Wednesday, January 27, 2016

DeOrr Case Examined: Unintended Death Theory



Did DeOrr Kunz jr drown because he was not being watched properly by his parents?

Is this a case of unintentional death and subsequent panic coverup?

Police have announced that the parents of DeOrr Kunz are "suspects" and it appears this is by reason of deduction.  

Why make this announcement?

Why make this announcement now?

The announcement comes on the heels of frustration by the public who sought answers for the child, with commentary overwhelmingly in favor of unintended death and cover up by the parents.   

Is this a signal of weakness?

It may be that the announcement is made now in hopes of not only pressuring the parents to speak out more, but to cause someone of whom either parent has confided in, to come forward.  

What we have learned through Statement Analysis has come primarily from the father, who loves to talk.   Unfortunately, in the lengthy interview, the IR did not do a good job in brining either parent to a place of denial, nor even about the polygraph.  Here are some specifics from the analysis to consider:  

Analysis Question

Do the parents possess guilty knowledge of their son's disappearance?


In viewing good social introductions, we may be able to rule out 

intentional homicide, but not accidental death and coverup.  This 

is simply because the parents love the child, and what may have 

happened initially, was not intended but came from negligence.  

With parents panicking over being believed, or due to substance abuse, they would need to remove the child from the locale and report him missing. 

Question:  Does this theory fit the language?

The case (and analysis) has progressed enough to take a working

 theory and apply it to the interview's analysis.  






Interviewer: Alright, DeOrr, take us back, was it Friday?


Jessica: Yes.


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


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.  

Might this suggest that the father, DeOrr sr, wishes to be 

viewed in a 'victim-like' status as exhausted loving father?


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.  

Should the same parent know exactly the hours 


 the child has been missing ?

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. 

 The mother wishes to assert herself (pronoun "I"), which 

should have signaled interview strategy of working one 

against the other, particularly the mother.  


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. 


Note the delay in him making this call warrants explanation.  


Note this in relation to his wife's correction, precision and 

use of the pronoun "I" to assert herself. 

This is an extremely sensitive portion of the interview.  The 

father wishes to convey that which is unnecessary:  that he 

was rushing and in a panic. 

The need to persuade is therefore, noted.  There is no reason 

for an innocent (or delaying parent) to make certain we, the 

audience, knows he was "hauling" and rushing.    

We have an extreme point of sensitivity and it is about the


 father being inside the truck.  Let's explore this. 

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.    

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. 

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?

*If this was unintended death, was the child moved, via truck, 

by a nervous father?  

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 father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his 


language.  

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.


Does the choice of wording suggest leakage of unintended 

death and cover up?



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.  

Emotions in the "logical" portion of a statement are often 

put there artificially unless something has caused the subject 

to debrief and process the emotions. 

What causes emotions to enter due to processing?


a.  the passage of time. 


When enough times passes, it becomes more difficult to 


conclude "artificial placement" of emotions.  In truthful

accounts, especially fresh, or told for the first time, the

emotions come in the "after" portion of the statement.  Such

 as:

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. 


What it makes us wonder is if they really were in a "dead


 panic", or they wish to convince us that they were.  The 

choice of the word "dead" may be leakage; that is, that 

while considering the truth (see theory), the subject uses a 

truthful word that comes directly from experiential memory.   

b.  The repetition of the account. 


Once the account has been told, emotions have had time to


 settle in, and in repetition of an account, the emotion is then 

sometimes added in the "logical" portion.  

I do not know if this father has repeated this account enough 


times to have processed emotions.  I do not think enough 

time has passed, by this point, so my question has to do with 

how often he has repeated this account.  

"dead panic", however, is not a word ("dead") we expect a 


parent of a missing child to use.  

"I knew I was in trouble" is an interesting statement.   What 


"trouble" is he in?  Does this mean he must take action to

protect himself?  "Trouble" may suggest that what happened 

to his son was not anticipated but became a circumstance 
in which he needed to get himself "out of trouble" from.  




 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. 

Next, "we decided" shows both the unity of "we", but also 


that they 'came to a decision', which is to say:  There was a 

delay in calling for help.  

To need to "decide", or debate, tells us also that what 

happened was not likely intentional.  


Here, the parents may have been left with a decision:  do we 

report what happened to authorities, knowing that even 

that Child Protective Services will be involved, or...

do we handle this ourselves. 

Note that the father, himself, was in trouble.   

Did the decision making process include any threats from 

him towards his wife to say "we both are in trouble" so you 

better support me in this?   "After all, it was an accident!"


It is very likely that there was a delay in calling, which 

confirms the analysis of the father's "hauling", or need 

to persuade that he was rushing.  




Next, "that's when" speaks to time.  He returns to the truck, 


further making this a very sensitive point to him.  Is this 

where DeOrr was transported, chronologically?


The truck, the truck, the truck...it is repeated in his 


language, and it is something that is of great importance to 

him and even includes editorializing language, which often 

belies the need to persuade.  


She tried getting a signal out - um, as soon as I got a hold of 

the,, I kind of, they told me that she was on the other line with 

them and they had our location, and they were on our way. They, 

they were amazing, they are amazing and they still continue to 

be. Ah, Lhema High County Sherriff and Salmon Search and 

Rescue, you could not ask for a better group of people, 

volunteers, and search and rescue, and just everybody. You 

couldn't ask for better people - so sincere, so concerned, and 

they were - everybody was emotionally attached to this, as you, 

anybody would be of a two year old. 

As we have noted, this is to praise searchers who failed.  




He's pretty small for his age but he moves pretty good, and that 

was our concern. 

Past tense reference noted. 

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. 

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


This is a form of personal distancing by a biological parent.

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.

Here we see the need to justify himself.  He is "in trouble"

and he is in need of justification.  


He went on to praise those who failed to locate his son, but 

next we see something else unexpected:  concern about 

gossip:  



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


D: These guys search miles, so the miles radius they have - it's 


very rocky terrain, it's very open, it's not -.the helicopter they 

used is used to back very deep Montana, it is designed for a lot 

worse situations than this, and there was not a trace of my son 

found - there still isn't but the search is on, that's - the hearsay of 

things has kind of gotten way out of hand, the search is so far as 

it's been put on, that it's been suspended, and that is not entirely 

sure or true. Sheriff Dave of Lhema HC, I just spoke with him on 

the phone this morning - he has got horseback riders and 

trackers up there right now, and very advanced professionals. I'll 

be going up, and I've just come down to get any resources I can 

get to go back, right on back up today. Um, what questions do 

you guys have?
The use of "my son" is consistent with the theory of 

unintended death. 

Note that he has told us:

1.  He is in trouble

2.  Referenced his son in the past tense (no longer in need)

3.  Praised the failed search

4.  Is concerned what people are saying about him in 

"hearsay."  It should be of no consequence.  




I: You were in the truck so you were the first to realize, ' Oh, no, 


DeOrr is not here.'

D: No, we both did, I -


J: We both did.


This is a signal of distancing language via plural 


pronoun use by a biological parent. 

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.  

Consider this with his statement about finding the 


perfect safe place, which is self justification, showing it

as a need, and fitting the theory of unintended death.  

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.

She knows his nicknames:  She must be a good mother. 


This, too, shows need to justify and rebut criticism of 

not being a good parent.  

This is an important point about the mother:

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


Did you notice that the mother has no need to quote herself


 using the nicknames?



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


parents, he does not.

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.  It is, however, the context that speaks

to us:

The need to show them as close, caring parents speaks to

Neglect.  

Not necessarily chronic neglect, but the theory here is that

a short time of neglect caused DeOrr to die and the parents

fearing not being understood, or being blamed, took 

matters into their own hands and made a false report 

of him going missing, while the father had actually 

disposed of the body.  



J: Yes, he's very attached to us.

This shows her need to 'defend' herself.   


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 -



Rumors cannot hurt DeOrr jr, therefore, the concern 

expressed is for someone else, since professionals (who 

were extremely praised) were searching using sophisticated

equipment:  



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.



She agrees.   It is not helpful to the parents.   In a missing 

child case, the child is the one who needs help.  









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.  This is a good 

place to deny involvement. 



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.

The child is "missing" yet the father has the need to 

rebut a rumor...about himself.  

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...

Jessica: Earlier, it was earlier that day

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


Jessica: yeah..

DeOrre Sr.: we didn't, we never, haven't left the camp since one o 


clock that afternoon, so it's just a lot of hearsay, and..

interviewer: was anybody camping round you?

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.  

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.  This is self justification while 

no one has accused him.  The site location bothers him, 

which may also fit into the unintended death theory. 



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

Did DeOrr accidentally drown?

Recall the assertion that officials said, "100% he is not

in the water" as offered to the interviewer.  (full interview 

is available on the blog search feature). 


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..



Do they believe he drowned because he was so tired and in 

need of his nap?



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 we have the need to be seen as any other parent.  This 

also speaks to a mistake and a desire to be 'understood' just

like "anybody" who has lost a child that age.  

This, too, is consistent with unintentional death and 

cover up. 

372 comments:

1 – 200 of 372   Newer›   Newest»
Vicki said...

Hey in the last few days I have been unable to access the comments/links from my desktop computer. I can here from my phone. Is there an issue or is it me?

aud said...

Ive had same issue, but both from phone AND home computer in accessing comments. :(

TommysMom said...

Add me to that list,could not access comments/or watch the videos.

mom2many said...

It looks like Peter has fixed the issues that were causing this. If anyone is still experiencing problems, try using a hard refresh -- hold ctrl + shift + R on a windows, or cmd + shift + R on a mac. That should force the website to reload everything that builds the website and retrieve a new copy from the server. Sometimes browsers continue using previously accessed pieces of the website for a surprisingly long time after they have been changed.

Anonymous said...

Me too, couldn't access comments.

thinking out loud said...


The comments from older posts are still unavailable.

Anonymous said...

Yay I able to see and read comments again. I wasn't able to the last couple of days.

Sus said...

http://590kid.com/2016/01/27/letter-from-investigate-for-the-deorr-kunz-case/

Even Vilt, the Kunz's first PI, is releasing that the parents are guilty.

Sus said...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/deorr-kunz-grandfather-my-son-did-not-hurt-that-boy/

This is an interview Deorr Sr, the grandfather of Little Deorr. Rumor is that he signed the contract to hire Klein Investigation. Klein says he informs the signee of what he finds. That being said, I find what Deorr Sr says interesting. Is this what Klein thinks happened to Little Deorr?

"They've never done any physical abuse to him."

"He could not have done any harm to that boy even if it was an accident. Hypothetically, if an accident would have happened up there and the boy was injured very badly, the thought would have never entered his mind to dig a hole, put the boy in it, and walk away. That is totally asinine. He would have thrown that boy in a truck and gone down for help."

lynda said...

Yay! Finally can post a comment. What is very troubling to me is Grandpa Deorr and his interview with a reporter. Transcription by me is below. Did Grandpa just leak all over the place and does he have guilty knowledge of what happened??

Nate Eaton, EastIdahoNews.com reporter: Mr. Kunz, what was your reaction when you heard the news this morning?
Elder DeOrr Kunz: I think you can tell by my reaction right now what my reaction was. I, I, It was completely off the wall we did not expect this. We were not told anything about it. We knew nothing about this until we saw it on your news. Nothing. And I’m am very, very uptight about it, very upset about the fact that they have released something which is going to turn people against my family .They have no right to do this. They have no right.
Eaton: It sounds like the sheriff is pretty confident that Jessica and DeOrr were involved, but you don’t believe that’s the case.
Kunz: They have no evidence. They have not shown me one bit of evidence to support anything. Nothing. And until they give me something besides words as evidence, I want them to shut up.
Eaton: Why do you think they are pointing the finger at your son and his girlfriend?
Kunz: Well, Because, first off, the, the parents are the first ones they always point fingers at on cases like this. I think that they are just tired of this case. They have nowhere to go with it and they just want, they want to close it. And they want to , to put my son and Jessica in prison for, for something they have not done. That little boy loved Jessica and my son with all his heart and they loved him. They’ve never done any physical abuse to him. There, They’re coming up with things that are not right and th, I think,.,I feel they’re not going to look any further than what they’re looking at right now. They’re going to convict, try and convict my son and Jessica of this.
Eaton: It sounds like you’re saying your son and Jessica didn’t (KUNZ INTERRUPTS….I don’t believe it, I know it. have anything to do…KUNZ INTERRUPTS
Kunz: I don’t believe it. I know it. I know my son. I know my son. He is not a monster. He could not have done any harm to that boy even if it was an accident. Hypothetically, if , if an accident would have happened up there and the boy was injured very badly, the thought would have never entered his mind to dig a hole, put the boy in it, and walk away. That is totally asinine. He would have thrown that boy in a truck and gone down for help.
The only one, on purpose, that could have done it is the relative and his friend. And they are, they have totally not looked at them at all, in my opinion. I know they haven’t – not like they have these two kids.
Eaton: Anything else you want the public to know?
Kunz: Please don’t judge things by what is going, what they’re saying right now. Let, let law enforcement come up with a evidence, which they have none, that’s why they can’t come up with any. They’re just wanting to bury this. Please give these two kids air , please don’t condemn these two kids by what there, they’ve , what you guys have said today. Don’t condemn ‘em.


Lis said...

YAY! the site is fixed!

Nic said...

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.



Usually the word, haul, is in reference to the word, load. My observation has been that when people use the word “haul” it’s in reference to transporting/carrying something. Such as, “U-Haul”, or, "I hauled a cord of wood to the cottage”.

I realize some people will say they “hauled their a@@…” but this is a serious situation so in my opinion, it’s unexpected.


The word “and” doesn’t usually indicate temporal lacuna, does it? However, in this instance it strikes me as missing time because I’m thinking, he’s thinking “at that time”/“while she was calling” he was busy, “hauling”. Time is sensitive to these two, as is the car he was using to “haul”, so maybe they were synchronizing their activities?

The word “because”. He had to make an excuse why he wasn’t with his wife.

"Would get [it]." This is an awkward statement. I would expect him to say, “I didn’t think one bar would get them.” Or, “would get through”. Or, “would get service."


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..



Missing information. The word “just” implies something else.

We was just. Wrong verb conjugation. Seepage? (I was just…)

“Yeah," (thinking on his feet? As per, “Yeah, that’s the ticket.")

"we decided we were going to go a little exploring.” The word “little" minimizes their intention and then he qualifies the word exploring by saying they "weren’t more than fifty…” The sentence again is awkward. It’s “going to do”, not going to “go”, unless that is more seepage. Like the word “good” might also be. Was he told to go (back) and be a good boy with grandpa by the campfire? As in maybe they were going to go on a hike (too long for his size, even if he was goer,) and jr. started to follow/wanted to go with them, and they told him to go back (the 50 feet). But there was a stream between them and grandpa, and little ones are easily distracted by water. He referenced a pool of minnows. This reference made me recall BJD and the “dirty fields”.


" so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr?”

The word “yell” implies histrionics/strong emotion. Why not just call over to grandpa and ask him to send jr back to his dad so they could go explore and fish for minnows? Moreover, he yelled over to grandpa for his son’s whereabouts. Why yell after his son’s whereabouts if that’s where his son was when they left him to explore a “little"? Unless Sr. knew he wasn’t with grandpa and he was covering up something horrible.

jmo

JMTO said...

I wanted to give the parents the benefit of the doubt. I really did.

But after hearing little Deorr's grandfather speak to Nate Eaton - and hearing him make that hypothetical "if there was an accident" and he was injured badly theory with a hole being dug - I think the family also knows what happened that day.
That was a little too much leakage there.

Anyone could think of these things, but as Deorr's grandfather would you really be able to say them let alone entertain those theories???

Issac Reinwand knows more than he lets on as well. I am not buying that he and GGP are completely innocent.
He heard lately GGP was on oxygen but wasn't he suppose to be in oxygen at the camp site?

I think they all know what happened.
And I am wondering if they are trying to get Issac to come out and speak a little bit.
His interview was very strange.
No reliable denial- but he painted himself in a very positive light.

Basically I think that they need to haul a half mile down the road, where Deorr Sr went to get more service, and start looking for a place where they buried little Deorr.

