Saturday, October 17, 2015

The Complete DeOrr Interview Analyzed




I have been displeased with my work on this interview and have reviewed my analysis after lengthy thought about the close linguistic context. Although I find no errors of commission, I find that a deeper study of the linguistic context affirms my "suggestions" however, with more strength than I originally allowed for.  Linguistic context is different from topical context (missing child, interview, both parents present, etc).  Linguistic context seeks to learn what words triggered other words that may be leakage, or inadvertent disclosures.

This is, therefore, not a revision of my analysis, but an addition to my first work.

The change in here:  What I draw as "possible", I now find should have been "probable."

Yet, are there enough "probables" in the overall interview to make a solid conclusion?

Answer:  Yes, there is.

The interviewer conducted one of the poorest interviews I have ever analyzed.  This frustrated me and it has helped to return to this again.  Please note that there is no new case information brought to this analysis.

The 40 Percent Theory 




In analysis, an emotionally and disconnected revisitation of a statement can yield up to 40% more information.  For the understanding of this principle, see:  The 40% Theory  and then see the parts 1 through 3 of "Why did I miss this?" that explain the principle further.  Reviewing analysis through dispassionate eyes is critical. 

Original Analysis Question:  Do the parents possess guilty knowledge in their son's disappearance?

Updated Analysis Question:  Does the father, who does most of the talking, possess guilty knowledge in the disappearance of his son?

Answer:  At the conclusion of the analysis.  



I:  Interviewer
D:  Father
J:   Mother 

******************************************************************************


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

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


This is to interject himself after his wife first answered.  The interviewer sought to bring them back to the day the child went missing.  Instead, the father, who's words are the focus of this analysis, wants us to know that he is not sure what day it is today, that is, the day of the interview. 

This is to seek sympathy for himself, as if he is so tired from searching, and not sleeping.  

It is not expected that the father of a missing child would speak about himself, instead of his son. 

He may be tired, but how is his son doing?  Is his son tired?  Is his son getting sleep?  Is his son being fed?  Is he in warm clothing?  Is he alone?  Is he afraid?

The interview began with the father "front and center", which is nothing we expect to hear of an innocent father.  


I : today's Monday. 

This is not expected as "the clock" and "D-Day" are often very important to the hormone-elevated parents.  The exception may be due to extreme fatigue.  Generally, the loved ones are on high alert, and know exactly how many hours, including days, that the loved one is missing.  The interviewer played into the father, and we will soon learn that this was the first mistake of a  pattern of mistakes by the Interviewer as the father controlled the interview. 

Analytical Interviewing teaches to never interrupt one talking to let them talk, but even this principle must be applied in a sane and reasonable manner, lest the subject absolutely control the interview and move it away from the missing child.  

*Although we allow some runaway tangents, in specific questions, seeking "leakage" or inadvertent release of information, we do not allow it to reach a point where the interview itself is completely hijacked.  

The father did de rail this interview and we note:

The father had a reason to bring tangents to the interview, to move the information away from what happened to his son.  


J: It was Friday.

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

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

Please note that he self-censored which means he stopped himself from whatever he was going to say. 

What was he going to say?

"Friday, about 2:26 was when I..." which means that the exact time, precisely reported, was when he did something.  Thus, the center of this statement is the pronoun "I", which means it is also about him, and not about his son. 

Should the same parent know exactly the hours (culmalative) the child has been missing ? This is to draw attention away from what happened to his son, or what his son is experiencing and make it about himself. 

Again. 

J: It was 2.36 when I called.

She corrects him with precision.  It is likely that someone looked at the cell phone to note the precise time, perhaps in preparation for the interview, or due to the "clock" ticking, concern.  We let the words guide us towards a conclusion.  This may have been discussed but not memorized.  

D : 2.36 when she called and I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it. So I, she got very very lucky. I was blessed that she was able to get service because I didn't think, I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off. So I went down to where I knew I could get a little service, about a half mile down the road. 

The interview is with both parents seated next to each other; therefore, the use of "we" is appropriate.  With this established, when either parent moves from "we" to the pronoun "I", it becomes even more important to the subject.  (For new readers, the "subject" is the one speaking).  

We have here an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the father's location and the father calling.  

1.  He immediately moves from her calling to himself.  This is about him. 
2.  He tells us where he was when she called.  This is unimportant information; that is, it is not necessary to reporting his missing son, yet, it is of extreme importance to him. 
3.  He was not only in his truck, but "hauling" which is to be in a hurry, as in an extreme situation. 

This is unnecessary information, which, in analysis, is deemed "doubly important" leading to a question:

Question:  Who would have a need, as a father of a missing child, to convince us that he was in a hurry?

Answer:  one who is not in a hurry. 

This is a signal that not only was the father in no hurry, but he has a need to persuade his audience that he did.  

This should lead investigators to suspect that the father may know that by calling 911, he may have been "risking" something.   Please note the inclusion of the word "risk" is taken in context; not the context of the situation, but the "linguistic context" that is, the context of the words he chose to you.  Going only by his words, and not Jessica's, I find:

The word "risk" comes with him calling, with broken pronouns, and concerns thus far only expressed about himself. 
No words expressed showing concern for what DeOrr was going through

Therefore, calling 911 was to put himself at some risk.  

***************************************************************************

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

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

First:  

The exact time was off and was corrected by the mother.  He did not remember the day, but used the word "about" when giving the exact time. There is nothing "about" when stating "2:26" as "about" is used to estimate.  We use estimation with round numbers, and round times. 

"It was about 2:30" is consistent.  

"About 2:26" not only shows preparation, (and failed memory or communication) but to say "about" shows the inconsistency of using estimation and exactness.  

The time when police were called is a sensitive topic, but this is not as sensitive as the truck.  

The Truck

Please note:  placing himself in his truck is very important to the father, so much so that he twice explains why he was in the truck.   Investigators should learn why it bothers him as much as it does.  

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

Why is it so important to him that we, the audience know, he was in his truck?

Even without training, the journalist should recognize his need to explain and his repetition and simply ask about the truck again.  With training, the interviewer pounces, but even without, many recognize the sensitivity intuitively.  

The interviewer should have recognized how the father is talking about himself, and not about his son.  

That he was "hauling" is not only unnecessary to say (no one would consider this a leisurely drive) but it is also 'story telling', which is to make us consider the location of the emotions within his statement.  The location of "hauling", if it expresses an emotion of urgency and fear, would be considered artificially placed in the editing process. 

The father in the truck rushing to call 911, has produced intense sensitivity in his language.  It is such that it appears he is withholding information.  

Uh, we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.

He began with "we searched" indicating unity, but then gives an 'editorializing', or inclusion of emotion ("dead panic").  The emotion here is not necessary since the child is missing.  This is to identify a specific emotion, in the logical part of the account, meaning that it is likely to be artificially placed here by the father.  Should an argument be made that "hauling" was a word that only denotes speed and not emotion, no such argument can be made about the words, "dead panic."

Truthful accounts have the emotions after the events, so when we find them in the "event" portion, so close to the disappearance, it is a very strong signal that it is not genuine. 

Example:  
I could not find him;
we searched everywhere in the area;
I called 911. 
I was in a panic. 

This shows that the emotions take time to process, especially since parents are on "auto pilot", that is, zoned to find their child. 

The father has a need to cause us to believe that he was in a dead panic which suggests that there was no panic about searching for his son. 

The word "dead" is used: 

"dead panic", however, is not a word ("dead") we expect a parent of a missing child to use.  

We should consider that at this time, his rushing is not genuine, nor are the emotions of "panic" expressed.  Then we should consider that he was able to use the word "dead" which is not expected from a parent of a missing child and may be leakage. 

This may be an indication that his son is not going to be found alive.  

"I knew I was in trouble" is an interesting statement and may be an embedded admission.  

Some very responsible parents will take full ownership and responsibility of the situation, making his son's disappearance his own trouble. But in this case, this is not supported by context:  the context is seen in language:  it is about him and nothing about his son. 

Therefore, if we believe the father, we may conclude:

Calling the police has caused him to be "in trouble" of some form.  

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

UPDATE:  Given the context (the words surrounding this), I move to strike the word "possible" from my analysis, and replace it with "likely." 
He put himself as "risk" and he knew he was "in trouble" but only when it came to having to call police. 

He did not want to call police.  

He has thus only spoken of himself and has sought sympathy for himself.  


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

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

With a missing child, there is no need to pause, nor to "share" the responsibility of calling.  I wrote originally that this was a debate of sorts, as this shows the need to "decide" in a situation where no "decision" is made:  you just call!  

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

a.  used words to gain sympathy for himself
b.  artificially placed emotions in his statement
c.  given signals of having not rushed, nor been in panic
d.  hinted or leaked that the child is "dead"
e.  spoken only of himself, and not the child
f.  added "risk" to the equation; 

it is likely that he did not want to call 911 and Jessica did.  

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

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

Update:  calling 911 put the father in "trouble" and in "risk" and this interview is all about the father. 

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

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

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

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

We need to wonder if something happened to the boy involving the truck.  Did he run over his son?  Did someone back over him?
Did an accident befall him and he went somewhere with his son in the truck?

Something is very wrong about the truck.  


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



Lots of self censoring by him as a way of stopping information.  

a.  "Tried" in the past tense,  indicates failure.  

b.  Praise of authorities. 

This is something that is not expected at this time.  

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

When do we find praise of "authorities"?

1.  We find that authorities are praised by the innocent when the child is found safe.

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

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

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

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

The father may have been treated well, but because at the time of this statement, his son had not been found, the praise is not expected.  

This appears as a way of attempting to ingratiate himself with law enforcement which would, psychology, make it harder for them to arrest him, (as to his thinking) and paints him as one of the "good guys."

*This is indicative of an accident more than an initial criminal act.  

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

I wrote:  The praise of unsuccessful searching is concerning.  
Update:  I am willing to move from "concerning" to to an attempt to ingratiate himself as part of the "good guys" by someone who is withholding information about his son's disappearance.  

Next:  

How will the father relate to his son?

We will listen carefully on what names, pronouns, etc, he uses.  We will listen carefully to see if his son is described in a 

a.  positive light  (expected) 

b.  negative light (guilty parents will find a subtle way to blame the victim)

c.  deified, or "angelic" manner.  This is sometimes done, romanticizing about a child which is more associated with death, where the parent loses the reality that exists in all of us, as the imperfections are forgotten, and the deceased is now deified in language.  When a child is missing, we do not want to hear the child blamed, nor defied.  


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

a.  That he is "pretty small" is not a negative, as it is 'rebutted' by the word "but", in describing how well he moves.  

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

c.  He uses the past tense "was"

Taking the distancing language of "that" and the past tense "was", it suggest that this is not his concern, any longer. 

This is a signal that investigators should consider:  does he know his son is dead?

About the "movement":  this is another indication of an accident that may have happened to the child.  

d.  Next note that this is not his concern but "our" concern.  This is to share concern and is something indicative of guilt:  the need to share a concern that no longer operates in the present tense.  

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

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

If so, (kidnapping), the past tense use here is appropriately consistent.  Since he has given no indication that his son is kidnapped, the past tense is a signal that he knows his son is dead.  

Thus far, there is nothing within the language to indicate child abuse on the part of the parents.  This does not mean guilt or innocence, but of how they relate to their son indicates quality of relationship.  We have a signal of death and a focus from the father upon himself. 

He, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean I thought it would be perfect to go camping there because it's enclosed by walls and mountains, and there's not much space around there he could go, and our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

This also speaks to an accident.  
The need to explain the location is sensitive and this may be the words that are consistent with very responsible parents.   It may be that he blames himself for choosing this location, therefore, he feels the need to explain (justify) its choosing:  enclosed by walls and mountains (positive) and not much space (negative; what there isn't).

He knew he was in trouble, but the concern is "our" and not, "my" concern. 

Note that context of the concern is the creek, and he is specific about it, its depth and its depth in relation to his son's size.  

Thus far, he has not used his son's name, only using "he", but here he is a "little guy", which is consistent with being small for his age, and the concern about the water.  Even if he was not a victim of child abuse, we may hear distancing language due to psychological weight of guilt of having allowed an accident to happen via negligence.  



 Um, they finally, yesterday, we were able to put that to rest and have HC Sheriff Dave and the rest of the sheriffs have put out that there is, they assured me, there is 100% chance that he is not anywhere in that water, around that water. They have torn that creek upside down and in and out. The divers have gone through with wetsuits, along with the helicopter - that was the world's most advanced search and rescue helicopter, volunteered out of Montana, and those guys were just amazing, the accuracy they had with the night vision ability it has and the heat range it can see,, they were - . The one guy, I can't remember his name, um, I've met so many people, so many good people, but he was - his own safety, he was, he was more or less,, he was strapped in, he was on the side of that helicopter, looking, and I - he was looking down. I remember them telling me they asked search and rescue to look over, because there was an orange insect repellant can, they think by the bank, and they were dead on, that's what it was, how accurate these guys are.

Note how many wonderful things he says about those who failed to find his son. 
Now note how no words have been used to show concern for his son.  

Follow the pronouns:  When he says "they", he immediately stops himself and says "we", connecting himself to authorities.  He has a need to be part of the good guys.  I think this supports the theory of unintended death.  

The praise of authorities in an unsuccessful search is not expected unless he knows the child is dead. 

Innocent parents who believe their son is out there and must be found, do not generally praise searchers for failure, and certainly not to this extent. 

It becomes even stranger when considering he has not talked about the needs of his son, or what his son might be going through. 

We also note the word "dead" again in his language.  

This is not something we expect a parent of a missing child to say.  He has now used it twice.  If we are listening, we should consider that this father may not be showing concern for his son because he knows his son has no more needs, and he, the father, "had" (past tense) concerns, but does not need to concern himself with things now.  

We have not heard him use his son's name.  This is not expected. 

J: They thought it was, it might have been, a part of a shoe, or something, but they said, go check that out.

The mother has said very little.  The father controls both the interviewer and the mother's language, by interrupting her and speaking lengthy sentences.  

D: These guys search miles, so the miles radius they have - it's very rocky terrain, it's very open, it's not -.the helicopter they used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot worse situations than this, and there was not a trace of my son found - there still isn't but the search is on, that's - the hearsay of things has kind of gotten way out of hand, the search is so far as it's been put on, that it's been suspended, and that is not entirely sure or true. Sheriff Dave of Lhema HC, I just spoke with him on the phone this morning - he has got horseback riders and trackers up there right now, and very advanced professionals. I'll be going up, and I've just come down to get any resources I can get to go back, right on back up today. Um, what questions do you guys have?
Please note that here he uses a lot of words, and none of them use his son's name, and none of these words express concern for his son's daily or even hourly survival. 

He continues to rave about the efficiency and adds horseback riders to the helicopter and use of technology, further giving linguistic indication of why has was "amazed", that is, to praise authorities.  This is even more shocking when one considers that they all failed to find his son.  

Please note that guilty parents often seek to exercise control over the flow of information.  This sometimes shows itself in the strong tangent of "running with the ball" and going on and on about the searchers, their equipment and their dedication...while failing.

This is to be compared with the words used about his son:  nothing.  

Ask yourself what you would say in this precise setting.  

Would you spend your time talking about equipment that failed searchers use?  Or would you call out to your son's kidnappers, or openly wonder, "is he being fed?  does he have his blankie?  is he cold? is he crying?"

A father of a toddler who takes responsibility for his son would be all but pulling his own hair out in anxiety, wondering about every little detail of his son's moment by moment existence.  

Something got "out of hand" with DeOrr and he did something his father did not expect him to.  

Interviewer: Tell us a little bit about, first of all, how are you guys holding up? I know everybody, a lot of people, are praying for you all.

This question angered me as it played right into the  father's babbling about equipment and searchers and helicopters and so on...and it allowed him to continue to control.

The interviewer should have said:

"People are suspicious of you and that something may have happened.  What do you say to this?"

It is the 800lb gorilla in the living room and the interviewer is clueless.  

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


Jessica:. Pretty...the support around us is what's, I know, keeping us together because if we didn't have all of our family - the minute I called my mom, and she was up there in a matter of hours and the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us.


What about your son?

D: Luckily, we - a few phone calls Is all it took at first, and we had, as Sheriff David said in the news, a hundred and seventy five plus people up there in the grid searches, volunteers, uh, professionals, and anybody I called. The service up there is very hearsay - here, there - it's camping, you know. Um, we're trying to hold up the best we can, but with - we have hope, is the thing. Hope is what keeps it going because the search is not over, the search is not done. We will find him, no matter what.


  He continues to be impressed with the search, and here gives the large number in the turn out.  He did not talk about himself, but name dropped.  This is concerning. 

For a father who said he was "in trouble" and who has controlled the interview, the expected is:  "I will find you, son" with "I" and his son addressed.  The "we" is very weak.  It shows his need to be part of a law abiding team.  


I: You were in the truck so you were the first to realize, ' Oh, no, DeOrr is not here.'


leading question....

D: No, we both did, I -


This is to avoid personal responsibility  which is something we expect biological parents to do; even when seated together.  

The switch from "you" to "no , we" is a rebuttal, but "no, we both..." has an even stronger need to share.  

This is more consistent with guilt than innocence.  

J: We both did.


Recall "we decided" is something that indicates a delay, a possible debate or discussion and the joint sharing of responsibility.  This is a sensitive point to them both.  

This is to now bring the mother into the guilty knowledge classification as she joins herself to him, and was part of a debate over 911.  This means that she had to know that the father had a reason to not want to call 911, and she is in agreement with him.  


D: After twenty minutes of up and down the creek and up and around the camp, and he wasn't there, that's when I got in my pick up truck and drove down the road to try and get some service.



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


The father goes right back to the truck again.  This is very sensitive to him. 

The nicknames are not given here, which affirms my original analysis that the chill was not a victim of chronic abuse.  When nicknames are used, as if on display, it is a bad signal.  

This further affirms that an unintended death occurred:  something happened that the father did not mean to happen, but both parents considered the consequences and conspired to not report things.  I do not know how much the mother knows, but it is enough to know:

if your son was missing and someone tried to get you to NOT call 911, you would know something was wrong.  

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


He has not used his son's name for himself.  This is distancing language that has been consistent throughout.    

This is a positive and actually not an insult as he both praises his ability to move, and recognizes that he doesn't drift too far from his parents.  The repetition is sensitive:  did the child move in a way that the father did not expect?  In the water?  Behind the truck?  

J: Yes, he's very attached to us.

I like this better than "we are very close" not because the closeness can be a two-way street (it is) but because the father was talking about the son's mobility in relation to not going a certain way.  Some toddlers will bolt.  If this came in a different context, it might be more concerning, but here, it may be due to physical proximity more than emotional.  Emotional attachment in an open statement is often an indication of a poor relationship.  

I: So this is unusual.

D: Very unusual, sir.



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

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


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


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


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


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


J: We've-


Off camera [inaudible] - we 

need to talk about -

J: One thing that concerned me -


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


J: Yeah.


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



He has not used his son's name, but has used the pronoun "son";

He has used many words to praise the failed searchers, and here he is expending energy defending his boss and company, while not saying, thus far, a single word about his son.  

Please help "us" is a good time for him to say what his son might be going through.  

He does not.  


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



As in all missing child cases, it is better to ask, directly, about their own involvement, to let them issue a denial.  What is this he asks?  Is this something they discussed off camera first?  Perhaps. 

