burned to death without trying to get out of the fire immediately unless it would be one who had been bound and gagged and tossed into the fire.
The very thought of it gave me knots in my stomach and still does. I cannot fathom saying this could have happened (no evidence, of course) or even thinking it. ABB
he heee, that's a good one Anon @5:39! Love it. She might have for all I know. I skipped the first 200 posts on this thread and quite a few on the beginning of those on this last page and decided at that point to even stop reading here for a good week to ten days, maybe permanently.
It got too nerve-wracking for me, especially the non-ending discussing IN DEPTH about the backward speech guy, over and over and over, weighing every word he said repeatedly and non-stop. Several of us had already said that we're not into psychic stuff (myself included, and consider it to be the works of demons) but she just would not let it go. WOULD NOT. Like she enjoyed digging it in deeper and deeper. I actually felt like rebuking satan in my house from time to time, not wanting this to take roots in my own life. Maybe this is finally the end of it.
But the worst was answering detailed questions that she would ask repeatedly, then when you did she would not accept the answers and would start all over detailing them again and again. It really did start to wear my last nerve raw and I reacted badly at times. I'm sorry, but my patience doesn't endure forever. I know I did sometimes react badly and was sorry I did, but she would never let it go. ABB
I just wish the little boy would have had a nice big loving guard dog to love and to love him. At least he would have had someone to love and help protect him. ABB
"the Stage Stop's hours are 8:30am-7:00pm Mon-Fri, and 10:00am-5:00pm on Sunday. Just FYI in case others were wondering."
That may be true now, but what were they back in July? No Saturday hours?
ABB, I'm with you on the fire aspect. The thought of it turns my stomach. I'm also very upset by his disappearance as are so many others. Your description of a guard dog made me smile but also made me sad at the same time. I can picture his little arms wrapped around the neck of a big dog. Sadly, no guard, whether it be animal or human, could save this little boy. I hope a resolution comes soon. I know what it's doing to me. I can only imagine what it's doing to his family, extended family, and close friends.
Anon @2:53, she went way beyond being cocky many times. She would even tell others what they should and shouldn't say, like she was the boss of this blog site and everybody posting here. Many times others were a lot more diplomatic in their responses than I ever could have been. My fuse actually isn't very long anymore considering that I've already been through the tortures of the damned where it really counts and there isn't much left that I actually will take off anybody.
Good heavens, she even told (I think it was Anne, but I haven't looked back to see who it was) that she shouldn't call the store to ask what their hours were, speculating WHY she shouldn't, questioning why she would; like WHY would she care? Actually, I thought it would be interesting to know their hours and any other info she might be able to get out of them. Oh well. Hopefully I am beating a dead horse! ABB
Re Juliet, it would be a gas if she gets totally ignored when she does return. It's better than getting angry.
Thank you anon @ 6:27 for reposting the hours of operation of the store. I had read it this morning when it was first posted and wondered myself why they were not open on Saturdays? It seems to me that being open on Saturdays would be more profitable than being open on Sundays, but then, what do I know about the area?
BTW, I do still think that it really was baby daddy DeOrr who was in the store with hysterical inconsolable baby DeOrr and not someone else who had the same description as they did. I think that would just be too much of a coincidence.
I think daddy DeOrr lied a blue streak when he said it couldn't have been them because the clerk said it happened on Friday evening after they had already reported the baby missing, then turned around and said they WERE there just not at the time the clerk said they were. I think it was Thursday evening, and since we don't have any reference witness words to refer back too, IF it actually DID happen, the clerk more than likely said it was Thursday evening and NOT Friday evening. We DO know the b'stard has lied to a fare thee well in other instances.
But since several here have pointed out that it could have been someone else entirely on Friday evening who stopped in at the store, fitting the exact descriptions, truck and all, then in fact it should have been of major concern to freak DeOrrs big ass lies that this MIGHT have been the abductor of his baby; but NO, he showed no such concerns about this. He knows it really WAS him in the store on Thursday evening or either has made up the entire lie that he calls a rumor in an effort to set up an alibi for himself. I've come to feel puke towards this guy.
Ha....! Yes it would be a big laugh and a gas if she winds up being totally ignored when she comes back; AND she will. I think she is totally obsessed with this case, to the point of OCD, where she can't function doing anything else but this and allows it to keep her mind in a spin day and night.
She's mentioned other threads concerning the DeOrr disappearance that she reads/posts on, so that's probably where she's sitting right now. Perish the thought of those having to tolerate the non-ending c'rap over and over.