If he's anywhere that is where he will be w all of dads sensitivity over the truck.

Peter Hyatt said...

I am of the opinion that the death was not intentionally but certainly associated with acute negligence.

Perhaps drowning, though I do not know, but the language does not show the indication of chronic child abuse, nor of violence, such as the case with poor impulse control.

I have questions about the police strategy as it does not appear to be from a position of strength.

ima.grandma said...

I'm so glad everyone's back. Good job Peter. I've leaned toward drowning from the beginning. DK repetitive uses of 'upside down" stood out to me. I think he remembers seeing him floating upside down.

'We'll find you, son' Parents of missing Idaho boy believe he was ...
fox43.com/.../well-find-you-son-parents-of-missing-idaho-boy-believe-he-...
Jul 13, 2015 - In an interview with EastIdahoNews.com, Deorr Kunz Sr. and Jessica Mitchell say ... “They have torn that creek UPSIDE DOWN and inside out.

Family holds vigil for missing toddler | News - Home - Local News 8
www.localnews8.com/news/Family-holds-vigil-for-missing.../34151958
Jul 13, 2015 - The boys parents, Jessica Mitchell and Deorr Kunz Sr. held a vigil ... world could be changed and turned UPSIDE DOWN forever," Kunz Sr. said.

Search for Crystal Rogers. Aired 8-9:00p ET - CNN.com - Transcripts
www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/15/ng.01.html
Jul 15, 2015 - Two-year-old Deorr Kunz at the Timber Creek campground with his father, .... in a split second, your whole world is UPSIDE DOWN and vanished.

https://www.facebook.com/ellentv/posts/10153604590312240
Trina Bates Clegg to‎ Ellen DeGeneres
July 13 · 
My two and 1/2 year old grandson went missing July 10, 2015 at a campground near Leadore. We have searched for three days and have not seen any signs of him. The water was cleared with a 100% clearance. They have had over 300 people on the ground, ATV's and horseback with NO signs. We are asking everyone for help please. They are now stated they are leaning towards an abduction
— at Timber Creek

lynda said...

I agree Peter. In the beginning, LE was way to friendly with them all. They are good, they are not suspects, I'm good with them, etc..the scene was not cordoned off as a crime scene. They continued to let mom drag the "blankie" the real one, not a replica per dad, but yet no scent could be picked up.

That has always bothered me. Dad making a big deal out of "this is not a replica" First, who talks like that? Second, Why even say it at all, and third..if there was an accident and they are loving parents that are just trying to cover their asses and they buried him, as a mother, I would bury my child with his blanket. Maybe it IS a replica?

lynda said...

I agree about the IR interview also. He did not issue a reliable denial AT ALL. The second time he was given the opportunity to issue a denial he avoided the question totally, and started using persuasive language to convince everyone what a great guy he is, how he gives bikes away that he has repaired,etc. He completely ignored the question. He never mentioned the baby's name, he showed no concern for the child either. If you listen to interview you would have to at least entertain that he has guilty knowledge.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Peter Hyatt said...
I am of the opinion that the death was not intentionally but certainly associated with acute negligence.

Perhaps drowning, though I do not know, but the language does not show the indication of chronic child abuse, nor of violence, such as the case with poor impulse control.

I have questions about the police strategy as it does not appear to be from a position of strength.

January 27, 2016 at 3:07 PM

Interesting, Peter. I assumed because there was water around it meant one or both of the parents sexually molested the child.

ima.grandma said...

Peter, IF it is found that little Deorr did drown with subsequent cover-up, does this imply both parents were complicit at time of Jessica's 911 call? Could Jessica be the 'exception to the rule' in your analysis of her call? Is it possible Deorr could have pulled this off alone and confessed to Jessica later?

mom2many said...

Re: website problems
While what is currently the site front page is working again, another commentor mentioned that the second page is still broken. When you get to the bottom of the front page article and click "Older posts," that page loads 25 posts, and the problem with the links persists. I think that John's assessment that something is wrong with the Terri Horman video post is correct. This post is missing end tags somewhere that is causing the rest of the page rendering to fail to load as intended. If you unpublish the Terri video post, it should resolve the problem. The video can be reposted as a new post. I'm not familiar with blogger, but with WordPress you can backdate a post's publishing time. If Blogger has the same set up, then you can repost Terri's video with the same date the original had, and can maintain the order of posts.

ima.grandma said...

That's what I was thinking mom2many. Why doesn't he just delete it? All was fine until that post. As it is now you can't get into the previous years thru the links unless you pull up an old one thru google and you can go anywhere from there. Some of the old Deorr posts are interesting.

mom2many said...

RE: DeOrr

The comment by the father that DeOrr can really move, together with the sensitivity of the truck, made me wonder if perhaps he backed into him or ran him over by mistake. Perhaps he then "threw him into the truck" and hauled to get help, but it was clear that DeOrr had passed away, and then he stopped and buried him.

mom2many said...

Here is the direct link to the Terri Horman video post: http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/01/terri-hormans-interview-video.html. You can see that it displays the same error of not being able to access links on the page.

Here is the direct link to the video post that was posted right after the Terri Horman video post: http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/01/bibi-wilhilem-speaks-out.html. All the links work fine on this and the other single post pages.

ima.grandma said...

mom, if your thoughts are on point, would you lean toward the theory they moved campsites before calling? My mind imagines blood flow from trauma.

mom2many said...

I haven't followed the case closely enough to know all the theories that are out there. I was envisioning internal bleeding.

By moving campgrounds, how far away are you conjecturing? From what I can gather about the extent of the search, if there was blood anywhere within miles, it should have been found.

ima.grandma said...

DK's double mention of "Snake River" has always bothered me. Coupled with Trina's accidental slip of them leaving Thursday instead of Friday as originally reported makes me think there's a reason for DK's words.

mom2many said...

If the police have not even verified the correct timeline of their leaving for camping, I don't know what to say about their case. It seems fundamental that the investigation needs to verify the last time each person was seen, especially the child, independent of those already involved.

ima.grandma said...

DK: 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. 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.

ima.grandma said...

Yes. This little boy's face has been with me since the beginning. I can't get past it. I've become obsessed. Ive become a serial poster. I almost feel like an intruder in the parent's lives. I'd like to see this one through to justice. I won't let another similar tragedy affect me like this again.

Nic said...

Like m2m, I haven't followed all the reporting/theories, so if I'm repeating one that's already been posted, pardon the duplication.

I think what happened was everyone assumed that the "other" person had their eye on jr. I think sr isn't lying when he said that they were going to go exploring (hiking). I think unbeknownst to the parents, jr followed them for "50 feet". Because of the close proximity to camp, as opposed to walking jr back to grandpa, Dad verbally redirected jr back to him (it's nap time, be a good boy and go back with grandpa) and then they turned to resume their hike. Grandpa thought that jr went hiking with his mom and dad, so didn't bother to go looking for him/worried about his absence/he was "off". Jr. listened to his dad and walked, so the parents believed he was back at camp with grandpa and napping. But the water distracted jr -- or maybe he found the pool of minnows sr. referenced and maybe that is where he fell in/drowned. His dad references/justifies the depth of the water (disbelief? how could he drown in a foot (?) of water,) and the sound (grandpa couldn't hear him struggle?) Perhaps the parents came across his lifeless body on their return and the rest is anybody's guess.

The grandfather's reference to digging a hole bothers me. A previous posters reference to the blanket not being a replica bothers me. (Something to comfort jr./something jr. would not be separated from.)

jmo

Anyway you imagine what happened, it's a tragedy.

JMTO said...

Peter @ 3:07

I agree.

Something happened up there, an accident that then turned into cover up mode.

Whether he tried to follow his parents to the creek and drowned, while GGP watched him walk over to the edge towards them or there was an accident involving the truck (I am leaning more towards a drowning due to no physical evidence that we have heard of at the scene, and I would think if he might have been backed over with a vehicle that there would be more evidence) also they hit a scent at the reservoir so maybe he went there and that is where they found him?

Also in the first interview with the parents, when Dad speaks of the "little minnows" he thought Deorr would just love to see he breaks down a little, his voice catches and I have always wondered if that was where they found him, if there were little minnows there when they pulled him out and they thought he might have leaned too close and fell in. I don't believe this part of the story with Dad Deorr finding minnows and going to get little Deorr is true, but I have wondered if he incorporated some part of it into the cover up story.

I think then Dad Deorr took little Deorr after much debate on what to do and whether to call 911 a half mile down the road and buried him.

That's why it is so front and center and sensitive in the story, getting in his truck and hauling. He needed to get his little body away from that area.
They should check where he made the call from, but there is always a chance they could have come back later and moved him. It's probably why it was so easy for them to come back to the campsite, except instead of searching they were grieving.

Lynda- I agree about the blanket. I think you are right.
Maybe it WAS a replica.

Anonymous said...

Could he have been left for a nap in the black truck in the heat, he died from the heat exposure and that's why GGP and IR hadn't seen him?

JMTO said...

Nic- I agree with everything you said @ 5:09

Sus said...

I don't know what to think. I'm possibly agreeing with Peter that the sheriff is not speaking from a position of strength. Did he have his hand forced by the PI and clamoring public? Or does he have evidence?

I am troubled by Isaac Reinwand's interview, beginning with the fact that he only feels safe to talk once the parents are the top suspects...meaning he is not.

IR has an attorney. He should have had no problem giving his account if he is innocent of wrong-doing. I have read people assuming IR has been talking to police, but I'm not so sure.
1. The sheriff said IR went up with him a SECOND time. The first time would have been camping. That means only one additional interview.
2. The sheriff said that IR's story was the most consistent. Yet, we also know IR has an attorney to keep him consistent, and to keep him from answering certain questions. The sheriff also said IR's polygraph was inconclusive, but that was expected because I of his mental state.
3. This was an answer from IR in yesterday's interview. "At first, I was kind of sketchy about talking to anybody, but then the way social media has been I thought if I talk to THE POLICE and everything maybe everything will cool down a little bit..."
Is he saying he hasn't been talking to police? It sounds like it.

JMTO said...

Good catch, Sus!!!

Lis said...

I have a couple of questions about things in the statement. Is it absolutely for sure that little DeOrr was there alive? This part of the statement:

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.

It seems unexpected that he says "he, uh, was right there with us" I mean, where else would anyone expect him to be? Downstream doing some fishing?

I don't know what he means by "where it's at" - where what is at? and then he immediately moves on to describing the area (TMI?)

The other thing that pops out at me is

there's not a 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..

It seems like he is saying there is no way the searchers could have found not a trace of him because he would have dropped something along the trail that they would have found?

Yes kids do tend to leave a trail, they'll take their shoes and socks off and drop them along their way a lot of times, but there's a limit to how many things they have with them to leave a trail of and it would be fairly easy for someone to go back and pick those things up.

I am wondering, if there was an accident and they decided to try to cover it up for some reason, if they are all are aware of it and agreed together on the course of action? Reinwand doesn't seem surprised that the parents have been named and he doesn't seem perturbed or distressed. He is more like, once this comes out and gets dealt with, then we can all go on with our lives. He tries to help people in random ways, did he try to help the parents by keeping their secret?

Is it possible that the accident happened elsewhere and they decided on the camping / missing child scenario as a way to deal with it? That they went up there for the express purpose of this? Is there a good, reliable sighting of little DeOrr up at the campground?

If he was up there alive for sure, then I lean towards accidental drowning. It is a really common scenario, little kids love water and are drawn to it but they can drown quickly, in a very small amount of water, which surprises some people. I notice in his statement:

our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy.

The creek was only knee deep and a few feet wide. Maybe they thought it was safe.

I just don't understand why someone wouldn't call 911 and report an accident, though. Children do die in accidents fairly often and generally the parents are looked on with sympathy unless it was something egregious.

We had friends whose toddler drowned in their swimming pool after a birthday party of the older brother. In all the commotion, someone forgot to close the gate, and the little one went straight to the water and drowned before anyone even thought to look for him. As soon as he was spotted in the water, 911 was called and everything possible done to try to save him, even though it was too late. The parents were devastated. The idea of covering it up is not something anyone would have dreamed of! We all felt terrible for them, knowing how quickly and easily it could happen, and knowing the anguish they felt.

Shannon Duane said...

The "hypothetically" bothers me the most. That just says to me that something DID happen up there...I just don't think most people who say the word "hypothetically" in a situation like this.!id just straight up deny anything happened...I wouldn't speculate on a "hypothetical" situation that very likely COULD have happened based on what we know.

Also concerning is Isaac reinwand's statement where he says "no comment" when asked about the last time he saw DeOrr. but he had no problem saying DeOrr was up there. He just won't comment on the last time he saw him. Says to me something happened.

Shannon Duane said...

Peter, you think maybe he drowned and then dad or someone else pulled DeOrr out and disposed on the body? Because the comment about him definitely not being in the water suggests he didn't drown. So the only way he could have is if he was pulled out before searchers arrived.

Lis said...

Anonymous mom2many said...

If the police have not even verified the correct timeline of their leaving for camping, I don't know what to say about their case. It seems fundamental that the investigation needs to verify the last time each person was seen, especially the child, independent of those already involved.
-------------------------------------------------

mom2many, I think possibly the PI has done this. They said something about having changed the 17 minute window to a 4 hour window after all of their investigation.

Lis said...

DeOrr's statements are all awkward and chaotic but there's something here I wonder about:

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..

"he was going to be good with grandpa" doesn't really say what he means. Did they decide he would be 'good' with grandpa, in that he would be okay, he would be safe? or does he mean he would behave and stay with grandpa?

He doesn't say whether they verbalized this to grandpa or to little DeOrr, or was it just a decision they made between themselves? As in "we'd better not leave DeOrr" "Aww, he'll be good with grandpa" "well... okay"

Or was it 'good' as in "DeOrr, you be good and go stay with grandpa" and then not watching to see that he did, or following up with grandpa so he knew he was responsible?

He doesn't say anything definite like "we left him with grandpa" or "grandpa agreed to watch him" or "grandpa was watching him" - we don't know whether grandpa even knew he was supposed to be 'good' with him?

lynda said...

Lis...my theory for the cover up is

1. Neglect, they could be held criminally liable depending on how he died.

2. Jessica already does not have custody of her other 2 children. The odds that she would ever see them again when her son dies in her care because of negligence are high. So you have to cover so you can still be a part of the remaining childrens lives

Also, have we seen the monkey and the sippy cup he ALWAYS HAD? I know we saw a "real not replica" blanket but where are the monkey and sippy? Hmmmmm...buried with him along with the blanket?

Since the timeline just opened up to 4 hours, I hope LE is pulling video from any store within a 2 hour radius of campsite to see if they bought a blankie on the same day he was reported missing.

tania cadogan said...

Why would they make an accident look like a homicide?

Anonymous said...

If DeOrr did drown, I would think his scent would have been picked up at the campsite, and along the trail to the water.

Jen Ow said...

One of the only reasons ai can think of Hobs, is if they were using drugs, or alcohol, and believed they would be held criminally liable due to their intoxicated state.

Sus said...

Another possibility...
I'm not sure Jessica went to town. Maybe it was only Deorr Sr and Little Deorr. That is why he emphasized "as a family." Jessica covered for him saying she did.

The sighting in town, which he emphasized, was only Deorr Sr and Little Deorr. It was Deorr Sr who said he left Little Deorr with Ggp. It was also only Deorr Sr who came back up from the creek "not finding" Little Deorr. Jessica is left out of all these scenarios. She simply sits and agrees...kind of.

It would make sense that Jessica stayed back with ggp since she was at camp to care for him. In addition, Jessica may have stayed to fish. She has said that she fishes, whereas Deorr Sr does not.

mom2many said...

Did they ever use cadaver dogs?

Assuming they did, if DeOrr was already dead from drowning when put into the truck and then taken somewhere, wouldn't the dogs hit? If he was badly injured then put in the truck barely alive, and then dies on the way, and dad gets him out quickly, would the dogs still hit?

It just feels like a more active accident, such as being hit by the truck, rather than wandering off and drowning, would cause the sort of panic that might lead to cover up.

I wonder if phone records might put the parents in contact before the 911 call. If a call is attempted but not completed, would it show on records independent of call history within the phone?