 It is difficult to imagine a worse interview.  


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


This bothers me.  Here is why:

1.  "gentleman":  do we really think a lady at a store used the word "gentleman" in this setting?  This is to make a positive point about the man in the story.  
2.  "our" description?  Why the need to share description?
3.  "our" son is not the language of biological parents --unless they are in trouble and have openly talked about splitting up and sharing custody.  


Jessica: he drives a black truck.

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


What is missing here?

The allegation is a "gentleman" and a boy.  He does not mention that DeOrr was with him but it is the time period that he focuses upon.  

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

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


Jessica: yeah..

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

it's "a lot of hearsay" rather than "it was wrong"; 

The polygraph would have to be properly conducted and should get conclusive results if it focuses upon the father's own words.  

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

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


The father's habit of speech is to speak rapidly and lots of self censoring.  We note that this does not seem to change or shift much, from topic to topic.  

This appears to refer to something unintentional occurring.  


D: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far either..so's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.
Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...

D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

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

I continue to expect that he would say "I" as he is the father, and this is an up close and very personal situation.  

J: ten minutes

D: fifty yards away and ten minutes, but for time, we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone and I come back up to the creek and I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love, so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa, um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr? He, immediately shock. He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found. That's the reason why they, this been called on the news a suspension, because it is not a suspension, but there's not s single trace of him. This child loses stuff. He's two, almost three, anybody who has a child that age range knows, they leave trails, they lose stuff..

Here the name is used, but not towards or about his son, but in a quote of what was said to someone else.  

Note the references to "child" again.  

The confused pronouns suggests deception.  

Note the change now:  he is missing and the father changes to present tense with "I come back up..." which is followed by "so when I come back to get him..." which then changes again, with the yelling to the grandfather.  

This is very likely to prove to be deceptive and stemming from his imagination of a scenario rather than what happened.  He has literally imagined the time frame of when his son "would have" been "gone", and what he "would do" at this time, with a pleasant story about seeing minnows.  This portrays him in a positive role, which, the need itself, tells us otherwise.  

The constant use of child shows awareness of risk.  

Even if the death was unintended, did it come from parental negligence? Is he signaling this by his repetition of "child."

J: shoes come off..anything

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

As a biological parent, we expect him to speak of hope for himself.  He does not.  Here is someone who doesn't mind saying, while his son is missing, that he does not even know what day it is, but when it relates to his son, it is "we" and "us" and "our."  It is an unnatural refuse to pull close to his son.  

This is distancing language and is related to the "chance" that his son is still "alive." 


Interviewer: is that what your gut tells you?

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



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

This is to join himself with all of police, officials, rescue, etc...the good guys.  He and they are one.  He and they think alike.  He cannot be on the suspicious list, he is one of them.  


There is linguistic indication that the parents had some form of argument when they first discussed the child being missing and it was directly related to some delay in calling 911.  

The father does most of the talking, while the mother does less.  The mother does not give signals of deception, but in context, this is a small sample, compared to the father.

The father's use of "my son" precludes child abuse particularly because it comes during the time of the child missing.  What does this tell us?

If the father has done anything to the child, it was not intentional.  The same could be said if the grandfather or someone else did something by accident; was not watching him when he fell into water, and so on. 

The child is not likely a victim of ongoing child abuse but of an unintended death likely from negligence.   

This means an unintended event. 

The father's intense focus upon the rescue operation is in stark contrast to his silence about what his son would be experiencing.  

The self-censoring and change of pronoun is duly noted, especially for topics.  

We also have the word "dead" used twice; which in context, is most unexpected and unsettling and should be considered as possible leakage.  

The father and mother both express confidence in the search and plead for it to not end. This may be due to the professionals they encountered and not realistic hope since they have said nothing about DeOrr.  

Question:  What do you make of no reliable denial?

Answer:    There is no context for it.  This is the fault of the interviewer, but even so, the parents could have issued it when they talked of "hearsay", including the sighting of a "gentleman" in a truck that was a "problem."



The father showed how he controls the interviewer (not the interview) by turning the tables with asking if media had questions for him.  Was the interviewer unprepared?  Did he miss all the indications of sensitivity including the delay in calling for assistance?  
Did he not want to ask about calling "Search and Rescue"?

We let the subject "control the interview", but not us.  By the  we mean that we let the subject talk on and on, but not at the expense of noting his sensitivity and missing grand opportunities for information. 

We let them speak on and on (a good point) but we ask the relevant questions and do not let ourselves be 'de railed' in the way he was. (the major failure, thus far, in the interview). 

Thus far, the Interviewer has not gone to this point, which is critical and should be central for the Interviewer:  clear the parents, especially the father, and then move in the same extending circles in the interview, as law enforcement does in its investigation, and as search and rescue does in its own action.  It is the most natural and sensible manner.  

The Interviewer fails to raise suspicion nor does he ask outright: "Have you taken a polygraph?" 

"What would you say to people who suspect you might have had an accident and hidden your son?"in any form. 


Lastly, the father' extreme need to place himself in the truck:  

What caused this sensitivity?


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

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

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

Please note that he says, "as a father who's very concerned" is a need to persuade his audience that his is concerned.  This is sensitive. 


What makes him feel a need to be perceived as a "very concerned" father, so much so, that he is repetitive with it?


Speaking for himself and for his wife, seated with him, the word "we" is appropriate.  While using "we" as a norm, based upon this standard, the use of "I" becomes very important.  

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

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


I've been trying,,,I'm gonna be getting with the Lhima HC Sherriff in Snake River, sorry, the Salmon - Snake and River-.Salmon Search and Rescue, to see what their thoughts on everything is, and trust me with such a small area, one hundred and seventy five people, there was nowhere to park, nowhere to walk, there was grid searches up from one end - there's ridges from one side to the other and they're not very far apart, and they was all searched, all the way down to the bottom all the way above the reservoir. The rest itself, not a lot of people know the place. The reservoir itself isn't but maybe a few feet deep. If you're up on top you can see the bottom of the centre. If you're looking at the middle you can see the bottom of it, so everything has been 100% thoroughly checked but nobody can guarantee me 100% so I'm gonna keep looking.

In Statement Analysis, we highlight the word "sorry" no matter what the context is, when we are viewing a possible suspect in a crime.  

It could be "leakage" regardless of context. 

It shows up in the language of the guilty. 
Note the volume of words dedicated to the searchers and compare it to the utter absence of words about his son. 

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

Jessica: he drives a black truck.

Not, "my husband drives a black truck" or plainly, "DeOrre drives a black truck..." but "he."

It is not a 'smoking gun' of evidence, but  another element that adds up to a conclusion   

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


Note the immediate "rebuttal" of sorts:

1.  He drives a black pick up truck" answered with:
2.  Not, "yes I do" but "as a family" (plural) "we went down" and then why "we went down" giving the reason why they went down, followed by:
3.  Admission, "It was me"followed by rebuttal:
4.  "but" and to the time period. 

This is not to deny going but to classify it within time, but before time, company.  

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

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


Jessica: yeah..

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


This statement is very concerning.  

a.  "we didn't" is stopped. 
b.  "we never" is stopped.
c.  "haven't left" is a dropped pronoun, removing himself from this.  

d.  Note the need to dismiss as "hearsay"

This should have caused the Interviewer to ask him if he had driven with his son, alone, at any time in the day.  Sometimes time frames can be mix ups, but it is the responsibility of the Interviewer to ask.  


The poor quality of the interview leaves not only the father in control of information, but leaves the reader with more questions than answers.  It is very poorly done.  

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

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


  We note the self censoring coupled with broken pronouns.  It is concerning.  

"I come to hear" is present tense. 

Note the change from "we" to "I" being very important to him:  it is about the area.  It is likely, according to the language, that he is very sensitive about having chosen this spot for his family to camp.  


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


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

D: he was playing with grandpa

J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather

The parents relate to him differently.  "Grandpa" is a word a child might use, while "my" shows the biological being more likely.  "Grandpa" often a term of endearment, suggests that the father does not have, at this point, animosity (blame) towards Grandpa.  I wonder if Jessica felt the same.  



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



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


The use of the word child could:

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

it is associated with child abuse, but it is in the follow up questions that we learn the details, should the context not tell us. 

I: and you want people to keep sharing?


The interviewer's own inexperience, or nervousness could be the reason for this.  It is difficult to learn and often helpful to have video taped sessions reviewed, something very few enjoy, but most all say helps them grow in their use of the principles of analytical interviewing.  

J: yes, please keep sharing photos.


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


I: tell me about the blanket.


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

D: All three has to be with him.


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

J: Yes.


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


I would have liked to hear the child's name.  If this is an accident/cover up, the guilt can cause such distancing language.  

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


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


J: Yeah, and I..


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


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

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


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


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


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


Mother introduces "hurt" which causes us to wonder if the unintended death (truck, water, falling, etc) caused hurt. 


D: No matter what it takes.

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

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

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

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

Analysis Conclusion:

The father referenced concern over his son relegating it to the past, meaning he no longer has concern.  This is a past tense reference of a missing child which is often a linguistic signal of knowing the child is dead.  

                           Does the rest of the analysis affirm or deny this?

*The father used distancing language regarding his son, avoiding his name.
*The father showed no concern, whatsoever, as to what his son was experiencing at the time of the interview.  Nothing is said about his son's food, shelter, health, sleep, and so on.  This is to affirm his death. 
*The father lavishes heavy praise upon searchers and recuse who failed to find his son.  This is done only after innocent parents have accepted their child's death, or by guilty parents wishing to psychologically allign themselves with those who are law keepers. 

The father also had a need to run the interview's topic away from his son. 
The father had a need to seek sympathy, not for his son, but for himself. 
The father had a need to persuade his audience that in an emergency, he acted like someone in an emergency.  This need tells us that he did not act like he was in an emergency because he knew no emergency for his son existed. 

The father used the word "dead" twice. 

The father stated that he, himself "was in trouble."

The father used the word "risk" in linguistic context of calling 911. 

The father debated the mother about calling 911.  

This child is deceased and the father knows it, which is why he does not have any present tense concerns for his son, and dedicates no wording to any possible concern a father would have for a toddler. 

There is great sensitivity about the truck, which is problematic for the father. 

At the time of this interview, the father is withholding information about what happened to his son, revealing that his son is dead, and suppressing information.  

In my first analysis, I covered all of these concerns, but only with "maybe" and "possibly" but while considering the overall written context, there are too many "maybe's" and far too many "possibly" points that come together to bring me, as analyst, to a conclusion: 

The father has guilty knowledge over his son's disappearance, signaling to us that the son is dead. 

The mother has gone along with the father's lead. 

The father controlled the interview and the interviewer allowed him to, and avoided brining the father to the point of critical information.  

The poor quality of the interview, notwithstanding, this father knows what happened to his son, and is covering up.  

224 comments:

1 – 200 of 224   Newer›   Newest»
The Sheep said...

Yep

lynda said...

Thank you Peter for readdressing this interview. With the news coming out today that the PI that was hired by the family has quit because of "disagreements" and the Sheriff revealing that the FBI has told him that some things given to them by him cannot be analyzed, I'm hoping your timely update will keep this poor boy in the news. I was pleased when the Sheriff, in reference to the FBI telling him they can't analyze certain items, "didn't even know what that meant" because neither do any of us! What does that mean? Can't be analyzed? Plus the feebs haven't even given him a behavioral analysis either. I'm thinking that the FBI also knows that DJ is dead so there is no "hurry" to analyze or get back with the Sheriff.

My theory has been that the parents either put him down for a nap in the truck, with his blankie, cup and whatever, windows rolled up, and they were gone for a LONG time, perhaps using drugs, and Deorr Jr. died from hyperthermia, oR dad backed over him with the truck and he was killed.

I am glad you made definite discernments/judgments regarding the father and the mother also knowing and going along. Sadly, I believe you are right on. How is this poor baby ever going to get justice? These parents are disgusting...they do not speak to media but will sit pretty for a documentary that will be on TV regarding their missing boy.

I am praying that the FBI reads your blog Peter or has already contacted you for analyzation of things we may not know about yet. I can almost guarantee you tho that the rabid, vulgar family and friends of J & D are out in full force after having read your analysis.

Excellent analysis and dedution as usual

btw, I agree with the interviewer being a schmuck. My 10 yr old grandson could have done better than that person.

Anonymous said...

Sooooooo, you're thinkin' perhaps gramps started up the truck and maybe snared the Little Man with the bumper leaving some hairs in the molding? Is that correct?

Or, men lend their little ears to gossip and their big mouths to TV personalities and FBI agents/

ustupid said...

Completely disagree. They were drained and emotionally exhausted. They were simply trying to explain what they remembered so the audience could understand. They are HUMAN. They can feel tired and unsure what day it is even if their son is gone. They are not professional at losing a child. How would you act? How does this analysis serve any purpose at all but to compose more unneeded negative attention? Help find him or dont post...

Anonymous said...

If the PI is gone does that mean the $10k bribe er, reward is gone too?

Anonymous said...

I love it when people try to bash the SA, but their words betray them!

Anonymous said...

One word Deorr keeps using incorrectly is "aspect". I would live to know what his internal definition of it means.

PiscesDreamer said...

A phrase that stuck out to me was, "...put that to rest..."

Did the father put little D "to rest" somewhere?

I'm not convinced the mom knows about the accident or cover up... She calls out to a kidnapper, begging for her son to be returned, dropped off, anything... But the dad interrupts her, to say it may not be the case that he is with someone else -- because HE knows his son is not with a kidnapper.

lynda said...

Pisces..I picked up on that "put that to rest" also. Peter is correct, the mother knows, she just doesn't WANt to know. I think she is devastated that DJ is dead and easily manipulated by Dad. She also knows that having a child die in her custody from negligence would NOT increase her chances of EVER getting her other 2 children back.

Anon @ 1:37 am

Grandpa didn't accidentally kill DJ, Dad did. If it had been grandpa, this baby would have been "put to rest" in the appropriate way.

Peter Hyatt said...

PiscesDreamer said...
A phrase that stuck out to me was, "...put that to rest..."

Did the father put little D "to rest" somewhere?

I'm not convinced the mom knows about the accident or cover up... She calls out to a kidnapper, begging for her son to be returned, dropped off, anything... But the dad interrupts her, to say it may not be the case that he is with someone else -- because HE knows his son is not with a kidnapper.
October 18, 2015 at 3:31 AM


Very good.

Peter Hyatt said...

ustupid said...
Completely disagree. They were drained and emotionally exhausted. They were simply trying to explain what they remembered so the audience could understand. They are HUMAN. They can feel tired and unsure what day it is even if their son is gone. They are not professional at losing a child. How would you act? How does this analysis serve any purpose at all but to compose more unneeded negative attention? Help find him or dont post...
October 18, 2015 at 1:57 AM



The exhaustion, both physical and emotional, increases the accuracy as they are less likely to guard their words, similar to "en vino veritas" vein.

How this helps?

It puts the focus upon the father, where it belongs. If you wish to find the child, get the information from the father. Construct the interview based solely and fairly on his chosen words.

Then, construct the polygraph as a short exam, also using only his words.

I do not think this was pre meditated, nor do I think the child was a victim of ongoing child abuse.

A tragedy happened and the parents debated and came together to cover the truth, fearing for their own lives.

Peter

Anonymous said...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/10/sheriff-fbi-unable-to-analyze-some-evidence-in-deorr-kunz-case/

MzOpinion8d said...

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

"At a store where somebody else will see him" really jumped out at me for the first time, even though I have read this interview more than ten times.

He supposedly WAS at a store where he was "seen by somebody else" but J & D dismiss it, saying it's "a problem".

John mcgowan said...

SHERIFF: FBI UNABLE TO ANALYZE SOME EVIDENCE IN DEORR KUNZ CASE

SALMON – The Lemhi County sheriff says the FBI is unable to analyze some evidence in the case of a missing Idaho Falls toddler.

DeOrr Kunz Jr. disappeared July 10 while on a camping trip with his family at Timber Creek Campground in Leadore. The Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office has been investigating the case since the beginning and, in August, Sheriff Lynn Bowerman told EastIdahoNews.com that polygraph test results and other evidence were turned over the FBI.

“The FBI informed us that they could not analyze some evidence that we gave them,” Bowerman wrote in an email to EastIdahoNews.com Friday. “I’m not sure what that’s about, and they still haven’t provided me any behavioral analysis.”

Bowerman says the search for the 2-year-old continues and his department plans to use the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Polly Klaas Foundation to help with the investigation.

Nearly a dozen billboards and digital readers featuring DeOrr have gone up across Idaho this week, and his family says they continue to share and post flyers featuring DeOrr’s image.

Meanwhile, a private investigator working with DeOrr’s parents, Jessica Mitchell and DeOrr Kunz Sr., tells EastIdahoNews.com he has severed ties with the family over “disagreements.”

Bowerman says those on the camping trip — DeOrr’s parents, great-grandfather Robert Walton and family friend Isaac Reinwand — have been cooperative from the beginning.

Next week, Bowerman says, he will be traveling to Idaho Falls to meet with Bonneville County detectives to determine the next steps to take in the case.


http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/10/sheriff-fbi-unable-to-analyze-some-evidence-in-deorr-kunz-case/

Anonymous said...

Jessica, even more than Dad, never tells us she searched- he at least tries to but can't finish the sentence. In the 911 call, she calls him my son but says "we" can't find him. She says all are down at the campsite- not that they are searching. In the interview, she says family came to support:
Jessica:. Pretty...the support around us is what's, I know, keeping us together because if we didn't have all of our family - the minute I called my mom, and she was up there in a matter of hours and the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us.


No mention of *helping* to search.

Also, if we can spot that the discovery that Deorr is missing is not from experiential memory based on linguistic clues, surely she could from content. Based on that, I don't see how this accident and cover up could have happened without her knowledge.

LisaB said...

Also, the word "hearsay" which I think he is using to mean gossip and rumors.
I think the word "replica" (of a security blanket) means something like "epitome", since this is not a copy, duplicate, or spare, but 'his actual blanket". Saying it is a replica of "a" security blanket means they are comparing it to something more generic; the blanket that they show is his, and it is "just like" a (stereotypical) security blanket, in that he keeps it with him.
When the father says:
"I come to find, I didn't know the area, and I didn't know, I ..there, it's very open but you can't see much ...there's a road that goes up and along the top - we're camped underneath the reservoir, basically right below it, and you can go up above the reservoir, and I didn't even know the road was, did that, I didn't know the road was up there, and as I travelled up there myself, I could've found out [?] I could see everything that was going on at the campsite, but you can't see out - you can't see up, you can't see round and if anyone comes to the bottom of your camp ground you can't even see they are...", I think the phrase before the [?] is "come to find out". Earlier in the same excerpt, he uses a similar phrase "I come to find".

Grammy Doodle said...