Oh well, I don't run this site and am lucky I haven't been kicked off myself a few times! God knows, I can certainly be outspoken sometimes; however, I AM capable of backing down, and do; but not this ding-a-ling. NEVER. EVER. She just comes back at you another way and carries the same drivel right on and on. God help her. ABB
Anon @6:33, I would imagine that the disappearance of little DeOrr is disturbing his older siblings more than it is anyone else. They are just children, and children have very sensitive and tender emotions. I would imagine this would be almost more than they can bear; thinking they probably have nightmares and cry themselves to sleep many nights. Probably scared to death too.
You know, their father said in the earlier stages that they were close to their little brother and that he visited them all the time. It sounds to me like Jessicas ex-old man must have babysat him a lot during those times DeOrr stayed with his own kids.
I know he hired a private plane and small search party to go looking for the baby. IF IRCC, he said earlier on that he had a lot that he could have said and was furious when he was told not to make any more statements. Don't you know, this is VERY hard for those children, and with their own dad's hands tied where he can do or say nothing? More than anyone else, my heart really goes out to them.
Do you or anyone know if he has a Facebook page, or a thread of his own? ABB
Everyone I am so sorry, I made a mistake when I typed in the Stage Stop hours...yes, they are open on Saturday, I meant to type Mon-Sat but put Mon-Fri by mistake. So the hours are: 8:30am - 7:00pm Mon-Sat and 10:00am - 5:00pm on Sun. Also, those are the current hours AND those were the hours for summer as well, I specifically asked when I called. Sorry again for the mix-up!
ABB, just wanted to clarify that my comment re: DeOrr's blanket was not directed to you at all, I just happened to comment on it after responding to you, sorry for not making that clear in my post!
Jessica's ex has a Facebook page, here is the link:
https://www.facebook.com/brennon.birch.9?fref=ts
Anne
That's okay Anne, No need to clarify anything about the blankie. I knew you were not speaking to me specifically about the replica blanket as I knew that I had only ever referred to baby DeOrrs blanket as his blankie; besides, I realized that baby daddy DeOrr didn't know what the hell he was talking about in the first place. Dumb ass. There is no such thing as a 'replica blanket' unless it would be a knock off copy of a costly Paris original, one of a kind, which I'm sure they would never own.
Thanks for clarifying the store hours. No problem whatsoever. It was real nice of you to call up there and get this information. I really had been curious about it.
The snow will be flying up there real soon so I don't think I'll be making the trip anytime soon, will you? All kidding side, I don't even know where the place is! And since I'm not a camper I don't think I'll ever be looking for it either. I just know there is some beautiful country up there. Thanks again for the clarifications.... Have a good evening. ABB
Oh, and thanks for the Facebook link. I may try to look it up tomorrow. I am real interested in this other side of the family. This is tragic for those children, heartbreaking. ABB
ABB,
Linguistically, Jessica is stating that the "gentleman" was filthy.
I stand by that.
It is easier to realize this by listening to it spoken aloud in the interview, but even written down, yes, she is technically saying the "gentleman" was "filthy".
Anne,
You wrote
"F they did make it up, the question is, WHY? What purpose did it serve? Well, it would place DeOrr at the Stage Stop and make DeOrr alive at the time of the sighting...about noon on Friday. This would benefit DK/JM, IF DeOrr were NOT alive at the time. It makes their story fit."
Bingo.
I couldn't agree more.
I have always thought there was something odd like they were "latching" onto the story while simultaneously downplaying it the way they bring it up in the interview, and NOW it makes sense that they are the only ones who know about this sighting and probably fabricated it.
Extra important then to consider what they are saying as leakage.
"Filthy"------------THIS word troubles me.
"Just bawling"
"Truck"
Anne,
Another good point. You wrote
"Also, they made sure to clear up the Stage Stop sighting rumor that nobody even knew about, but they refused to discuss the EMT bag when asked to do so, twice."
Another thing that is strange is how when Dad DeOrr is raving about the helicopter searcher zeroing in on an orange insect repellent can, the mother sheepishly interjects "they thought it might be a PART of a shoe or something". I have read over and over here that baby DeOrr was wearing oversized cowboy boots. So, he was not even wearing shoes nevermind orange shoes, yet the mother acts like this was a potential "lead" to finding baby DeOrr.
It's like the clues they are presenting as valid are NOT, the "sighting" they are presenting as valid are NOT...none of them are! Meanwhile Dad DeOrr just raves about the advanced search equipment and them not finding anything and the layout of the land. (Which concerns me more each time I watch the video.)
