Saturday, March 5, 2016

DeOrr: Analysis of Attorneys

Defense attorneys loathe their clients' speaking to the press.  They recognize, perhaps acutely, how leakage works and just how much information the guilty reveal. 

Question:  When an attorney issues a statement about his or her client, is it of value to analyze?

Answer:   Yes.  

It often reveals what the attorney believes about his client's guilt. 

When the child was reported missing, the parents were indicated for deception and revealed, through slipping into past tense language, belief that DeOrr was dead.  

The language also suggested that DeOrr was not an unwanted child of chronic abuse, which led me to consider that DeOrr likely died as a result of unintentional death; an accident due to some form of neglect, and the parents panicked and conspired to report him missing. 

DeOrr Sr's language shows extreme sensitivity regarding his actions in his truck and while calling police. 

While describing his hope that his son is alive, he slipped into past tense language several times. Sensitivity indicators within his language showed that he was surpressing information.  This is more than passively withholding information; it is information that he must actively keep from coming out.  

He also went into lengthy tangents and the speed of transmission suggests self confidence.  This is likely why he volunteered to take polygraphs that he did not pass:  he believed he would.  He went on to praise the work of police who had failed to find his son.  These statements were made early in the search, with no indication that DeOrr was deceased. Parents of a  missing child find no reason to praise anyone early in the search:  this is something that may come much later, after the death has been accepted (processed in the brain) but not early on.  

He did so early and he did so in more detailed language than he gave to his son. 

This, too, affirmed the past tense references and it is something to listen to in the language of missing children's parents who have guilty knowledge:  they do not express concern for what the missing child is experiencing:  does he have his bottle, his blankie, her medication, her dolly...and so forth.  Instead, the priority comes out in the language:  What they, themselves, are experiencing.  They, themselves, are in need of help; not the deceased child.  

That DeOrr went into great detail about the very instruments and techniques used by searchers is not only a tangent away from "what happened" (thus showing the need to suppress) but also was a predictor of sorts on who might be willing to polygraph:  his wording showed confidence.  Not only was it a tangent, but it was a lengthy, detailed tangent.  This is the language of habitual liars.  These are those who feel themselves superior, even to polygraphs, as they have had a lifetime of success in deception.  This is why he dominated the interview, yet, in his own words, he, himself, was the one in trouble, not the little child who was incapable of self provision.  

When an attorney is aware of his client's guilt, the attorney, himself, will leak this information out in his choice of words; conversely, those who believe in their client's innocence will even use wording similar to a reliable denial and will base their argument on this belief.  We saw this in a statement by the attorney for the former college football player falsely accused of rape.  The player issued a reliable denial and later his attorney wrote what amounts to the same thing:  he does not fear evidence  nor testimony because "he didn't do it", as a recurring and easy to follow theme. (Jamesis Winston).  This is the basis of an attorney's thinking which is why we look for two things from an attorney:

1.  To raise the accusation (s) against his client
2.  To issue the denial which will reflect the principles of a Reliable Denial in analysis. 

Therefore, in the case of missing DeOrr, we expect such things as,

'The private investigator said that the mother knows where the body is.  This is not true; she does not know where the body is' or,
'The private investigator said that the father knows DeOrr died as a result of an accident.  This is not true because the father has told the truth when he said...' and so on.  

Quite simply:  When an attorney makes a statement, verbally or in writing, analysis will show if he believes his client's innocence or not.  Attorneys counsel their clients to be quiet, yet reveal much information themselves.  Search Billie Jean Dunn and John Young, her attorney, to see examples of such.  

When this attorney made this statement, he does so presupposing that some will read it and believe him, agreeing with his conclusion, and others will not.  

What does the attorney for the family of missing DeOrr think?

It is found HERE and it gives fascinating insight into the case, the private investigator, while revealing the attorney's own thoughts.  

He reported that the private investigator was paid $20,000 and was supposed to keep his findings confidential while sharing them with the family who hired him. 

It is interesting that he wrote that the private investigator was "hired to find" the child and "he was unsuccessful."

Then he wrote the following about responsibilities.  Is this a legal responsibility that was stated in the contract, or is it a public relations statement, to counter the "hate" that the attorney references?

"As a private investigator hired by Mr. Kunz, he has an obligation to share his findings with his client.  He also has an obligation to keep his findings confidential.  The week of January 25, 2016, Mr. Klein made inflammatory public statements to the effect that he has been doing an investigation and has found that there is no evidence to contradict the Lehmi County Sheriff's conclusion that the parents of Dennis Kunz' grandchild should be named as suspects in this case. Mr. Klein's statements caused many to believe that Vernon DeOrr Kunz and Jessica Mitchell were responsible for their son's disappearance, and that Mr. Klein had proof, and this caused the public to hate these people."

It is interesting to note that he does not say that a confidentiality agreement, fairly standard, was part of the contractual obligation.  He was hired to find the child is what is stated.  

Later, in describing DeOrr Kunz meeting with the FBI and investigators against his advice, the attorney wrote:  

"He met with them anyway, because he has not done anything wrong."