Natalie said...

It was premeditated is what the language shows. Dad, Mom and Grandma involved. Dad DeOrr's excessive praising of searchers and searcher equipment shows it is a game to him. He did something to DeOrr. He knows where he is. He is a sociopath. He is marveling at how well he has hidden DeOrr and how well he is fooling investigators is what I think.

Natalie said...

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

panic, not knowing where he was in such a small area, and not

knowing, never being there, I knew I was in trouble.


I don't believe they searched for him.
I don't believe DeOrr was ever brought to the campsite.

Triangle between Mom, Dad, Grandma. Mom calling Grandma to tell her about leaving campite for the "buying feminine hygiene products" had to do with whatever plan the 3 had come up with.

Didn't they have a life insurance plan on Baby DeOrr?

Natalie said...

Lis wrote

He doesn't say anything definite like "we left him with grandpa" or "grandpa agreed to watch him" or "grandpa was watching him" - we don't know whether grandpa even knew he was supposed to be 'good' with him?

January 27, 2016 at 7:58 PM

Good points Lis. I don't believe baby DeOrr was ever at the campsite. This would explain what you have astutely noticed with the lack of any concrete verbalization that baby DeOrr was actually physically ever left with or in the vicinity of Grandpa at the campsite.

Natalie said...

If accidental death (which the language does NOT indicate) they would have called 911.

Dad DeOrr's language shows someone involved in a cat and mouse game. Praising searchers/search equipment while feeling delighting in the fact that all their efforts have not found baby DeOrr even with their sophisticated equipment.

Oftentimes, viewing things through the lens of sociopathy is helpful in many of these cases, especially when the language is showing cat and mouse type behavior with authroties. We can be sure in this case it is not the probably very rare instance of accidental death with coverup.

Natalie said...

DAd DeOrr said

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.


1) Uh, we searched for-

(Here, Dad DeOrr cuts himself off. He does not finish his sentence and tell us what he was searching for. He could have actually been searching for somewhere to dispose of/hide Baby DeOrr.)

2) "he was in such a small area"

Embedded statement? Was Baby DeOrr left or hidden in a small place?

3) "not knowing" "not knowing" "never being there" (means he was there) "I knew I was in trouble"

(Well, what is MOST sensitive about this part of Dad DeOrr's statement is the "not knowing" and also the "being there".
Oh, I think Dad DeOrr knows exactly where Baby DeOrr is and I think Dad DeOrr was THERE.

elf said...

Natalie, what are you seeing in the language that does not indicate accidental death?

Anonymous said...

I can finally post comments. Haven't been able to access video or comments for a few days.

ima.grandma said...

Philip Klein won't let go until charges are filed. I'm a biased Okie. He brought new attention, leads and evidence back into the disappearance of 17 year old Molly Miller and Cody Haynes. Google it...

He also went into Love County ~ kicked ass and took names. He exposed so much corruption. He made a difference. ~ off my soapbox now...

http://www.newson6.com/story/30578352/molly-millers-family-ask-love-co-sheriff-to-step-down

Snipped: 
"We work hand-in-hand with law enforcement all over the United States and around the world … to find these missing persons. This is the first case that we have ever had where we have actually had a law enforcement agency, being the Love County Sheriff, that has attempted to thwart our investigation, that has attempted to hide evidence from us and who has attempted to intimidate witnesses,” Klein said.          

trustmeigetit said...

Eaton: It sounds like the sheriff is pretty confident that Jessica and DeOrr were involved, but you don’t believe that’s the case.


Kunz: They have no evidence. They have not shown me one bit of evidence to support anything.


uf I was asked that question and was sure my relatives were not involved I would state that. There is no way they are involved.

He says "they have no evidence"

Either suspects or has some knowledge that they may be but knows there's only the "lack of evidence" at this point.

trustmeigetit said...

He needs to go investigate Hailey Dunns murder.

And we need more people like this.

trustmeigetit said...

That means grandpa is in on it then.

Grandpa says he thought the boy was going with them

Not saying wrong, just that it would mean grandpa was in on it too.

trustmeigetit said...

I still think it's likely the child was left in the truck for an extended period of time (maybe they used drugs and lost track of time).

Don't think "I was high" would be a good defense for leaving a child in your car and they then panicked and choose this route.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's been awhile since I read the interview transcripts and was a little surprised I'd missed these:

Deorr: "I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off".- His focus was on talking, what he planned to say. The expected is “I didn’t want to risk getting through to 911 and getting cut off .”. Notice he says “halfway through my talking. He needs to control the conversation and he needs to be sure he gets to say everything he needs to say. He’s not calling to ask for help for DeOrr; he is calling to tell 911 what he needs them to hear.

Jessica: "“…especially after screaming his name.” Notice this is in close verbal proximity to “no sound of him, no crying”. When a parent can't find their child, they don't scream, they yell their child's name. Screaming a child's name is more in line with what a parent does either when they are extremely angry and out of control, their child is in immediate life-threatening danger, or their child is dying/has died (especially unexpectedly).

Jessica: “Yes, he’s very attached to us.”- The expected is that a toddler is very attached to his parents/primary caregiving parent. That Jessica needs to say it is concerning. Attempting to portray themselves as very attentive and engaged parents?

Not to be snide here, but if he doesn't go away from his parents and he's very attached to them, then how did they "lose" him? Deorr's fumbling account of "He was going to be good with Grandpa." doubly concerns me. For someone who talks so much, he does not commit to little DeOrr actually being with Grandpa or even seeing little DeOrr with Grandpa. He does say in the beginning that "he [little DeOrr] was right here with us." Yet, tracking dogs could not pick up a trace of little DeOrr at the camprground?

So, either DeOrr was not "right there with them [DeOrr and Jessica]" at the campsite and died elsewhere or little DeOrr drowned/was fatally injured (drugs?) in DeOrr and Jessica's custody/care and Grandpa is the scapegoat (his illness-physical and mental condition making him the patsy).

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Lots of very good discussion points being brought up!

Shannon Duane at 7:35 PM Jan.27- Very good point on Isaac's interview statement! http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/isaac-reinwand-i-had-nothing-to-do-with-deorrs-disappearance/

His effect was very flat and his statements disjointed and sometimes convoluted. I'm not sure if that was due to medication he may be taking, a mental processing issue, or what. I can why his lawyer wants to be present for questioning and interviews (I wonder where he was for this one-in the room, just not on camera?). The emotional detachment from a missing toddler evidenced with the first question was a little disconcerting and unexpected, especially given that the toddler disappeared on his/their camping trip. Even if he had never met little DeOrr prior to the trip, one would expect compassion for a small boy. If they were both at the campsite, I would expect at least some degree of interaction between the two and a small spark of compassion and empathy for Little DeOrr. I would expect some measure of empathy at least for his friend, being that little DeOrr was Robert's great-grandson.

Nate: What have the last six-seven moths been like for you?

Isaac: Really boring. Kind of quiet. Not a lot to do in Idaho Falls.

Responses like that read as "oblivious", "unconcerned", "cold", "detached"- when in fact there may be underlying medical/physical/mental issues. I believe that's what the Sheriff was alluding to when he said Walton and Reinwand were not considered suspects and they expected their polygraphs to be inconclusive...but not Deorr's and Jessica's.

klv said...

Everyone will probably think I'm crazy but I think Jessica's grandfather did something in a cloud of dementia. I've seen perfectly sweet men with this condition suddenly snap & become temporarily physically aggressive. It comes out of the blue, leaves suddenly, and often leaves the patient totally befuddled & disbelieving that it had even occurred.

"We thought he'd be good with grandpa"... Really what that's saying is they thought grandpa would be good with the child.

A coverup ensues to protect GRANDPA from the reality of what he'd done. Ala Jon Benet's parent's pact to protect their remaining child Burke. It made no sense in that case for one parent to cover for the other unless it was to protect a loved one who was technically guilty but "factually" in their minds innocent.

Also, the first thing Issac said when the interviewer surprised him at his door: "Have you talked to the grandfather?"

Issac was the grandfather's friend, not Jessica & Deorr Sr's. I don't believe he's been totally forthcoming, despite his latest interview being advertised as holds-nothing-back. What motivation could he possibly have to cover for the parents? His motivation would be to help his friend. I don't think he has many, and I bet Grandpa was important to him.

I suspected Issac at first but not as I learned more. Most crucially, HIS timeline has never changed, and the window of opportunity just isn't there.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Sus @ 1:29 PM Jan.27 - Thanks for the link!

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/deorr-kunz-grandfather-my-son-did-not-hurt-that-boy/

This is an interview Deorr Sr, the grandfather of Little Deorr. Rumor is that he signed the contract to hire Klein Investigation. Klein says he informs the signee of what he finds. That being said, I find what Deorr Sr says interesting. Is this what Klein thinks happened to Little Deorr?

"They've never done any physical abuse to him."

"He could not have done any harm to that boy even if it was an accident. Hypothetically, if an accident would have happened up there and the boy was injured very badly, the thought would have never entered his mind to dig a hole, put the boy in it, and walk away. That is totally asinine. He would have thrown that boy in a truck and gone down for help."

- Why is "the boy was injured very badly" followed with "dig a hole, put the boy in it, and walk away" in Deorr Sr.'s denial? :0 Injured very badly is NOT dead, so why is he combining the two thoughts? How does Deorr Sr. know with certainty what thought would or would not have entered his son's mind? Maybe it didn't enter son Deorr's mind, but someone else advised him how to handle such an accident.

-Little DeOrr is said to be so dearly loved by his family, and yet this grandfather who is all about his family, consistently calls him "that little boy", the boy" and "that boy". He has no problem using Jessica's name and takes possession of DeOrr with "my son", but little DeOrr is nameless and not even "my grandson".

- I am bothered that Deorr Sr. says of little Deorr, "That little boy loved Jessica and my son with all his heart and they loved him. They've never done any physical abuse to him.". The expected is to hear the parents/grandparents tell us how much they love/loved the child, not how much the child loved them. The phrasing seems like a need to persuade how wonderful the parents are/were, that the child loved them so. Past tense noted, but may be due to passage of time and PI reports.

- I am not liking DeOrr Sr.'s ending statements:
"They’re just wanting to bury this.- Given his earlier scenario about an accident, the boy being injured very badly, dig a hole, put the boy in it, walk away.
"Please give these two kids air..."- Air??? The expression is generally "give ________ space/room to breathe".

-Injured very badly, hole, bury, air :0

klv said...

Also (no edit option!) this would explain all the guilt coming out in the parents words & behavior. Not just that they're covering up an accident, but that- just like the Ramseys- they KNEW they were placing their child in an unsafe situation, but decided for their own selfish reasons chose to ignore..

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

klv @ 2:35 AM Jan. 28

You brought up a good point that I don't think has been considered before.

Trina (Jessica's mom) let it slip that they all had actually left and set up camp Thurs. night, which automatically skewed the previously known timeline (Jessica and DeOrr certainly didn't volunteer that information in their initial interview).

Jessica and DeOrr seemed anxious to pre-empt and discount the possible sighting of DeOrr with a filthy, bawling DeOrr at the store in Leadore Thurs. night (they tried to play it off as the store lady was confused, only to later float it as they all 3 were there and little DeOrr ate french fries while some man stared at them- which was disproved).

DeOrr's seeming need to justify choosing a "safe" campsite may be attributed to the remote and isolated campsite,the a bad road, and the limited cell coverage with a seriously injured toddler.

How would the water fit into this scenario? DeOrr repeatedly references the water-almost like he's both equally surprised and delighted with LE's purported assessment that little DeOrr is "100% not in the water" (he said it in the negative). Which is odd, given that DeOrr and Jessica were only gone "10 minutes". Ten minutes is not enough time to bury/secrete little DeOrr in a way that neither search and rescue cadaver dogs wouldn't find him. Of course, just because they said something, doesn't guarantee it was truthful. ;) They seem to be having an issue with honesty.

I must be weird because I can remember every traumatic event in my life in surprisingly vivid detail.

Fooldfeedonfolly said...

klv- What if Grandpa didn't necessarily have a medical episode, but perhaps he decided to teach DeOrr how to fish- not necessarily realizing DeOrr was too little, the stream was too deep/moved to fast, or DeOrr wasn't as steady on his feet or toddlers being top-heavy?

Thinking that through though, why the need to hide the Thurs. night departure and arrival and the evening store sighting (that they later parlayed into a family lunch at the store with the old man staring)? It doesn't seem to fit, does it?

klv said...

FFOF,

Thanks for not calling me crazy, or saying I'm trying to pick on an elderly man! I'm not! Well maybe a little crazy but any condemnation of Grandpa Robert is the furthest thing from my mind. I just wish I were as articulate as you & the other posters here & could explain myself better.

Your point about about the emphasis on water is a good one. Water seems nearly as sensitive as the truck. But if little DeOrr just toppled in during a fishing lesson or even an unsupervised walk, what's the motivation for coverup? His death would be a very tragic - but understandable - accident. I envision more of a violent explosion. Violent enough to throw everyone into a wth just happened mode, and traumatize into panicked unclear thinking. Not that ANY sort of sudden death would be easy, but I think the reaction would be different. More paralyzing. The decision to cover up here was fueled by adrenalin rush & crazy thinking.

I think its very possible it happened Thursday night after they arrived at the campsite. To the best of my understanding, Trina got there way too soon (distance & mile-wise) for her arrival to have been spurred as claimed by Jessica's text.

Did you know that the camp site was a place Robert had been to for many years? When DeOrr Sr goes on about how he didn't know about it's this or that, he doesn't come right out & say that it was Robert's choice to camp there but it almost sounds to me like throwing under the bus leakage.


Anonymous said...


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. 


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

I still think this is one of the most significant comments made by DeOrr Snr... some people said they thought it was leakage, as in gone, dead... but I'm imagining he sent baby DeOrr back to camp as he was following dad and watched him until he was out of sight but without checking he'd actually got back safely to camp... I think DeOrr Snr went on his own to ''explore'....this was the only time DeOrr Snr made this comment and I think he didn't mean to tell that part... I'm sure this is the point that baby DeOrr had his accident!

foodiefoodnerd said...

klv, you're crazy and trying to pick on an elderly man. A befuddled one at that!

Just kidding; couldn't resist after that apology. :^D You actually explain yourself very well, and bring up some excellent points!

One is about an accident being so violent, graphic as to throw everyone into shocked, unpredictable, instinct response.

Even unintentionally backing over him with the truck or him running into its path could cause that.

Many years ago my 7-year-old nephew was killed by a semi truck while riding his bike along the highway unattended.

It was public, and no issue of covering up everything, but my sister's graphic description, I wouldn't rule out any reaction from parents or grandparents seeing their active little child with very graphic, obviously fatal trauma.

What keeps sticking in my mind about the campsite is DeOrr, Sr.'s comment on that talk show about how his son's ability to move quickly prompted his choice of that "closed in" area -- pointing to mountains and trees literally miles away, up rough terrain.


foodiefoodnerd said...

"...where, you know, where is little DeOrr? He, immediately shock."
~~~~
Obviously, DeOrr isn't the most articulate, lucid guy around, especially when he's wound up, but "he, immediately, shock" sounds so jumbled even for him, like he's trying to edit/program his experiential memory and avoid a direct lie at the same time.

We can guess what we're supposed to infer, but we can't say it for him.


DeOrr, Sr. again:
"I seen him to the point I figured out he was gone"

~~~~

More jumbled DeOrr-speak, but unintentional slip, and/or imbedded confession?

Normally one would say to the point "he was gone" as in out of line of sight.
"...figured out he was gone" would mean deducing it with logic (definitely not one of his strong points...), rather than seeing him disappearing from view.

So when he "figured out he was gone," what clues did he use; just how "gone" was he; and when and where does he figure out it happened?

John mcgowan said...

FORMER KUNZ INVESTIGATOR: DEORR KUNZ AND JESSICA MITCHELL LIED ABOUT SON’S DISAPPEARANCE

IDAHO FALLS — A former private investigator working for Jessica Mitchell and DeOrr Kunz Sr. has released a letter he wrote the couple in September when he terminated their working relationship.

