Tuesday, March 22, 2016

DeOrr Case: Motive of Private Investigator V Parents

No gleaning of evidence 

In the case of missing toddler DeOrr:  

What was the Private Investigator hired for?  To keep family secrets?

According to the attorney for DeOrr's family, he was hired to find DeOrr jr. 

Previously, the attorney issued a statement:

"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."

The investigator was quoted as saying that he was "hired to find" the child and that "he was not successful."

Previously, I asked readers to consider that the attorney did not cite any confidentiality agreement.  

Often times, a private investigator will sign confidentiality agreements because the information is sensitive.  

Not so much in missing child cases. 

In a missing child case, the investigator is hired for a single-minded purpose:

find him. 

In Statement Analysis, we let the subject's own words place us firmly in his shoes. 

DeOrr sr. had a powerful need to place himself at a different location for the 911 call.  
He had a powerful need to praise officials who had failed to find his son.  
The sensitivity indicators showed that he was deliberately withholding information; in some points, suppressing it (the necessity of effort; the element of emotion).  

In short, the conclusion was that DeOrr jr died as a result of unintended consequences, such as neglect, but was not likely a child of chronic neglect or abuse, and that the parents engaged in a conspiratorial cover up to hide the body. 

What was the private investigator hired to do?

He was hired to find the child. 

This presupposes not only motive, or 'marching orders' but means.  He was to find the child.  

Period.

When he went to the sheriff, and when he went to the FBI, he was fulfilling what he was hired to do:  find the child .

When he went public about the parents, the motive remains the same:  provoke them into giving in to their desire to tell the truth. (Father showed desire to relieve himself of this burden, which is seen in the abundance of words, interruptions and tangents in his speech). 

It was another means of doing what he was hired to do. 

There would be no call for "confidentiality" in a missing persons case; particularly of a child.  

John and Patsy Ramsey: they needed (and had) confidentiality agreements on who could say what, including hiring investigators and in going from polygrapher to polygrapher, with the final one who "passed" them, agreeing to not disclose a single question posed. 

Confidentiality is needed in highly contested wealthy divorce cases where embarrassing information may come to light, or other internal investigations;

not into a missing child case. 

To put a limit or muzzle on an investigator searching for their child is akin to Cindy Anthony ordering Tim Miller and Texas Equasearch out of her home, and ordering Casey to not say a word to help. 

This is why the attorney did not cite any specific detail about confidentiality.  

The PI broke no unwritten law of confidentiality, nor even the spirit of it.  He sought to find the child and whatever it took, he used.  

Going to the public may yet work.  The world does not "hate" the mother and father, but they have cost taxpayers a small fortune and have caused the public much emotional investment into this little boy.  This has been unbearably selfish and self serving.  

Each time a guilty parent goes before the cameras and urges people to look for a child that they know is dead, such as Baby Lisa or Baby Ayla, it is a form of exploitation and theft.  

That the PI did not go along with this is only to the firm's credit.  He did the right thing meeting with officials and it was no publicity stunt to make an attempt to pressure the parents into yielding the location of DeOrr jr's remains. 

Like the prosecutors fighting for justice for Heather Elvis, it is a gamble, but one that should have been taken in the case of Hailey Dunn. 

The profile of Shawn Adkins strongly suggested that he would fold and give up Hailey's remains. 

Nothing was done. 

Now the home is torn down with no further evidence obtained. 

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Peter

Here is a transcript of a post in a private FB group that I belong to. For a while, Jessica Mitchell was a part of this group and answered some questions. Please feel free to analyze this:

JM: "Yes, ANONYMOUS (question asker) we did have our dog she was tied up most of friday because she didnt like issac. my Grandpa also had his dog on a leash. my dog was with us when we were at the creek though she never barked or anything though. After we realized my Son was missing her attitude changed and she didnt act like herself and completely shut down like she saw what happened. she wouldnt eat or drink anything until sunday"

ANON: "poor doggy... i wish she could talk"

JM: "I do too! They are best friends so she wouldn't have left his side"

*note all spelling and grammatical errors are verbatim*

-KC

Peter Hyatt said...