This is to acknowledge that he did do something, but what he dies was not "wrong."  It is not to say, "He met with them anyway because he did not cause DeOrr's disappearance."

We look for a reliable denial, issued by an attorney, on behalf of his client. 

We generally find the opposite:  An attorney who either knows his client is guilty, or who is in doubt and his own choice of words reflect this. 

They intend to sue the private investigator.  

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

is this what you mean by criminal ideology? Peter, this is not just one psycho. This has to be a belief. It is all over Europe. I didn't finish reading the article because it made me sick to my stomach. You haven't written about it in a long time. Why?


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/05/multiple-young-boys-raped-in-calais-jungle-migrant-camp-requiring-surgery/

Brooke Bradley said...

Thanks, I was curious to read this analysis of attorney statement.

Jen Ow said...

The last paragraph of the attorney's statement is interesting. He says that the father can 'tolerate the FBI accusations and making their life hell, it's what they do, but that nobody reading this can tolerate someone being paid to help turning on the family'. (Paraphrased, can't C & P from the PDF)

-The FBI accusations are essentially the same as Klein's, according to this statement the attorney released. I would think their conclusion would be paramount to the family, considering that it potentially holds significant consequenses, while Klein's conclusion does not necessarily hold the same significance. Sure, it adds weight to the accusations, and the public perception of guilt when your own P.I. agrees with LE that you are responsible, but the biggest issue the parents are facing is what LE believes.

-The attorney asserts what everyone reading this can accept/tolerate. Speaking for myself, I have no problem with Klein releasing his findings, and I don't care in the least that the family 'hired' him, yet he 'turned on them'. What matters is the truth of what happened to Deorr Jr.

Also earlier in the statement when the attorney describes "the deal" that Klein supposedly presented when meeting with the father, and his client's reaction to the deal, he states that Deorr Sr left the room with Klein to discuss it with him, and said that he would certainly like for this to be over, but didn't want to say he knew where the body was because he doesn't, etc. This suggests that the conclusion of this case in the eyes of Deorr Sr is the determination of their criminal liability, rather than locating their son.

VLW said...

How bizarre that they hired a private investigator at all, if they indeed know DeOrr is dead. Was it to shore up their story? Did they hope to dupe the investigator? Isn't the aim of an investigator to find information rather than taking sides for or against the person who hired him? And I still don't know why a cover-up would be necessary for a tragic accident.

Jen Ow said...

http://m.localnews8.com/news/kunz-attorney-files-lawsuit-against-private-investigator/38328094

Jen Ow said...

Klein response ^^^

Hey Jude said...

'Mr Klein has said Vernal Kunz is a liar. He will get his opportunity to prove Mr Kunz is a liar. However, Mr Kunz did not lie to investigators. Mr Kunz had no obligation to speak with detectives at all.'

Shouldn't he have said 'He will get his opportunity to try to prove Mr Kunz is a liar' if he believed in him? As it is, it sounds like a bald fact - Mr Klein will prove Mr Kunz is a liar.

Would the idea of 'obligation' even enter the mind of a parent of a missing child? I don't think so - they'd be giving every detail they could think of which might help find him, unless they knew he was not lost, and what did really happen to him.

---

So, did Jessica really say she knows where DeOrr's body is, the actual location, or does 'still on the mountain' mean only that she said she thinks he was lost up there and is laying dead somewhere up there, rather than that she is still saying she believes he was abducted?

The parents likely do know where his body is - I still think it wasn't best ethics for Klein to announce that Jessica knows where it is.

Anonymous said...

A real live stoning! Yay! Let's import more to the United States!

Maybe she left the house without a man escorting her?

http://www.barenakedislam.com

tania cadogan said...

VLW said...

How bizarre that they hired a private investigator at all, if they indeed know DeOrr is dead. Was it to shore up their story? Did they hope to dupe the investigator? Isn't the aim of an investigator to find information rather than taking sides for or against the person who hired him? And I still don't know why a cover-up would be necessary for a tragic accident.


He was hired by a family member other than the suspects.
the family may well think the parents grandad and friend are really not involved and that Baby Deorr was indeed abducted by a stranger or indeed wandered off and eventually succumbed to either the environment or predation by local wildlife.
If Baby Deorr wandered off then he is certainly dead given his age and the winter weather.
PI's can also be hired by the guilty to give the impression that they are desperate to find the missing person like everyone else.
In such cases all information must go direct to the person hiring them and there are likely very strict and broad ranging confidentiality clauses to prevent sayis PI revealing anything incriminating to LE or the media, especially in high profile cases.
Basically the guilty person wants to know if there is any thing incriminating discovered which can then be removed or explained away.
Also with hiring PI's they can also demand the PI@s follow a specific remit such as only looking at stranger abduction.