Frank Vilt agreed to investigate the disappearance of DeOrr Kunz, Jr. at the request of the Kunz family last August. A month later, he says he removed himself from the case.

Philip Klein, a private investigator from Texas, later picked up the case.

Vilt tells EastIdahoNews.com he is publicly releasing the letter to clear up any misconceptions people may have about why he walked away from the prominent investigation.

In the letter, dated Sept. 25, 2015, Vilt writes:

“I told both of you that if I felt that you were not telling the truth, stalling me, or otherwise misleading me, that I would withdraw from the investigation. In my professional opinion, both of you lied and misrepresented the true facts that could solve the mystery of your missing son.”


Vilt spoke with EastIdahoNews.com reporter Nate Eaton about the letter and what he believes may have happened with DeOrr Jr. Click on the video above to listen to that conversation.

Full letter and interview (audio) in link below


http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/former-kunz-p-i/

John mcgowan said...

He doesn't hold back on what he thinks may have happened ^^^

Anonymous said...

That was my thought on the blanket all along. I stated, I'd be curious to see what he was wrapped in when found. I'm leaning toward drowning and cover up. Especially since the time frame went from 17 minutes to four hours.

Anonymous said...

Also great grandpa that the last time he saw the baby he was by the river bank.

Sus said...

klv,
I don't think you are crazy. I think ggp and Isaac caused the death and the parents did the cover up. I don't know how it played out. But I think that's the bare basics.

Vilt's interview was pretty wild. He decided Jessica may have set up an out of state adoption...all based upon the fact that she gave away custody of her first two children and had her tubes tied after having Little Deorr. In other words, he based his theories upon his religious views and a woman's right to reproductive choice. I was not impressed.

Anonymous said...

Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that DeOrr Jr. was sold? JM and DK have some pretty hefty debt and just recently acquired something like $11K to pay off a debt, then a month later DKjr does missing.
-KC

ima.grandma said...

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/parents-missing-idaho-toddler-named-suspects-summer-2015-disappearance-n503966
snipped:
Lehmi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman told Dateline it's because of DeOrr's parents' inconsistent stories that they are being named suspects at this time.

"We first became real suspicious of mom and dad after their initial polygraph tests, taken several weeks after DeOrr went missing. Then this past weekend, when the FBI handed over their reports and interviews, that's when we made the decision to inform the public," Sheriff Bowerman told Dateline.

I thought they took polygraphs long before several weeks passed???

Lis said...

Foolsfeedonfolly said...
...
Deorr: "I didn't want to try and risk getting half way through my talking to 911 and have it cut off".- His focus was on talking, what he planned to say. The expected is “I didn’t want to risk getting through to 911 and getting cut off .”. Notice he says “halfway through my talking. He needs to control the conversation and he needs to be sure he gets to say everything he needs to say. He’s not calling to ask for help for DeOrr; he is calling to tell 911 what he needs them to hear.


Very good point ffof! This part of his statement makes no sense to me. Who would wait to call 911 for an emergency just out of worry the call would cut out? You'd call and if it cut out, you'd just keep driving and call right back. Even if you weren't able to get through again, you'd know they'd received your call, had a record of it, and would try to track it down. I think your scenario is the only one that makes sense out of his words.

klv said...

Its my understanding that the sheriff finally naming the parents as suspects came because people were asking him whether they should donate money, and in good conscience he decided to disclose publicly their status so potential donors would be informed.

Vilt basically threw Jessica under the bus because he apparently doesn't like her OR her reproductive choices, and as a (seemingly former) fan of DeOrr's he's hurt that he didn't get paid.. after inserting himself into the case by offering his services as a PI. Seems to me there's a good dose of bruised ego there, & that for various reasons he finds it easier to blame the mother based on some illogical premises.

One thing I did find interesting in Vilts interview is him saying that Jessica repeatedly said that as she & the dad went off exploring, she kept looking back at little DeOrr who was staying with or toddling back to Robert. It shows heightened tension. But then again, I'd show heightened tension at recalling the last glimpse of my missing son too.

Vilt also suspects the mom because she wouldn't look him in the eye. Well, we ALL know already that the parents are covering up what happened, but that doesn't tell us WHO she's covering up for.

Klein's interview where he & his team are watching & analysing Isaac's interview was interesting. The forensic psychologist starts making notes practically before his first sentence is completed. But in the end, all that's really concluded is that Issac is being less than forthcoming. (I agree).

I keep coming back to the fact that Isaac's relating of the timeline remains consistent. Timelines can be really tricky for investigators to pin down due to deception and are crucial to determine. Despite the limitations of Isaac's, his is consistent and the parent's are not. I haven't heard anything one way or another regarding Grandpa Robert's.

Its obvious to me that law enforcement (probably in connection with Klein) are pressuring the parents hard and Issac (in a less hard way, but there nonetheless) to finally break & be truthful about what happened. It is NOT obvious to me that they feel the parents or Issac caused this child's death.

And since he's hardly EVER mentioned except in context of his health issues, I have no idea how they feel about Grandpa.

ima.grandma said...

And remember klv, Sheriff also mentioned re-election when asked why now?

Add this to my list of "upside down" quotes

http://fraglaz.com/2016/01/26/parents-of-missing-2-year-old-idaho-boy-named-suspects/

“Six months ago today since the last time I seen my son my little boy,” Kunz wrote on Facebook. “Six months since he stood next a picnic table and I heard his little voice and that was the last moment my life went from great to UPSIDE DOWN… that little boy taught me how to be a man to love and care and happiness I miss my son every minute of everyday. I just want my amazing son back and my great life to continue daddy misses and loves you goobs.”

lynda said...

imagrandma...

No, they didn't take polys right away. Remember good ol Sheriff Bowerman was all "They're good, they're solid, 100% innocent, 100% no a suspect...I think he only gave them polys because he got pressure from the public. He majorly screwed this up and I think Klein and FBI are the ones that got things moving. To my knowledge, no one has come out and asked Bowerman, "Hey, if they were hinky from the beginning, why did you wait to poly? Why didn't you make this a crime scene? Why did you let them search by THEMSELVES?

Grandpa Deorr basically gave a confession with all his injured, buried, hauled, no air, blah, blah. either that or he's one sick pup.

I would like to hear Peter's take on Grandpa Deorrs statement. I have it transcribed above

klv said...

Ima,

Yes, the repetition of upside down imagery in Deorr's statement!

Also "dirt", "water", "truck" with rapid hauling action but no forensic evidence.. I realize this veers off the course of statement analysis but here's a scenario: Grandpa snaps in confusion, violently shakes/rattles the boy (upside down??), and the parents return & see the poor child broken in the dirt at Grandpa's feet. Possibly sooty from campfire ash. In a this can't be happening moment, the parents rush him to the water to clean him off, throw him in the truck & haul a$$ down the hill to find help, only to realize that the child is already gone.... And then ensues the coverup.

BTW: Tricia @ WS will be posting an almost-live Q & A session with Sheriff Bowerman tonight at 10:30. It should be interesting-- and pre-transcribed!!

lynda said...

This out this morning...A LOT OF INFO REVEALED..

The "incident" happened AT THE CAMPGROUND ON FEDERAL LAND. They TOLD the family that charges are going to be pressed, sooner rather than later, they just don't know what charges. They have physical EVIDENCE that shows death occurred . Wow. Finally!

http://590kid.com/2016/01/28/former-deorr-kunz-investigator/

CEC said...

I'm happy I can finally read comments and comment. I try to check in every day, and today is the first day the site hasn't been "frozen"!

I've always suspected the father had something to do with DeOrr's disappearance. He seems all about covering his tracks and uses distancing language.

CEC

klv said...

I haven't listened to the 2-part audio with Klein yet, but in essence what's new is that there is physical evidence.
I'm not wedded to my Grandpa Snapped theory, but as far as I know the only physical evidence reported to have been gathered belong to him: overalls, hunting ax, & camping shovel.

Of course anyone could have used these items, not just Robert. And since LE is under no obligation to share, they could very possibly have other items that the public isn't aware of.

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
klv said...

Ima

That's interesting and I totally believe that Jessica said that AND that Issac said that.

Scenario: Child is discovered, lying broken on the ground at Grandpa's feet. Mom & Dad are screaming at Grandpa, "Oh my god what have you done??!" Issac, defending his friend screams back "Well why would you even bring a two year on a camping trip?!!"

Still makes sense to me because SO FAR I haven't heard anything to dissuade me. I expect more details will be made public very soon though.

Thanks for not shouting me down, though. I've been mulling this theory for awhile but keeping quiet because I thought I'd get crucified for sharing it out loud. With the recent revelations about the case, and official confirmation that the parents are covering something up, a lot of people are saying that's confirmation that one or both of them MUST be the culprit-- and that's not true. Even a review of their statements analyzed doesn't have to support that conclusion. IMO.

Peter, any thoughts on this?

Natalie said...

Elf, I have watched the 15 min interview (mostly the Dad talking) about 10 times. The language shows a premeditated plan to make DeOrr "disappear" without a trace. I hope the father's cockiness indicates that perhaps he sold DeOrr (would explain his complete lack of killer guilt) however it is more likely he killed DeOrr but in either case the campsite is a ruse. The language also shows Baby DeOrr did not die at the campsite. There is not ONE statement in the Dad's verbal diarrhea which places DeOrr at the campsite ie. "DeOrr was sitting on ground, we fed DeOrr a hot dog, DeOrr was crying, DeOrr was standing near Grandpa..." NOTHING. NADA.
Dad DeOrr "planned" the whole thing. He is playing a cat and mouse game with investigators. Now it has come to light that they also involved their own hired PI to lie to and incorporate into the overall game of deception. I do not believe they are "covering for Grandpa", I do not believe any "accidental" death occurred. Baby DeOrr was either sold or killed.

Natalie said...

One statement that has always stood out to me is: "Our one concern was the creek BUT he's a little guy."
Why did they use the word BUT?
It lessens how concerning the creek is BECAUSE he is little.
It makes me think that DeOrr may have been carried on foot by someone (the parents, another individual?) and what is leaking out is that they were concerned about crossing the creek but felt that because DeOrr was so little it would be OK because they could easily hold him while they crossed the creek as he was of a little size. It also makes me think DeOrr was alive when whoever began to walk with him
on foot somewhere.

Sus said...

Lynda,
What grandpa Kunz said could be guilty, but I lean more toward he is repeating a theory given to him by Klein and/or LE.

Klein said he gives info and what he thinks happened beforehand to his client. His client is grandpa Kunz. He hired him. He signed the contract.

I believe what we are hearing from grandpa Kunz is LE's theory.

lynda said...

Natalie..

In his first interview, dad did say that he was okay by the fire with grandpa. Eluding to the fact that they had a campfire going. Klein said today that the FEDS have followed the money very closely and there is zero evidence of any money not accounted for has been received by parents or family, eliminating the "sold" aspect.

Sus...You may be right, hadn't thought of that. Altho Grandpa "signing" the contract has been denied by Klein. He stated it was referred to them from a Childrens Network, they turned down the case twice, and then the 3rd time..they took the case. They have over 660 man hours involved to date. Kleins foundation pays for that. He does ask for travel expenses which is what the fundraising is for. But it is deceiving that Grandpa "hired" them. He did not. If he signed something to be responsible for travel expenses that's one thing. Klein himself said no one in the family 'hired' them.

Natalie said...

They may have passed him off to another individual, saying to DeOrr "He's going to take you to see some minnows". This individual I believe walked with DeOrr through some of the forest and also crossed the creek (perhaps carrying DeOrr the whole way including while the individual crossed the creek--hence the Dad's statement "Our only concern was the creek BUT he's a little guy). This individual was probably carrying DeOrr through the creek (no problem since DeOrr is so little) perhaps the individual walked through some length of the creek carrying DeOrr. This would lose any scent and prevent dogs from tracking the scent. Was DeOrr sold and the transaction made at the campground? The individual walking through some length of the creek carrying DeOrr so that the scent of both would be lost to the dogs? Dad was completely confident no trace of DeOrr would be found on the mountain.

Natalie said...

Lynda, there is no concrete statement about DeOrr himself (action, activity, mood) while at the campground. They could have been paid cash.

Sus said...

From Sheriff Bowerman yesterday, on his FB page, in answer to a question about Isaac "Reinwald."

"First of all, you have your information wrong. Mr. Reinwand, not Reinwald, has cooperated and taken a polygraph. It was inconclusive, because of medical condition, and we were aware that it would be inconclusive. The time he was missing , was while he was looking for Deorr. He could not have walked far enough to get outside our search area. FLIR was used by helicopter that night. Deorr was not in the search area, and my two scent dogs should of found him within that 3 mile radius that we initially searched. Deorr was not there. I have never said that I was going to charge anyone with a homicide...check your facts. All I want is the truth, and the parents are being less than truthful. That comes from the experts....Sheriff Bowerman

Natalie said...

The dogs wouldnt have found the scent if someone walked in the water of the creek carrying DeOrr.

Bad Juju said...

If I may ask, Natalie, what is it in Dad Deorr's language which "shows a premeditated plan to make Deorr disappear without a trace"?

lynda said...

Natalie..I apologize. I've kind of gotten off track here. This is a SA blog not "sleuthing" board.

In keeping with that...Peter has remarkable and confirmed successes to such a high degree that I feel he is correct here also. This was a difficult analysis for him because of the way Dad talks and all the contradictions. For Peter to come to a conclusion regarding manner of death I believe him. His reputation is at stake so I think he is very mindful and careful when he does post a conclusion and he always follows the principles of SA tho many cases would be easy to let ones emotions takeover or taint a conclusion.

Sus..I'm still thinking you may be right about Grandpas statement. John, Peter? Juliet? What say you? Leakage or parroting?

Natalie said...

Peter has not posted a conclusion about the case. If I'm reading correctly it seems he is not finding signs of intentional homicide or violence in the language.

I believe something happened that was premeditated but I don't know what.

I have listened many times to the interview.

I have done a lot of analysis on it on previous threads.

I believe the parents planned whatever they did. I see a cat and mouse game with authorities but I am not sure I understand exactly what they are hiding. I do not believe they are hiding accidental death. Their language reveals delight in fooling authorities and in DeOrr not being found. There are indicators in the language that DeOrr was carried across or along the creek by someone who was walking through the water. There are indicators they staged this to be an abduction, as Mom said "DeOrr never goes anywhere without his blanket, cup and monkey but they were left behind at the campground."

Hey Jude said...

Lynda - I agree with Sus - grandpa Kunz is discounting the theory given him by Klein or LE - thereby, and maybe unintentionally, giving us more information than Klein or LE have done so to date.

--

I think that if DeOrr had drowned they would have called 911, even if he had been in the water for a while - I know others disagree. Perhaps the parents will say he drowned, whether he did or not, if, when the time comes, if it seems the 'better' explanation.

As dreadful an accident as a drowning would be, it is hard to imagine one or the other adult would not have insisted on calling 911 as soon as they discovered him, in case he still might have been saved (it happens sometimes, even if the person appears dead and has been in the water for some time) - and because, if he could not be saved, they would at least want a proper burial for their son/great grandson, and for the family not to be tormented with the idea he was lost or abducted - they love their child. I think if one or more of them hid little DeOrr, it is most likely because something even worse than drowning happened, and they could not face their family, or the facts being known - it would have been an act of desperation.

I keep returning to DeOrr placing little DeOrr with grandpa by the campfire - even though Grandpa apparently didn't know about it, DeOrr wanted it known that the fire pit was little DeOrr's destination. He did not have to say it, yet he did, because it was on his mind. Now he's saying he last saw him by a picnic table; the picnic table was close to the fire pit where DeOrr was headed, which was not visible from the creek, where they all supposedly were, at least according to what they told Sheriff Bowerman.