Here is a transcript of a post in a private FB group that I belong to. For a while, Jessica Mitchell was a part of this group and answered some questions. Please feel free to analyze this:

JM: "Yes, ANONYMOUS (question asker) we did have our dog she was tied up most of friday because she didnt like issac. my Grandpa also had his dog on a leash. my dog was with us when we were at the creek though she never barked or anything though. After we realized my Son was missing her attitude changed and she didnt act like herself and completely shut down like she saw what happened. she wouldnt eat or drink anything until sunday"

ANON: "poor doggy... i wish she could talk"

JM: "I do too! They are best friends so she wouldn't have left his side"

*note all spelling and grammatical errors are verbatim*


It is bizarre and sounds like someone wishes to appeal to dog lovers.

Ali said...

It is bizarre. The pronouns are all over the place for a start.

If the dog had to be tied up because it didn't like Isaac, why was it untied to go down to the creek WITH Isaac? If the dog wouldn't have left Deorr's side, why did it?

I think saying that the dog did not like Isaac is a subtle insult to Isaac. (Everyone knows what good judges of character dogs are, so if one doesn't like you....well....)

The information about the dog not barking while they were at the creek is intended to make the reader believe that whatever happened to DeOrr, happened while they were at the creek, and they are, therefore, not responsible. If only the damn dog had barked, they could have run back and saved DeOrr from whatever fate befell him.

To say that the dog "completely shut down like she saw what happened", is the most bizarre part. It suggests that what DID happen to little DeOrr was a highly traumatic event; so traumatic, that witnessing the event caused the dog to "shut down" and refuse to eat or drink.

Would seeing DeOrr, simply wandering away from camp, cause the dog to "shut down"? That's the story isn't it? He wandered away and got lost?

JMs post is largely nonsensical, and seems to be an attempt to persuade people to believe she was not present when DeOrr "disappeared" . She is using her poor dog as some kind of dumb alibi.


Thanks KC @ 4:15.

tania cadogan said...

If the private investigator had found in favor of his clients, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, showing how impartial the investigator was, how proficient he was, how reliable he was and anything else that painted them in a good light and which could be used to support their claim of innocence.
Why would they hire an investigator if they were guilty etc (the mccanns)

When an investigator is hired, he is given a remit, what he is to do and any restrictions if applicable.
Innocent persons tend to not place any restrictions since tthe investigator may find their missing loved one or whatever he was hired for.

Guilty persons set limits and restrictions.
They may tell the investigator to investigate only an abduction by stranger, not to look at the parents or their friends (the mccanns)
Gagging clauses are also made so that should anything incriminating come up, they learn of it and do their best to make sure no one else finds out.
basically they want to know if there is anything that could incriminate them , giving them a heads up to explain away anything found or not found.

It is probable that they thought they could fool an investigator and that said investigator would back up their story.
Unfortunately for them, the investigator did a good job, was diligent in his interviews and review of evidence and so on and concurred that DeOrr died sometime just before or during said camping trip.

They may not have told their attorney what they had done and when he found out he had to go into cover up mode, demeaning the investigator and make threats about non existent clauses.
If clauses where made, then the attorney has to decide how to minimize the damage caused by such clauses being leaked, claim they are standard in such investigations and pretty much paint the investigator as incompetent in order to protect his own clients.

Jen Ow said...

Hi KC,

I agree with everything you said! Saying her dog didn't like Issac is definitely disparaging, because as you said, the reader automatically wonders if the dog felt threatened by him/sensed something bad. (When I read it, I actually expected it to say that her dog didn't like Issac's DOG, so I reread it a few times.)

Then when she says that her dog wouldn't leave the boy's side, I was thinking...wait, I thought the dog was tied up?! According to her own story, the dog had no access to the boy, because it was restrained. It's like she's just making things up as she goes, throwing out endearing nonsense to persuade that Deorr's childhood was happy, and secure, (as in,'Awww, so precious, tiny Deorr and his loving protector doggie') but what she said doesn't gel with what she just claimed happened!

Then the absolute kicker is the "like he saw what happened" statement. This acknowledges that SOMETHING happened. Something traumatizing, that would leave the dog in a state of anxiety, and stress, unable to eat/drink, etc. That isn't consistent with Deorr just walking away as they have asserted from the beginning. In fact, their entire story has been that NOTHING happened. That nobody even realized he had 'vanished' because they each thought he was safe with the other party.

I also agree with Peter, keep putting the pressure on them! Their lies unravel as quickly as they leave their lips, so the more they speak the better chance of finding little Deorr!

Jen Ow said...

Oops, my response was to Ali!

Thanks for posting this KC

Ali said...