A classic example is the mccanns.
After much public pressure they hired PI's
The first group dealt in money laundering only and were dubious at best and criminal at worst.
It became farcical when the lead PI told the world they knew who hyad Maddie, where she was and they would have her home by Christmas.
They didn't and several ended up in prison for drug crimes.
Others included retired uk detectives who were allegedly a big player in the missing persons world and who in fact consisted of two people one of whom was rarely seen.
They were widely mocked for not even asking basic questions.
Then there were the really big boys consisting of retired soldiers and investigators etc, so big that everything was very hush hush.
Laughably the owner was a conman who conned the fund out of £500,000. He did time in the states once they managed to extradite him.
He did use genuine investigators who did a good job, they too were conned.
The mccanns have failed to sue him for return of the money

The mccanns set a specific remit in that the investigation could only focus on stranger abduction and nothing else.

Innocent people will be open to the PI's questions and set no restrictions.
Guilty people will not be open and will set restrictions.
As an aside the mccanns claim they have £750,000 left with which to continue the search once the SY investigation is shelved.
Since £12 million and counting has been spent by SY over the last few years, why do the mccanns know Maddie won't be found and the fund will be needed?
What will £750,000 find that £12 million didn't?
Also the SY investigation is only investigating the case as a stranger abduction, even though there is not one iota of evidence to show abduction, let alone stranger abduction, and plenty of evidence to show Maddie died in the apartment, they concealed her corpse and filed a false police report.

When PI's get hired, see who hired them and if there are restriction on the type of investigation they can do.

Shannon Duane said...

VDK (deorr's father) isn't the one who hired Klein. It was Dennis Kunz, VDK's father and deorr's paternal grandfather. I believe Robert Walton, who was at the campsite, is JESSICA's grandfather and little deorr's GREAT- grandfather (in case you're not confused enough here).

So it wasn't the parents who hired the PI. It was deorr's paternal grandfather.

Shannon Duane said...

So as a civil attorney, here is my one major takeaway.

A BREACH OF CONTRACT SUIT?? That'll never make it past the first level of lawsuits. Klein did was he was hired to do - he searched for deorr. There's no guarantee he'd have found him. So what part of the contract was breached? Was it a confidentiality clause that the attorney didn't mention? And even if it...that's not a breach of contract claim...it's a breach of confidentiality claim.

Where's the slander lawsuit??? THAT is what I would expect to be filed. And attorneys don't throw around statements about filing one claim without listing most of the other ones, too. This is VERY suspicious. I have a feeling the attorney ey knows a slander claim is BS. That would mean that what Klein said is...true.

Shannon Duane said...

Oh and also, in connection with me comment at 11:41, as far as I know, the Kunz family didn't pay Klein. He took the case for free and then got donations from third parties. Ergo - no monetary damages, which is fatal to a breach of contract suit. So that is again super suspicious.

Peter Hyatt said...

My understanding is that they cannot presuppose confidentiality but would have had a non-disclosure agreement in place. The attorney's failure to mention this may be because it does not exist.

I also think an investigator may have been behind using the PI for pressure on relating where they hid the child's remains.

Peter

Anonymous said...

if one is to sue another

for publicly stating XYZ - ie: defamation, slander

isn't it the person who is accusing defamation, slander
upon who made (according to them) false statements to prove
" the party statements" are false ?

Which person of the family, Grandfather who hired the PI
Jessica herself, Vernal himself, which is coming forward with proof that the stated of the PI is untrue ?

Jen Ow said...

Peter, what do you make of the lengthy statement put out by the attorney? (Browning?)

The extensive, (and convoluted) details included regarding meetings/encounters between his clients and Klein reeks of persuasion to me. It reads as something written to convey their side of the story to the public, rather than legitimately focused on any potential legal actions.

lynda said...

Klein has posted on his website the contract that Deorr Sr. (grandpa) signed. It specifically states that KLEIN has 100% rights as far as talking to the media. HE is the one that can say anything he wants to the media and the signer (Deorr Sr.) accepts that.

On an aside...Brennon Birch, who is the father of Jessica Mitchell's 2 other children, has 100% custody of them. He posted on a newsite after the Klein letter came out that he is on Kleins side because he is on Deorr's side as he wants the little guy found. Mysteriously, the lug nuts on his trucks tire were all loosened by "someone" and he broke down on side of road. He was then notified today by Trina (Jessica's mom) that she was filing for custody of kids because he has not let the kids go with Jessica since she was named a suspect. He has set up a gofundme page for legal fees to fight. He has had baby Deorr in his home and has watched him numerous times because he feels that he is "family" as he is his childrens 1/2 brother. He appears to be a really good guy, very family oriented. Jessica ditched their marriage and signed over the kids to him when his son was only 9 months old because she was pregnant with Deorr Jr. He has had the kids, raising them himself, for the last several years...
The plot thickens...

ima.grandma said...

Brennon Birch Statement:

https://www.gofundme.com/egsxd6rw

JustSayin' said...

Okie Dokie. I was all set to go give this guy money when I read his statement.

This is from his gofundme page:

"Well this is not anything I ever wanted to have to do, been trying to stay out of everything with my kids little brother Deorr Jr who is missing. I want to just have the truth and for little guy to be found. Well a couple days ago I commented in a news post simply saying I am on Klein's side because he has the same outlook as me he just wants the truth . within a couple days of this my trucks lug nuts were loosened and I lost a tire and broke my truck shortly after leaving my home . after that I found out that a family member on the kids moms side has hired an attorney to try getting custody if my children . I will do everything in my power to keep my kids safe and where they have been for the last several years (WITH ME) so I am hiring an attourney as well because when it comes to my kids I will do everything and anything for them . so I am trying to get some help with all the costs and everything . I do not need the 10 grand because I just picked a number but between going to court to get all the rest of rights plus countering the other family member I will need some help . thank you for reading."