As I was reading this analysis, I wrote down some thoughts. Peter tells us that the subject will tell us the truth if we listen to what he says.
At the beginning, DeOrr, the father, says "At 2:26 when I--" then breaks off. Something happened at 2:26. At 2:36 Jessica calls someone (was it 911? search & rescue? her mom?) and DeOrr is in his truck.
Between 2:26 and 2:36 is missing time and information. Consider the possibility that Jessica's statement that it was 2:36 when she called is a true statement about what she did, but not a "correction" of his perception of time. Later, when addressing how long they were gone Jessica says "ten minutes" and DeOrr says "50 yards" Something took place in that ten minutes. Perhaps the discussion of how to handle what had happened.
This part of the interview is the most problematic: I will add my thoughts in parenthesis
D: he was playing with grandpa (This is a strong statement)
J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather (This is a strong statement)
D:.he was over, (over what? this is incomplete) he was getting ready for a nap, (not that he as taking a nap - and do we assume he means Little DeOrr?) uh say it was almost, by that time it was almost two, (Time statement strong "It was almost two) I and he usually takes his nap,(He usually takes a nap - what happened when it was almost two?) um...we was just, yeah, we decided we were going to go a little exploring, and he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire, we weren't more than fifty..
J: ten minutes (strong statement - a ten minute timeframe)
D: fifty yards away and ten minutes, but for time, we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone ...
(i'm stopping it here because this statement "but for time, we, I seen him to the point I figured out he was gone" This statement does not make sense in the context of the story. If they "seen him" how could he be not seen?, that is, missing? How could you see someone and know they were gone? )
From piecing together other time clues (that they searched for 20 minutes before

Anonymous said...

In the first paragraph it's *skate and donate on the eyes have it.

Grammy Doodle said...

Jessica made the call, I think they left little DeOrr playing with Grandpa around two o'clock and soon thereafter (within ten minutes?) realized he was missing and started searching and found him unresponsive and at 2:26 DeOrr senior realized "he was gone" and the discussion followed about what to do about it . At 2:36 Jessica calls and DeOrr, senior is in his truck.

These are just a few thoughts from trying to glean out the statements that are reliable.

LisaB said...

It was "almost 2" when they left to explore, and claim to have been gone for "about 10 minutes" before returning to the campsite and inquiring as to their son's whereabouts.
Now, they are not clear as to what they mean by "almost" 2 o'clock which they specified was DeOrr's nap time, but to me it implies that it was within five or ten minutes of 2 o'clock when they left. If it was more than 10 minutes until naptime, and they only intended to spend about 10 minutes exploring, logically I would have expected them to take Dr along. Not only so that they could show him the things that they discovered, but also to wear him out prior to his nap.
It is possible that when they said it was almost 2 o'clock (or almost DeOrr's nap time), that it was really closer to 1:30. If so, that makes it even more suspicious that they did not include him in their exploration, as there was still plenty of time, and more suggestive of them leaving the immediate campsite area to do something they could only do privately, whether that involved alcohol/drugs, or sexual activity of some sort.
If it was closer to 2, I would have expected them to wait until DeOrr went to take his nap (if they wanted to do something that did not include him), before they went to do whatever it was they went to do.
Regardless, if they left for their walk just a few minutes before 2, and were gone only about 10 minutes, they should have returned to the campsite a few minutes after 2. They have claimed to have searched for anywhere from 20 minutes to 1 hour before agreeing to call 911. That call was placed at 2:36, which seems to be cutting the timeline very tight.
I also think that the father is concerned that, due to visibility of the camp site from an area above their campsite, of which he was previously unaware, whatever occurred may have been seen by someone else. As time passes and nobody comes forward, his concern level about this should decline. I noticed that he seemed more worried about what somebody might have seen from above, as opposed to being hopeful that someone had observed the abduction. He seemingly wants us to believe that he is concerned that they were being watched, or stalked, by a potential kidnapper from that vantage point.

Anonymous said...

For just as the body without the spirit is dead James 2:26

and they may come to their senses and escape 2 Timothy 2:26

Anonymous said...

Not only does she never say they searched, nowhere in the 911 call does Jessica actually ask for help. Also, there are awkward pauses when she should be answering more quickly than she does; I question if she is consulting someone else about how to answer.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if it's the bloody axe and coveralls that they can't test?

elf said...

The father kept saying they didn't leave the campsite after 1 but he did. He had to 'haul' in his truck up the road to get a better phone signal.

elf said...

The calls to 911 were made after 2:30.

MzOpinion8d said...

Another consideration about the times, is that the recording of the 911 call indicates it was 2:28 pm when the call came in.

Anon at 12:40, I think the pauses are due to the poor connection of the phone and neither Jessica nor the 911 operator are able to hear each other clearly. The 911 operator never seemed to understand DeOrr's name.

Unknown said...

Bash the SA? What is SA

Jane said...

At different parts of the statement, I became convinced that the boy had drowned while under the supervision of his grandfather or had been run over by the truck driven by his father. Any thoughts on which scenario is more likely?

Anonymous said...

During all of the statements I wondered why they thought Lil Man was gone any where when it was NAP TIME!@

Anonymous said...

"What is SA?"

Scroll to the top of the page. See the two words in blue? See the first letter of each?

Anonymous said...

Just for fun I'm going to speculate that the father ran over his son with the truck and killed him instantly in such a way that calling paramedics would have been obviously unnecessary, e.g. ran over his head and crushed it.

This of course would have left behind physical evidence of various kinds, but I'm just putting this out here to see if it pans out in the end.

Anonymous said...

IMO, none of these scenarios are likely. How simple it would be to report the childs' death as an accident if that had been the case!

A little common sense is needed here: Why would you hide an accident if that's what happened? You wouldn't! Why bring the finger of suspicion down on yourself, subjecting yourself to a lifetime of questioning and doubts (AND possible prosecution!) when all you have to do is report the fricken accident! Far be it better to let the chips fall where they may than to keep up the lyin' crap while your child lies smoldering under a log and a pile of dead leaves, being knawed at by vermin and wild animals.

I haven't read the entire article so I'm guilty of skipping forward without knowing all the little innuendos, and so on and so forth and all like that; but it is obvious to me that this DeOrr daddy is a crafty little b'stard; certainly crafty enough to define the little babbling creek as one he felt secure with, further painting the picture of his innocence. I can't believe that anyone who would be able to see what a deceitful liar he is would think that anything he says is not subject to more lies and deceit. Duh....

Ditto for his crafty little wife, who most assuredly is capable of speaking up for herself and telling the truth. This little mama in her big girl panties knows exactly what she is doing in helping her man cover up HER child's murder and disposal. She is as guilty as he is. Why would ANYONE in their right mind ever believe a single word that comes out of a liars' mouth, OR a mother who fails to speak up? Can you explain THAT? Simple: Because she's got her reasons! BIG ones.

Wise up folks. It having already determined that there is deception involved and you would give this fella AND pitiful excuse of a mother the benefit of an "accidental death" doubt? There was no damned accident involved here. Stop the excuse building and face it, this child was murdered and both these parents are involved AND guilty.

Anonymous said...

Crafty mama and baby daddy?

Babblin' on like the little bitty creek- without knowing all the little innuendos, and so on and so forth and all like that;

Smoldering under a log?

elf said...

An accident caused by negligence is still a crime.

Anonymous said...

"Why would you hide an accident if that's what happened? You wouldn't!"

You would if the accident involved something illegal, such as drugs.

tania cadogan said...

Two phrases stood out to me.

I was in the truck hauling down to the road
Hauling can be usedto describe speed, as in very fast.
It can also indicate something being carried.
What was his definition of hauling

Next, this caught my eye.
vanished, there's not a trace found. That's the reason why they, this been called on the news a suspension, because it is not a suspension, but there's not s single trace of him.
Given DeOrr was supposed to have been at the campsite, why was there no trace of him?
The expected would be items of clothing, toys, diapers, DNA, Scent, hairs, bodily secretions etc.
All of which would have indicated his presence at the campsite.
If there was No trace, Not a single trace then DeOrr could not have been at the campsite as claimed by the parents.
If this is the case, when was he last seen alive by an independent witness?

It is not only what is there that shouldn't be, there is also what isn't there that should be to be investigated.

Lis said...

This is so sad. They both look soooo sad.

Anonymous said...

Vanished. No Trace. (sounds more like television lingo and perhaps he's watched some as that, and Zombie attacks, are all the rage).

If he accidentally bumped the child he may fear losing his chauffeurs license. No work; no food. No missing child; no shoppers to stalk for the mystery starer man team.

lynda said...

Peter

So you think that mom IS in cahoots as you say " A tragedy happened and the parents debated and came together to cover the truth, fearing for their own lives."

I think mom knows and decided to go along with this because of her other 2 children. If she has a child die thru negligence on her watch, what do you think the odds are that she'd even EVER see her other children again? She already doesn't have custody. I believe this is why mom DID go along with cover up otherwise, I don't know if she would have. I think dad used other 2 kids as leverage to get her to go along.

Anon makes a good point that being run over by truck would leave some evidence which lends credence to my thought they he was locked in truck to take a nap and died from heat stroke. If child would have drowned, the dogs would have hit on the creek but from what I recall, dogs kept coming back to camp. Dying of heat stroke because you were left in a car for any reason is NOT something people accept as an accident. We have seen other parents charged when a child has died because of being left in car. I do not recall any case (let me know if there is) that a parent was charged because their child drowned. While both are negligent, there are more extenuating circumstances that could be attributed to a drowning. NONE when left in a car. Not to mention the fact that that means they were gone alot longer than 10 minutes or they were there, they just didn't "check" on him while he was napping.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes custody is granted based on financial requirements instead of who would provide the best care. Often stay-at-home mothers have no employment after divorce.

Anonymous said...

It has been widely reported that Jessica gave up custody of her other two children due to her drug use.

Anonymous said...

Widely reported and documented proof are two different subjects.

foodiefoodnerd said...

This one jumped out at me because of the two references to "dead" that of all points in the interview he did not correct himself mid-sentence, or even seem to realize he'd said something sensitive.

Also, him saying he had figured that was a safe place to camp specifically because the mountains enclose it? That, you would consider for a runaway-prone 17-year-old, or mentally challenged or mentally ill young adult, not an admittedly undersized toddler!

trustmeigetit said...

This makes so much sense. I too noticed he said "I figured out he was gone" but couldn't figure out what he meant. This would make sense. Of this was when he passed.

I still don't think this was a case where the child was backed over accidentally. Only because to me, this is really an accident.

I think it's more likely he was left in the truck "napping" and forgotten about and he died.

If they had put him in there, to nap....it's likely they would be held responsible.

Vs the "I didn't know he was In the truck" (too young to put himself in the truck or "we forgot he was in the truck".

I also am bothered by the fact they could not deny it was them at the store.

To me if its not, it's simple. "It was not me/us at the store".

Juliet said...

Thinking: I would like to know why Peter is of the opinion that the parents were fearing for their own lives.

foodiefoodnerd said...

I agree with every aspect, Lynda. (it isn't "hearsay" so to speak. :D ).
Speaking of hearsay, I suspect they are misusing that word from their own multiple court experiences.

Anonymous said...

some people don't have time to stand up and publicly deny every thing some ignorant inbred dreams up to accuse them of

Anonymous said...

Let's stop pretending that Jessica has any desire to be a caregiver to her two older children. If she did, she would at least have shared custody. UNLESS she was so unfit a mother due to drugs or otherwise, then she wouldn't have any custody at all. Regardless, she does not have even shared custody of the two oldest kids for a reason, and at the root of that reason is that she has not put her children first. So no, I doubt that threatening Jessica with not seeing her two oldest would phase her; from what I understand, she doesn't see them that often to begin with.

Also I find it interesting that Jessica is apparently mentally and physically sound enough to be caregiver to her elderly grandfather, but not to her own children. That is, if she ever really was her grandfather's caregiver. There have been so many story changes and untruths that I don't even know what to believe anymore.

trustmeigetit said...

Both to me are true accidents that happen. And I don't recall a time when the parents were ever charged in these cases. If it happened and was immediately addressed. It's always an accident.

I think I'm either case they would have rushed him to the hospital calling 911 on the way.

However, dying in a closed vehicle (we know he's sensitive about the truck) could and has many times resulted in charges against the parents.

Just my thoughts.

If this was an accident, I think it's important to think about the type of accident tHat would need covered up.

Anonymous said...

Thinking: I would like to know why you think Peter thinks they were "fearing for their own lives?"

Juliet said...

Anon at 7.21 pm - I was referring to Peter's comment at 9.06am, thus:

'A tragedy happened and the parents debated and came together to cover the truth, fearing for their own lives.'

---

Over many years the state of Ohio has had but a handful of cases in which babies and young children have died of hyperthermia as a result of being left in cars - of those cases, none have been prosecuted. If great-grandpa had been left in charge of DeOrr, and if DeOrr had died of heatstroke, it seems unlikely, going on previous Ohio cases, that any prosecution would have followed. As there was some discussion/decision by the parents round calling emergency services/search and rescue, and as they had phones - well, it would have taken them just a few minutes to work out that charges resulting from death by hyperthermia due to being left in the truck would, going on similar cases, be unlikely.

Ohio also does not have legislation regarding children left unattended in vehicles. Information, news reports, and detailed statistics back to 2003 can be found here:

http://noheatstroke.org

I think it unlikely DeOrr died of heatstroke as surely the parents would have just dialled 911, believing it would be regarded as a tragic accident, which it would have been (with or without attendant negligence). Depending on how much time had elapsed, they might even have held out hope that paramedics might have been able to revive him: also, the cadaver dogs would have alerted, had DeOrr died, and been in the truck for even a short length of time. I don't see how such a death, tragic as it would have been, would cause them to cover-up and dispose of his body (if they did). This is going over old ground, but I think maybe the statistics, the lack of prosecutions, all of which would have been easily accessible to them via their phones from the campsite, might have figured in how to procede, had DeOrr been found to have died in the truck. Especially bearing in mind that they took at least some time to decide what to do, and that grandpa was taking the blame. Why would they not opt for a proper burial, and for the family to know the truth, in such a circumstance? No-one has been prosecuted in Ohio for the death of a child caused by heatstroke in a car. If they were going to the lengths of orchestrating a cover-up, would they not have checked out the statistics, and likelihood of prosecution first? - they are not stupid, and it takes a few minutes. They might have had all night. So, to me, that does not seem likely - it would be a terrible tragedy, but not one they would seek to cover up?





Juliet said...

The previous DeOrr thread was still active up to a few hours ago, by the way - yesterday someone posted the transcript from WS of Sheriff Bowerman's radio interview with Websleuths:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/poll-what-happened-to-deorr.html?commentPage=4

Anonymous said...

Re: Juliet October 18, 2015 at 8:43 PM - Ohio info???? The DeOrr Kunz family lives in the state of Idaho, he went missing in Idaho .... not Ohio. I think you are not in the US and perhaps are confused about this or a typo?

Juliet said...

Doh. :-/ Thanks, Anon at 9.09 - I knew that, I wasn't thinking straight, obviously - right, I will check out stats and info for Idaho. Stupid or careless, or both, idk.

Juliet said...

Okay, sorry for the misinformation - it's the same for Idaho, however, with even fewer deaths of babies/children left in cars - charges were being considered in two cases, one in 2003, but there is no info as to whether any were laid. Similarly, Idaho has no legislation regarding leaving a child unattended in a vehicle. So, I think my post stands, just read Idaho for Ohio, and sorry about the brain malfunction. :-/

Juliet said...

I was thinking Ohio because of little Rainn Peterson, probably, being as much on my mind of late, but at least the outcome for her was good - I wonder what's happening with that investigation, too.

lynda said...

Juliet..you keep saying law in OHIO, did you look up the wrong state or did you mean to write IDAHO?

Foodie...you said,

"Speaking of hearsay, I suspect they are misusing that word from their own multiple court experiences"

That made me spit tea out of my nose! hahaha!


87% of children that die from hyperthermia in cars are 3 years of age and younger. Little ones bodies heat 3-5 times faster than an adult and cracking a window does NOT help slow the heating process or reduce the temp inside of the car. It's a greenhouse effect.

The temperature in Leodore that day was 73 F. A car can heat up to 120 F in 30 minutes. 30 minutes!
It's been awhile but I recall that the initial dogs were search and rescue, not cadaver dogs. The sheriff's dog was one of them. Those dogs hit on the campsite and I believe the truck. I believe the sheriff said that no matter what, they kept coming back to the campsite. So, DJ never left the campsite. He didn't toddle to the creek, or walk up a mountainside. He was at the campsite. I think the dogs hit near the fire pit because that is where dad pulled him out of truck and perhaps laid him down to assess his condition but he was already dead.

Another point, if gramps needed a caregiver himself, you wouldn't leave him to care for a rambunctious 2 year old near water. DJ was put in truck to sleep so as not to be able to wander around cuz mom and dad wanted some alone time. It's even possible that they gave him a dose of benedryl to put him to sleep (something that occurs with great frequency believe it or not by the "best" of parents). I'm starting to lean towards they gave him a dose and perhaps overdosed him and he died? Or if he didn't overdose, he died of hyperthermia and the parents would have to cover it up as not only did they burn the child from the inside out, there are drugs (albeit legal ones) in his body. The public would want their heads on a pike and they would GO TO PRISON. For probably a good while. Reason enough to cover up "accident"

lynda said...

Juliet..I don't think it matters if there is legislation regarding leaving children in the car specifically. If I'm not mistaken, the charge would be negligent homicide or criminally negligent manslaughter. Causing death of another due to negligence no matter how it came about. I don't know what Idaho statutes are in regards to prison terms, probably pretty low in terms of length of sentence but if it is true they covered up and expended all these resources, the state will bang them hard with every charge they can make stick all the way down to filing a false report, not to mention restitution.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Reading along and thinking further about a need to cover up. There definitely would be charges in a death, resulting from excessive "discipline" or a child ingesting drugs.

Anonymous said...

Well, that interview was certainly special...I, I, was so amazed because I, I, didn't realize that the Orange Cow Society were so influential. I, I, just thought, you know, because, I'd seen them traveling close to my bumper that stalking and postal theft were their expertise.

The work they do re-posting links of media stories in the news and online is phenomenal!

Anonymous said...

What is the Orange Cow Society?

Anonymous said...

Filthy, bawling
Nap time!
Put that to rest,
In the truck
A little exploring...
10 minutes, 50 yards, 1 hour...
Immediate shock, dead panic
Decisions, decisions...
Hauling down the road
A few phone calls later
So many good people
And they were dead on

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

These two things stuck out for me.....


"But I've heard everything from my company won't let me come home off the road to look for my son - I WAS THERE THE ENTIRE TIME- and my employer, four hours after my son went missing, has been up there day and night, has not slowed down - um, and that, that one bothered me, and then they just came, they got worse, and they got worse, and they got worse - but that's a handful of bad with a bunch of good. The amount of support is overwhelming, and it's good."

Ok that's the first one.
Why make such an issue of some dumb rumor that your employer wouldnt let you come off the road and look for your son, when obviously everyone knows you were up there....

Unless....
Maybe someone might have seen you somewhere else, where you weren't suppose to be, at a certain time.

Making it sensitive, and a need to explain.
If he was disposing of his sons body, and someone saw him where heading suppose to be?
Or covering his ass just in case, out of guilt.
Maybe he used the EMT bag that they never addressed in the interview to hide his little body.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

And then this......


Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

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


Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: WE DIDN'T, WE NEVER, WE HAVEN'T LEFT THE CAMP since one o clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..


This statement is very concerning.

a. "we didn't" is stopped.
b. "we never" is stopped.
c. "haven't left" is a dropped pronoun, removing himself from this.

d. Note the need to dismiss as "hearsay"

This should have caused the Interviewer to ask him if he had driven with his son, alone, at any time in the day. Sometimes time frames can be mix ups, but it is the responsibility of the Interviewer to ask.