Proximity of picnic table to fire pit and creek:

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

I also think it likely DeOrr Sr took little DeOrr into the water at some stage, mainly because he described it as knee deep, as if he had been in the water himself. Perhaps that is when he saw the minnows - if there was an accident with the fire, he may well have taken DeOrr into the creek as an attempt at first aid, which might explain him choking up around the time he mentioned the minnows which little DeOrr did not get to see. The baby might have died of shock, or of unintentional drowning in an attempt to help him if he had been injured in the fire. It doesn't bear much thinking about, I know - but DeOrr does mention the water AND the fire - the creek was their main concern, but a two year old running and playing round a burning fire pit would have been of at least equal concern, surely, especially as it had to have been lit in order for grandpa to be 'by the campfire' (which, it maybe turns out, he wasn't). He either was fishing, or, according to the PI Vilt reconstruction, in his camper.

klv said...

Juliet,
Grandpa Robert wasn't by the campfire? You say its been determined he was either fishing or in his camper?
Not doubting you, you've been a reliable source of information/interpretation from the start. I'm just wondering your specific source?

Hey Jude said...

There are various accounts regarding grandpa: Sheriff Bowerman, in his and Deputy Penner'sf interview with Nate Eaton, says that all four adults were at the creek when DeOrr went missing - parents downstream, grandpa and Isaac further up. PI Vilt, in his reconstruction, said the grandpa had gone inside his camper for a few minutes, during which time DeOrr could have been abducted. Elsewhere (don't recall where) it was claimed grandpa was sitting twenty feet from the road into the camp, and was watching DeOrr playing in the dirt - next time he turned to look DeOrr was gone - he neither saw nor heard any vehicle entering or leaving the area. It did not specify if he was sat by the campfire, or by the creek -it would be interesting to know how far, respectively, the campfire and the creek are from the road.

klv said...

Juliet, thank you:) I wish I could put more faith in Vilt's estimation of what actually happened, ie the grandfather went into his camper. The mysteries & vagueries of this case drive me nuts.

Does the almost total absence of info regarding Robert & his presence at the campsite bother you (or anyone) as it does me? Usually in hindsight we find LE circumspect about a subject has been for a good reason-- & not generally due to any respect or compassion they may be feeling. That's my experience at least?

Also imo the most important thing learned from Sheriff Bowerman tonight (& I apologise for not being able to link it directly but it's on WS) is that DeOrr was definitely last seen alive at approx 1pm at the campsite. And that the sheriff is really a good, honest man:)


Did I mention this case is driving me nuts?

I just really wish this child could be laid to rest and justice served!

DMC said...

Having read each and everyone's deductions I really praise all of you for your intelligence! I myself have many theories,but I just think # 1 grandpa talking about "the boy" is so sad. He can't even say his name. I think he'd take what he knows to the grave. Deorr Sr knows where he's son is I just feel it. I mean all these adults around and a little toddler just slips by all of them. I too wonder if he was ever there. While they were combing the area, did anyone bother searching their home for a crime scene? Probably not. Maybe this "camping trip" was a funeral. Just maybe something happened at home.

Davin Johnson said...

It sounds like you SOLVED the case!!?!? Unless you know something the rest of the world doesn't, maybe you should refrain from making comments like this EVER!!!!!!! Are you a psychic? NO????? What you are doing is SLANDER AND LIABLE. Maybe YOU did it!!!!!! You seem to know EXACTLY what happened. Use your brain. Don't post your "opinion" and call it fact. Because the real deal is, YOUR A FUCKING IDIOT. They put people in JAIL for commuting SLANDER and LIABLE. Think before you post. People have ABSOLUTELY no fucking common sense any more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tania cadogan said...

Hi Davin, did you break your ! key?
Did you Break your shift key as well?
Do you have a sticky ? key

Perhaps you overdid the caffeine.

Also it is not nice to use vulgar language on someone Else's blog

Capital letter belong at the beginning of sentences and for proper names otherwise it is just shouting, especially when used randomly in the middle of sentences.

In the mean time, perhaps this is not the blog you are looking for.

Have a nice day though.

Hey Jude said...

DMC - early on the home and vehicles were searched by the FBI, as I recall - that would be in addition to the initial search of the vehicles. DeOrr stated that - it's in one of the earlier news reports.

I haven't seen the latest WS interview yet, will have a look for it now.

Davin - we are theorising based upon what the parents, Isaac, family, LE and PIs have said, rather than stating anything as fact. What we all know is that a little boy does not just vanish, and that there is apparently forensic evidence, the nature of which has not yet been made known - however, abduction and wild animals have been ruled out. What remains is the likelihood that someone has put DeOrr somewhere where he would not be easily be found - one or more of the adults present seem the most likely to know where he is. It is pretty obvious, as the parents' story keeps changing, that the truth is not being told - there must be a strong reason for that.

Hey Jude said...

Did Peter delete Davin - or would the profanity filter 'spam' that post out? It disappeared fast.

I was going to say, no, for myself, I am not psychic - I can't speak for others' opinion of themselves, but as a search of the blog will reveal, there is no psychic knowledge, in Peter's view, with which I tend to agree (on that, if not on everything) - what anyone might successfully glean comes from observation of the words and actions of others - even if sometimes it might seem uncanny, it is not. The blog is about statement analysis; opinions are formed on what the subjects have said and sometimes on what they have not said. In the comments there is also a lot of speculation, extrapolation and opinion - some are trained in statement analysis, others of us are not, so you take your chances in the comments - stick to Peter's articles if you want to be quite sure of analysis proper.

Why so defensive, anyway - if we're all so crazy, what does it matter to you what anyone here says? If the four adults at the camp truly know nothing, if DeOrr really did just 'vanish', was abducted, or taken by wild animals, then they have nothing to fear - some of us would be mortified if it should turn out there was no parental knowledge, involvement, or cover-up, and that quite rightly.

C5H11ONO said...

DeOrr Sr stated: "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."

He also said this: "I seen him to the point I figured out he was gone"

I'm beginning to think that they were with the little baby and because he was tired, they told him to go walk to grandpa to put him to bed. I think they let the little boy walk on his own because the dad was so sure that nothing could happen. He did see him, up to the point that as he was walking to their campground and was no longer in his sight. He even confesses, "how could you let your child out of your sight?" as stated by him.

Anonymous said...

It's so hard to figure out what uneducated people are trying to say sometimes. Like the comment by Deorr Sr. We figured he'd be good with Grandpa. Or something along those lines. Sounded like they weren't afraid Deoor would act up, but that Grandpa would.

lynda said...

I can still see Davin's vulgar comment, unless this is a second one and the first was deleted. I would hazard a guess that Davin is aligned with or actually a family member.

Natalie...Peter HAS given a conclusion that he worked amazingly hard on..it was if I'm not mistaken...Unintentional Death due to neglect with father having knowledge. Peter also stated that SA did not show PRIOR neglect in the form of abuse but on the day he died..it was neglectful behavior on the part of at least the father.

After Bowerman's interview last night where he explicitly stated that he NEVER told the family to turn down the offer from Vilt of 20K in reward money, parents are going to be crucified on SM now. They, and their extended family, have stated all over the place that the reason for lack of reward money was because Sheriff told them not to do it. Pretty big lie there.

Sus said...

I changed my mind about Sheriff Bowerman, after listening to him on last night's websleuth's podcast. It seems he is humble enough to rely on other experts when he cannot find the answers.

The sheriff revealed on the podcast that both parents repeatedly fail two questions on polygraphs. (Repeated and many polygraphs.) Those questions are: What happened to Deorr and where is he now?

I do not care for the sheriff's use of "less than truthful." He explained that it is because the parents passed all other parts of the polygraph. But to me, how can you be "less" than truthful? You are, or you are not, truthful.

Plain and simple, the parents know what happened to Little Deorr and where he is.

ima.grandma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sus said...

I agree with Peter that an "accident" happened and the parents covered it up. I'm not sure it was a drowning.

The sheriff said the was ggp's trip. He wanted it and he knew the area. Saying it was "ggp's trip" brought something to mind.

When I first heard Deorr Sr (vernal) explaining the area, I thought he was defending bringing a child to that area. That the AREA was safe.

What if he was defending bringing a child on GGP'S TRIP? Just a thought.

I can't get out of my mind that ggp wasn't even in these people's lives much before this. That Trina (Jessica's mother) was adopted by another man, and raised by the other man. That ggp supposedly met IR in AA. That ggp used to live by IR. That is in an area with lots of transients and criminals. That now ggp has some memory and mental problems.

I do not understand why ggp is getting a pass in all this.

DCM said...

I've been going crazy thinking about my new theory and I just want to get it out there, bare with me please. Grandpa! Isaac,when reporter Nate questions him asks "have you guys talked to grandpa yet" to me this is finger pointing! Like,go talk to grandpa. Isn't it? And DeOrr Sr coming back to camp yells at grandpa where's little DeOrr? Supposedly the baby needed his nap.
Did grandpa take him into the camper for a nap? Where else would this baby lay down? Is grandpa deranged? His statements are scary.

DCM said...

And sorry Peter I don't believe this was an accident. I believe it was A LOT more than that.

ima.grandma said...

Nov 3
Jessica Mitchell:  I'm not 100% sure if my Grandpa told him we were going with them on the camping trip. For us (my fiancé, lil man and I) it was a last minute thing. My mom asked me if I could go to just make sure my grandpa was ok. He is on oxygen and loves to go camping and we don't know how many camping trips he will be able to have.

Note the change of tense in the last sentence.
I thought Trina said it was planned for a week.

ima.grandma said...

I'd still like to know if Jessica was in on cover-up, how did she pass the 911 call deception test?

Natalie said...

Hey Jude wrote

I also think it likely DeOrr Sr took little DeOrr into the water at some stage, mainly because he described it as knee deep, as if he had been in the water himself. Perhaps that is when he saw the minnows..."

I believe you are correct. In the interview Dad DeOrr says "he saw some THINGS--minnows he thought DeOrr would just love" down at the creek. He 1st says he saw "things", then cuts himself off and changes it to "minnows". This tells my that the main objective was to find "someTHING" that DeOrr would want to come see down at tge creek. The fact that the "thing" was "minnows" is secondary in importance in the Dad's mind..
There is so much sensitivity surrounding the creek. My impression is that the Dad "lured" baby DeOrr down to the creek for some reason. Was he trying to get DeOrr somewhere concealed away from the others where he could harm him or possibly sexually abuse him?
Maybe the manner of accidental death was that he accidentally killed him when sexually abusing him. How could any other "accident" occuring in a wilderness setting (drowning, fall, injury) render them terrified of prosecution?

Natalie said...

Before people discredit what I am saying, I was actually lured by a pedophile into the woods at a local park when I was about 7 years old with my mother PRESENT at the park. The guy quickly found out my interests ie. animals, Indians etc and then told me there was something in the woods built by Indians that he wanted to show me. I went with him into the woods but luckily escaped when he tried to kiss me. I RAN!!!!!! Therefore, unfortunately, I understand these perverts lure children and that pervert did it by finding out my interests to "trick" me into going with him!

Hey Jude said...

DCM - the grandpa (Kunz) who is making the statements is not the great-grandpa (Walton) who was on the trip. That is Trina's father, who has not made any statements. Jessica, SOrr and little DeOrr lived with grandpa Kunz - great grandpa Walton lives with Trina.

Sus - Did DeOrr even much know his great grandpa Walton, I wonder? As Grandpa lives with Trina, and Trina and Jessica's relationship had been strained for some time, with Trina having just two or three pictures of DeOrr on her Facebook, would great-grandpa have had even as much contact as Trina? (which from the photos seems minimal, compared with the number of photos of DeOrr's sibling -'her most recent photo of him was from a year past).

A child who does not leave his parents, and who is very attached to them, wanders alone, over rough terrain, in oversized boots, back to the campsite towards the rather scary Isaac and a great grandparent he likely barely knew, all while he's tired, already in a strange place, and ready for his nap - it!s possible, but it also contradicts the claim that he does not leave his parents. And if he 'disappeared' sometime around then, his boots, or at least one of them, would most likely have been shed on his way back to the campsite. His grandfather Kunz said he could not walk in them without stepping out of them? - he could not walk on uneven ground without falling over. Even the most determined 'goer' could not go very far or fast in oversized boots. DeOrr now says he last saw him beside a picnic table. He can't keep the story straight - he can't have watched him till he 'figured out he was gone', AND have seen him at a picnic table, as though he had arrived at the point where also 'he was gone' . It doesn't make sense - it sound as if he is trying to sound less neglectful than he would have been had he just watched him out of sight, which is the first way he described things.

I wonder if Trina 'hiring'Jessica to care for great-grandpa was the last minute thing, to create a false impression of closeness between them all - can't imagine Jessica would have been seeing much of her grandfather during the period she and Trina seemed not to be getting along. I wonder if they all rallied only because it was an emergency - and well, family, some parents really would do anything to protect their kids from the consequences of their own actions, or lack of action.

After listening to Sheriff Bowerman's interview, I read a little on Websleuths,nowhere someone said that Trina was cleaning out DeOrr's truck when LE arrived at the campsite. I wonder if anyone here has any info as to whether that is true, and who originally said it? Let not anyone take it as fact - just wondering where that came from.

I don't take Sheriff Bowerman at Isaac's word when he says DeOrr was definitely seen at the camp around 1pm Friday - I'd go with what he said first in the interview, that there was no confirmation that he had been seen by anyone since they left Leadore, possibly on Thursday afternoon or early evening. I also question that it took three to four hours for LE to arrive at the campsite - someone said it is an hour half journey from the Sheriff's office. How could it take three or four hours in the case of a missing child,not get anyone up there?

Natalie said...

And sorry if this sounds harsh or like a worst case scenario but the PI hired by the family says there is a 99.9% chance that DeOrr is deceased and the parents are lying and yes they obviously did a cover-up so it is possible they are hiding something VERY bad that was done to DeOrr.

Hey Jude said...

Nowhere - where

---

The axe might have been used to break up the firepit, which DeOrr might have been hauling in his truck. I don't think 'hauling' means he was going fast - Nate Eaton demonstrated in the 'A closer look at the campground' video which I linked somewhere above, that the road is very rough - it would not be possible to drive fast up or down there. Still, he said he was hauling, which if it was not driving fast, meant hauling something literally in his truck - Little DeOrr was not heavy, and would not need to have been hauled, but a fire pit might. I wonder if little DeOrr, unsupervised, tossed an aerosol into the firepit. I wonder a lot of things - such as why was there an orange insect repellant can discarded in the search area - did one of them maybe dispose of that so that questions might not be asked about the possible existence of another, which might have ended up in the fire pit? Too many questions but I would have a hard time believing that any of them intended to harm little DeOrr - so I think what type of accident could have been so catastrophic that they would have found no alternative but to cover it up? Accidents happen but fire accidents can be especially terrible. Disposing of and replacing a fire pit would take some time and involve a lot of hauling is one thought - it might also need some breaking with an axe - but the Sheriff said it was a shovel (with a possible human hair, which flew away in the wind and was lost?)- was there an axe and a shovel, one or the other, if both - were both taken as evidence?

Another possibility - fear of a drug haul being discovered by LE - that might have caused 'haul' to enter his language, not sure about 'hauling' though. If any of them were 'doing a little business' up there (Imthink it was Frank Vilt who said that early on) might that have involved drugs, and a need to dispose of them before LE arrived? It's possible, but besides the use of 'haul' albeit used in a different seeming context, I don't find anything that might be drug talk in their language. Does anyone else? I am not that up on the drug scene so I wouldn't necessarily recognise or pick up on anything else they might have said - to me though, they do not 'leak' drugs - even if they were into recreational cannabis, as it seems Isaac might be, from his FB page and some associates), I don't see how a bit of cannabis would lead to the need for the parents to proceed as presented in grandpa Kunz's horrific scenario. A lot of cannabis, perhaps - but do they seem head together enough to be involved in serious drug dealing?

Hey Jude said...

I haven't even considered that as a possibility, Natalie - Peter has said ongoing abuse was not indicated by their language.

I know 'water' can indicate sexual abuse, yet in the context of DeOrr's disappearance it was necessary to talk about the water, so I don't know if there is likely to be an abuse connection there - hopefully someone else, who does know how all that works, will respond to your post.

I'd ask why you believe Jessica would collude in a cover-up and by so doing implicate herself, if DeOrr alone had sexually abused and caused the death of her child? I think she would shop him, and it's more likely that they were equally responsible, or equally negligent, in whatever happened, and so now are equally suspect - unless that's a pressure tactic, and the hope is that if one parent was less involved, he or she will break.