There are so many problems here I don't know where to start. Here's a few:

Not once are his kids names mentioned. He does call them "my kids" which is good, but their names...nope.

Also this sentence, his very first one:
"Well this is not anything I ever wanted to have to do, been trying to stay out of everything with my kids little brother Deorr Jr who is missing."

Well (possible missing info, much like starting a sentence with "and")

this (he's close to it)
is not anything I ever wanted to have to do (he's telling us what did not happen)
been trying to stay out of everything (dropped pronoun)
with my kids little brother Deorr Jr who is missing (with indicating distance, as well as "my kids little brother" distance distance definitely noticed.

after that I found out that a family member on the kids moms side has hired an attorney to try getting custody if my children. (This is very passive, I am wondering if it is true or if he read some hearsay online and wanted to capitalize on it?)

I do not need the 10 grand because I just picked a number but between going to court to get all the rest of rights plus countering the other family member I will need some help . (Again, what he does not need, and sensitivity with "because", comparison with "just")

Yikes. He's not getting my money, that's for sure.

ima.grandma said...

Hmmm. So I'm not the only one surprised with Brennon's word choices.

JustSayin' said...

As an addition - maybe he didn't give his kids full names because he wanted to protect them, this does have national media coverage.

Also I think maybe the first word, "well" may indicate awareness of his audience more than missing info, I don't know.

Hey Jude said...

So, Klein clarified (I missed this update, following the 'Jessica knows' announcement) that Jessica knows where, on the mountain, the body is - he believes she could lead them to it. (He also says, however, that they are done with Jessica and Vernal, because nothing they say is true.) Grandpa Kunz says they parents have received death threats since the announcement that Jessica knows. A long interview with Klein here if anyone missed it:

http://www.localnews8.com/news/private-investigator-cadaver-dog-proves-there-was-a-death/38307992

Shannon Duane said...

Anon @ 3:35

Truth is a defense to slander. So the plaintiff would allege that false statements were made that harmed said plaintiff. Plaintiffs has to meet the normal requirements for pleading a claim (i.e. There must b SOME facts stated...can't just be a totally unsupported statement).

The plaintiff must prove 1) the statements were made, 2) caused harm, and 3) were false.

The defendant will defend himself by saying the statements were either not defamatory (i.e. No person would've thought the defendant was serious like if defendant said something clearly hyperbolic) or were true.

In this case, the parents would be the ones suing for defamation. They would have to prove the statements were false.

Katprint said...

As a defense attorney, I sometimes find myself prefacing my remarks (when I don't necessarily believe my client) "it is defendant's position that ..." as opposed to simply saying something outright when I personally know for a fact that something is true. I haven't really noticed what I do when I believe my client, but don't personally know whether it's true or not. For example, I generally know for a fact administrative matters like how much time my client should be credited for serving in jail prior to making bail but unsurprisingly I have never been present when the underlying crime was committed so I never have personal knowledge about those issues.

lynda said...

JustSayin..

I have been a part of this FB page since the beginning regarding Deorr. Brennon (the dad) has been extremely protective of his children as they are having a tough time of it since Deorr went missing. He (from what I have seen before he made his FB private) is a loving, kind, father who posts nothing but his kids and their activities together. It has been this way for several years, not just since Deorr went missing. To me, he HAS stayed out of this melee...he even went so far as in the beginning to say that Jessica wouldn't do that. He was one of the first people to show up to search, he also has MS so searching that rugged terrain probably wasn't that easy for him. He has kept quiet and you won't find any posts by him about this on the web until now. He stated he did this because of his kids. They have to go to school. People are talking at school and his kids are having a hard time with that. Jessica is their mother. He allowed her to see them a couple of times during the disappearance but stopped all contact the minute she was named a suspect. This is only my opinion of what I think of him thru watching his FB over the last 8 months and intermittently having him make a comment on this FB page I belong to for Deorr. He did add a statement to the gofundme that as soon as he is served with papers he will scan them and put them on the page. I'm waiting to donate because I think Trina is blowing smoke. I think she just wants to scare him or bully him. She may have said she did but she really didn't. They are all liars. I think the way he writes (or talks) is partly because he is a "regular" guy. He's young..maybe 24-25? I think he hates doing this because he has sheltered those kids, searched for Deorr, held out hope that the mother of his children didn't have anything to do with him disappearing but now, he has no choice really but to see what is out there, which is Jessica knows what happened, and she knows where he is buried. You don't know me either so my opinion could be meaningless to you...I'm only telling you what I have observed myself and what I think about him. No, I am not related nor do I know him personally.