ALL together, he is telling us he in fact did leave the camp afterwards, maybe to make sure the body was properly hidden still, or to dispose of the body if he hadn't already (which is why Bowerman might have been wishing he looked into more compartments of the vehicles in his interview).
Add that with the sensitivity about the truck.

Little Deorr died in the truck, probably as a result of being left in there to sleep, as that was the last place his blanket, cup and monkey were.

Parents went exploring ("C'mon, he will be ok for a few minutes", to go do drugs, have sex, lost track of time....maybe they left the truck door open, maybe Grandpa came along and shut the door not knowing little deorr was in there.

That would explain why GGP might have felt guilty, and let them use him as an excuse as the last person to see him.
Great Grandpa has yet to give an interview, and it may be that he feels so bad (still not his fault, though) and he can't bring himself to lie in front of cameras.
Maybe to the police but not to a news interviewer and the stress is too much.

Same with Isaac.
"What did grandpa tell you?"
He's basically asking whether he can speak on it or not, he doesn't want to say anything unless he is sure great grandpa talked to someone.

Just my thoughts only

Juliet said...

Hmm, they love their child, though, and evidently so does the extended family - so I can't imagine that the consequences of a hot car, or drug ingestion, or drowning would be more important to them, in terms of being held responsible, than having a proper burial for him if he had died in any of those ways, or that they would deny their family closure if an explicable type of accident had befallen him, even if it had involved negligence, or drugs. Hot car, drugs, drowning - tragic 911 accidents, and on grandpa's watch, to boot - so it seems more likely there was no 'ordinary' accident. If there was an accident, it was one they could not explain, could not own to, or face up to with their family. Their family is important to them, and the baby is precious to them all. I think whatever happened was too devastating and traumatic for them to be able to deal with - they could not explain it, so they felt they had no choice but to cover it up. What could be so terrible as to forgo grief and closure, for the ongoing misery of not knowing for the extended family - if that is what is happening?

'He was right there with us'

'You couldn't not see him'

'I watched him till I figured out he was gone'

'Immediately, shock'

“There’s not much to be said other than one small mistake as a parent – leaving him with an adult that turns his head for a minute,” Kunz said. “Please cherish and love each other because it could be changed in just a split second.”

If DeOrr has died, it does not sound as if it was over time in the truck, or of a drugs overdose. It sounds more as if there was a sudden, catastrophic event (leaving their 'world upside down, and vanished') - and it sounds as if at least two people were there (presumably Jessica and DeOrr, though it may have been DeOrr and/or Isaac, and/ or ggrandpa) - and as if somebody did not see little DeOrr, or possibly, they did, and 'the accident' resulted, somehow. I wonder if 'you couldn't not see him' was actually a reproach to whoever had not seen little DeOrr, or to somebody DeOrr suspected actually had seen him, and either acted to cause, or did not act to prevent, whatever happened. Obviously something happened, as little DeOrr has been missing ever since, despite that 'you couldn't not see him'.

DeOrr does not look like the docile, heavy eyed child of parents who drug him for a quiet life. I don't see that, or assume they would be any more likely than anyone else to leave their son sleeping in a locked truck either. I think he is a loved and cared for child who tragically met an uncommon and untimely end, which for reasons unknown, is too difficult for them to own to, or explain. That's if Jessica even knows the details, besides that he is gone.

Also, let us not forget 'the little business', even if we should. It seems we are not going to hear anything about that - curious, unless Isaac enlightens us, in the documentary, or on his Facebook. It's a pity the PI has gone, as he was quite the wrong footer, but It maybe all got a bit too heavy in the end. When all is said and done, if little DeOrr was out there, the parents would be speaking, but they don't - at least not so that anyone can hear them appealing to an abductor.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

I respectfully, disagree.

You don't have to be a heavy eyed drug addict to be an addict, as anyone who knows that has lived with or been around an addict, or even a functioning addict, there are many different drugs that can be done that won't leave one "heavy eyed."

Like crystal meth for instance.

Uppers make people twitchy and alert for long periods of time.
Downers make you heavy eyed.

If the parents were on anything, it would be something like an upper.
This is just my opinion, as in the interview, Deorr doesn't look very tired, exhausted or filled with overwhelming grief. After three days without their precious baby, I would expect to see them completely exhausted. Jessica looks exhausted.
Deorr not so much. Also he is all over the place talking, which is another sign of drug abuse with uppers. Could be this is just his way of talking, but he does an awful good job of going around the whole subject of his sons disappearance not making any sense and just jabbering in circles.

And let's not forget that Jessica has lost custody of two of her children, which must have caused some conflict between her mother and her, for her mother to be so close with her ex. How she lost them or if she gave them up herself is not known to me.

But if she did lose them, that right there would be motive to not bring an accident to light. Losing custody of one's children in this country makes you judged for your parenting skills. If something terrible, even an accident, happened to little deorr on her watch, her ex husband would never let her see them alone again.
That would be a reason for her to go along with deorr Sr if something did happen.

Also as far as the hot car goes....
This just happened not that long ago.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/12/detective-man-accused-in-son-hot-suv-death-wanted-freedom/

If they were afraid of being prosecuted, they would hide it.
A hot car death is not some easy death.
It's exactly like being baked alive in an oven.
The child suffers greatly, and in some instances, has pulled all of their hair out in attempts to free themselves from the unbearable temperatures.
And it can happen in all of 30 minutes to an hour.


So on those counts, I stick with my opinion.
And those are just my opinion.
I'm not saying they didn't love him or don't miss him.
They were probably great parents, as a lot of parents that this happens to are.
But they were negligent. Negligence leads to prosecution. And for some reason grandpa can't speak about it.
The parents have no reason to,bc they know there is no reason to.
No reason to reach out, or beg for an abductor to release him.

He is gone. He is dead. They know it.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Also just to throw this out there...

He is asked to address the rumors going around.

Nate the interviewer knew what rumors there were, that they were being suspected of having involvement in little deorrs disappearance.

I suspect he didn't outright ask them if they had something to do with it due to not wanting to anger the young parents and lose the interview, so he played it safe and let them speak at will about them.

They never addressed the rumors other than about deorrs employers, and I am very sure that they both knew what Nate Eaton was hinting at by rumors.

If they didn't have some involvement, why not just say,
"People have been saying that we the parents are involved, and I just want everyone to know that is not true and we are not involved."

Instead more rambling, leading me to believe that was sensitive as well, and they didn't want to talk about it bc they didn't want to have to be in the uncomfortable position to deny it and lie.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Last one for the night....

This, if you have time, is the story of a father named Paul Wayment, who negligently caused his sons death by leaving him in his pick up while he hunted a mile away...

This is how any father who caused the death of their beloved child by accident would act in my opinion. He committed suicide not long after.


"In the forest, Wayment began to have a bad feeling. He turned and hurried back to the pickup. Even from afar, he could see he was too late. The driver's side door was wide open. The car seat was empty. Gage had gotten out, Gage
had wandered off.

Wayment plunged into a nearby pond, fighting a rising panic. Gage loved the water. That's where he'd go. For sure he's in the pond.

He wasn't, though. The pond was muddy, waist deep. Wayment thrashed about, reaching out, feeling nothing. He clambered out of the water. He raced up and down ridges, shouting Gage's name. He jumped into his pickup, roaring off in search of help. My son is missing, he gasped to the hunters he found. My son is gone.

Rather than duck responsibility, Wayment drowned in it. The first deputy sheriff to arrive found him writhing on the ground, crying and vomiting, his face caked with snot and pond mud. "Just shoot me," Wayment urged when the deputy asked what he could do for him. And minutes later: "I should have never left him in the truck. That is the stupidest thing I've ever done in my life, and I should be skinned and shot for that."

They kept someone by Wayment's side that evening, fearing what he'd do if left alone. Past midnight, a storm blew in as search crews gathered on the mountainside. Temperatures plummeted; the rain turned to sleet, then snow. At 3 a.m., Wayment sat in a search-and-rescue commander's Ford Explorer with two sheriff's detectives. He was calmer now, but no less aware.

"I'm responsible for his death if he is dead," Wayment said. "I'm responsible for his death. I don't think you can put it any other way. . . . I had custody of him. I was supposed to look out for him. He was under my care."


You can read the whole story here.http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2002-Feature-Writing

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Last one for real this time.

Also, no matter how the accident happened, if it happened bc Deorr Sr. wanted Jessica to go explore and leave the toddler in the truck, or if he was backed over, however his death happened, Jessica would hold Deorr Sr responsible. She would be angry.

But if he told her to keep quiet and not say anything bc she might lose her children completely - and scared her into going along with the story and being compliant, if she was afraid she would go along with it.

And she did.
Whenever she tried to talk he took over.
That tells me he was afraid she was going to screw up the story he had made up.
The sharing of the guilt. We both noticed he was missing....
At the same exact time??

And in the last interview she looks angry.
Really angry. The anger of a mother who loved her little boy and can't properly grieve for him, bc of one small mistake by a parent, and now has to visit the campsite pretending to search in order to grieve in any way. The anger of a mother who felt forced into silence maybe, and regretting her decision.

foodiefoodnerd said...

This last paragraph especially sounds spot on!

I wonder if she was misled into this reaction and response, and now she herself knows more of what really happened.

But he's manipulating her now with dire threats of what she'll face for lying initially, including suspicion she caused her son's death.

Both this "father" and DJ come across as very cowardly and weak, like they would think nothing of letting the moms sit in prison wrongly.

John mcgowan said...

"I" (or "we" giving that they where sitting together) "didn't / did not, have any involvement in the disappearance of Doerr"


It's that simple!

Anonymous said...

Is it proven that the little boy was up there at the camp site? Did investigators find his shoe prints, fingerprints,etc?

John mcgowan said...

Were*
DeOrr*

Lol

Juliet said...

JustMyThoughts - I meant that little DeOrr does not look like a child who is drugged so that his parents can have a quiet life - he doesn't appear listless, dopey, puffy-eyed or unwell - quite the opposite, he appears healthy and alert. More though, there is nothing in their language (which I can find) which might point to drugs causing little DeOrr's death. They don't leak 'drugs', they don't say he gets into stuff, he didn't seem himself that day, he didn't want to wake up that morning, etc - there is just the nap which he usually takes around two, and he did not get to take that nap, he just was ready for it.

The news story you posted about the devastated father who had left his child unattended to go hunting only serves to reinforce my view that DeOrr did not die in a hot vehicle. The father's reaction is normal, and in my opinion that is how Jessica and DeOrr would have reacted if they had found DeOrr dead from heatstroke. Expected is to call 911 - it would be a terrible, avoidable accident, yet still an accident, and the fact that they may or may not have been doing drugs would be secondary and immaterial to their child being dead, or appearing dead, but possibly still able to be resuscitated. In the case of fatal or near fatal accidents, parents almost invariably call 911, even if it appears the child is dead. It's instinctive to all parents to call 911 (excepting some parents of abused children, though even those eventually do, for the most part, often when it is too late, and when it's evident injuries were non-accidental - DeOrr, however, is not considered to have been a chronically abused child) so the idea that four adults between them would not dial 911 for death or seeming death from heatstroke, drugs or drowning, is incomprehensible. The parents don't leak 'heatstroke' language - they don't say he was hot and bothered, sweaty or tired, it was a very hot day, we just put him down for a nap and he vanished - none of that is there.

The custody issue - we only know what social media tells us, and then we choose whose version we believe most. Personally, that would be that Jessica agreed that the siblings best interests were in remaining with their father, who had been their primary caretaker, anyway, on account of Jessica having drug issues in their earliest years. Besides, is there really much to choose between death through drugs, heatstroke, drowning or a two year old just 'vanishing' whilst in the company of four adults? I don't find there is - at least I would not be in a great hurry to allow sole/unsupervised access to the siblings of a child whose parents cannot give an account of just how their baby disappeared. It's not easy to lose a child 'in such a small area', especially when 'you couldn't not see him'. This thought likely passed through the parents' mind, as they were deciding what to do, and whatever the truth, it seems not simple or straightforward enough to be death through negligence. I hear DeOrr saying 'he was right there with us' - which is to say that he was not asleep in the truck; he does not say 'I left him napping/playing in the truck for a few minutes while I was unloading the camping gear, and when I came back he was gone' - rather he says 'he was right there with us' and 'I watched him till I figured out he was gone'. He places DeOrr with grandpa at the campfire, and both Jessica and DeOrr agree he was with grandpa - grandpa was not in the truck, but at, or going to, the campfire. Later, this part of the story is revised - they are all at the creek, but what DeOrr said during the first interview, as he attempted to avoid explaining events freely in his own words, is probably nearer the truth. I do not know if the dogs returned repeatedly to the fire pit - is this established fact from LE, or a social media rumour? I have not seen it reported in any news coverage, or heard it said in an interview.

Juliet said...

Also, if DeOrr died in the truck, the cadaver dogs, which were used in the early days, would have picked up the scent of decomposition unless they found him almost immediately (in which case they would have dialled 911, IMO) - if the truck had backed over him there would very likely remain some physical evidence, detectable through forensics, if not by the eye. Death by truck language possibly 'he was right there with us' - 'such a small area' - 'you couldn't not see him'. However, the parents are on their walk, apparently watching little DeOrr go off to his grandpa by the campfire, when he Is thinking of/saying those things.

Anonymous said...

Are we sure we've been told about all the evidence LE has? There was sensitivity from the sheriff about the vehicle search.

Juliet said...

JustMyThoughts - the other rumour they wanted, or Jessica wanted to address in the interview was the six o clock sighting. Here is my recent post on this from the previous DeOrr thread:

Juliet said...
Sheriff Bowerman, in his recent media engagements, still makes no mention of the six o' clock sighting of the gentleman with the filthy bawling child in the problem black truck. He appears to be going along with the parents claim that this was the Friday morning visit to the store - he mentions only one visit - however, there is no positive sighting of little DeOrr in the truck or in the store on Friday morning. How, then, can this be the six o clock store sighting of DeOrr ('it was me, but earlier') with a filthy bawling child, seen by a store clerk - the sighting which Jessica herself wanted discounted as rumour, whilst DeOrr claims it WAS him? If he had not been there with a filthy, bawling little DeOrr, would he have not said, quite simply, 'It wasn't me?' The time would not be the deciding factor in his denial, but whether or not he had a filthy, bawling child in the truck. This is where he should have said it wasn't him, his son was NOT filthy and bawling in the truck - this he does not deny, he merely questions the time, whereas he should have been absolutely positive it could not have been him, because DeOrr was not with him in that distressed condition. What parent would not jump on that immediately, rather than the time, if it was not the case? Surely this would be the real issue, the denial, rather than merely the time? I wonder why this, which seems an important issue, and marks out one store visit from the other, is not, so far being addressed? DeOrr with filthy bawling blond boy 'matching out description of our son' (it WAS me - DeOrr at six o clock) - just the two of them mentioned - and Friday morning store visit 'as a family' where no-one, apparently recalls seeing a little boy, much less a filthy bawling child in a black truck. As a six o clock visit was not possible on Friday (DeOrr was already missing, and the parents were with search and rescue till a quarter to four that day, according to DeOrr Sr) it seems it could only have been on the Thursday, though the family claimed, albeit belatedly, that they did not arrive until 9.30pm on Thursday evening. It is curious that, so far, Sheriff Bowerman, in any interview, has not addressed the sighting which Jessica wanted discounted as rumour, despite DeOrr claiming it was him.

I have wondered if Jessica maybe made up the rumour herself in order to create the idea that there had been an abductor, who also happened to drive a black truck - that might account for her keenness for it not to be taken to have been DeOrr, and her apparent lack of concern that the guy might have taken the baby. It is odd that her main concern seems to be that people should not believe it was DeOrr - but if it was not him, why the lack of hysteria about it possibly being an abductor with her son? If there was no such sighting, if there is no lady store clerk who remembers seeing the baby in the truck, and so far there is not, well - that would be interesting. So, is the Sheriff not addressing the six o clock sighting because there was no sighting? If no sighting, how, and from whom, did Jessica hear the rumour, and why did DeOrr volunteer that it was him, whilst not denying the state the baby was said to be in?

That the Sheriff does not address the sighting, or has not so far, has got to be interesting.

---

Lynda - hi, I think my responses to your posts to me are included in the ones I've made generally or to JustMyThoughts - sorry, to not be more focused, and just so you know I'm not ignoring you, sort of thing. - the same to anyone else who might have addressed me - there are so many posts and anons, it's difficult to keep track.

Juliet said...

Anon @ 10.07 - we can be sure the info we have from LE is at most, minimal.

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Things that make you go Hmm!

Teen Who Brought Clock to School Headed to the White House

http://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-brought-clock-school-headed-white-house/story?id=34572101

tania cadogan said...

Me being me would ask said boy to show me how he built this 'clock'

John mcgowan said...

'Clock Kid' Meets With Sudanese President Who Is Accused of Genocide

Bashir is accused of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court and of perpetrating a genocide against the people of Darfur.

Mohamed, whose father came to the U.S. from Sudan, visited the country's leaders in Khartoum last week.

Some are questioning what the White House will say about the visit, with Mohamed scheduled to attend Astronomy Night tonight at the White House.

President Obama tweeted his praise for Mohamed, along with the invite, after the teen was placed in handcuffs by police over the homemade clock.

Critics quickly labeled Texas officials as being Islamophobic.

Mohamed, who withdrew from the high school after the incident, has also traveled to Mecca and met with other world leaders from Turkey and Jordan.

And New York City welcomed him for a ceremony, declaring Sept. 28 "Ahmed Day."

"Clock Kid," as Mohamed has come to be known, has sparked a great deal of debate in recent weeks. Some have questioned whether the clock was really "homemade" and others, including Bill Maher, have argued that the clock really did resemble a bomb.

Meghan McCain weighed in this morning on "Fox and Friends," saying she "hates this story" overall, but hopes the White House will acknowledge Mohamed's trip to Sudan.

McCain wondered what would have happened if Mohamed had brought that device to an airport.

"You can't tell Americans, 'if you see something, say something,' in the era of terrorism. But be careful, make sure it's politically correct when you see something and say something. It's really dangerous messaging from the White House," she said.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/19/clock-kid-ahmed-mohamed-meets-sudan-president-bashir-who-accused-genocide

Juliet said...

Behave badly, and get a cool Twitter invitation to the White House - what a great message to be putting out there. Will Clock Boy go into meltdown at being invited only to an event rather than for a personal audience with the President? Is he taking his clock - it looked a rubbish clock, and the presentation was poor - standards these days, I dunno - what's it all coming to?

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Absolutely agree ^^

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Cadaver dogs won't hit unless it's been over an hour that the person has been dead.
If they found him immediately and disposed of him, they wouldn't have hit on it. I will see where I can find the link where I read that.
Also I don't believe they brought cadaver dogs the first day. They brought the scent dogs in for retracing his steps. They hit on the vehicle and the campsite.

As far as Wayment goes, that might reinforce your view about a hot car, but with the news in full force in America over Justin Ross Harris- and believing he intentionally killed his son wanting freedom- they might have thought twice.
People have been being prosecuted more and more for this negligence, as they should be even for an accident.
The era of smartphones has taken over, and when those smart phones become more your life than your child is, to the point you are so immersed in them that you aren't paying attention to the fact that your real precious cargo is in the back seat.....