I agree, they are covering up something they do not want known, even to the extent of not allowing DeOrr a proper resting place and allowing the wider family to live with the nightmare of not knowing what has happened to him; it must be bad - just what, I think too hard to call with the limited information available. They must be under intense pressure - it has to become intolerable to go about life under such suspicion. Some parents of missing and murdered children seem to manage it, though, some quite brazenly - I hope little DeOrr doesn't become a similar case.

Hey Jude said...

I wondered about an aerosol accident with the fire after Trina's strange 'cannonball' statement. Plus there was that bit of drama earlier on round the mention of the insect repellant can - though fair enough, I did obsess over it, somewhat. I wonder if they took, or bought insect repellant, and how many cans - and if that can was theirs, and if one ended up in the fire - that would explode like a cannonball, right at DeOrr's height level. It's possible, but only without knowing what evidence there actually might be for any possible scenario.

Natalie said...

Hey Jude,

To answer your question, it's possible that the Dad hid or concealed what he was doing to little DeOrr, in other words, not doing it right in front of her and the others BUT that at the same time, she KNEW what he was doing and looked the other way or just stayed silent about it. She may KNOW what happened but be continuing the denial by going along with the "he just disappeared" story. I think it is possible Isaac could also be a molester, as I watched his interview and his language indicates he was also involved with harming baby DeOrr. Maybe Dad and Isaac took baby DeOrr down the creek. It makes sense the Dads story was that he was at the creek with the Mom bc if he said he was down at the creek (the dangerous place) with Isaac that sure would raise some red flags wouldnt it?

Hey Jude said...

East Idaho News - Nate Eaton interviewing Sheriff Lynn Bowerman today :

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/sheriff-i-just-pray-little-deorr-will-be-found/

Rose said...

Is great grandpa just a patsy? Like was he used because he has dementia issues so they knew he would not be able to clearly recount what happened? This does all seem a little premeditated to me.

Natalie said...

Maybe the Dad met Isaac through his bike fixing activities he talks about. Who's bikes does he fix? The neighborhood kids?
Did it ever occur to anyone that the Dad and Isaac may have both been perverts who met each other and realized they were both perverts and they had that in common?

When Dad says in the interview "He never goes away from his parents, but he's a goer and a mover..." this tells me that in fact DeOrr, like many 2-3 year olds would stick close to his parents, yet perhaps on this occassion, he fled from the parent he was with (becoming a "goer and a mover" on that one occassion). What an odd way to describe it..."goer and a mover". "Goer" means he's trying to "go" somewhere, like he has a destination. "Mover" implies that he would not stay still or stay in one place. If Dad and Isaac were tormenting baby DeOrr down by the creek, he may have run away from them, and in doing so, perhaps they really did lose sight of him, or maybe he fell in the creek, etc. But, listening to the interview AGAIN, there are linguistic indicators that the Dad is using that imply baby DeOrr acted out of character, that he did not stick by their (his) side. If they were hurting him, he would run, especially if one of the tormentors (aka Isaac) was unknown to him, was not a parent.

Hey Jude said...

Natalie - can you be specific about the linguistic indicators you mention in several posts that you have found? I don't see them, so it would be helpful in understanding where you are coming from on those points.

Isaac's (reduced rape) charge was against his girlfriend, with whom he is still friends - his inclination would appear to be towards women, his sometime complaint is in not being sufficiently appreciated by them.

The bikes he fixes are on his Facebook - they look to be full size.

---

I think Isaac was meant to be the patsy - that maybe Trina sent, or took grandpa and Isaac out there, to assist in the cover up. I don't put store by any of their timelines - if they only have each other as verification, none of it need be reliable beyond the 911 calls and whatever is on their phones.

Natalie said...

Hey Jude,

I went into it thinking that Isaac was a patsy, however his interview shows that he did participate in harming DeOrr. He makes no denial. He talks instead about how he likes to help people by fixing bikes. When asked directly "so you had nothing to do with it?" He says "Exactly". Unfortunately, this is not the language of an innocent bystander. I agree that he would make the perfect patsy, however the language is not lining up with that.

To answer your question, in the interview, the Dad takes full control of the interview, steering it in whichever direction he wants. He is in control. The Mom says very little. Therefore, it complicates detecting the lies that the Dad is telling because he is steering the ship of the interview. One needs to try to see what he is steering around or away from and where he does not quite succeed in steering around something.

He begins steering the interview by excessively praising searchers and search equipment and meandering into distracting tales of the sophisticated equipment that "can detect heat", the searchers who "zeroed in on the orange insect reppellant can", etc. I feel what he is steering around is the actual presence or non-presence of his son in the search area. Think of a magician: What he is doing is attempting to distract by wowing the audience with oh wow! They found an insect reppellant can from that high! They brought in super awesome search equipment from Montana! What is he doing? He is trying to distract from what we are all wondering "Did the search equipment find his son or any trace of his son?" Notice with the creek it is also "No need to look here folks. Divers in wet suits turned the creek upside down. No sign of him.
Why is he doing this? I think DeOrr is in those woods and Dad knows it. But he obviously doesn't want anyone else to know it. He expresses no disappointment that the equipment found no clues. Rather he is just telling us about the things they DID find or about the equipment's capabilities to distract.
He was probably thinking internally "Thank God they found an insect reppellant can and not DeOrr where I hid him."

Natalie said...

Part 2 (continuation of my post at 9:18)

Next, we have the creek story.

There is no disparaging of the son. Although, he may be sophisticated enough of a liar to realize that disparaging the son is not going to look good. Instead he paints a kind of cartoon character picture of baby DeOrr "small for his size" "little guy" "mover and goer".
Regardind the campground Dad emphasizes what a perfect place it was to bring DeOrr camping. It was a small area. Closed in by mountains. Only concern was the creek which Dad tries to downplay "knee-deep, a few feet wide" but DeOrr's "a little guy". He says him and the Mom "went to do some exploring", come back up to get deOrr to show him the "minnows" and that is where they realize he's not with Granpda. (NOTE: Isaac's name is not mentioned in the entire interview. Why? Dad steered around it, because he does not want us to look at where Isaac was or what he was doing.) I feel that it makes little sense to emphasize the danger of the creek, yet it is at the precise moment that they go to try to get baby DeOrr to go down to the creek to see "minnows" that they realize he is missing.
I'll tell you what I think is going on. Dad DeOrr disparages the creek. Something baby DeOrr could easily have been kept away from because one has to go down an embankment to get to it. Yet he lets it slip they wanted to bring him down there. But lo and behold he had disappeared at that precise moment. I believe that something bad was done to DeOrr down at the creek and it was not the creek's fault. It was whoever brought him down there's fault. I believe that he may have been brought into the creek and it may have been to wash him off, and yes, this could be linked to sexual abuse. Otherwise, how would Dad know it was "knee-deep" unless he had stepped into the creek?
The mother mentions that there was a sighting of the Dad and baby DeOrr at the store earlier that day and that DeOrr was "filthy" and bawling and the Dad was buying him candy.

So they have stated:

Creek was "knee-deep"---impies father entered creek

DeOrr was "filthy"---the word "filthy" I feel is disparaging, and therefore, I think there is possibility of abuse

Baby DeOrr's "blanket" was "left at campground"----Blankets or coverings are often mentioned where there was sexual abuse. I realize that it was baby DeOrr's security blanket but this is a situation where baby DeOrr is now considered to be deceased, so yes, the mentioning of it is significant.

"Minnows" in the water (mention of water can relate to sexual abuse) in the creek (considered the BIG DANGER) is what Dad wanted to show DeOrr when he realized he was missing. THIS IS A RED FLAG THAT SOMETHING BAD OCCURRED DOWN AT THE CREEK.

(Sorry if this is all over the place, I am just trying to piece everything together.

Anonymous said...

WS: - Prior the camping trip, when was Deorr last seen by someone other than his parents? Do you know?

SB:- (snipped) No, nobody has seen him prior to his going to Leadore.

Hmm.

And nobody except Isaac and GGP since.


Anonymous said...

Apologies if this was previously and specifically cited and I missed it, but sheriff agrees with Hey Jude (below):

The Lemhi County Sheriff says the parents of DeOrr Kunz Jr. have been “less than truthful” during polygraph tests and interviews with investigators.

DeOrr Kunz Sr. and Jessica Mitchell were officially named suspects Monday in connection with the child’s disappearance. Previously, the parents had been persons of interest in the case.

Sheriff Lynn Bowerman tells EastIdahoNews.com that Kunz and Mitchell have changed their story “numerous times” about what happened during a family camping trip on July 10.

In a July interview with EastIdahoNews.com, Kunz and Mitchell said they were camping in Leadore when they left their son with Robert Walton, Mitchell’s grandfather, and Isaac Reinwand, a friend of Walton. The couple says they went on a 20-minute walk and when they returned, DeOrr was gone.

Bowerman says the parents have told investigators conflicting stories “since the beginning.”

“Their timeline keeps changing, where they were at keeps changing, and movements and statements about DeOrr Jr. keep changing,” Bowerman tells EastIdahoNews.com.

IMO said...

IMO
- if it is a cover up, the parents are in it for themselves and not for the grandpa and the friend, they just met a few days prior
- these parents are united, so if one of them know what happened, the other one knows as well
- the time frame just does not seem to give long enough time for them to hide the little boy so "well"
This case is so strange.
Is the FBI sure, this family camped at only one location?

Anonymous said...
"..No, nobody has seen him prior to his going to Leadore. "
Didn't LE confirm the sighting at the store in Leadore that morning?

IF they were at the store with him, than whatever happened to the little boy, had to happen right after that shopping.
IMO, everything points to, they were searching at the wrong location.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for that, Natalie - it is curious that the parents made no mention of Isaac in the initial interview, considering he was supposedly with them when they went off 'exploring' - the impression they gave was that it was just the two adults, with little DeOrr who, DeOrr, at least, watched out of sight as he went back to 'be good with grandpa by the campfire.' If their original intention was to implicate Isaac, or if they believed he had harmed their son, it's strange that they did not even mention him (unless as you suggest, DeOrr and Isaac together might have harmed little DeOrr).

I am not convinced Isaac was involved - he may have witnessed what happened, but could have chosen to 'know nothing' because he already has a criminal record and was afraid to even have been witness to whatever happened. Earlier on, Trina said she was 'shocked' when Isaac said he had been fishing at the creek when DeOrr went missing - it seemed she had been under the impression he was at the camp with grandpa at the time. She said Isaac wasn't being straight/truthful - at the same time she was very satisfied with Jessica and DeOrr's accounts (why would that be, if they also had not told her Isaac was fishing with them, supposedly?) DeOrr expressed concern that someone might have been viewing the campground and reservoir from the road above - I wondered if they didn't know where Isaac was, but suspected that he might have seen whatever happened, and if he has only pretended to everyone to know nothing throughout. It transpires that the parents told PI Vilt that they went with Isaac to the creek. Earlier, they told LE, according to Sheriff Bowerman, that all four were at the creek with little DeOrr, parents downstream, grandpa and Isaac upstream - Little DeOrr went up over the bank, presumably back towards camp, though who saw him do that, I can't remember, though I think it was grandpa.

Frank Vilt to Nate Eaton: 'Their stories didn’t jive. One was the timeline, and there was some overemphasis of Jessica, uh…stating that she knew the boy was in the campground because she kept looking back – “I kept looking back…I kept looking back…” and it seemed like this was like an overkill. Why would she keep saying this over and over and over again? She wanted to establish that the boy was in the campground. This was after they came back from town and um they saw some fish that Isaac and Bob, the grandfather, caught and so Deorr says, “Well show me where those fish are. Where’d you catch those fish?” And so they went off with Jessica, Deorr and Isaac went off to the creek where they caught fish supposedly, and Jessica kept saying, “I kept looking back to make sure Little Man was there. I kept looking back…kept looking back...” Why did she overemphasize that? And that was kind of one of the things, and she couldn’t answer my question as to why she kept saying that, like she wanted to establish like an alibi that the boy was there, and some other things that were just inconsistent and didn’t want to…were hiding things, like they weren’t coming forth with the truth. The timeline didn’t make sense. '

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/former-kunz-p-i/

Continued
.

Hey Jude said...

I see Isaac is evasive, and that he makes no reliable denial. I wonder If he had witnessed whatever happened, but was hiding that knowledge to try to protect himself, would that make It similarly impossible for him to be able to give a reliable denial? Does no reliable denial mean he has to have been actively involved in DeOrr's death or in a cover-up - could he not be 'just' hiding knowledge of what happened?

So, Jessica, DeOrr and Isaac now were actually fishing, while Jessica kept looking back towards the campground to check on DeOrr - but how did they have time to catch fish between returning from the store and DeOrr disappearing? - it takes a time to catch a fish. Perhaps there were a lot of fish at camp when LE arrived, and which they only later were asked to explain - too many fish for their supposed time of arrival, unless they fished through Thursday night. Seeing minnows whilst casually exploring, and fishing with rods is not even a bit the same.

I'll respond more later as I got a bit sidetracked from your points - that's probably because I am having difficulty with even the idea of DeOrr sexually abusing his son.

ima.grandma said...

Transcript of Sheriff Bowerman and websleuths:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?286501-ID-Deorr-Kunz-Jr-2-yr-old-Media-Timelines-and-Maps-**NO-DISCUSSION-quot/page4

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

Re cover up, I'm thinking that what is being covered up has more to do with the parents than what happened to DeOrr. I think what happened DeOrr was a a consequence of something that they did/were doing. Accidents are accidents and can be forgiven. The consequence of "brief" neglect far outweighs the guilt the parents will forever feel. I suspect what's going on is that DeOrr's parents are more in fear of judgement of their actions, than what happened as a consequence of what they did/didn't do. So much so that they would lie (as per not being "entirely truthful" on their respective poly's or with investigators on every level).

So that makes me think illegal activity. Are there substance abuse issues associated with the parents? Could it be that they had some sort of narcotic with them and DeOrr got into a baggie of drugs, thinking they were "candy"? Then wandered to the water where the minnows were to play with them and OD'd as a result of what he ingested and "drowned" in shallow water?

I can only make suppositions as to why they wouldn't admit something like, he drowned because each party believed the toddler was with each other. I strongly feel there is something else to hide.

jmo

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

I meant to say: The guilt the parents will forever feel will far outweigh the consequence of "brief" neglect.

They could hide the drugs from any investigator, but an autopsy would reveal if DeOrr got into anything nefarious. So secret DeOrr.

jmo

ima.grandma said...

klv, I've visited the spectrum of ggp's involvement. Initially I perceived 'protection' of ggp. Quickly it turned to 'ggp's not as frail or confused' as the portrait painted.

Mitigating criteria:
overwhelming grief and fear
defined role in family dysfunction

I'll throw a pinch of 'sly' into the recipe.

DCM said...

Nic I am in agreement with you. I also feel neglect might be the answer.Simply put, nobody was watching the baby. I can't even guess anymore as to how the accident happened or exactly what it was. But why freak out and dispose of DeOrrJr. I do feel that Dad moved his body and that would be why he was in the truck and not cell bars. How many miles away from camp is he? Who knows. The truck really concerned the Investigator. Albeit neglect isn't something a parent should have done, but not the end of the world. A death as a result just might of scared the PS enough to cover it up.
I do think that DeOrr wears the pants in the family and maybe he felt confident that the baby couldn't get in trouble. So they walked away. Hence Jessica kept saying I was looking back.
He must of made the decision to walk away. And therefore he said "I'm in trouble ". He has to own up to that in private with Jessica.
Now he had a attorney. So we'll probably never know.

SandyG said...

Hey, how about leaving all this to LE? You are all just speculating and confusing the situation for - let's be honest - your own gratification. This smacks of selfishness. Or you all probably think you are making a contribution. Maybe consider helping at a soup kitchen or helping the homeless???

DCM said...

Sandyg And may I ask why are you reading this blog? Nosy! I think you need to find another site to hang? This is a analysis blog duh.Feel free to serve some soup for me though.

SandyG said...

Well, since this is an analysis blog you might have strayed somewhat... Perhaps some analysis is required...