JustSayin' said...

lynda,

I have a good opinion of him too, he clearly loves his kids. Your opinion does matter to me. If I didn't want the opinions of others, I would not post publicly. Thank you for your observations. The only things I know about him come from his public statement on his gofundme page. I definitely see his love for his kids in his statement; but I do doubt his motivation for putting up the gofundme page (and I do say "doubt" - not "get the torches and pitchforks"). I hate that this has spilled over onto his kids as well.

lynda said...

JustSayin..

That was a nice thing to say! Thank you. I think motivation is he's scared from the threat, and he doesn't have the money to fight if it's more than a threat. Desperate times, desperate measures and all that.

The whole mess is appalling. That baby lies out there all alone, the manpower, money, grief, peoples time and prayers, all for 2 narcissistic liars that covered up what happened.

ima.grandma said...

I've been impressed with Brennon's public reaction since day one. He's shown remarkable self control allowing his childrens' best interests to override impulsivity to speak out. His statement did surprise me. Perhaps, due to SA. Brennon's words appear to show distance from Deorr. This may be a result of time bringing forth acceptance of reality. Fortified protection of his kids supercedes all motives.

lynda said...


Brennon Birch
Brennon Birch As the father of Jessica's two other kids . I am 100% on Klein's side
Like · Reply · 130 · 46 minutes ago"


ohhhh.

March 4, 2016 at 3:10 AM

__________________________________________

This statement that Brennon posted on March 4 is what brought down the wrath of Trina. The very next day, Brennon was on the highway when his tire fell off his truck...lug nuts were all loosened...ALL of them. Then the next day Trina hits him with she filing for custody, blah, blah, blah.
This whole family is crazy. What if the children had been in the truck? What if he couldn't have pulled off and got into an accident? According to Brennon, even when Jessica COULD see the kids, she did so infrequently. Perhaps 3 times in the last year before Deorr went missing. She doesn't care about those kids so why cover an accident up? It's not for fear of losing other children. She already has...she gave up custody and only sees them a few times a year. She pays no child support..why isn't she in jail for that? If she were a man, he would be in jail as a deadbeat dad. My comment regarding the whole post is..I don't think she cared enough about the other children to have that as an excuse to cover up Deorr's death. The only conclusion I can glean from that is that if it was an accident, it is as Peter says, through neglect and they both know they could go to jail. They care only for themselves. It's about THEMd and no one else.

Hey Jude said...

Brennon has added a note to his gofundme:

'Hey anyone concerned this is not real . from what I was told all the paper work will be filed tomorrow and the attourney on their end has already been paid . also this is not only for that case but I am also trying to take the rest of the rights that my kids mom currently has away which will also be a court cost . as soon as I have paper work or something to prove this is filed I will post it in the pictures'

---

Passive about the lug nuts:

'my trucks lug nuts were loosened and I lost a tire and broke my truck shortly after leaving my home .'

Maybe he doesn't want to accuse anyone, but I'd expect a 'someone' in there if it was worth mentioning that they were loosened, and if he didn't think they had loosened themselves.

Brennon seems like a great dad (I also checked out his Facebook at intervals before he made it private) - it must be so upsetting to have to deal with the effects DeOrr's disappearance is having on the other children. I think Trina wouldn't have a realistic chance of being awarded custody. He might be a bit paranoid on account of his MS, if it makes things difficult at times, and he must worry in case it progresses - he may be concerned Trina will use that to try to take his kids - but he has a good support network, plus they are his kids, and he has always raised them. Maybe cutting off 'all contact' includes Trina - but a bit extreme to file for custody rather than access, if so.

---

I'm giving PI Klein his 'PI' back since I listened to his update on the original interview - I still think 'Jessica knows' is a tactic too far, but It must be a case of so near, and yet so far from being able to recover little DeOrr - pity, frustration, contempt - I don't know how I'd feel if I were in the same room as the parents, listening to the lies, once I knew they did know, for sure, where their son is. He described them as 'cold' - I'd probably want to turn up the heat for them, too. What happened that they are still so desperate to keep hidden? Even now, after that announcement, with everyone knowing Jessica has indicated that she knows - they'd rather live with still not saying, than let their son have the dignity of a proper resting place.

lynda said...

Hey Jude..

ITA with everything you stated. You are right, passive about the lug nuts. I do believe it is because he doesn't want to come right out and accuse someone because he did not witness them being loosened. He also downplays what COULD have happened because of it. I think he's just that kind of guy. He won't accuse until there is proof..he seems to have a level head compared to the wackos that make up his childrens maternal side.

I am praying they find his body. I checked and Idaho and New Hampshire are the only 2 states in the nation that have NOT prosecuted without a body. That doesn't bode well and you can bet that Deorr and Jessica are aware of this. That is the only reason she is not telling, no body, no crime, no jail. Again, looking out for number one. They have no dignity..why would they want their son to have it?

Polo said...

OT: Here is a quote from OJ regarding the knife that was found on his old property by a construction worker. The construction worker turned it over to a traffic cop who kept the knife for 20 years. OJ denies that it is the knife, but he then says .. . .

"They could have got me convicted with the murder weapon."


Jen Ow said...