The point I wanted to make about Wayment was tha he was flipping beside himself. He made a mistake- an he took full on responsibility.

They found him writhing in the ground covered in mud and snot begging to be shot. He was a god blasted mess. He could not function as all he worried about was his little boy out there, alone, in the wilderness.

How about you Juliet?
Did you see that coming from the parents? During the interview?
I didn't. He didn't mention his sons well being at all.

But he did mention something being "overwhelming" and that was the amount of support.

And as far as the dopey eyed child goes- I apologize I read that wrong - I thought you meant the parents.
I still think they may be using drugs.

I do not believe little Deorr was drugged in any way. I don't think they kept him docile. That I agree with you on.

I think they loved him very much- but something happened and they couldn't bring themselves to admit what they had done.

I still think GGP and Issac may know more than they are letting on.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Great post, it raises a lot of questions. Why bring it up?
Why isn't Sheriff saying anything?

I for one don't think the Sheriff buys it. Him saying about wishing he would have searched compartments of the vehicles more makes me think he thinks something happened and they are trying to hide/cover it up.

Why bring it up?
Maybe to create confusion- as you said about Jessica.

If that was me, and I could to be my child, and had nothing at all to do with it, heard that someone may have saw him in a black truck at 6pm that night, bawling, filthy and being bought candy- would have sent me through the ringer.

I sure as hell would want it investigated, RIGHT NOW, I would want to talk to the clerk myself so I could find out what he was wearing, what kind of truck, etc.

Deorr Sr has a black truck.
So does 50% of truck drivers in America. I STILL would not have blown that off. Not based on it being a black truck and we were there a day before. If there was any chance at all my son could have been kidnapped I would want the police, the dogs, all over that store and clerk.

BUT......

If I knew what happened to my child, and was making up a story to go along with a sighting, but saying that it was them as a family earlier and they have no doubt in their minds about it (as dad has no doubt).....

Well right there tells me that they dot have any doubt about it not being Little Deorr. Bc they know where he is. They know he hasn't been kidnapped so no reason to worry and fret. They know where his is and they know he isn't half way across the country bc he is dead.

JMTO

lynda said...

I didn't mean to imply that they "drugged" DJ on a regular basis. When I first started my nursing career, bendryl or triaminic was a standard order for pediatric patients at night. It's an antihistamine that puts them to sleep. Common practice, nobody went all bonkers about it. When little ones were sick or had earaches, docs would say give him some benedryl so they can get to sleep otherwise they would not sleep because of pain.
I just wouldn't be all that surprised if they gave him a little benedryl to put him down for his nap. It would guarantee a "good" sleep, give them a little time, and he would not be awake for gramps to deal with.
They did not bring cadaver dogs in right away. It was a search and rescue, not a body recovery , at least the first day. I believe it came right from the sheriff's mouth that the dogs hit on the resevoir and the camp. The sheriff has also not committed to DJ being at the camp 100%. He states he's 99% sure that DJ was at the camp.
I'm sticking with that dad manipulated mom by using her other 2 children as leverage.

Juliet..yes, I agree, most parents would be like that poor man in the wilderness. We must take into account the parents, how they were raised, what their life is like, intelligence, and what they believe is "normal." We know that at least Jessica has a history of drugs. When you do drugs, you hang around with other people that do drugs. You are probably around a criminal element that becomes your "norm". If the baby died in the car, it would be obvious that he was dead. Long past any help from 911. These parents went right into protective mode about themselves.
It's like Peter said, NOT ONCE did dad say anything about his son's welfare. He couldn't even say his name. They may have loved him but once he was dead, and they knew there was nothing they could do,cover-up started so they wouldn't get into trouble.

trustmeigetit said...

Totally agree about the airport comment. This box thing looked bad.

So much so one of his teachers told him to put it away and the kid ignored that request.

And a day just for him? Don't we have true heros that saves lives that don't have a day?

All this has done was make this about discrimination or racial profiling when it had nothing to do with that.i think this would have happened even if it had been a white kid.

I also believe had he tried to take this on a plane or near the president the concern would have still been there.

And like they have said, he invented nothing.

The media needs to report facts. They did not in this case.

Instead a kid who did something suspicious who even ignored another teachers orders to put it away has been treated more likes hero.

He is no hero.

Juliet said...

Well, we have no specifics about what dogs were trained to do what, if there were dogs trained only to track, or only to detect decomposition or human remains, or if dogs cross-trained for all eventualities were used, and if so, in which context the dog was being used, to track a living DeOrr or to alert to a death scent - what specifically it, or they, were assigned to detect, and when. Someone commented on an earlier thread that it's only viable to have dogs which are cross- trained, otherwise there are not enough call-outs to warrant the upkeep. It would make no difference on which day a cadaver dog had been used, as it would still be able to detect whatever it is trained to detect. Tracking dogs can lose the scent of a living person, but cadaver dogs can detect the scent of death a long time after the event, as it persists for months, years, or even decades - cadaver trained dogs pick up on death scent in general, it is not associated with the individual.

It's interesting that DeOrr's scent led to the reservoir - I think the assumption there is that the dog was a tracking dog, otherwise a cross-trained dog whose task at the time was to follow the scent of a living DeOrr, which led to the reservoir. I think this is what early news reports indicated, at least, leading people to believe that little DeOrr was alive and at the reservoir at some point. At what point, though, was the dog confused, or 'thrown off' by the presence of cremains? If the dog's task at that time was to search for a living DeOrr, would it suddenly switch task of its own accord, and alert instead to cremains? Or was it only doing the cadaver dog task all along, and everyone is just being allowed to assume that it started out as a tracking- focussed dog, then of its own accord, and once it had tracked DeOrr to the reservoir, decided to do cadaver dog work instead? I wish I knew more about how these dogs work, and if they only do what they are specifically tasked to do at any given time. Was a living DeOrr at the reservoir, scent tracked, or was it a cadaver-assigned task, and was the dog not ever alerting to DeOrr's living presence at the reservoir, but rather only to the cremains? Was this the same dog, on the same task, which kept returning to the campsite - was it looking for death scent, or for a living DeOrr?

Hopefully, one day, there will be some clarification as to how a tracker dog could somehow be 'thrown off' by cremains. Just because it might be cross-trained doesn't mean it necessarily has multi-tasking abilities, and can look for anything and everything all at the same time - or maybe it can and does mean just that. I would think, though, that even if they were using a cross-trained dog rather than a dog exclusively trained as a cadaver dog, that it would be assigned a specific task from which it would not deviate? I don't know, except this is driving me crazy - how can a dog trained to be scenting for a person be 'thrown off' by cremains? It seems like something of a category error, to me - but I don't know enough about how cross-trained dogs might work.

Continued ...

Juliet said...

I think it is maybe around an hour to ninety minutes before there would be a death scent detectable to a dog - don't quote me on that, though, as I can't recall where I read it, or if it was a reliable source. It's not long, anyway - within two hours, though that's a very long time in the life of a toddler, at least if he is not accounted for safely. I still think they would have called 911 in those circumstances, even if it had been longer. Why? - because in a hot vehicle his body would not have gone cold - they would have thought (most likely) there might still have been hope, and a chance that he could be saved, no matter how remote that chance. They could have still held grandpa responsible - look what happened, we weren't even there - he must have got shut in by accident, sort of thing. Poor grandpa, we shouldn't have left him with grandpa, but we thought he would just put him down for his nap somewhere safe - he must have forgotten about him - everyone will sympathise. etc. This would seem more believable than claiming their baby had just disappeared into thin air from the middle of nowhere, or that an abductor had followed them all that distance without being detected.

Somehow, there has to be more to it - also DeOrr's language points towards something which happened suddenly, at the turn of a head, leaving his world upside down and vanished - to me, that speaks of sudden death, and likely in his presence (he was right there with us), rather than to a slow death through negligence. Grandpa went into shock - this would seem strange, as either DeOrr jumped into the truck and hauled away to dispose of the body without telling the others what had happened (why complicate matters by telling them, rather than claiming he had wandered off or even been abducted?) - or he just asked, when he came back from 'exploring' as he says (making grandpa a part of the cover story), 'where, you know, where is little DeOrr?'; shock, I think, would be out of proportion to the likelihood of little DeOrr having wandered, as he could not go far in his boots and could not walk on level ground without falling over, so the likelihood of him being found around the campsite within a few short minutes would have been high. I think the shock was due to his having also witnessed, or been told about, what happened to DeOrr. I'm willing to agree to disagree, as I see none in this conversation are likely to budge either.

John mcgowan said...

Hi, trustmeigetit

Indeed, he is "no hero"!!

It is disgusting. I consider myself, polite, and i respect the integrity of Peter's blog not to express my indignation (Word chosen carefully, lol) in language unfitting. Oh i want to, believe me!


~~And, relax~~ Lol :)


obama's legacy (lower case intended)

Anonymous said...

All the speculation of this happened and that happened, and maybe this other thing happened, and so on and on, won't make the truth and all the jabbering crafty deceit and lies go away and that is;

THAT this couple arrived at the campground on Thursday evening and NOT Friday morning like they BOTH lied about right from the beginning when they said they had arrived on Friday morning. LIARS. THEY BOTH LIED. It was Jessica's mother who blew that lie.

SOOOo, what were they hiding that had already happened Thursday, PRIOR to Friday morning up until around 2:26 pm that afternoon; what the HELL were they doing before they finally decided to call 911 A DAY LATER? THIS is what needs to be determined. THERE is your missing time frame.

THE OBVIOIUS: Daddy Deorr is a truck driver, he would know every little nook and cranny in many counties and surrounding states; AND with mommy right by his side. This childs' body could have been deposited miles away on Thursday afternoon/evening into Friday morning, just about anywhere within hundreds of miles in any direction.

Don't kid yourselves that she is not in on this or is turning a blind eye; she was right there WITH her baby daddy. BOTH lied. BOTH. She knows EXCTLY where her child is laid, what happened to him and how he got there.

BTW, it takes up to ninety minutes for cadaver dogs to detect and hit on human decomp odor. Just thought some of you might want to know.

The Sheep said...

I thought it was that the human flesh had to decompose for 90 minutes to emit the cadaverine. But you're saying it takes the dogs 90 minutes to detect it, and you exude such confidence, I'm unable to doubt it. But wow it takes those dogs awhile. I knew that hasty "discovery" of cadaverine in the McCann girl's disappearance was faked by LE! That was way less than 90 minutes.

Juliet said...

Oh, did I really say that? Carelessness if so - obviously the dogs would detect it as soon as they encountered it, and I meant it takes ninety minutes or thereabouts for the body to emit cadeverine.

The Sheep said...

No, it was capped-word Anon. You had it right.

Juliet said...

Oh, I see it wasn't me who said it, it was Anon, but obviously she meant what I just said in the previous post. Mine could read that way, too, I suppose, if anyone wanted to be pedantic.

Juliet said...

Okay. :)

Lis said...

JustMyThoughtsOnly, that story about Paul Wayment is absolutely heartbreaking.

A mile away from the car his child was left in... terrible judgement, and he knew it.

In this case it's confusing because there were 4 of them there. How did someone not know what was happening? It makes no sense, there must be more to the story.

lynda said...

John...I read that story about Paul awhile back. I was utterly heartbroken. What a tragedy.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Oh and also wanted to point out, yes they cleared up this rumor about the sighting with Nate (which really wasn't a "rumor" they needed put to rest as it actually happened- it's the time they are unsure about (and the clerk - was she unsure if she saw Deorr Jr or not? I thought I heard the sheriff say that in an interview- I will have to look for it) )
but I believe they both damn well knew after 3 days the towns people there were starting to whisper of their involvement.
The fact that they didn't bring up one rumor of their involvement - even just to say "We did not do this" speaks volumes to me. I believe they couldn't address those rumors bc they couldn't bear the uncomfortableness of the lie.
And Nate didn't ask bc he didn't want to upset them/upset viewers by asking a question maybe in haste.

As far as devastation goes idk.
The Wayment man was devastated- and he didn't did his son in the middle of a tragic accident where there was no way to bring his child back to life, at that time. His child was missing at that time, not presumed dead yet, but the level of devastation that father had was immeasurable- as I believe any parent who really made a small mistake and felt completely responsible for it would.
Any parent who wasn't covering anything up I mean.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Absolutely.

The only thing I can think of is like Juliet said- maybe grandpa had witnessed something and felt obligated bc of watching him to go along with the story, or if it was in a hot car, if they left the door open and grandpa shut it without knowing the baby was in there....
And they made him feel guilty about it. I do think Issac and GGP had some involvement, bc they have yet to give any interview, except for the Missing411 team documentary.
And I doubt the documentary team would be willing to grill the parents and GGP and Issac the way a news team would. (Esp now that it has been made a big deal that Nate screwed that interview up big time by not asking perdinant questions)

Either that or Deorr Sr. was involved only - set the whole thing up for GGP to watch him- and then hid the body and called 911 without anyone really knowing but I don't buy that. At all.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

You mean me??
Haha- did John say something earlier about it?

And yes it was completely heartbreaking!!

Anonymous said...

D: There's a problem, my pick-up truck is black..
J: He drives a black truck.

Black is the color of death.
No one wants to drive the hearse.

Anonymous said...

The color of the truck being black is merely coincidental. So it's black. Big whoopee. This is silly. It was black all along and black when Deorr went out and bought, and not for the purpose in mind of hauling his dead baby in it.

You all are still overlooking the big Thursday lie. Go back to Thursday evening when the two love-bugs actually arrived at the campsite. Forget about Friday morning; it's THURSDAY evening you need to be thinking about. The parents arrived at the campgrounds on Thursday evening. Remember? You are still harping on the Friday morning lies which, every one should be discounted as just what they are.... LIES!

It was great grandpa and Issac who arrived on Friday morning, is this not correct? Or even if they also arrived on Thursday evening, it's entirely possible they would have no knowledge of baby Deorr being there if they had not seen him there on Thursday evening or Friday morning, right? Perhaps they set up for sleeping overnight and never saw the baby OR the parents until later in the day on Friday.

It would be natural, and correct, that great grandpa wouldn't even know what they were talking about when they said they thought he was watching the baby, who was supposedly getting ready for his nap, if he hadn't even seen the baby since arriving there. As for Issac, it appears that he's just going along with whatever he thinks he's supposed to be saying so he can back up the others, particularly since he is already a registered sex offender and doesn't want caught up in a missing child situation; ALSO keeping in mind that mommy & daddy had arrived the night before and he might possibly have no idea what they had been doing all this time.

Your principal suspects here are baby daddy DeOrr & Mommy dearest, and it is these TWO you need to be zeroing in on as to where they WERE all night Thursday night and Friday morning up til 2:26 pm. Friday afternoon. It is these hours they are hiding.

Anonymous said...

JustMyThoughtsOnly is correct. No natural parent alive would be acting like the Deorr parents are acting had their baby gone innocently missing and they had no knowledge of their childs' whereabouts.

They would be so devastated they would be hysterical like the tragic Wayment father was when he found his son gone, knowing it was his fault, and NOT looking to place blame on someone else. We ALL would. I know I would. I would never want to see another sunrise, knowing I had let my helpless child slip through my fingers. There would be no excuse. I would know that I wasn't fit to draw another breath or live on this planet.

These parents are as guilty as the day is long. They BOTH are. NO innocent mother sits idly by and lets her baby daddy cover up for the loss of her precious child without turning wildly against him. It just ain't happening.

In fact, for all WE know it could be that SHE is the one who made the first move to cover up and hide her childs' death, and it could be that daddy Deorr took over and told her, 'just keep quiet and let me handle this...' That's just it: we don't know which one of them actually did the dastardly deed; we just know they ARE both involved and guilty as hell.

That old wives' saying "actions speak louder than words" is SOO true.

Juliet said...

Anon - in an earlier DeOrr thread I ruminated on the possibility that whatever happened to DeOrr happened on the Thursday after the 6pm sighting and before the Calvary arrived around 9.30pm. It's possible - also possible that they didn't know what they were getting themselves into until they arrived, or even until the next day, if they thought DeOrr was asleep for the night when they arrived.

The black truck is significant because there was activity involving a black truck which they thought might have been seen by locals, I!MO. I think DeOrr's concern round the truck Is that he might have been seen (concern about the unconfirmed 6 o clock sighting) which only he and Jessica seem to be confirming, through their denial of it. The family themselves appealed for information about a black truck, make unknown, and a blue Chevy, which they said had been seen in the area. I think that's significant because it came from the family early on, and because Jessica said in the interview that they weren't aware of any people or vehicles in the area. Perhaps the black truck was DeOrr's, or perhaps it and the Chevy were part of the Calvary. It's possible they feared those vehicles had been spotted, which caused them to try to pre-empt suspicion by making the appeal - creating the idea that there were strangers driving those 'unknown' vehicles, not to be associated with them, or with events surrounding DeOrr's disappearance. It's possible - but then, anything is possible.

Jen Ow said...

Drugs!

If they were using drugs during their 'exploration', then the fact that their child died from a negligence while they were intoxicated would be a crime.

Juliet said...

Well, someone arrived around 9.30pm Thursday - at least that's when Trina said the four adults and little DeOrr had arrived, but if DeOrr and little DeOrr were in the store at six, then they, at least, arrived earlier. The impression given was that they all arrived on Friday - we know now that this is not the case, but it is possible that someone arrived on the Friday, also - I don't know on which day the truck and Chevy were said to have been seen, but I do think these vehicles are likely to figure somehow.

Going for now - it's tiresome, but there will be repetition when people keep on bringing up things which have already been talked round pretty endlessly in the earlier threads, just causing more of the same.

--

John and JustMyThoughtsOnly - I hadn't considered that - how the parents didn't address the romour of their involvement in their son's disappearance, which was bound to be doing the rounds once the search was suspended, or not suspended (change of direction in the investigation, as I recall) - it must have been the biggest elephant in the room, too. The most appropriate moment to say they weren't involved, and DeOrr chooses to go on about his employer, Jessica about a sighting which it now transpires only she and DeOrr seem to believe might have been a sighting. Not to say he was not at the store with little DeOrr, at least not in view of him saying that it was him.
But yes, wow - I am quite slow, sometimes. They didn't say it because they couldn't bring themselves to say that - if they were not involved it should have been the only rumour that could have upset them, and which they wanted to address.

They didn't want things to be twisted, yet they didn't even bring up the subject of their rumoured involvement. So, they DID want things to be twisted? Things said in the negative might need some attention? I don't get that, quite - the reliable denial has to be in the negative, yet other things said in the negative might not signal the true intent?

Jen Ow said...

The parent's drug use is likely the issue that caused this 'accident' to go unreported.

I say 'accident', because a tragedy which happens due to parental negligence caused by drug abuse is no longer considered an accident, but rather a terrible consequence of their actions.

They went 'exploring', (code for leaving the area to do something privately). They are adults, and adults have no need to leave their vulnerable toddler alone with his vulnerable GGP, and a stranger, to 'explore' a tiny creek. If they weren't doing something of pressing importance to them, they could have waited mere minutes, (according to their timeline) until their son was asleep to 'explore', but whatever they wanted to get away and do apparently just couldn't wait.

Whatever 'accident' happened while they were under the influence would be negligent homicide.

Unknown said...

This really puts a different perspective on things

tania cadogan said...

Blogger The Sheep said...