Natalie said...

One random thing I find very odd, and Im not sure what it means is when Jessica says that Baby DeOrr never went anywhere without carrying his blanket, cup and monkey with him and all 3 were left at the campground and that's "another reason why they were concerned". This is like someone talking about an adult saying "She had left home and didnt come back that night and she didnt take her purse and cell phone, and she always brings them everywhere, so we were very concerned." Jessica speaks of him as if he is an adult, like if the blanket, cup and monkey were not left behind, would that make her feel less concerned like "oh, he must have just gone for a walk". That kind of thing makes sense if talking about an adult but not a 2 year old who "vanished" in the wilderness.

DCM said...

Sandyg once more for your benefit. This process is a method of studying the nature of this thing, briefly. So are we going to determine it? Maybe not. I do feel quite a few rational ideas have been put out there. Selfish isn't what I call it.

Hey Jude said...


Natalie - I'm not finding unnecessary references to 'water', as such - he uses the word once for himself, and twice when repeating what the sheriffs have told him about DeOrr not being in the water :

Link to transcript (in the comments)
http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/idaho-missing-2-year-old.html


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.

When he speaks about the minnows he doesn't use the word 'water'

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.

D: ..our biggest concern was the creek, which was knee deep and a few feet wide, but he's a little guy. 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.
-

Would 'creek' and 'reservoir' count as water references? I am thinking no, but contradictions with explanations would be helpful if I am mistaken about that.

Related - the one point at which he uses the word 'child' of DeOrr (which might indicate abuse of some sort) -

D: This child loses stuff.he's two, almost three, anybody who has a child that age range knows, they leave trails, they lose stuff..

I wondered if he was thinking negatively of DOrr in that moment - if perhaps they had let wander DeOrr wander off alone, back to the camp, to find his monkey, blanket, or Hotwheels, truck/s, and that's when whatever happened occurred. Or if he was annoyed with himself and irrationally blaming DeOrr in that moment, because they had not considered that rescuers would expect for and look for a trail of discarded shoes etc, the lack of which made it evident that he had not simply wandered off.

---
I don't think little DeOrr was sexually abused, or see indicators in the language myself - but as that would be extra horrifying, I do acknowledge that I'm psychologically resistant to the idea, plus I don't know enough about how references to water work, if the creek and reservoir should be regarded as 'water' references and significant, or if they should be regarded as necessary to the various stories the parents and Isaac are telling - it's unnecessary references to water which are significant:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/sexual-abuse-in-statement-analysis.html

Here, however, Peter says that water 'in any form' is significant - also that 'water does not equal sexual abuse':

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/water-and-doors-in-statement-analysis.html





Hey Jude said...

Peter - in my browser the archive posts for most of July are not showing - I can only access them by clicking through the 'older post' links. I don't know if that's so for other months, or for other readers - I noticed when I was looking for the DeOrr and Jessica interview transcript.

SandyG said...

Yes, but consider how much of the blog content is statement analysis. A useful exercise would be to print out all blogs, divide them up between all posters and then analyse. Each blogger could analyse their own and that of another blogger - then swap. This is a useful buddy check that is very thorough and a great learning tool. Using coloured highlighters or electronically, one can identify valid points or statement phrases raised in each post and then examine the blogger's interpretation or meaning. What I can see in some posts is speculation that moves beyond this - which is wobbly or questionable. If you were hiring for behav analysis unit, and you examined this blog, which bloggers would you shortlist for interview? That's what the science of this is about. Who is remaining consistent with the statement analysis and who is straying off on speculative tangents?

Natalie said...

Hi Hey Jude,

First, it is disturbing yet not surprising that they are now saying Isaac was actually fishing with them at the creek and they are now saying baby DeOrr wanted to see where they were catching the "big fish". This just supports the fact that they did not want LE knowing Isaac was down at the creek w them and that the creek is probably where DeOrr met his demise.

Re: water...I believe any reference is significant ie creek, stream

I hope and pray I am wrong. Unfortunately, I do feel DeOrr may have been the victim of 2 predators. DeOrr is now considered deceased. How did it happen? It could have been an eagle carried him away or as I have actually seen suggested, a "supernatural entity" took him, it could be an accident for which the parents felt they would be incarcerated (yet HOW OFTEN has a parent gotten blamed for an accident which genuinely occurred to their kid in the remote wilderness and sometimes they have actually done VERY stupid things like bringing their teenage kid along a trail with bears that has warnings to not walk down it in early morning bc that's when bears are out and the kid gets mauled by bear and so does parent yet they are not punished...anyway...
I think there is a VERY high chance that it wasnt an eagle, an innocent accident for which parents snapped right into gear and hid and disposed of him (horrifying in it's own right!), the percentages are lending itself to him being harmed by one or more evil people. Unfortunately, some "monsters" dont look like Big Foot...they look like people. I hope I am wrong. I hope he is somehow alive and well, kidnapped by some weird stalker who is taking good care of him. If that is not the case though, I dont believe baby DeOrr was surrounded by goodness the day he vanished.

Hey Jude said...

Sandy G - are you asking the Websleuths to serve soup, too? - busy day for you, if so, as they are now at liberty to discuss the parents as top suspects (previously known as 'victims') in addition to mountain lions, without even giving so much as a nod to the possible advantages of employing analysis or logic in their discussions - though granted, some do.

I liked the bit of the WS interview with Sheriff Bowerman in which he confessed to not being too glued to the site (and it's five hundred fascinating threads about those evil mountain lions) - can't imagine why, besides him having an inkling with regards to a lion being the least likely suspect.

Some interesting questions discussed here concern the possibilities which arise from the analyses - as in WHY did someone say this or that? Why did he/she lie? Etc. For the most part It's not baseless speculation, though it's not necessarily correct, either - some are more knowledgeable in SA than others. It's interesting to those of us who find it interesting - if the comments offend you, there is no compulsion to visit here and read them.

Hey Jude said...

Natalie - eagle, mountain lion, alien or Big Foot, nothing so mysterious - it will turn out to be comparatively mundane, wretched and dismal, as all these missing-dead children cases turn out to be. I hope he wasn't abused.

Peter - do you have any comment on DeOrr's water references?

lynda said...

In Bowermans interview with Nate Eaton he stated that the parents inconsistencies are basically about everything. They can't even tell the same story when talking about who carried the fishing poles. In this case, it seems apparent that they are not speaking from Experiential memory. Hence, they're making it up and can't remember what they said the previous times interviewed.

Hey Jude said...

Lynda - yes, they are telling a lot of lies - still wondering if they were at a different campsite when the incident occurred, so have no real account to give of events at Timber Creek.

Hey Jude said...

Sheriff Biwerman is not exactly inspiring confidence - he knew from almost the outset that there were inconsistencies and they failed the crucial bits of the polygraphs, yet has continued saying they are not suspects until this week - it's as though he has had his arm forced.

Hey Jude said...

I suppose his general reluctance is due to caution and not wanting to be premature - perhaps he considers there isn't enough strong evidence. He does seem almost reluctant to investigate on some things, though Imsuppose that's what deputies are for - impatience is no good.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Various of us keep locking in on the campfire; others the creek, mostly as a contributing cause, as opposed to sexual abuse language.

These two are obviously continually financially challenged; if there is any history of drug involvement by any of them, any chance they were trying to make meth (for profit, recreation or both) and something went wrong?

I could see them racing down to the creek with him badly burned.That would also confuse the scent for cadaver and other search dogs.

@SandyG: Do you go to Las Vegas and run around the tables yelling at everyone to just wait until the cards are flipped over instead of wildly speculating?

DCM said...

I personally am amazed at DeOrrSr dialog! I also can't understand why,in the time immediately following baby's disappearance, he leaves with J and "hauls"down the road for cell service?
Wouldn't a normal scenario be to send another person? Would you stop looking for your baby at this very crucial time? He, being the Dad? You would send a by-stander, even if they had to drive all the way to town. And you'd keep searching. I feel this is important for two reasons.
They already knew what had happened, no need to search they had found him.
The timeline is all over the place. Ten min then twenty, now four hrs. To confuse the authorities and set up the alibi. Time. DeOrr made statements that have very little context.
I can recall every single detail of traumas in my life to this day and this happened 30yrs ago. It's imprinted permanently in my memory.
Nothing or nobody could of ever made me leave that place.

foodiefoodnerd said...

The meth-cooking theory would explain the guilty language, inconsistent stories, reluctance to get help immediately, failure to immediately mention Isaac was up there, DeOrr's fixation on the creek (with his son in his arms), every one of them having a strong stske in covering up an obviously accidental death, and would make just about every active poster in here at least partially right. :^D

DCM said...

lynda
Bowerman also stated that no one is 100% sure babyD was ever there.
I just read that DeOrrSr hired a attorney. Jessica has not. Guess the cops are wanting a confession from him.

foodiefoodnerd said...

HeyJude, we cross-posted, but I think you're right the sheriff's reluctance to spill details is concern to not blow the case by tipping off the suspects so they can't take counter measures, and to not get valuable evidence that previously only guilty parties would know, thrown out in court.

DCM said...

I also read they can only try the suspects once or they walk. So S Bowerman wants this to be the one time. Also the FBI Just's released to Bowerman some sort of reports. And that's why he's now calling them suspects. See Nate's interview.
I don't know for sure but the fire-pit has some importance here. I thought did that baby fall in and there was nobody to pull him out? Oh man.
Then I thought did they have a fire in the middle of the day mid-July, hotter than hell in Idaho. Bowerman said they couldn't even get their story straight on who cooked breakfast (reason for the fire). I mean come on! Who the heck cooked those hash browns?
I don't know about the drug theory, I think could it be they burned the evidence?
Dogs might of hit on that.
I don't believe this young couple thought this through or had any advice from outside. It's way too sketchy. I also thought why don't they tear that fire-pit apart. What a place to bury something. In plain sight. Dogs would probably not be able to smell anything but fire and ash. And if a live fire was going the dogs most definitely would of backed off.

lynda said...

foodie said

I could see them racing down to the creek with him badly burned.That would also confuse the scent for cadaver and other search dogs.

_______________________

Unless I'm looking at the wrong video, the creek was within 20 feet of the camp.

I do not think there was prior abuse.

I have always held the same theories:

They overmedicated him to get him to sleep and he died
He died from being in the truck napping from hyperthermia
Dad backed over him with the truck while dad was altered/drunk/high

I also have been thinking that perhaps they buried him underneath of rock. This would not be seen during the search because disturbed earth is covered with rock and I don't think anyone was tipping rocks, it would not be seen by the air as all they would see is a rock, it didnt have to be a very big hole unfortunately, it would keep animals from disturbing, and parents would know that "X" marks the spot of where their boy is. JMO

ima.grandma said...

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/lemhi-sheriff-releases-details-on-missing-child/

The following is a news release from the Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office:

On July 10, 2015 at approximately 1435 (2:35 PM) Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office 911 Dispatch Center received A call from family memberS that THEIR  2 ½ year old son went missing from THEIR camp and had been missing for an hour.
..........................
I wonder if this a mistake in reporting. It sounds like 911 dispatcher spoke to both parents during the 911 call.

Klein has stated there are three 911 calls and he possesses all. Klein said he won't release them as its LE job to make that call. He stated the times during one of the online Q&A. There must be something critical in those calls for LE to put a hold on them. I've wondered if one of them might have been Trina.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/15/ng.01.html
Link Nate saying it took responders over an hour to arrive

LE would have asked parents to account for this hour of their timeline, right?

foodiefoodnerd said...

DCM, absolutely they can only try the suspects once! Even if compelling, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence comes out after an acquital, another trial, or punishment related in any way to little DeOrr's death would be double jeapordy.

He also must charge them within 48 hours of arrest, another compelling reason to ensure all of the details are locked down before collecting who all of the group he's ready to formally charge.

An especially slimy defense attorney would probably also worm them out of any related drug charges, arguing poisoned fruit, or double jeapordy via lesser charges.

On an unrelated note, homemade hashbrowns sound really good right now...

klv said...

Thanks, Ima, and I agree 100% after certain info's come out. He was no where near as frail as initially portrayed, and definitely hugely responsible for his family's dysfunction.

Seems like his daughter Trina has very protective feelings for him though. Our relationships with less than stellar parents can be so complicated! (Firsthand knowledge here).

Anyway, I'm discarding my cloud of befuddlement theory for now but not eliminating Robert quite yet because that's not the only reason grandfathers can snap:(

Thanks for "talking" to me! I'm still here reading & absorbing & happy to see the discussion progressing. Take good care, Ima:)

klv said...

Hi Foodie:)

You're absolutely right that the meth cooking theory would cover all theories here! Just because they're not users doesn't preclude them being makers. Cooking leaves a LOT of trace evidence though, though maybe not out in the great outdoors?

foodiefoodnerd said...

Hi, ima.grandma - what do you mean about the creek 20 feet away? I didn't mean to imply abuse, just that racing to the cold water would be instinctive to someone holding a child badly burned by the campfire, or by someone cooking drugs.

Befuddled Grandpa's disturbing imagery could be coming from what he's asked them countless times since that day:
why didn't they "throw that boy in the truck" and race for help; why did they "dig a hole and bury him" instead of giving him a respectful and dignified closure, etc.

Little DeOrr could be "that boy" because Grandpa can't bring himself to say those things about his own son and grandson, kind of like how a man's daughter becomes "that girl" regarding molesting her.

ima.grandma said...

Hi foodie. I hope all is well for you. Do mean lynda? when asking about the 20 feet?

Anonymous said...

Foodie, you are mixing up grandfathers.

The ONLY words, allegedly spoken by the Great Grandfather (Robert Walton) who was camping at Timber Creek are:

"I thought he came up to you", according to VDK.

I have noted previously, that even that tiny snippet attributed to GGP by VDK is deceitful.

The creek is down. There is no question about it. IR, JM and DK WENT DOWN to the creek. NOT CAME UP. WENT DOWN. If GGP had really seen Little DeOrr follow his parents, over the embankment...logic dictates that GGP would have said:
"I thought he went down to you"

NOT " I thought he came up to you."

For those of you inclined to argue that "came and went" and " up and down" are the same thing, try this. Imagine you see your puppy walk down stairs, following your husband. Later your husband comes upstairs and says " where is little Cerberus?"

What would you say?









Natalie said...

I have a question: I see it being said all the time on here (in other cases also) that "I don't think there was any prior history of abuse. Instead it was an accident and parents did a cover-up." Call me crazy (really feel free to) but do you guys honestly think non abusive parents would be able to dispose of and hide their child's dead body??? And then, of course, lie about it for months and years on end (never caving in or being eaten away by guilt and telling where the body is so that their child can at least have a proper burial)?

I strongly recoil against being able to believe that to be possible. This is not a random stranger. It is their child!!! I would argue if they in fact did that--disposed of and hid their child's body following an "accident", these people are almost definitely abusive individuals!

Anyway, I haven't and won't take the possibility of prior abuse off the table.

Natalie said...

Also, I have been wondering...with the situation of the father "hauling" away in the truck to get better reception...he calls 911 after hauling up the road, and when he does the 911 operator informs him that his wife is already on the phone with 911 and Dad Deorr says he was "very very luck...very blessed" that Jessica was able to get through.....

Here is what I think happened. I think that there was an argument between the Dad and Jessica about calling 911 with the Dad saying "no dont do it". The Mom was insisting "we need to call 911!!!!" At the point, the Dad attempted to flee in his truck, and did begin to flee but thought better of it, hoping Jessica wouldn't call 911 but knowing she very well might, he stops the truck and calls 911 himself. I don't think he felt very very lucky that Jessica called or "blessed" that she got through.

I just truly feel that the Dad was attempting to flee in the truck, hoping that his action of doing so would prevent Jessica from calling 911.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Sorry, I'm mixing up everyone, apparently...

Thanks, ima.grandma, that would be lynda! This dumbphone likes to bounce around the page even after it should be loaded.
Hope all is well in your world?

Anon, I'm still not entirely straight which granddather us which.

Bad Juju said...

Foodie, there are three Deorrs ... Grandpa Deorr, Dad Deorr and Baby Deorr.