I can understand the difficulty Vilt, Klein and Bowerman had with trying to extract the truth from JM and VDK. Nothing they say makes sense.

In response to the comment about wishing the dog could talk, JM says "I do too. They are best friends so she wouldn't have left his side".

It is a non sequitur. What does the dog talking have to do with leaving Deorr's side?

And if the dog could talk, what would it say? JM insinuates the dog "saw what happened", but how could it, if it was down at the creek with them?

I should know better by now. Trying to analyze JM and VDKs statements is like herding cats.

Penny said...

Okay, this is OT but it relates to something I shared a few weeks ago, I think related to Deorr. Someone asked about prosecution in cases where no body was found and I posted two examples of adult women who went missing and were never found, but whose killers were successfully prosecuted.

Well, some of you may remember Debbie Hawk, missing from the small town of Hanford, California. She went missing nearly ten years ago, pools of blood found in her home, and her vehicle abandoned in a bad part of Fresno, presumably intended to be stolen. Her ex husband Dave Hawk was arrested and convicted of her murder, which purportedly happened for various financial reasons.

Her body was not found for ten years.. until this week.

I've driven through this area countless times and she was always out there. It is tragic that she was killed (and worse, her kids are now divided about whether their father is guilty or not), but FINALLY she was found. I'm not far from her kids' ages and I hope this can help put their minds somewhat at ease.

Also, there have long been rumors of Dave Hawk having had an accomplice. Let's hope if there was one this discovery will turn up new evidence.

http://abc30.com/news/body-of-debbie-hawk-believed-to-be-found-near-stratford-family-member-says/1258043/

Anonymous said...

I think when she says their dog shut down and didn't act like herself, not eating etc. she is referring to Missing 411.
She is probably still trying to sell that as an explanation.

They did an interview with the Missing 411 people and anyone that has read up on it or listened to David P.'s interviews he says that if there is a dog there at the time (or if LE brings dogs in) that they will act strange and refuse to search, lay down, etc.

I don't believe the parents.
They know what happened to Deorr Jr.
And Deorr Sr.'s response in the interview that "if anything did happen, he didn't know about it" (I am paraphrasing) - notice "not we"- just reaffirms my suspicions.

They know exactly what happened and I am glad Private Investigator Klein is doing what is right to try and find the little guy.

Anonymous said...

You could be right, Anon @ 1:52. It sounds so contrived. I wonder what a jury will make of the 411 stuff, should their attorneys be foolish enough to try it on.

Too bad for JM that she says the dog started acting strangely
"AFTER WE REALIZED my son was missing" not BEFORE. So the dog didn't alert them that something was wrong, BEFORE or DURING, what happened, only AFTER.

Psychic dog is not so psychic.

I note that JM uses the word "though" twice; i.e "though she never barked or anything though". Any thoughts on the reason?


lynda said...

I transcribed the 10 minute long interview that the parents gave. Go back a few blogs to find it..that is riff with red flags!

LE has specifically said there were no dogs there I believe. Plus, if some sasquatch had come and snatched him, wouldn't the dog be going crazy?? Dogs were never, ever a part of the "story" until much later in the case so I don't know if that is true or not. JM is pathological in her lying.

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:

Dylan Redwine’s mother tells Dr. Phil of frustration with case
Elaine Hatfield appeared on TV show on Tuesday


http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20160322/NEWS01/160329886/Dylan-Redwine%E2%80%99s-mother-tells-Dr-Phil-of-frustration-with-case

Anonymous said...

Why did they tear down the house where hailed lived?

C5H11ONO said...

Penny, you said that pools of blood was found in her home. Sometimes you don't need a body if you can prove that the amount of blood left at the crime scene is enough to prove that she couldn't have survived without such a great loss of blood. The blood found in DiPietro's basement was significant, but I guess it wasn't enough to prove that Ayla didn't survive. That may be why he hasn't been arrested. Other things like brain matter are also enough to get an arrest for murder without a body.

Anon/KC - It sounds to me like the dog saw what happened. The dog was present when "it" happened. The dog is sensitive because she had a need to explain why the dog was tied up - "because she didnt like issac." They are in the woods with dogs, it makes sense to keep them tied up, why the need to clarify? It's unnecessary, but she is answering ahead of time in case anyone asks why. What's the difference between her dog and her grandfather's dog. One was tied and the other was on a leash huh? The dog is extra ordinary because of all the things she told us she "didn't do". People say what happened, not what "didn't" happen. - "she never barked or anything though" and "she didnt act like herself" and "she wouldnt eat or drink anything until sunday". We also have an embedded confession - "she saw what happened".