I don't find Brennon's passive/distancing language regarding the lug nuts being loosened too concerning. Although he alleges a serious attack that should be very personal to him, the only information he could possibly have about it would be either secondhand speculation, or a deduction of what "had to have happened" based on the result.

Obviously, he didn't know or witness that his lug nuts were loosened before the accident, otherwise he would have tightened them/not driven the truck/reported it, etc...but based on what happened, it's reasonable to deduce that they must have been loosened for ALL of them to fail simultaneously.

The information about them being loosened may have come secondhand from a mechanic who looked at the damage to the truck, or his own knowledge of mechanics, but since there is no way to verify that is precisely what took place without surveillance footage of it being done, or some other conclusive proof, I expect more passive language.

Jen Ow said...

Ah, OJ...

"They could have got me convicted with the murder weapon."

- 'me' convicted, not the "real killer" which he pledged to spend his life locating?

-'the' murder weapon, not 'a' hypothetical murder weapon that couldn't possibly exist because he didn't do it?


You would think he'd have learned a long time ago that the more he talks, the more he confirms his guilt.

Articles and pronouns = every liar's worst enemy!

Hey Jude said...

Lynda - I agree, Brennon didn't want to accuse anyone; he can be as passive as he likes about his lug nuts, so far as I am concerned, and I hope he raises his ten grand. As if dealing (for ever) with the effects on his children of their brother's disappearance, their mother's possible involvement, his own thoughts and feelings, weren't already enough to exacerbate his MS - Trina, who can't not know that stress can lead to flare-ups of the condition, now decides to file for custody of his children. The gall - what makes her feel entitled to custody? I can't imagine the upset to all their lives - but for Brennon, for whom it must be hard enough to be a single parent as it is, with the background worry about his MS possibly growing worse, well - he didn't sign up for all this. It did sound as though he was going through a flare-up before he made his FB private - why would Trina do anything which would heap more stress on him?

I wrote a long post, but fortunately the battery died just as I was going to post it - it was such a rant, this is the restrained version. I have to take some time out, or I'll write things I'll regret.

Thanks for your thoughts, too, on the passive language, Jen.

Rella said...

Forgive me if this has been said before. Four days before little Deorr went missing, a court summons was issued for Jessica. She was sued by a collection agency and in August, they were awarded $11,958.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Jude,

I wasn't aware that Brennon suffered from MS before you mentioned it. I have an Aunt who suffers from chronic relapsing MS, and even the stress of travel/taking a vacation has aggravated her condition in the past.

As you said, on top of the burden of dealing with the lifelong implications of his kid's half sibling going 'missing', and their mother's actions in the case, along with her behavior toward their shared kids whom she basically abandoned, he also has to fight a costly and unnecessary custody battle!? It angers me to even think about!

On the plus side, he probably has a decent chance of getting Jessica's rights terminated considering she is a named POI/suspect in Deorr's disappearance, (think Terri Horman) and she had little to do with the kids prior to his disappearance. I also think the "family member" seeking custody has basically zero chance of taking custody from him as the biological father, or even getting ordered visitation depending on the laws of the State.

If Trina is the petitioner, it says a lot about her, and her priorities, that she would even attempt such a stunt knowing that it will diminish her own grandchildren's quality of life, add to their stress and anxiety, and reduce their stability for their father to have to expend his time, money, and energy fighting the petition. Very sad.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the off topic: Is the word "definitely" always a sign of deception? As in the sentence "I would definitely love to get together sometime."

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Anonymous @ 7:34 PM March 8

Re: "definitely"

Note that the perceived strong word, used for emphasis and meant to convince, is followed almost immediately by the vague, noncommittal "sometime".

Does that help? ;)

Anonymous said...

Foolsfeedonfolly,

Thanks, yeah I wasnt thrilled with the reply, pretty much assuming nothing will happen. We were chatting through FB here and there and I said kind of out of the blue "since we're in the same town we should get together sometime". So the response was kind of confusing. The response was "Just started working full-time again (I hate it) sucks only having 4 hours to myself...lol yeah definitely would love to get together sometime."
The person had posted complaining about working very long hours in new job and often weekends too, so that part is true...Im just trying to figure out if it was a total blow off...it probably should be obvious but Im not sure cause I dont really understand the tone of it...if it means A) Im blowing you off or B) I work a lot, sucks not having much free time, would be nice to get out sometime??? Sorry if I sound stupid lol!

Hey Jude said...

Jen Ow - I think Lynda mentioned it earlier. Brennon was open about it on his FB, though I don't know if he realised it was public at the time. Yes, MS is an awful condition - the cycling between remission and relapse, it must make life difficult. You can tell he shields his kids, and everyone, or tries to - but he can't protect the children from what their classmates might be saying - poor kids. I think he's a decent guy managing a lot of responsibilities well.

He's deleted the note, and revised the fund-raising statement since yesterday. Now reading 'custody/grandparent/visitation rights' - so it does seem most likely to be Trina filing, though maybe she is after only visitation rather than custody, and he didn't make the distinction first time round - or just wanting whatever she can get. Still, he has my sympathy - I wouldn't be happy to have the kids in even the temporary care of the family in the circumstances.

Hey Jude said...