I thought it was that the human flesh had to decompose for 90 minutes to emit the cadaverine. But you're saying it takes the dogs 90 minutes to detect it, and you exude such confidence, I'm unable to doubt it. But wow it takes those dogs awhile. I knew that hasty "discovery" of cadaverine in the McCann girl's disappearance was faked by LE! That was way less than 90 minutes.


The body starts to produce cadaverine from the moment of death.
Cadaverine can be detected by a trained cadaver dog approximately 90 minutes after death onwards ,although, depending on manner of death and the surrounding environment it can be faster (in a warm/hot environment and slower if in a cold/freezing environment)
After 90 minutes has passed from the moment of death, wherever the body is, wherever it is moved to, anything it comes into contact with, regardles of how brief that contact is, it will leave a trace of cadaverine.

Trained dogs will indicate as to where they detect cadaverine, even if there is no longer a body present.
They can also detect cadaverine when the body is under water or has been cremated.

The cadaver dogs in the mccann case, reacted behind the sofa, in the parents wardrobe, kate's black and white checked pants, a childs red t shirt, cuddle cat and in the hire car.
Fluids were found and samples taken from the apartment floor behind the sofa and from the trunk of the hire car.
In the car there was a 15/19 marker match.
There were 4 markers that were too damaged to be properly stated as being from Maddie, not, as the mccanns and supporters would have, not present and thus not Maddie's.

The mccanns and their supporters claim anything the dogs found could be explained away as from kate coming into contact with 6 corpses just prior to the vacation (despite her being a locum and only working 1.5 days a week in a smallish practice, dirty diapers, sweaty sandals and rotting meat in the hire car and Maddie falling over or having a nosebleed ( according to gerry if she fell and hurt herself, how would that be their fault)

Kate also stated that she relaxedwhen the dogs reacted and said it was junk science (not the expected behavior of a mom with a missing child who would be demanding to know what it meant, did it mean their child had been injured by the abductor or even killed. The expected would be fear and hysteria not oh it's junk science they are faking responses)

Cadaverine cannot be washed away with bleach or similar, it is persistant and a trained dog can detect if a body was present or had been present decades down the line.

The mccanns cited the case of eugene zapata whose wife went missing.
Dogs were brought in and indicated in several spots.
he wasn#t prosecuted.
Decades down the line he was arrested and charged and admitted the dogs had been right when they indicated for cadaverine.
he was jailed for 5 years for homicide by reckless conduct.

http://host.madison.com/news/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-years-the-former-madison-man/article_3f7a7f4f-cb83-5869-b9c6-23532bc49a4e.html

The mccanns went silent, it seems every case they have jumped on the bandwagon of has been revealed that the missing person was killed by a family member or someone known to them

Anonymous said...

Jen Ow, good post; but you are still ignoring the fact that they arrived on Thursday evening and LIED about it until Jessica's mother revealed that they HAD arrived on Thursday evening, NOT Friday morning. Anything and everything else prior too and from that time on should be regarded as another scheming, suspicious, twisted lie contrived by criminal minds who are cleverly hiding their homicidal crime.

But you are believing their scheme, that they took this little ten minute exploration walk on Friday morning as if this is the gospel truth when they have already hidden and tried to cover up that they had arrived at the campsite on THURSDAY evening, NOT Friday morning wherein they stated (NOT implied)they had arrived that morning, set up their camp then took this little quick exploration.

Why are you believing this crap when they have an entire evening missing from their time frame, even up til 2:26 pm when they decided to call 911?

Yes, the black truck could be significant in the investigation, sorry that I implied that it wasn't; but the possibility of it's having been seen during the time baby Deorr went missing wouldn't be the most significant factor (unless evidence or human decomp odor can be found inside or around it), since any black truck can be seen anywhere at anytime. What is the MOST significant factor is THE FACT that these two lying dirt bags LIED about when they arrived at the camp and are HIDING all those missing hours.

Sure the black truck owned by Deorr could be significant and likely is, depending on where it was seen, the proof, and the authenticity of WHO saw it; but it is the parents who are the most significant here and not one of ten thousand black trucks OR blue trucks. You seem to forget, we are dealing with LIARS here.

Anonymous said...

P.S... I don't doubt Jen Ow, that there are drugs involved here. I have thought this from day one. I believed it then, I believe it now. How many times has Peter shown us that drugs and kids don't mix?

These parents deserve the harshest punishment the law will allow when they are finally proved to be dope heads who killed their child and disposed of his precious little body; nowhere near where they have led LE and searchers in the wrong direction.

I just hope that a better outcome occurs for finding and prosecuting the killers of baby Deorr than the one dope head Ronald Cummings got away with when he abused and battered and caused the death of his little Haleigh, then under threat had others dispose of her body, lie for him and hide all the evidence and got away with it.

AGAIN, all of his lies and those of his family, swept under the rug and ignored. I hope this doesn't turn out to be the case of missing (AND murdered) baby Deorr.

Matt Whan said...

I find it concerning that he is able to, and repeatedly say, the sherrifs name. Sherrifs Dave is repeated several times. Yet he can't remember anyone else's name, to his admission, and he doesn't say his sons name once. Very strange.

The Sheep said...

Where is it that the parents say they arrived Friday morning? I see the media reporting it but they also reported that other dad said "apartment" when he clearly said "home."

I'm not saying they didn't but I don't see it. Can someone quote their "lie" saying they arrived Friday morning?

Juliet said...

The Sheep - I checked out all the early news reports on this a while back - it's in an earlier thread. The parents do not say they arrived on Friday, but that appears to be the impression which was created from the outset; the baby was said to have disappeared while they were setting up camp, which presumably they would do upon arrival, so Friday would be presumed even if it was not stated. Who created the impression, parents or media, is not clear - but the parents did not correct the mistake, which would suggest it was not inconvenient to them to allow it to continue. Trina eventually volunteered that they had arrived on Thursday, on a Facebook response to a news story, I think on the 'local news 8' page - she shortly after deleted it, along with all her other responses on that thread.

Juliet said...

Well, we don't know that drugs were involved - I'd rather go on what we do know, what the parents and family members and Isaac have actually said, indicated, or possibly indicated through their words.

I don't know if the parents have told any outright lies (at least not in the first interview - I think creepy guy in store is a desperate fabrication and a further attempt to place DeOrr with them, alive and well, on the Friday). I think what they say is a mixture of truth, and omission of the truth. I'd say the truth is likely to be in there somewhere, but the timeframe is wholly unreliable - something happened to DeOrr, Thursday is all unaccounted, and there's a lot, a lot of missing information.

foodiefoodnerd said...

"Help find him or don't post" isn't especially useful itself, because you are obviously seeking only your preferred outcome.

Statement analysis looks for the truth regardless how unpleasant, and makes effort to not cheerlead or seek a specific outcome.

I do read in here, especially in the quizes and challleges, that some try to fit the case into the basic elements of SA, rather than applying SA to the case, but spotting and overcoming that improves with experience.

foodiefoodnerd said...

@trustmeigetit, also if we're looking at this from the viewpoint of innocent parents, a sighting of a stranger buying candy for a filthy, hysterical toddler fitting my son's appearance could only mean he's being abducted, and is not being treated well -- so that turning out to be my husband would be a huge relief, not a "problem."

If it truly was an accident, even one of negligence, they might want to cover it up if it was an especially painful death, like he tripped and fell into the campfire and they weren't close enough to grab him before it was too late?

That would also explain the delay in calling 911, he may have still been alive but with such horrific injuries - particularly if he was badly burned all over - part of the debate could have been not just is it too late to save his life, but should they? Especially if he would have little chance even after days of weeks of suffering?

It would also explain the self-censoring of being 50 yards away, and not finishing that sentence. Jessica may have been persuaded in the horror of the moment and now feels trapped to their lie and always wondering if they made the best choice for DeOrr's comfort and not DeOrr, Sr saving his own azz from consequences.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Anon 10:14/10:31

I haven't heard that they arrived on Thursday by any source other than Facebook,(?) I believe it was the maternal Grandmother who wasn't even there until after the boy was missing who said they arrived Thursday, (?) but obviously her information is second hand. Has LE, or even Deorr Sr/Jessica confirmed that they arrived on Thursday? If so, would you mind posting a link? TIA

In any case, it seems insignificant due to the fact that Deorr Sr. admits that he was the "gentleman" the clerk saw buying the filthy, crying blond boy candy at the store when they went down as a family to get a few things. The only thing he/they dispute as incorrect (or "hearsay", which they appear to be using incorrectly) is the time the witness stated she saw them. If Deorr Jr. was alive to be seen by the clerk on the day of his disappearance, then the day they arrived doesn't really matter. (*other than to demonstrate that they have the ability/need to misrepresented an important detail of their camping trip, which may cast a shadow of doubt on their account in general.)

I'm not 'taking their word', regarding their exploring, but I am trying to work within the language they have produced regarding what happened. 'Exploring' makes no sense in the context of their story, their timeline, and the other information they have provided. I don't believe they were exploring. Whatever they were doing, before whatever fate befell their son, they used the explanation of going to 'explore' to remove themselves from Deorr Jr's presence at the time it happened, placing the culpability on GGP, and not on themselves.

(Basically, the 'exploring' is being used to get across the idea that, 'whatever happened, it wasn't our fault, we weren't even there'!)

All this said, I'm going strictly on memory, so I may have forgotten something that would change my opinion about this!

foodiefoodnerd said...

@tania, you add a lot of insightful, intelligent comments on this site, but I think you misapply SA when you infer without question that either of these two is using a word or phrase correctly and literally.

DeOrr Sr. is again parroting something he hears frequently, this time from missing persons stories in the news as well as Hollywood.

With as much self-censoring as he does, and the steady stream of incomplete thoughts and half-sentences, he is stunningly unaware of himself and the image he presents.

This shows the most in the few times he does not edit himself midsentence or even notice he said something off, like his repeated use of "dead" and "put to rest."

Jessica's use of the word "gentleman" referring to the stranger with the crying toddler was just her trying to sound more proper and educated, like when people randomly add a letter M to the word "who" even when it isn't correct.

Anonymous said...

If Deorr fell into the campfire, surely he would not "vanish without a trace"? How'd they clean THAT up?

Juliet said...

Jen Ow - excuse my butting in, but to jog your memory, Sheriff Bowerman in his interview with Nate Eaton for East Idaho News, confirmed that the parents told him they had arrived on Thursday night. I expect it's still on the website - definitely will be on their YouTube Channel.

Juliet said...

Anon - we don't know if he did fall into a fire - forensics might be able to determine that. Personally, I wouldn't speculate beyond the possibility he fell into a fire, that's awful enough to consider, as it is. Even then, which fire - were they even at that campsite? Also, there's Trina's weird 'cannonball' statement, and the PI allegedly receiving a tip that Isaac was going to shoot Grandpa, a few weeks ago, when they went fishing. That's very much allegedly, So, you know, there's always the possibility someone was playing with a gun and didn't see DeOrr, despite that you couldn't not see him. It wasn't hunting season, though, and they were fishing - in the creek, allegedly.



foodiefoodnerd said...

Juliet, the clock kid just removed, intact, the guts of a cheap Radio Shack countdown timer - not even a regular clock that tells time! and set it inside that metal case, then hooked up those wires that don't add any function.

It came out that both this kid and his sister have thick disciplinary files for a number of attention-getting stunts, and the father said on a few talk shows that the incident will help raise awareness of Islam.
Obviously that was the goal.

I despise racism and have zero respect for racists, but lying frauds like this make it harder for actual victims to be taken seriously.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Lynda, this now makes mw wonder if all of the conflict and delay is because the boy was catastrophically injured, but not yet dead when they found him. Perhaps he fell in the fire and was badly burned all over.

Not only extremely painful, but little chance of longterm survival, even after months of hellish treatment.

DeOrr, Sr may have convinced Jessica it was in little DeOrr's best interest to not endure days or months of agony with little chance at a normal quality of life, if he was badly injured and possibly brain-damaged.

Now she's not so sure it wasn't mostly in her husband's best interest, but feels trapped into her lie with the fear of being blamed directly.

He would also reason wirh her then and now, that prosecuting him won't bring back their son, but would destroy them financially and otherwise.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

This is def another possibility - I hadn't looked at that angle!
Thank you for your insight!!

For all we know you could be right, she may have been the one that caused and covered it up.

From what her mother has said on social media (see Juliet's notes on previous thread) she was irritated as all hell without her phone charger, her battery about to die - and having started her monthly without any pads or tampons.

If that is true from grandma clegg- then I doubt HIGHLY they went to explore to have sex, as any woman knows - that would be a no way/no go on the first day of her period.

So I am going to entertain that they go exploring to do drugs.

Add that, no charger, no tampons, haven't been able to sneak off and catch a quick buzz- you have a recipe for a violent fit of rage.

You may be onto something, Anon!!

Juliet said...

foodiefoodnerd - I know, I read the blog of the guy who identified the gutted Radio Shack gizmo - and the stories which came out later about the brat boy and his sister. It seems the apples have not fallen far from the tree, and the gratified father enjoys getting his kids to fire his bullets for him - metaphorically speaking, of course. The boy should not be lauded - he should have been sent home from school with a project to build a proper clock, and to write about how he 'invented' the lookalike-bomb 'clock', and why. I can't fathom the stupidity of the adults, including so many journalists, who just bought into his story because it suited their narrative, and who have treated him like a celebrity victim, and some sort of genius, to boot. Incredible - worrying. Imagine what is going on in that kid's head - he probably thinks he is a genius, at least alongside all the people who rushed to heap sympathy and praise on him. His father is the problem, acting as though he believes the kid 'invented' a clock - he said his son just wants to invent things to help people, or something similar. Yes, right. And they are laughing at everyone who was taken in by it, behind closed doors, at least. What does that say, though - it's not the boy's fault if people grow up too stupid to be able to see it was neither a clock, or an innocent prank.

Well, that was a rant.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Ok so here is my question.....

If Deorr died suddenly on Friday, while they were "exploring," and say they found him within a half hour to an hour after he passed and quickly disposed of him somewhere else in the same area, but say a half mile- mile down the road, would the dogs pick up the scent?
If a body emits caverdine immediately after then yes, they would pick it up if it was in the truck or around the campsite?

Or does the body need to be dead and emitting for 90 minutes for the dogs to pick it up?

Thank you in advance!!

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

I'm not completely sold on the disappearing act on Thursday night, where he died and then they disposed of him then.
It could happen, but the only way I see it could have happened is if.....

They arrive, something happens to Little Deorr. Or something happens to him, they dispose of him, and then they arrive.

Either way, GGP and Issac are on their way, right behind them? Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't they arrive all together?

So something has happened - but that would mean they would have to "pretend" little Deorr was asleep all night, and then in the morning still sleeping as the adults get up.

Which toddlers usually rise between 6 and 8am, and are unbelievably noisey and rambunctious upon awaking. If they said he was asleep, to keep GGP and Issac off their trail, he would have had to been asleep until after 1pm. GGP and Issac would t have thought it weird that the baby wasn't running around the camp all morning long checking things out, and squealing with delight at all the new sights and sounds?
That's just not possible.

Then say to GGP - HEY! He was asleep you were suppose to be watching him!
And GGP thinks wow he has been sleeping all morning into afternoon- I never saw him get up!

Now the same with on he way down disposing of him. If they dumped his little body somewhere, I am very sure that Issac and GGP would have been suspicious that they didn't hear or see the baby. Maybe not that night bc him being asleep could easily be explained away. But by morning, they would all be wondering why little Deorr was still asleep in the truck. I don't think that they both would have went along with any story they made up if they didn't see him at all.

I think he was there, and he was there Friday morning. Something happened when they were either on their way back from the store, or when they went exploring.

Deorr Sr or Jessica went into covering mode, either blaming GGP to say where did he go? You were suppose to be watching him!! While Daddy Deorr hauled his sons lifeless little body a half a mile/mile down the road and disposed of it, then calling 911.

I think if it happened it happened suddenly, with GGP seeing Deorr playing and happy. And then all of a sudden he's gone (the accident) and now GGP was suppose to be watching him. Perfect scapegoat.

Plus GGP wouldn't be lying on a lie detector about the last time he saw little Deorr.
It would be a true account.
Anything else would mean that GGP and Issac are in on it as well.

What I want to know is if he was backed over, fell into the fire, died in the truck- at the moment of death when he stated emitting caverdine- shouldn't the dogs have picked it up? Or does it take a body to be decomposing for at least 90 minutes for the dogs to pick it up??

JMO



Anomaly said...

I don't think little DeOrr was ever at the campground. He died and was hidden before the camping trip. The camping trip was a ruse to make it appear that he was lost/taken from the campground. They know the rescuers will never find DeOrr, cuz he's no where near the campground. Hope LE is checking the cell phone pings in the days preceding the camping trip.

I love reading hear and enjoy everyone's input. I hope little DeOrr's body is found soon.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

I respectfully disagree, only bc if they did something to the baby, and then just pretended the baby was there and sleeping, they would have had to account for the hours between whenever GGP and Issac woke up and whenever they went to the store/went exploring.

If Issac got up early to do some fishing, he might not have noticed the baby or even thought of the baby in the morning hours.

But GGP is a different story.
Older people get up early the same as young babies and toddlers.
He wouldn't be able to go off exploring with his oxygen tank and having to be watched- as they stated GGP was at the campsite the whole time.

So that would mean from the time GGP got up- he never once heard, or seen the baby until 2pm when they alert him they are going exploring and then he never checked on Deorr, allowing them to explore, come back and blame him.

Without seeing the baby all morning??

I'm not buying that - then that would mean that GGP is apart of the coverup as he then told LE that he had seen Deorr follow his parents toward the bank.

And why would he lie for them if he never saw Deorr in the first place?

That would then make him a co-conspirator.
Not just Deorr and Jess but GGP and Isacc.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

I still am unsure of GGP and Issac though. For GGP to go along with a story, I believe something truly horrific had to happen that he felt tremendous guilt over. They may have been involved, but not the way you have it played out- but that's just my opinion only!!

foodiefoodnerd said...

Juliet, "cremains" with a C is the ashes of a body that was cremated. Decomposed bodies and parts are called remains.
Did I miss something where the search dogs sparked on someone's scattered cremains?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Rant, maybe, but excellent points and well-written! I hope when we read of his next antics there aren't any innocent victims.

Anonymous said...

Lynda October 18 @ 12.45 said

"Thank you Peter for readdressing this interview. With the news coming out today that the PI that was hired by the family has quit because of "disagreements" and the Sheriff revealing that the FBI has told him that some things given to them by him cannot be analyzed, I'm hoping your timely update will keep this poor boy in the news. I was pleased when the Sheriff, in reference to the FBI telling him they can't analyze certain items, "didn't even know what that meant" because neither do any of us! What does that mean? Can't be analyzed?"

I was confused about the items that could not be analysed by the FBI, too. Until I remembered Backward Speech Guy's recordings! IIRC, BSG kindly provided LE with all of his "evidence". Perhaps that's what couldn't be analyzed. Fair enough, too.

Anonymous said...

Now that the sheriff has said that it cannot be confirmed that anybody saw DeOrr in a store at Leadore, and bearing in mind that Jessica said it was "ONE of the ladies that had worked at the store" (meaning there must have been, at least, one other lady) I too, am now of the opinion that DeOrr was not at Leadore nor the Timber Creek campground.

I have yet to hear when, where and by whom, the last independent sighting of baby DeOrr was.