What is starting to concern me deeply is that if they seem to be focusing so much on creating a puzzle while also handing people fake puzzle pieces to try to put together I just wonder how sick their minds are and what they might have done to their poor son and if it involved psychological torment and some kind of sick game they put him through.
ABB, I have no problem when things are stated as your opinion. If you re-read my comment, I said it is wrong to state them as FACTS without evidence. We can speculate and draw conclusions all day, but it gives more weight to one's thoughts when it's clearly stated as opinion or speculation rather than fact when there's no evidence. Stating things as facts with no evidence undermines one's credibility.
Yes, I saw the pic first posted, when DeOrr was at least a year younger. He's fair skinned like my daughter and she used to turn bright red in the heat, too, and it wasn't sunburn. I have also seen other photos from that day and the other children are there and not sunburned. Therefore *my opinion* is that he was not sunburned in that photo.
Angelica, I think Jessica was to trying to imply it might have been part of an abductor's shoe.
Anon @ 4:26; it is MY OPINION that little DeOrr had sun poisoning on the previous photo Peter published. You can see the little red welts all over his skin caused by sun exposure. If it isn't sun poisoning, this would require a physicians diagnosis because this is certainly what it appears to be. THAT is my opinion.
SOOOo, you have your opinion and I have mine. That doesn't make either of us right. However, I am NOT going back on a wild search looking for one of your posts, nor do I intend to argue with you about it.
BTW, how do YOU know the photo was taken when he was a year younger? YOU DON'T. Conjecture, posturing, guessing, bickering. You just want to argue, and I'm sick of it AND YOU. ABB
Angelica; your post at 1:21 a.m., you could be entirely right. I have only ever listened to the video of the interview once and that was at the time Peter posted it. At no time have I ever gone back and replayed any of the videos or linked onto any of the links that have been posted. (Maybe I should).
However, it was in the early stages that I picked up on the posts that said (*he said, she said) the BABY was filthy and bawling, which neither he or Jessica denied; it had NOT been inferred that it was DeOrr, Sr who was filthy, and had no reason at the time to question what may have actually been said or not said. It has only been more recently that the statement was analyzed by a few other posters here to mean that it was DeOrr, Sr who was filthy; which could be the truth of the matter.
However (in my 'opinion'!), now keeping in mind that it was a smart-ass, uneducated, near-retard who made the statement in the first place, hypothetically quoting what the clerk supposedly "said" in his manner of speaking, that " bla bla bla.......and bla bla bla.." which is now questionable at best; leaving me to wonder if there ever was any such sort of sighting or statement made by any store clerk in the first place.
However you determine the supposed statement to be made is fine by me, whether it is that it was DeOrr, Sr who was the filthy one and not the baby, or vice-versa or both, since I wasn't there anyhow and don't even know if any such sighting even occurred to begin with. Thank you for the clarification if that is what this is. I take your word for it. Sincerely, ABB
Trina Bates CleggHelp Find Deorr Kunz
September 27
"Prayers for my Grandson DeOrr Jay Kunz Jr.
Your Nana loves you baby boy. We hope you know how much we love and miss you. — looking for a miracle."
Here's that word "hope" again. And "looking" for a miracle. I think she knows in her heart of hearts that is no longer alive. Hope is not reality.
Trina's post:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208017890353743&set=o.384861648387032&type=3
Re your post @ 10.01 Anon; this always amazes me, how anyone could expect a two to three year old toddler to be able to read their post even if the child is alive. What do they think; the child has access to a computer? The child can read? The abductor is allowing the child access to the computer? The abductor is reading the post TO the child? Where IS the rationale of some people?
It really gets my goat when someone says to the missing little child "stay strong." My heavens, how in this world could a child be so strong under such conditions of fear and abuse, that they would be capable of even thinking strong; EVEN if they were to hear their loved one say so! People truly astound me.
THEN there is the hope and the miracle. Oh yes, I believe in miracles and I believe in hope; I've personally seen many miracles in my lifetime, things that occurred that there was no way they could have happened other than by a miracle performed by God himself. BUT, if you foot is missing, gone, amputated; would you actually expect, or even ask, for Jesus to grow you a new one?
It's not that I don't have sympathy for them, and I could understand if someone were to say something like, if anyone is able to contact our baby, would you please tell him thus and so on? But this is not what they are doing. They are actually anticipating that this child will read and understand their post. ABB
Post a Comment