Brennon's Revised gofundme

https://www.gofundme.com/egsxd6rw

Well this is not anything I ever wanted to have to do, been trying to stay out of everything with my kids little brother Deorr Jr who is missing. I want to just have the truth and for little guy to be found. Well a couple days ago I commented in a news post simply saying I am on Klein's side because he has the same outlook as me he just wants the truth . within a couple days of this my trucks lug nuts were loosened and I lost a tire and broke my truck shortly after leaving my home . after that I found out that a family member on the kids moms side has hired an attorney to try getting custody if my children /grandparent/ visitation rights which could result in them being around those who have been suspects (until proven otherwise I will keep my kids safe) . I will do everything in my power to keep my kids safe and where they have been for the last several years (WITH ME) so I am hiring an attourney as well because when it comes to my kids I will do everything and anything for them . so I am trying to get some help with all the costs and everything . I do not need the 10 grand because I just picked a number but between going to court to get all the rest of rights plus countering the other family member I will need some help . thank you for reading.

foodiefoodnerd said...

I just had this sudden, gut-punch strong visual of how this played out.

Little DeOrr died as a result of their collective negligence, most likely involving nobody bothering to formalize who was supposed to be the sober adult of that outing wherever they were when it happened.

Jessica was panicked and wanting to summon help even if logically it was obviously too late to revive little DeOrr.

While it likely didn't yet rise to felony level "trouble" for DeOrr, Sr. at that point, his tiny,selfish mind calculated that villians go to prison; victims gofundme to the bank.

He easily manipulated the shellshocked, probably still-buzzing Jessica with the above logic and by reminding her of her other custody issues as well as the couple's financial challenges.

Befuddled Grandpa bought in to protect his granddaughter; Isaac doesn't need to be reminded what being tied to a child's death even generically can do to his own path through the justice system.

Like all stupid cover up attempts, the deeper it piled, the more overwhelming finally telling the truth.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Hey Jude, thanks for the detailed insight on Brennan.

I'm not sure if this is SA-related, my personal dictionary or both, but "the 10 grand" reads differently than just the phrase "10 grand" on its own.

It personalizes the amount, gives it life and significance like a goal as well as implying he is entitled to it, thinks it's already belongs to him.

As to the lugnuts, last time I had my brakes fixed the mechanic forgot to put them back on one tire.

I was driving along, heard loud, metallic rattling then I saw my left rear tire suddenly fly out ahead, bouncing and rolling a few blocks before it finally veered into someone's yard.

Fortunately I didn't crash and the tire didn't cause anyone else to either, but it definitely isn't a fun way to start the day.



Anonymous said...

http://www.ktvb.com/news/local/idaho/deorr-kunzs-parents-deny-harming-their-son/78531935

Bad Juju said...

Thanks for the update, Anon.

Video of extended interview at this link: http://m.localnews8.com/news/exclusive-deorr-kunzsparents-extended-interview-with-chelsea-brentzel/38478346

Anonymous said...

http://m.localnews8.com/news/kunz-attorney-files-lawsuit-against-private-investigator/38328094

http://www.localnews8.com/news/private-investigator-cadaver-dog-proves-there-was-a-death/38307992

https://www.gofundme.com/egsxd6rw

http://www.ktvb.com/news/local/idaho/deorr-kunzs-parents-deny-harming-their-son/78531935

http://m.localnews8.com/news/exclusive-deorr-kunzsparents-extended-interview-with-chelsea-brentzel/38478346

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Long Post Alert- For those wishing to scroll and roll. ;)
Part 1

http://m.localnews8.com/news/exclusive-deorr-kunzsparents-extended-interview-with-chelsea-brentzel/38478346

Interesting thing, Jessica is leading this interview and DeOrr is letting her. Why? A definite switch from every other interview they've done. Remember the infamous bump-on-a-log interview where Jessica sat sullenly wedged between DeOrr and Trina and wouldn't even look at the interviewer until the very end and only a glance?

Around 5:57 Daddy DeOrr (Vernal) interjects over Jessica talking with "And they were able to put things to rest that way."

Around 6:00 Jessica's talking and glances over at Daddy DeOrr, as she's hurriedly talking.

At 6:07 he interjects again as she's talking and his time immediately says, "Sorry, Sweetie.". Going back to their very first interview, he repeatedly talked over her and controlled the interview; she could barely get a word in edgewise. Now she's leading and he's meekly apologetic? He's commandeered every interview they've done, including search interviews. He's never apologized for talking over her before, why now? Why this interview?

At 6:33-6:41, Deorr :"I don't know what happened to my son other than I left him with a trusted and respected adult. We come back and he's gone a short time later...And, and he's gone."- Both DeOrr and Jessica previously said it was Grandpa [Robert Walton], so why the "trusted and respected adult"? They previously described the person as they trusted him, why is he adding "respectable"? Initially, in their first interview DeOrr said they went exploring and came back and found little DeOrr missing. Note here DeOrr says they came back and "...he went missing a short time later." Which is it?