I would also like to know the polygraph results, and hear Vernal's 911 call. Why haven't they been released?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 4:01, JustMyThoughts @8:27 and Anomaly; IMO it is unlikely that you ever will hear of an independent sighting of baby DeOrr during the time frame beginning Thursday evening from the time the parents arrived at the campsite and during the next overnight and early morning hours on Friday because there wasn't one.

Daddy DeOrr is too quick to pick up on the rumor that he and his baby and his black truck were seen at the store at 6:00 pm on Friday evening, knowing this can't be true since baby DeOrr was already reported missing by this time, but uses this rumor to his own benefit to clarify, 'no, it was me but it was Thursday evening'. How convenient. Then mama Jessica comes along and claims that it was 'a female clerk who saw them there'; she too uses this rumor to claim they were seen when they weren't. No such verifiable sighting can be confirmed. One can only conclude: The baby wasn't at the store on Thursday evening or at any other time and they know it.

Recall: In the very first interview/comments made by daddy DeOrr, he either gives the direct impression or says that they arrived at the campground on Friday morning, set up their campsite, then the two of them took a ten minute walk exploring the area and bla bla, leaving baby DeOrr getting ready to take his nap with great grandpa nearby. Mama Jessica goes along with this "little white lie". Ha... but it traps them. They had NOT arrived that morning.

These two are hiding something, and it begins on Thursday evening.

THEN along comes the statement made by Jessica's mama stating that they had arrived at the campsite around 9:30 pm on Thursday evening. Surprise surprise! she knows, as Jessica texted her about going to the store and purchasing female hygiene products (TMI!) she needed. HOWEVER, daddy DeOrr and mama Jessica had intended fully to cover up the fact that they had arrived on Thursday evening, leaving the distinct impression that they had arrived on Friday morning; now they have no choice but to admit they arrived on Thursday evening, and it was after THIS that the sheriff clarified that they had arrived at the campsite on Thursday evening.

Daddy DeOrr takes over the interviewing, AND the 911 calls; appearing to make mama Jessica cow tow to him and keep quiet, when in fact this is done by prior agreement between them. John is our expert body language guy and he should be able to see the guilt on both their faces as I certainly see it and I am no expert in body language.

I repeat my earlier opinion: (See my posts on 10/20 @ 6:51 & 7:15) My implication is that SHE could very well be the culprit here; perhaps it was SHE who caused little DeOrr's demise and daddy DeOrr is covering up for HER, while HE is the one who disposed of the baby, likely miles and miles away from the campsite. I see guilt all over that woman's face and in her actions whether anyone else sees it or not. IMO, she is a party to this childs' death and disposal and NOT just daddy.

Finally, I wish to say that I just hate it, hate it, HATE IT, when a childs' death caused by the drugged up negligence or anger directed at a child by dope heads is called an accident. It is NO DAMNED ACCIDENT when a child dies at the hands of their druggie parent(s) or significant other; who KNEW all along what they were doing and that their actions were highly detrimental to the child.

Of course they knew but the child was of no import to them. Simply, they did not care and THIS is no f'n accident. They were sharp enough to dispose of the child's body, cover it up, and lie so cleverly? They were sharp enough not to kill the child in the first place. NOT an accident. It was an "I don't care if you die you f'n little brat, so there, die damn you." And THAT'S no f'n accident. Or HOWEVER the child died on their watch is NO damned accident so PLEASE stop calling it an accident, making excuses for them when there isn't one.

Grace4Ayla said...

I have inside information in this case and I totally agree with anon 6:43.

Juliet said...

foodiefoodnerd - My question is whether a dog who was tasked to follow the scent of a living DeOrr could be 'thrown off' that task, and instead pick up on 'cremains'. A tracker dog would not pick up on cremains. A cadaver dog would not be searching for a living DeOrr. The Sheriff, or deputy, I don't recall, said the dog had been 'thrown off'. Some dogs are cross-trained and could do either task, but I don't know if they do them simultaneously, or if they would be assigned to do only one or the other task at a time. 'Thrown off' suggests the dog got confused. If it got confused, it must have been tracking and looking for a living DeOrr. Or it wasn't really thrown off or confused because it was actually a cadaver dog. Or it was cross-trained to do both tasks simultaneously, and therefore was not thrown off or confused, it was just doing its job. It's the 'thrown off' which foxes me - they should have said they were thrown off, rather than that the dog was thrown off, I suppose - the dog was not thrown off as it was doing what it is trained to do. Hmm, I think I've worked that out now - they just didn't want to admit they were thrown off, so they said it was the dog who was thrown off. It takes me a while, sometimes. :)

Juliet said...

Anon @ 6.43 - her child is unaccounted for, so obviously she will be feeling and showing guilt - that doesn't mean she is involved in the way you suggest, or that she, or they, killed the baby. We don't know if drugs played a part in what happened to DeOrr.

Grace4Ayla - unless you were present when DeOrr 'disappeared' you have no inside information.

foodiefoodnerd said...

I understand what you're asking ans speculating; I'm just not sure of your personal subjective definition of the word "cremains."
It specifically means ashes, cremated remains, not just remains of a dead body. Are you writing that the dogs may have found actual ashes of a burned corpse, or are you using the term cremains, with the letter C, but you actually mean just a cadaver that has not been cremated or even burned?

Grace4Ayla said...

Then let's say I have witnessed some of the families actions that haven't been reported. Is that better? Thanks.

Grace4Ayla said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

What you need to do Juliet, is contact a dog handler/trainer expert for answers to these multi-questions concerning the abilities and workings of a canine sniffer, or take the classes yourself. Or you can google it, Juliet. There are no dog handler/training experts here.

To those who asked; what I said in an earlier post is that it takes up to ninety minutes for the cadaver dog to be able to detect human decomp odor. I should have been more specific and can understand the subsequent questions. Note: it does not take the cadaver dog ninety minutes to detect the odor, which was one of the questions asked. The dog detects the odor immediately once it has set up in the deceased, and THIS is what can take ninety minutes.

To clarify; among other knowledgeable statements, and these ARE words from a cadaver dog trainer/handler expert in decomp odor: It takes up to ninety minutes from the moment of death for the cadaver dog to be able to detect the odor of human decomp from a deceased person. This ninety minutes is from the moment of death of the individual. The key words are: "UP TOO" ninety minutes. If you wish to be more specific, seek the knowledge of an expert. I am not one, at least not in this area.

However, it is my understanding from the expert, that the deceased individual can be moved from one location to another during this time period (prior to the decomp not having set up in the deceased) and if the decomp odor has not set in, the cadaver dog will not be able to detect the decomp odor, until AFTER the decomp odor has set up in the deceased. This decomp odor may vary, depending on the age/size of the individual and the temperature in the area.

In other words, for a small child in a hot environment, the decomp odor could set in a little sooner than ninety minutes, or if the deceased individual is placed into a refrigerator it can take longer.

An example of human decomp odor being detected by cadaver dogs is that where the construction debris dumpster near Ronald Cummings MH was sniffed and found to have human decomp odor in three places; one location was on the ground beside the dumpster, one was on the ground at the back of the dumpster between it and a small body of muddy water, and the third area of human decomp was found on top of the dumpster.

What this tells us is that little Haleigh WAS deceased for at least ninety minutes during which time she was laid in three places on top of and around the dumpster. However, Putnam County LE would not pursue the discoveries made by the cadaver dogs; they did not even have the physical evidence examined that was contaminated with human decomp odor, and threw it all away; claiming that bloody bandages from the nursing home nearby (who had their own toxic waste disposals!) or used kotex could have been placed in these hit areas?

What this further tells us is that local LE was in on the cover up of little Haleighs death in cahoots with Ronald Cummings and their own criminal activities. Yet no one has ever followed up on these cadaver dog sniff hits, while little Haleigh was claimed to have been kidnapped? LIARS, all.

The expert (among other human decomp experts) says there is no other odor on earth like that of human decomp odor and that it cannot be confused with any other odor. IT is unique unto itself. For more detailed info, seek the guidance of an expert.

Anonymous said...

In response to one of the posts made above, (no name mentioned) it really grates under my skin when someone attempts to look for excuses for the mother of a missing child; twisting and turning and in every way looking for any excuse they can find for that mother. It causes me to wonder if that person herself is hiding something, maybe their own drug use, or worse. So there, I said it. I do wonder.

Anonymous said...

Her own use or non use of drugs is irrelevant. She hasn't lost a child in suspicious circumstances. Just saying.

Anonymous said...

Ha! As for as you know, Anon @8:18, right? Defensive, 'eh? Not as irrelevant as you might think. Just sayin'. Go figure. Red flags waving everywhere!

Anonymous said...

Yes as far as I know on both accounts.

Juliet said...

foodiefoodnerd - I mean cremated crushed/powdered remains as from a crematorium - that's what the dog hit on.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for speaking up, Grace4Ayla. I too think of and remember little Ayla. I loved that beautiful sweet little girl even though I did not know her.

I wished baby Ayla could have been mine, just like I wished I had been the one loving and raising the sweet, beautiful, brilliant and frightened Hailey Dunn as well. I would have cared for and loved them both dearly. It hurts me to think of them and their tragic end, and still no one has done one thing towards justice for them; just like nothing has been done to bring the murderer to justice for the tragically abused tender sweet little girl, Haleigh Cummings and never will be.

I appreciate your speaking up in defense of my posts above and don't doubt that you know more than you have said concerning the DeOrr child disappearance. But you know what? Even having said all that; how I wish this child would show up somewhere alive, I'd be so happy to eat crow and bend low to apologize.

S + K Mum said...

Enjoying reading everyone's thoughts/ analysis.

It would be interesting if an interviewer / journalist could ask the couple what their week was like in the days leading up to the camping trip; I suspect the answer to what happened to the little lad would be within those statements.

Juliet said...

Why you think some of us are looking for excuses for Jessica, I can't work out. I''m going on the information available - it's possible they were doing drugs, of course, but unless LE confirm it, why would I, or anyone, have reason to decide that they were all drugged up, not only beyond a doubt, but also that they killed their child? It's making up bits of the story to suit your own narrative. I don't discount that drugs may be a factor, I just don't know; it's therefore not logical to conclude that they killed their baby, that they couldn't give a toss, and that they are dope heads, end of story. You think that because you want to think it - I'm trying, at least, to go on what was said, and what could make sense relative to that. You may be right, and if so you're obviously more knowledgeable about drug addicts and the ways in which they treat their children than are some others of us.

The 'little business' is interesting, and Isaac has pot-heads amongst his friends, but the parents were not friends of Isaac, grandpa was - I wonder if they're still so friendly these days.

Anonymous said...

So do I, S + K Mum. So do I. This much we do know; (can't speak much for baby daddy DeOrr other than reading his blatant lies and cunning deceit), but can say according to research done by others right here on this thread an other threads;

is that mommy dearest Jessica has been known to do drugs in the past, had lost custody of her two older children to her former hubby and wasn't even seeing them very often; WHICH, leaves the mind to wonder what the hell had she done in her relationship with those children; and that her bio-daddy has served a little time for felony drug charges. OH? Sure, offspring don't have to follow in the footsteps of their no-good daddy (or mommy) but it is a proven fact that some do.

Bad genes are bad genes. Guessing the apple didn't fall far from the tree. A mother does drugs, neglects and loses her children? Another low-life piece a shyt IMO; which ALSO leads me to believe that she selected ANOTHER low-life piece a shyt to bed down with and make another baby. God knows what they have done to that little boy.

Anonymous said...

ABB has completely gone 'round the bend. The nonsensical posts really clutter up the rest of the comments for those of us trying to read and learn.

Grace4Ayla said...

Me too. But just like with Ayla, I don't think that is going to happen. Something happened to little Deorr in the car and I'd bet his little body is in a mine shaft. IMO

Grace4Ayla said...

Great idea. Just not Nate again. He's terrible.

Grace4Ayla said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Juliet said...

S + K Mum - if something happened to little DeOrr earlier in the week, what would be the sense of dragging Isaac and Grandps out there, to invent a cover up? That I can't see, as they apparently didn't know Isaac. Why would he go along with it , why would they risk it - more, why would grandpa? The camping location, according to Trina, was grandpa's suggestion - revisiting fond memories of decades past. You couldn't make it up - or maybe, they could.

I thought maybe whatever happened was at another camping ground, and they then moved on to Timber Creek. I would think the whole idea of going camping with grandpa and a toddler in the middle of nowhere was crazy, except that Trina's Facebook photos show that they are indeed a family which goes camping with said grandpa and toddlers.

ABB projects a lot - she doesn't know she is doing it, though.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

THANK YOU FOR THIS!!!

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Entertaining the idea that Jessica and Deorr disposed of the body before making it to the campsite - or like Juliet said - moving campsites midway- it still stands that GGP and Issac would be co conspirators to murder for having lied and said the baby was there when he wasn't.

Is that possible that 4 of them could get their stories that straight?

And why would Issac and GGP lie for them if they never saw little Deorr?

In my opinion Issac would be MORE of a suspect by going along with the lie than by not- since he has a criminal record- I am thinking he wouldn't think twice of throwing both J and D under the bus.

GGP- he's a relative- but would he really take the blame - not knowing what happened and just going off their word?
Not seeing the baby at the campsite?
Not knowing if they murdered him and by saying he's the last person to see him, that he could be blamed for his murder/death??

I just don't buy it.
It's possible. Anything is possible though.

Anonymous said...

In some ways this case reminds me of Sylar Newton. He is another little boy who 'disappeared' while camping with several family members. Unlike Deorr, his body was found relatively quickly, and it was determined that he had gotten into some drugs and passed. His family members panicked, hid his body, and faked an abduction. I do think this is a possibility with Deorr's case, as the drug theme seems to come up a lot. Perhaps Deorr got into something while unsupervised and the parents decided to cover it up rather than risk be arrested for possession and/or losing custody of their other children. Another theory I think holds possibility is the idea that Deorr accidentally passed away while napping in the family's truck--which would have gotten fatally hot over time. As others have stated, the truck seems 'sensitive' in the language of the interview. It is interesting that it is mentioned that the disappearance happened close to nap time, and Deorr's most precious security items were found inside the truck. I can envision Deorr's mom or dad locking him 'safely' in the truck for his nap and then leaving to explore while Great Grandpa stayed behind at the campsite and IR went off fishing. The temperature that day wasn't so hot as to lead one to believe that it would be too hot in the truck, but in reality even on a 50-60 degree day temperatures inside a vehicle can rise quickly. A small child can die in less than 60 minutes.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Agree Anon at 6:43pm.

Also I find it disturbing what Grandma Clegg says at the 2nd interview- about

"not wanting them to focus on us, we want them to focus on finding that little boy."

And "We don't go a day without having nightmares....of justttt....praying for answers."

Nightmares of just praying for answers?

What the hell are they having nightmares about that she couldn't finish the sentence and had to regroup into praying for answers??

And if you were totally innocent I think you would want them to completely rule you out as a suspect so that you could focus ALL of your LE and energy into looking into what happened. There would be no "don't look at us, just look for him" worry.

You would understand they are doing their jobs and not take it so personally.


ima.grandma said...

Peter: 
it is likely that he did not want to call 911 and Jessica did.  

I agree.  I have thought JM argued with him and finally put her foot down and said something similar to: "I'm calling anyway right now." That's when he went into a "dead panic", jumped into into his truck and hauled.


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

If "we" decided to call search and rescue, why did JM call 911?


D: Luckily, we - a few phone calls Is all it took at first, and we had, as Sheriff David...

Take out the extra words and you have: 
Luckily, we -  had Sheriff David...
What's going on with he and Dave? DK mentions him several times during the early days.


Juliet said - perhaps they moved campsites midway ~
I've always thought this was a possible event otherwise there would be ample hits on little Deorr. Whatever happened ocurred somewhere else.

Their story begins with Friday saying they were setting up camp ~ they might have done this to set the scene up Friday but now we know they arrived on Thursday ~ I still think whatever did happen ocurred that night and the cover-up began.

If it was an accident with the truck, there's no way the guy could clean up a vehicle well enough to leave "no trace." I've thought about a vehicle switch. 

I want to hear more about their activities at the campground on Thursday night. 


The Devil's in the Details

foodiefoodnerd said...

Thanks, Juliet, and sorry to be so dense! This is just the only mention I've read of finding cremains, so I wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing. (Also, some on here live outside the USA, so terminology can be different.)

This does seem an area people would scatter cremains of loved ones since it's remote and beautiful, probably many happy memories.

But it also seems a logical place to dump remains/cremains to cover up a crime; I'm surprised we haven't yet read of other bodies or parts being found while searching for little DeOrr.

And sorry to all if this suddenly appears 80 times, it keeps not showing when I reload the page?

ima.grandma said...

 ustupid said...
snipped:

They were simply trying to explain what they remembered so the audience could understand. 
**********************
Peter is simply trying to explain what they "really said" so the Law Enforcement Angencies and interested society can understand.


How does this analysis serve any purpose at all but to compose more unneeded negative attention? Help find him or dont post...
**********************
This analysis serves the purpose to create needed attention to help find Baby Deorr. This post is read and studied by more than just you, me and this circle of commenters. Figure it out. SA is reliable.

Anonymous said...

The use of the word " dumped" to describe the cremains bothers me. People scatter ashes, not dump cremains. I wonder if the LE officer in Leadore who owns and operates the only crematorium for miles around, " dumped" them. The Leadore crematorium offers burial at sea etc for mourners. Maybe the LE officer who owns the crematorium thought he could kill two birds with one stone (bad choice of words, I know) and took the opportunity of looking DeOrr to fulfil his duties as a crematory operator. Who knows? Perhaps the cremains belonged to a few different people.

Its just that word..."dumped".

If it was, in fact a law officer (and funeral director) who dumped the cremains, I can imagine sheriff being angry and using the word "dumped" and I also imagine it would be a public relations nightmare if the media/public found out. It's bad enough that ANYONE could come and "dump" cremains and contaminate a crime scene, much less a police officer.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

I also am wondering, if when Deorr and Jessica realized that Baby Deorr was missing, if they jumped into the reservoir and thrashed about, feeling around in the waist high water for little Deorr.

If your son was missing, with only just mere minutes going by and knowing there was a reservoir below (or above) then why didn't they jump in the water and look for him??

They stood my the reservoir calling out his name, calling out his nicknames, but in that huge rush they never thought OMG the reservoir?
I don't think they did.
They weren't wet and muddy or even crying when police and search showed up.

That bothers me.
I know you can't compare cases as they are never the same but you can tell Paul Wayment was truly sorry for his actions and for ultimately causing his sons death.


Meanwhile Jessica and Deorr just address people on social media.

Something stinks.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I would like to know if LE asked in their individual interviews(or polys) what each group member had for breakfast. If the group supposedly didn't arrive at the campground until 9:30 Thursday night, I wouldn't necessarily expect Grandpa or Isaac to be up at the crack of dawn. Also, if Jessica got her period or was about to, I doubt she'd be raring to go early either. Unless little DeOrr had fallen asleep in the truck on the way Thursday evening, he'd be unlikely to be up too early either.

So, what time did each wake up? What did each eat for breakfast? I'd be willing to believe that people grabbed something as they awoke on Friday, particularly if they hadn't set up camp the night before. If they set up camp Thursday night, I'd be curious how they did it in the dark and I'd expect everyone to rise late.