Nanaof4 said...

Peter said:

"It is bizarre and sounds like someone wishes to appeal to dog lovers. "

I got the feeling it is insinuating that Isaac was responsible for little DeOrr's disappearance.

"...because she didn't like Isaac" and "After we realized my Son was missing her attitude changed and she didnt act like herself and completely shut down like she saw what happened. she wouldnt eat or drink anything until sunday"
Why provide a reason for tying the dog up? She anticipated someone would ask or she wants to use the dog as an indicator that the dog didn't like Isaac because he did something to DeOrr Jr.

Nanaof4 said...


March 22, 2016 at 4:34 PM

Ali said...
It is bizarre. The pronouns are all over the place for a start.

I didn't copy your whole post, but you made some very good observations!

Nanaof4 said...



"...we did have our dog she was tied up most of friday because she didnt like issac. my Grandpa also had his dog on a leash."

After reading C5H11ONO's comments about their dog being tied up vs grandpa's dog being on a leash, it made me wonder if the difference is that being tied up make's one think of restraint rather than just being on a leash to take the dog for a walk. If the dog was restrained, could it be restrained because being a dog it would have followed them and if they hid the baby, the dog would know and go there. They couldn't have kept it from going to where the baby's body was, so they had to restrain it.

I still can't believe their lawyer is okay with them spewing at the mouth all the time. Loose lips sink ships. LOL

LisaB said...

Wow. Nanaof4 has really hit the nail on the head about the dog...

LisaB said...

Wow. Nanaof4 has really hit the nail on the head about the dog...

elf said...

If your baby is missing, would you really notice if your dog wasn't eating or drinking?

Clare said...

Maybe her talking about the dog is her actually talking about herself.. Like SHE was the one that didn't like Isaac.. Maybe SHE saw what happened and shut down..

Like she feels the need to say how she felt but knows she can't because of Baby Deorr's dad.,.

Anonymous said...

There's concern for the dog but how about showing concern for what Baby Deorr could have been going thru lost on the camping trip all alone day & night and having nothing to eat or drink at all or being with a stranger, that is if he was abducted.

"...she didnt act like herself and completely shut down like she saw what happened. she wouldnt eat or drink anything until sunday"

the proof is in the poop said...

the dog ate him, that is why it wasn't hungry for 3 days and was like oooppsie when he figured out that he shouldn't have done that.

Ali said...

Make jokes if you like, 6:17 pm, but there's nothing funny about little DeOrr's disappearance.

Analysis of even the shortest statement from JM and VDK reveals inconsistency and deception.

Analysis of YOUR comment reveals more about you than you would like us to know, Im sure.

Anonymous said...

Proof is in the poop,

Nah..special teams looked the area over for all kinds of poop, and it's contents.

I will say though that your analysis is just as good as the others.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Another example of JM's convoluted thinking: the dog only changed its behavior after the humans (using that word loosely here) noticed that little DeOrr was gone; it wasn't previously trying to communicate something or acting strangely and with them wondering if it was sick or hurt.

Yet, if it could talk it would explain what force of nature pried it from little DeOrr's ribcage and restrained it from protecting him or following after them if a stranger was leaving with him.

If it wasn't such a sad story, it would be hilariously entertaining to see what all ludicrous storylines you could feed this moron and watch her earnestly build on them, thinking she's playing the world.

(for those from the espresso capital: Is it the femur, Sluggy?)

MissStevens said...

If there really was a dog there tied up it was most likely tied to a picnic table. I could see how a dog would Pace back&forth and could possibly get tangled and accidently strangle little Deorr. Just a thought. And the only way I can make it fit if her dog was truly traumatized.

Anonymous said...

I've had many dogs, most of them rescue. One initially hated my brother-in-law. BIL had never been around the dog unattended, so the best we could guess is that my BIL reminded the dog of someone else. (The dog eventually warmed to him. As far as I know my BIL is a decent fellow; I've known him 29 years.)

Another dog was somewhat timid but VERY in tuned to my moods. It was almost as if she watched me to see how I felt before she would react. If I seemed happy, she was happy. If I was anxious, she'd get very quiet and watchful, and so forth.

IF JMs dog was there, did it witness something, or what it responding to JM's moods/emotions? Just a thought.