At 6:44, DeOrr: "I,I, the last time I heard my son's voice and seen him, that's where I'm at in my mind..." -Note the order, hearing is before seeing. On the video, he begins to tear up with this sentence. Likely, the last time hearing his son first and seeing him was very bad.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Long post con't
Part 2

Around 7:25-7:27, the interviewer asks what they would say to the people who think they know what happened. This is the perfect time for DeOrr to issue a reliable denial. He does not. DeOrr contemptuously relays comments people have made to/about them and angrily retorts, "If you're so d--- positive, we'd like to talk to and so does the Law Enforcement and FBI then if you're so positive."

At 7:43, Interviewer: "What do you want the public to know." (This is the perfect time and place for Jessica to issue a Reliable Denial-she does not)
~Jessica (flatly): "He's still missing.We can't give up on him. There's no evidence to say he's deceased; and if he is, where is he?"(Challenging tone)- Note Jessica earlier introduced the word "evidence" and this is the 3rd or 4th time in this interview Jessica has referenced evidence.

At 8:04, Jessica instructs "People need to keep their eyes out..." speech, furthering the abduction story.

At 8:17, DeOrr says, "There's just as much that says he is still with us...that he..he..he is just taken and I refuse to believe anything other than that.- LE, the FBI, Search & Rescue, their own PI's have all stated there is no, zero evidence that little DeOrr was abducted and DeOrr knows this and lies anyway. Note he "refuses to believe".

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Long post con't
Part 3

At 8:32, DeOrr (visibly tearing up): "He[little DeOrr], he can't do wrong in either of our eyes...especially me"- This is alarming. Why is he mentally linking little DeOrr's "abduction" with little DeOrr doing wrong? In light of DeOrr's initial interview statement "I knew I was in trouble.", this "He can't do wrong in either of our eyes...", followed by the specific, "...especially me"- This is leakage. Did DeOrr think Little DeOrr was doing something wrong and corrected him harshly and injured him, leading to/contributing to/resulting in little DeOrr's death? DeOrr states that little DeOrr can't do wrong, but how would he know that unless he knows little DeOrr is unable to do wrong. An alive, abducted little toddler is still a mischievous toddler.

At 8:51-8:53, DeOrr asks people to remember that "There's a little boy who is missing...my little boy...that is not home..."- Note that DeOrr feels the need to and does clarifies himself with the unnecessary, unexpected change in language from "missing" to "not home".

At 8:52-9:07, DeOrr: “And he could, you could very well, like he, like she, like Jessica said, walk right on by him and thanks to the politics of this, in your mind you’ve already put this to r [r-sound],…”- Note DeOrr appears to catch himself and actively avoids saying “put to rest” a second time.

DeOrr (then verbally stumbling): “…he’s, put it behind you…it’s closed in your mind. He’s not home."- Note he introduced "put it behind you" and "closed".

DeOrr: "We have no more answers than we did July 10th.”- Note he stated 2 truths: that Little DeOrr is not home and they have no more answers. Note “answers” is unexpected; “information/leads” is the expected. Note he qualifies it with “than we did July 10th”. What answers did they have July 10th? Note that "no more answers" is akin to saying that's all I know. That is not to say that I /we did not injure or purposefully/accidentally kill our child or cause his death.

At 9:16, DeOrr: “We would never, I would never hurt my son…I would never do anything to my son”- which is not we did not injure or kill our son . It is not I did not injure or kill my son (purposely or accidentally).

Note: Jessica and DeOrr repeatedly plead, as in previous interviews to “keep your eyes open”. The expected is please keep looking, we need to keep looking, we need everyone to look, etc.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Hey Jude-Good evening! I didn't want to be a board hog and I knew it would be long. I know some posters dislike long posts, so I wanted to give them advance warning.

I think you could be right with your theory above. I see what you mean about it sounding like they might have been too far away to stop him/grab him, if that's the case. Why the cover-up though? That's the part I can't figure out. Toddlers and preschoolers are notoriously fast and impulsive. They would not be the first parents, unable to get there in time. It's no crime, unless the reason why you couldn't get there is the problem/criminal. Most parents don't stage a missing child/abduction scenario to cover up an accidental death though. I say stage because the obvious lack of evidence- the lack of evidence is evidence that the event did not occur as reported. Kind of like a suspected home being cleaned with bleach, when there should be fingerprints, skin cells, saliva, etc.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Not Statement Analysis at all and slightly stupid I'm sure...

I am slightly bothered that DeOrr is wearing a zipped up heavy sweat jacket in every single interview (including the initial July interview, as well as the July-August vigils). Pictures of them camping at Timber Creek in the week following little deOrr's disappearance, have a very sunburned Jessica in a sleeveless tee-shirt seated behind a sweat-jacketed DeOrr on a four-wheeler. I get that he may have some tattoos, who doesn't these days? His can't be any more offensive than many others, unless he's sporting swastikas or full frontal naked women. Why is he always in a sweat jacket? Perhaps LE should request him to remove it and see if he remains "100% cooperative". If he's healthy enough to drive a truck "every day" with a CDL, he likely has no chronic need for the sweat jacket. I'd be curious to know from neighbors, former friends, family if this is his normal. JMO