Dad Deorr, Jessica and Baby Deorr were living with Grandpa Deorr when this happened. Grandpa Deorr was not on the camping trip, and he gave the recent interview anout a "hypothetical" accident and digging a hole and all that while defending Jessica and Dad Deorr.

Jessica's maternal grandfather (Baby Deorr's great-grandfather) was on the camping trip. He has never spoken to the media.

Hope that helps. This case can get confusing with all the Deorrs and grandpas and such :)

lynda said...

I guess I'm just confused with all this up and down to the creek. The video I saw of the campsight was flat ground not more than 20 feet from the creek. There was a short embankment to the creek by the campsite but it wasn't cleared. Where is all this fishing taking place in knee deep water?? what kind of fish are in a creek in knee deep water? Why would they go "down" to the creek when it was right next to camp? Hell, in knee deep water you could just grab a fish! There has to be deeper water somewhere right? That they were walking too? But if that were so, why did no one see him 50 feet away? It's flat land! I don't know. I'm confused myself, so many lies its hard to take everything apart to get the true story.

Bowerman stated that as far as ggrandpa..if you asked him a question his answer was something like, "I GUESS that could have happened." or "I think maybe that's what happened." Nothing useful. What is useful is that Bowerman is sticking to the last time someone saw Deorr alive was 4 hours BEFORE they left for camp. Isaac, Mom and Dad are the only ones that say he was alive and at campsite. Since Bowerman stated that, that means any witness before (like lady in store) DID NOT SEE HIM or there was no reliable sighting.

Natalie..JMO..baby Deorr in previous pictures looks like a happy, well-cared for child. His clothes and body/hair are clean, he is usually smiling, there are TONS of pics of him. I know pics really don't mean anything in the long run, but it appears he was happy. I defer to Peter's highly trained analytical skills that there was no prior abuse, sexual or physical.

Formally abused by parents said...

Lynda, do you know how scared you feel when your abuser says "Say cheese"? Didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

Formally and formerly sound the same but they mean different things. Just saying.

Natalie said...

Lynda,

I am under the impression Peter has called it a "theory" that baby DeOrr died accidentally...perhaps I'm wrong but sometimes he will write several articles pertaining to a case exploring different theories.
The pictures I've seen of DeOrr he is not smiling. Not trying to be argumentative, but I just haven't seen the smiling ones. One of them he's got food all over his face, which means nothing, I'm just saying.

The accidental death by "non-abusive parents" with cover-up theory has always irked me in every case. It just never proves to be the case.

Take the Jon Benet Ramsey case. Many theorize "accidental death and cover-up". Really?! Really? Jon Benet was just "accidentally" hit with tremendous force cracking her skull and then the parents staged the scene as a sick sadistic sexual homicide. Yeah...I'm sure her death was an "accident".

Same with this case. It just doesn't add up. Any accident in a wilderness setting would have been forgiven. Had Isaac killed DeOrr, the parents would have turned him in, they had only known him for a few days and he seems VERY OFF...LE would have absolutely believed he killed DeOrr if he in fact had. These guys are all covering each other's asses (except GRandpa who may truly be unaware of what went on).

This case irritates me, because the mother leaks very little in her language. The one thing she leaks is when she says DeOrr was spotted "filthy" (this is disparaging language). Dad DeOrr is a conversational controller and he's telling a bullshit story and goes off on tangents meant to distract. He is closely guarding what he says BUT he IS leaking, and it's only clue to what was done to DeOrr. Regardless of if DeOrr was never even brought to the campsite, I believe he was harmed near water.
"Our only concern was the creek." Something bad was done to him near water. That is why the Dad goes on and on about the creek and almost scapegoats the creek while immediately following it up by saying searchers are 100% confident he is not in the creek or anywhere near it.
That is really all I can get from his language. Almost like he is projecting onto water the potential to do what he (and Isaac) did to DeOrr which was harm him.

DCM said...

Lynda
Yes! I am so confused with the up and down story. Yes the campsite is in a wide expansion of land! Lots of sagebrush. Small enclosed area? I think not. I live here in
Idaho and I know these mountain ranges. I've lived here all my life. Wide open is what I see.
Every word was rehearsed and not very well done. Lies, all of it.
I pray this is over with soon. As for now that Salmon River area is covered in snow. I just wish D would man up and deal with the outcome whatever it may be.
The only way their ever going to have peace of mind is talking it out. The price for peace of mind is the truth. Can he or will he? I hope for some sort of divine intervention!

Natalie said...

Also, I cant help but think of Scott Peterson's alibi that he had gone fishing (and far from home) when Lacey "disappeared". Makes me wonder if the camping trip is just a cover-up story, and maybe DeOrr was never brought camping. The water reference is disturbing bc it may mean he was disposed of somewhere in water. I mean, the sheriff is saying they couldnt even keep their story straight about who carried the fishing poles. The only concrete detail they give about baby DeOrr's physical presence at campsite was "it was almost time for his nap" which is actually about "time" not a description of baby DeOrr's actions, activities, mood, food eaten, etc. He was probably never at the campsite.

lynda said...

Anonymous Formally abused by parents said...

Lynda, do you know how scared you feel when your abuser says "Say cheese"? Didn't think so

_____________________________________________

I was merely stating that from what I've observed, and deferring to Peter's expertise in this particular are, I believe what Peter has said. Period. I'm not hear to argue the point. It's my opinion, and the opinions of many. It would have been so much more interesting to hear what you had to say about obviously being an abused child and how it relates to how you see Deorrs case instead of calling me out with your offhand "Didn't think so." This actually means you didn't think at all as you have no idea the suffering, loss, I've had in my life or whether or not i was abused physically, emotionally, or sexually myself.

DCM said...

To tell you the truth I can't believe that guilt hasn't pushed DeOrr over the edge.
Natalie your theory of Hyperthermia has some interesting aspects.
For one it would explain why Jessica told Vilt "I just kept looking back, and looking back" that statement really bugged him!
If she, they, had laid him in the "black"truck for a nap she would of been turning around to verify if his head popped up or not. If not, then yeah, the baby had fell asleep and they would be safe to go on their walk. How long were they gone? But just saying I thought that made a little sense? Still a very serious problem,do they have such a thing as, baby-slaughter? Or child-slaughter? They should. Definitely not first or second degree murder but more like ignorance.
Ya know this case remindse so much of Casey Anthony and her little girl. Remember the mom opening up the trunk
Her mom kept asking Casey where's my grand-daughter?

DCM said...

Man-slaughter isn't really the perfect term?

Hey Jude said...

From Websleuths' transcript of interview with Sheriff Bowerman:

TG: And when the parents went camping and, let’s see, the great grandfather and the friend. Did they have the appropriate camping gear to stay for those several days, do you think? Does that all pan out?

18:41
SB: You know one was in a camp trailer, one was in a tent, and the family was in the back of a motor vehicle, so…You know I’ve seen people camp like that, so that didn’t distress me. Food – they had food. They tried to buy other food, and then they went to the store the next morning, so yeah, I think …I don’t see any problem with that.

---

That doesn't sound like they were well-prepared or looking to 'camp' in comfort - parents and baby dossing in a vehicle doesn't sound like much of a camping arrangement, to me. I wish TG had asked if they had blankets, extra clothing, shoes which actually fitted DeOrr (would have come in hardy if they expected him to walk anywhere or be able to run round and play) enough diapers for a few days,some toys. Someone said they lit the fire in the firepit in order to cook - did LE see evidence of cooking - a grill set over it, or a cooking pot, a tripod/pot hanger? Were they really there to camp? It's great WS get these interviews, but it's frustrating that they don't ask more specific questions.

There's a contradiction between what Trina said earlier - that they planned to go camping a week in advance, in which case they'd have plenty of time to be well prepared - and between what one of them said more recently (no source, sorry) - that it was a last minute arrangement. Really - or is that now being said because it has been pointed out to them by investigators that they were not well enough prepared even for a last-minute camping trip - with a toddler?

'I've seen people camp like that, so that didn't distress me' - maybe not, I bet their arrangements made him wonder though. Grandpa and Isaac went camping and fishing together, so it's easy enough for them to prepare last-minute with the camper and tent all set to go - Jessica, DeOrr and the baby dossing in grandpa's suburban, though - well, that doesn't seem like a planned 'camping' trip, to me. Well, perhaps that is what they do, but being cooped up in a car all night with a toddler hardly seems like a great outdoors experience - might as well stay at home and sleep in comfort.

I think it wasn't a camping trip - either grandpa and Isaac were called upon to make it look that way, or Jessica and DeOrr were called to go out there to grandpa for some reason.

DCM said...

Hey Jude,
Yes, I wish they had asked specific questions too. Yes blankets, how many had they brought? Why? Because if they had buried baby they might of wrapped him in one, hence missing blanket.
Food for a toddler. Juice, milk, fruit snacks etc. things toddlers like.
Clothing. Yes tennis shoes that fit.
Bowerman says"they tried to buy other food, and then then they went to the store the next morning". Tried to buy other food? Whaaaat? Sheriff, please!
Frustrating is putting this lightly.
Did they find soiled diapers? Proof that baby was there. Did they go through all their garbage?

Hey Jude said...

DCM - They did not find the diaper Trina claimed was hanging in a bag on a tree at the camp and which she threw into the garbage.
'Tried ' to buy other food - sounds like they didn't have enough food for even the Thursday enening.

Natalie said...

Had a thought: With the cowboy boots that were too big...it made no sense that they would put them on DeOrr to wear camping. Seriously, he would have been constantly crying bc he was stumbling and couldnt walk in them. However, if the camping trip is a coverup, and they buried DeOrr, much the way KCM said they may have wrapped him in a blanket, they may have put the oversized cowboy boots on him too if they were his favorite shoes, if he loved cowboy stuff or something....

Natalie said...

Also, have you guys seen video interview of Dad on their "final search before winter". Please watch it. Havent combed through it yet but he says they are up on the mountain to search "small pockets" (meaning...I dont know...small holes, burrows?). Disturbing wording IMO but anyway the Dad talks a lot, so maybe you guys can catch something.

Natalie said...

Here is the video interview "Last Search before Winter" with the Mom and Dad

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gm_SPAmsRE

Hey Jude said...

Natalie - the 'Last Search Before Winter' video has been transcribed by Lynda and was discussed here:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/soft-language-and-violent-crime.html

foodiefoodnerd said...

Bad Juju, thanks for the family map. I knew there are three DeOrrs; just wasn't clear which grandfather was there.

If Grandpa DeOrr, who gave the dosturbing imagery, wasn't even there, he could still be saying those morbid things from asking the parents why they covered up whatever they told him happened.

Natalie, the camping trip alibi is also related to how Josh Powell's wife, Susan Powell disappeared.
This one was even more poorly planned, with Josh and his young boys going late at night, in winter snow, and returning the next morning.

Hey Jude, as many have said, if loving parents really didn't know what happened, there would be mo last search, winter or otherwise, until they did know.

ima.grandma said...

It's been stated three 911 calls were made: 14:22 14:26 and 14:28

14:22. ??
14:26  ?? Deorr calls 911 per interview
14:28  Jessica calls 911 per transcript

Considering Deorr chose to begin with the 911 (sensitive) call:

He says "It was about 2:26..."
She says, "It was 2:36 when I called."

She's not correcting him or his time. She's asserting what time she, herself, called

Could Deorr be blessed because his 911 call was not the official one made public? If Jessica called at 2:28 and Deorr called after where is the record?

Hey Jude said...

Wouldn't they have been more likely to have gone fishing up at the reservoir rather than in the fast-flowing knee-deep creek? I don't know much about fishing, and wonder if they might have had more success at the reservoir. Are there any angler readers to give an opinion on that?

Nate Eaton in one of his earliest reports, might have been the one I linked further up, shows the route the parents took away from the camp (maybe with Isaac) - which was not down to the creek - that report was based on information he got from Deputy Penner. DeOrr was concerned that the campsite and reservoir could be seen from above - were they at the reservoir, and for some reason do not want that known? Maybe they were gone for quite some time, only hoping little DeOrr had got back safely to grandpa. If grandpa was in his camper, or down at the creek, he would not necessarily have been aware of little DeOrr's presence.

It's weird how, despite all their contradictions, and the possibility little DeOrr was not even with them at the camp, it still seems there must be truth in some of what they have said. What if they lost DeOrr whilst fishing at Snake River, say - if he is not 'in that water' (the creek or reservoir) is he in other water? It's possible he could have been with grandpa and Isaac -Isaac says 'no comment' as to when he last saw DeOrr. Grandpa could have assumed he'd gone to his parents - they could have left separately for Timber Creek, each pair thinking DeOrr was travelling with the other. If DeOrr and Jessica arrived first, they might have gone off exploring, expecting to find DeOrr with grandpa when they returned - he could (immediately shock) have realised he lost DeOrr and made out he was with them when they arrived at the campsite, but had gone off to look for his parents - or he could have said what might have happened. How bad would it be to not notice your son and great-grandson was missing, possibly drowned, miles back? That would be so terribly negligent as to make them decide to stage a cover up? There's still the campfire, though - and DeOrr wanting to place little DeOrr there with grandpa. Like DeOrr said, you go crazy thinking about what could have happened - if really they didn't know, I'd imagine they'd be quite crazy by now.
Certainly, they seem to want to place responsibility with grandpa. What though, if DeOrr drowned, and nobody realised or saw, and they did all think he was with the others until they arrived at Timber Creek? Where did Isaac catch those big fish? - I'd like to know what he caught and if they are typical to the creek.

Hey Jude said...

Foodiefoodnerd - reasonably, they couldn't search much through four to six foot of snow. I get what you are saying, though - I don't know that they meant it was the last search they intended to do, I thought more the final search possible before the spring. Yes, hiding a body would seem to speak against their being loving parents, but as I don't know the type of desperation which would lead anyone to do that I wouldn't say it has to rule out that they loved DeOrr either. I think they loved him - it's probably increasingly distressing to them that he is not in a proper grave. If he's on the mountain, that's maybe why they kept returning there each weekend, and made the pumpkins. Small comfort may it have been to them, too, if he is up there and they know it.

DCM said...

HeyJude,
Alright, yes the creek could not yield fish! And the reservoir would be the "fishing hole". So that was where they went. With Isaac already "up"there, catching the big ones.
So that explains the reason they went on up that road, the road leads you around to the reservoir. Putting the three of them together. Now what's ggp up to?
I believe right here is where things got interesting.
I don't believe they were only gone ten min, or fifty yards which ever you choose.
DeOrrSr fast speech pattern feels like nervousness. Like he's trying to hard.

DCM said...

Oh yeah, that would be trout. Fyi

Anonymous said...

Imagrandma,

The911 calls have been bothering me.

I think the 2:22 call was JM, but dropped out.

2:26 WAS DeOrr

And 2.28 we know was Jessica.

Her strange insistence/certainty that she called at 2:36 might be because she called her mum at 2:36. (She may have even texted her mother "911" as in "emergency", and that's the reason for the 8 minute glitch and her certainty that she called 911 at 2:36, even though she is clearly mistaken)

Speaking about JMs 911 call, the sheriff said (paraphrasing) that it shouldn't really have been released but he knows there are copies of it around the Internet and that it may contain clues/evidence.

I wonder if hes talking about any specific part of the call....like when JM says " just up and down the creek...all where we were camping..." Who is she talking to? And why is she explaining where they've searched?


Natalie said...

Thank you Hey Jude for the link to Lynda's transcript. Linda, thanks for transcribing.

Is there a possibility that DeOrr was abandoned while alive somewhere? The Mom's language of "I kept looking back. I kept looking back" brings to mind an image of someone abandoning a child or pet and they keep looking back as they drive or walk away to make sure child/pet is not running after them.
Could oversized cowboy boots have been put on DeOrr to inhibit his ability to walk/run so that he would stay put if they abandoned him somewhere? I think those shoes were put on him to inhibit his movement. Why? Was he to stay put bc they had arranged for someone to pick him up? Sold him? Or even just gave him away to someone?

The Dad says he will search "little pockets". Was there something in DeOrr's little pocket? A note? Forged documents? Fake birth certificate if they sold/gave him away?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 372   Newer› Newest»