If it was more of an every man for himself late breakfast, it would be possible for Grandpa and Isaac not to see little DeOrr. If memory serves me correctly, Jessica said they went to the store around 10 for "supplies". So, if Grandpa & Isaac were told little DeOrr was still sleeping, they logically could have just taken him with them- Grandpa & Isaac would probably have thought nothing of it.

I'd like to know about lunch too. It seems from DeOrr and Jessica's interviews and Trina's posts, that no one ate any meals on Friday. There's no mention of a collective lunch; anyone feeding little DeOrr breakfast or lunch; DeOrr & Jessica eating breakfast or lunch; or Grandpa & Isaac eating. We have a campfire (per DeOrr), but no one eating, no shared meal recollection, and no one cleaning up after a meal.

Deorr & Jessica assert that they got back to camp around 1. Yet, little DeOrr's playing and getting ready for a nap before 2- without lunch and with a Grandpa that doesn't know he's supposed to be watching him. Meanwhile, DeOrr and Jessica are going exploring, apparently having neither eaten breakfast of lunch (really?). We all know that women are just dying to go exploring the woods on the first day of their periods too-Not.

None of this makes sense.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It is entirely possible that Friday morning store adventure, Jessica & DeOrr could have said that little DeOrr was still tired from last night and was going to take his nap. They could have gone "exploring" simply as an excuse to go somewhere else and then come back and "find" him missing, blaming Grandpa (as in "We thought you were watching him.").

It is possible that Grandpa & Isaac didn't actually see little DeOrr Friday morning, if when Deorr & Jessica got back to camp, Grandpa was napping and Isaac was at the creek fishing.

Just a few things that seemed odd to me:
1. How many people plan to leave for a camping trip on a Thursday night? Especially when they know they won't have time to set up camp when they get there.
2. Why go camping on a Thursday night? Why not wait to leave on Friday morning, when everyone's well-rested and you can set up camp when you get there?
3. Why was it so necessary for Jessica to have a cell phone charger that she'd buy one at the store? If they're so into camping, I wouldn't expect her to spend enough time on the phone to run the battery down. If an emergency was the concern, DeOrr had a phone and so did Grandpa (and likely Isaac too). Looking after Grandpa on oxygen, an active toddler, meal prep and clean-up, and exploring the campsite should probably have kept her a little too busy to calling people (especially with such scanty coverage- DeOrr's concern and excuse for "hauling"). Who did she anticipate calling in the middle of nowhere that a charger was so important? BTW, where did they make all those other calls from to get people on the mountain a.s.a.p.(per DEOrr "At first, all it took was a few calls..."? Hmmmm.
4. How did the initial "Lady at the store in Leadore seeing only Deoor & little Deorr buying candy sighting" (per DeOrr & Jessica) suddenly morph into a sit-down with little Deorr eating french fries with Jessica and DeOrr (per their former P.I.)? What did the family have for dinner? Where? When?
5. Who rode with whom on the Thursday night camp-out? We don't even know the simplest of details. These people don't seem to be clear on anything (except the search itself) and they should be.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Correcting my first sentence above-Sorry!

It is entirely possible that *after* the Friday morning store adventure...

Grace4Ayla said...

I know that Jessica had her phone turned off from 9:30 Thursday night to 10 Friday morning. It was turned off again soon after she texted her mother about her period (tmi) and remained off til they reached Leador, at 12:38 pm on Friday. This was supposedly after they bought the charger and had time to recharge her phone. It would be interesting to see if anyone else there turned off their phones. It seems inconsistent that she would be ok with turning off her phone the first night but concerned enough to go ahead and buy a charger to keep it on.

Anonymous said...

FoolsFeedOnFolly; you raise some excellent questions. Every one needs answering. As well, what time did DeOrr, Jessica and baby DeOrr leave home on Thursday afternoon for their camping trip; and again, you're right, why Thursday so late in the day when they knew they would not arrive until well after dark? Why? When DID they actually start off on this trip? Was the home searched, did the FBI look into any of these issues? I wonder. The FBI and the Sheriff are remaining mum? Why?

I tell ya, something is very strange about the activities of these Thursday night dark hours isolated in deep woods on dark roads that has not been accounted for. Where were they; really? There's a lot of secret places where they could have stopped off and spent hours taking care of an urgent disposal matter. Right? How convenient, Jessica's phone was "off" all night and DeOrr had to haul ass off further down the road to get reception? Not buying their lack of service stories; not sure I even buy the story that Jessica called her mother at 9:30 telling her they were at the campsite. Sure she might have called, but from WHERE? Even if it was from this campsite, they still had all night to 'take care of' baby DeOrr.

You're right too, Grace4Ayla, what's the big deal with Jessica's cell phone? There were plenty of cell phones around there; if her's was so important, why didn't she take her charger with her in the first place? Regardless, DeOrr had his cell ph which WAS working even if he did have to haul his ass out to the main road to use it. So did Issac & GGpa. But she needed to make a special trip into Leodore (?sp) to get a new one? What's the urgency? Doesn't jive.

I'mAGrandma is right too; the devil is in the details. In my mind, no question about it. I have suspected drugs as being involved from the beginning, even if so far we've heard of no evidence. However, consider that mommy dearest Jessica was previously charged with drug charges and willing to lose her two older children in exchange for her drug usage, why wouldn't she do it now too? AND baby daddy, what's his drug history? There's more involved than we know and may never know.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

FFOF and anyone else reading- just my thoughts only here on this- my opinions-

Has any parents ever had a baby/toddler sleep longer than 9am in the morning?
Maybe possible once or twice but not really.
LMAO they even have a meme about it.

This is funny and very true.....
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/74/20/d374200c50ba356c76a828c94d89581d.jpg

Toddlers need their diapers changed- a diaper that has been on a toddler even since 9 or 10 at night will be really full by 6 or 7 am.

And if the they are potty trained they need to get up and be taken to the potty - waking them up. Getting a child back to sleep when you are outside camping is almost impossible.
They want to GO!!

Add to this baby Deorr was sleeping in the truck. It would be pretty easy to look in and see him, sleeping, unless they parked 200 yards away from the camp.
It would also not be a "good" sleep- anyone that has slept in a truck before can tell you that you are going to be sore as hell waking up. Deorr Jr would have had to sleep in a car seat- and that wouldn't be comfortable at all. I can't imagine anyone "sleeping in" in a full size truck, let alone a toddler.

It is not possible to me to hide a baby all morning long and then just say you go to the store and say grandpa should have been watching him.

Why would Grandpa tell the sheriff that he saw the baby? Then he IS lying for the parents.
There is NO other way around it.
If it happened on Thursday- and they hid it and Deorr Jr was never there/present Friday.

There are so many questions.
No answers.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Can ANYONE answer this question.......

IF they disposed of Deorr Thursday night- WHY would Great Grandpa and Issac BOTH lie and cover for Jessica and Deorr IF they never saw baby Deorr????

Why did grandpa tell the sheriff he watched him walk in the direction of his parents?

Anybody??

Juliet said...

JustMyThoughts - they didn't sleep in the truck according to Trina - this from her old deleted comments:

Trina Bates Clegg My Dad's suburban and camper, Isaac rode the with my Dad slept in a tent, DeOrr Sr truck they slept in the back of my Dad's suburban with Baby DeOrr
Like · 3 · 4 hrs

Anonymous said...

FoolsFeedOnFolly; all excellent points. BTW, didn't Issac already tell two conflicting lies: On one occasion, didn't he say he was fishing at the creek, then on another one, said he was at the campsite? THEN said something like, what did GGpa say, or did you ask GGpa? Words to that effect. Now surely, he knew where he was. He couldn't have been in both places when little DeOrr went missing.

The old man says he saw little DeOrr but didn't know he was supposed to be watching him? THEN goes into a state of shock when he realizes he is being used as the excuse for the baby missing, with daughter Trina shielding him from all other comments and questions, stating he isn't well? Well of course he isn't. Who is, particularly as one gets older and has to haul a portable oxygen condenser around with them; which BTW these portable oxygen condensers do not have to be in use 24/7 and one can easily remove the tubing from their nose anytime they wish. It's main usage is during sleep at night. Bottom line, GGpa wasn't too ill to be on that trip, was only in his early 70s, ambulatory and fully able to get around unsupervised while camping out with his 'half-his-age' youthful sex offender bud. Makes one wonder what was REALLY going on there?

I do sort of half-way believe him though, when he said he didn't know he was supposed to be watching little DeOrr; BUT, did he actually see the baby that morning? Or is he forgetful and his mind is not so sharp anymore? It would be interesting to know his background since he WAS stupid enough to hang out with a sex offender and him with a very young great grandson, them all alone together in the woods. huuuuumm...? THAT certainly is not clear thinking. Not if he cared about the grandchild.

Like you said, a lota lota unanswered questions with no answers. Not yet anyhow.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

JustMyThoughtsOnly- you raise some viable questions!

You're exactly right- Typically, it's hard to keep a toddler down. LOL However, we're assuming that: the toddler is healthy and well and that said toddler has not been given something like Benadryl (either Thursday night to help him sleep, give mom & dad a break or Friday to help him nap so they could go "explore"). DeOrr's crying at the store in Leadore (per DeOrr & Jessica's backward confirmation) could have been due to illness. Way to many parents drag along a sick child because they have plans they don't want to change or miss. I would like to know if little DeOrr had any previously known allergies. Camping out with a child with allergies is pure misery to the child, making for one very unhappy camper. Depending on the parental attachment, it can make for inconvenienced, irritated parents angry at having "their" fun spoiled. Benandryl or something similar could have been given to either help a clingy (as in Mom & dad want their time)/excited toddler sleep at naptime in a new place or to resolve allergy issues exasperated by the woods. Perhaps, DeOrr ("I knew I was in trouble") accidentally overdosed the toddler. Thinking of how often this year news agencies have issued warnings to parents to only use the dosing cups that come with the medicine, to double check age/weight requirements, and to carefully measure to the line, etc.

I'm not, in any way, shape or form, saying it is appropriate or acceptable to misuse medication to put a child to sleep.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

My theory @ 12:46 still seems a little far-fetched though. But then again, I haven't lost or given up custody to two children, I don't have any drug-related issues either, and I don't have a judgement against me for owing a lot of money either. So, I don't know.

However, my theory does seem plausible with regard to possible drug ingestion (medical or otherwise), in that Trina Cleggs referenced finding DeOrr's diaper and disposing of it while this child was missing and during an active full-scale search in same area. Who does that? Any normal person would think it could either be a clue or contain clues (DNA, fingerprints, etc.)...even more so a grandmother with an interest in Missing Child cases. If memory serves me correctly, Trina also works in a police department as well. Please correct me If I am mistaken. Moreover, Trina neither reported the diaper nor her disposal of it until well after the trash had been removed and the diaper compromised evidence-wise. Using the diaper find to "prove" little DeOrr was there is actually problematic for her.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Juliet- a suburban is a little bigger and has more room than a truck- but let's call a spade a spade. It is still a vehicle and not very comfortable.
You won't, I promise, be well rested after a nights sleep with a baby.
Even if the back folds down, which I doubt they had a great sealy posturepedic sleep. Haha

Maybe is the baby slept in the camper with GGP- he would have slept in, but still. Vehicles are not comfortable to sleep in even if they are big vehicles.

And this is to say that Trina is telling be truth, as I am trying to entertain that possibly Little Deorr was never there Thursday night.

Still looking for answers.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Meant to put good nights sleep with a baby in the back of any vehicle, but my original sentence works too. Haha.
The little buggers love the nightlife.

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

FoolFeedOnFolly- I enjoy your posts very much! That is very insightful- thank you for bringing that up and I understand exactly what you were trying to convey.
It would be interesting to know if any Benadryl was used, if he was sick, etc. That makes a lot of sense!

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

This is very true.
Never thought of that.
If he had ingested drugs, she would have thrown away the diaper to get rid of the evidence. Instead of taking it to the sheriff first and saying "See!!!!!! He was here!!!"

And that's to say it was she who disposed of the diaper - she might know more than she is letting on, and covering for those two.

Of course, if Deorr and Jessica said THEY had disposed of the diaper - after he went missing- that would be EXTREMELY suspicious- so maybe she said it for them!!!

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

FFOF- also it's not far fetched now that you explain about the Benadryl- I'm just wondering what possibly could have been used as leverage to force GGP into telling a lie that he actually saw little Deorr on Friday.

Possibly being put into a home??
That could be one, if he relies on Jessica for care. And Issac wouldn't know any better if he got up as went fishing immediately after waking and not returning until they did a little exploring. Hmmm.

Still so many questions

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

So based on FFOF post, I now have changed my opinion that it is very possible that little Deorr was never there.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

JustMyThoughtsOnly- Yeah, I can't quite square why Grandpa would say he say little DeOrr either if he didn't...except to keep Jessica out of jail maybe. Maybe for Trina's sake, more so than Jessica's? I don't know though. Maybe bowing to pressure? I just don't know. Grandparents (as well as parents) often seem to want to believe the best and these days they seem willing to "overlook/excuse" a lot in the name of youthfulness and immaturity (case in point, Cindy Anthony).

I guess I'm really mean because my family all know I'd still love them, but I'm not bailing anyone out and I won't be covering for anyone,anywhere, anytime. LOL

Jen Ow said...

My biggest issue with 'the diaper' is that it was only ONE diaper! There should have been several diapers there at the campground considering the time they were there!

foodiefoodnerd said...

Fool, (jk, couldn't resist :^D) - FFOF, in what context did she mention the tossed diaper?
A worried, stressed grandmother wouldn't necessarily think " Ah! Clue!" with a used diaper - what kidnapper would change him before escaping? - but I can't think of any scenario (as an innocent relative) where it would come up in conversation?
It's like assuring people you flushed when you dropped a deuce two days ago.

There was one years ago where the 911 caller, reporting coming home to her husband stabbed to death, supposedly devastated and in shock, told the dispatcher she had accidentally touched the knife handle!
(yeah, they didn't need Peter's help connecting those dots...)

So, did someone ask her the details of her day? If any of you have seen the context did she show sensitivity to changing him, to throwing out a used diaper, etc.?

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Me neither!

Anonymous said...

The thrown away diaper might not have been little DeOrr's at all. If memory serves me correctly, it was found by Trina in a plastic bag and hanging from a tree limb ready to be picked up for removal. She took it down and placed it into a trash receptacle that was tossed out. The implication was made by Trina was clear that it belonged to little DeOrr as if to say "see, he was here", but did it?

There were volunteers there at the time who were preparing food and drinks for the searchers. Whose to say there were no small children hanging around the food prep area with their mother or other caretaker who might have needed a diaper change and it was their diaper that was disposed of? We have no way of knowing who the diaper belonged too or how long it had been left hanging from the limb and never will.

Jen Ow is entirely correct; there should have been MORE than just one soiled diaper change had little DeOrr actually been there all night and the next day 'til mid-afternoon. Just ONE diaper change in all that period of time? Ain't no way.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of sleeping in the back of a suburban or other vehicle; my brother travelled around cross-country for a couple of months years ago and slept in the back of his station wagon which, with the seats folded down, has a much lower head room than a suburban. He had bought the station wagon for the purpose of being able to haul his stuff as well as sleep inside it while on the road.

He had an air mattress, a pillow and a blanket and said it was quite comfortable. I guess one can make themselves comfy if they really try. But then, he wasn't sleeping with another adult or a child either. Course, when he landed at my house, between meals, he slept on a real bed off and on for the biggest part of the next week. I guess you can psyche yourself into just about anything if you really try too and believe it.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Jen and Anonymous:

Regarding the diaper- You're both right! If little DeOrr was in fact at the campground the length of time everyone else was, there should have been multiple diapers. I wonder if there were any diapers at the campsite at all- clean or used.

Yet, Trina only references one and she does so as if to imply that it proves DeOrr was there. If the Church group was there feeding the searchers though, how likely is it that they would have hung the diaper in a bag in the tree when they had multiple trash receptacles on hand? They were feeding hundreds of people. Only one diaper? Was there only one small child with the Church group? That seems as unlikely as little DeOrr only having one diaper.

Indeed, Trina did in fact manage to work it into the conversation. ;)

ima.grandma said...

foolsfolly
Trina only references one and she does so as if to imply that it proves DeOrr was there.
Indeed, Trina did in fact manage to work it into the conversation. ;)

My thoughts exactly.its all in the context of the exchange. Trina had an agenda.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Thanks to FFOF and ima.g for answering my rather confusing question about the context in which the diaper was mentioned.
If I understand you correctly, you're confirming that Trina made an effort to work into conversation some mention of throwing out a soiled diaper?

That does read like building a defense in advance, even stronger than just answering an unasked question or adding additional information to an existing question.

Peter and/or a veteran: do you find that a lot of leakage from supposedly anguished loved ones/survivors comes in the form of unexpected thinking, commenting what a criminal would do or say?
Mentioning things like evidence, fingerprints, detectives, etc., at an inappropriate time, when they're just then discovering the scene or being notified as loved ones what happened?
~~

PS: FFOF, I didn't mean any disrespect in the previous post; I was just kidding about shortening your screen name like that! :^D You provide a lot of insight and I always value your posts.

SFig said...

In response to "Grace4Ayla said...I have inside information in this case and I totally agree with anon 6:43"

I would really appreciate it if you can give us all more information. What behavior have you seen of these parents? What are your theories on what happened to DeOrr?

I have to say, this new wave of parents either killing or finding their children dead (perhaps from drugs used by them) and then disposing of their bodies to escape what they have done is so sickening. Who could possibly just throw out their baby like trash? Also, if just one is responsible I always find it odd that the two make a pact to create these stories. I would think one would be angry and turn on the one responsible. For me, it makes me believe that it was always the parents more concerned with themselves and each other, and the child came second. I have to remind myself that parents in those situations are not like those of us who cherish our children. I wish every child out there was born to parents who loved, protected, adored and cherished them.

I don't know what happened in this case but I love reading the thoughts and theories that you all have put forth. And of course reading Peter's SA of the case.

SFig said...

I am not a Robot, but I always wonder when I check that block..Are there many Robot's out there commenting on blogs? (just had to joke a minute)

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Bahaha SFig!!!

Robots!!

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

The diaper only being one diaper is very suspect.

Entertain this:

They travel, throwing away a diaper at a rest stop/gas station and still arriving at camp at 9:30ish....

Deorr still would have had to at least had his diaper changed before bed, and then when he woke up.
Those diapers can get pretty heavy.

IF they were only at the one campsite, not anywhere else, where is the first diaper from the night before?

It is very possible they were somewhere and then threw that diaper away, traveled to a different campsite after the incident, and then had mama claim there was a diaper there. But no proof of the diaper just her word.

Or the diaper is totally made up, he was never there, just to make it seem like he was there.

But yes there would def be more than one diaper, FOR SURE.

I know this seems to be repetitious for some (Juliet I'm talking to you - I'm sorry) but I really think everyone here commenting is looking at this with VERY good ideas.
I have seen a lot of ideas I haven't heard on the other posts comments and I love reading what everyone thinks.

I do wish Anon would tell us more about the inside info though!!

JustMyThoughtsOnly said...

Read not heard haha

Grace4Ayla said...

I was helping the family and the PI. I was uninvited when I caught them in several lies. Things got weird after that.

Anonymous said...

Can you be more specific, Grace4Ayla, without risking your own neck? TYIA!!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 224   Newer› Newest»