Of recent news...the private investigator stated what Statement Analysis had concluded: the parents are deceptive regarding what happened to DeOrr jr, and that he is deceased.
Although I indicated them for deception, it is my subjective opinion, from their language, that his death was not intended; only the coverup was.
The parents have recently spoken to media:
JM: For me, it's hard to even leave my house. To go, to get gas or ya know, to the grocery store.
Cuts quickly to Vernal. Again, do not know what the question was
DK: Ya get up in the morning hopeful, you go to bed (3 second pause) just..no more answers.
Cut again after some backstory from interviewer...cuts again to Vernal with no question asked
DK: Its, it's, so much easier to blame parents...
Cut to Sheriff Bowerman saying he knows they know what happened.
Cut to Vernal...no question asked
DK: People have pretty much laid my son to rest already..
"laid my son to rest" which may be an embedded admission that this is what he had done after his "son" (non-child abuse) died. This is another indication that the death may not have been intended. I do not believe, from earlier interview, that the child was regularly abused by the parents, furthering that he died via an accident, or even a moment of negligence, causing the parents to cover up the death, using the vehicle (truck) to bury him or hide the remains. If the remains were put in moving water, they would truthfully be able to say that they do not know where he is buried, or even where he is.
There is no denial that he is laid to rest "already."
JM: People just coming up to us in general, in the public, telling us that they know we're gonna go to hell for what we did to our son, and how could we...CUT TO VERNAL
Note the plural here, of "us", "us", "we did to our son" also uses the word "son."
Different than the above, here, people are "telling us", which is quoting.
Where one quotes another, we often hear a rebuttal from truthful innocent people such as,
"People say we killed him but we didn't..."
DK: If yer so damn positive we'd like to talk to ya, and so's the, infes...law enforcement, and FBI then if yer so positive.
this is the angry challenge that is not expected of innocent parents fearful that someone has their son, currently, as originally claimed. The innocent care less for what people say, and more about what the child is currently experiencing at the hands of the kidnappers.
Is he well fed?
Is he sleeping?
Do they give him his special blankie?
The parents have spoken at length in high favor of searchers in law enforcement who failed to find the child.
They did not speak about what the child was going through. Like other guilty parents who know the child is dead; it does not occur to them that they should be worried about the child's daily needs. They do not worry because they know the child has no needs.
REporter: Phillip Klein says you confessed to knowing where baby Deorr is, and that you won't go any further than that. Is that true?
JM: Absolutely not. No.
It is a yes or no question to which, before saying "no" he brings in 'additional forces' of "Absolute" and "not" before using "no." This is a need for emphasis and is Unreliable.
Reporter: So I have to ask you, did you murder your son?
DK: Absolutely not.
First, he should not have been asked did you "murder" your son. I do not think police have accused him of such.
Next, "absolute" is again added, yet the answer does not get the emphasis of "absolutely not, no" that the above just did. This puts a difference between the two questions.
REporter: Was there an accident?
JM & DK simultaneously: No.
This is a straight answer: "No" yet, he then allows for the "no" to be immediately questioned:
DK: If there was, it wasn't to my knowledge.
He allows for an accident, but only removes himself from the knowledge of such. This will make readers wonder if JM was supposed to be watching him when the accident occurred. He has only denied for himself, in essence, letting Jessica answer it for herself:
JM: Exactly. We have no knowledge of that, if there was.
Note: "Exactly" is to confirm, with exact knowledge, what was just said: that if an accident happened, it happened without the knowledge of the father. She confirms this.
Then, she gives additional information. Here, it is her turn to say, "if it happened, it happened without my knowledge", instead, she uses the weaker, "we", while still allowing for the possibility.
This would further support that she may bear more responsibility for an accident than he did, even though he was the one who likely drove with the child in the truck.
Why would she have more burden than he?
Did she lose sight of him? Or...
was it someone in HER family that was negligent, rather than in his family?
There is a split in the language with the emphasis more upon her, regarding knowledge of an accident. This leads to:
What was father doing when it happened? Was he off doing something he should not have been doing? Drugs? Alcohol?
What was mother doing when it happened?
To whom was he left in care of? By which parent's authority was he left with?
This appears more like blame shifting, one to the other:
Reporter: You're saying you have nothing to do with his disappearance?
Leading question. Poor interview quality.
Even here, the father is not comfortable with the answer, "no" but adds:
DK: He was left with a trusted adult and when I come back, my son was gone.
Note he avoids saying who the "trusted adult" was but consider this:
Not only is the name of the adult withheld, but an unnecessary additional word is used which gives us more information:
a "trusted adult." It is similar to the word "normal" here. What did the father know about this adult that caused the need to add in that he was "trusted"? This signals some guilty knowledge that says: 'I want the audience to think that this cannot be my fault because the adult is not trustworthy so I better use another word to get me off the hook, so I will call him a 'trusted' adult.'
He knows that the adult of whom the child was left with was not reliable.
It also makes me wonder:
Have they ever left him with an untrustworthy adult?
Has there ever been CPS involvement?
In civil or legal language, an adult without a violent past or drug/alcohol recorded problem could be a 'trusted' adult.
Reporter: Does it worry you with these things that have come out..Klein, and uh, people are gonna stop looking?
Reporter has no imagination on how to not lead them to conclusions.
JM: Yeah. Um, I feel like that's been the case for months now. I feel like they've already made up their minds, "Oh he is deceased" or whatever they think and people went, "Oh, ok, well whatever. And emmm...
The information from the PI just came out. Note that "for months now" tells us that there was some verification of what the PI claimed, months ago. It is likely that the police have information from Jessica and have had it for "months" that caused them to conclude the child is deceased.
The reporter was only asking 'since' (time) the PI went public, but Jessica went back much further. This is to affirm some of what the PI reported.
JM: They coulda walked past him
This must be carefully analyzed by police in correlation to other statements they made. It is very likely leakage. Even if in moving water, this statement could be true.
Vernal Is talking over Jessica's statement above so there is simultaneous talking
DK:: They were able to put things to rest that way."
the father has consistently used language that reveals his knowledge of his son's death. This is no different. "put things to rest" is the language of death. See above. See prior analysis.
JM: Yeah, and they, they coulda walked past him. Somebody could've easily walked past him at a store.
The word "store" enters the language here and is important. Was the child in the car seat, appearing 'asleep' when the father drove him to his final destination?
DK: And thanks to the politics of this, in your mind, you've already put this, he's, you put it behind ya. It's closed in your mind. He's not home. We have no more answers than we did July 10th.
He calls the accusation of the PI "politics" which is to say: 'change of topic.'
The change of topic is used when one does not wish to answer the sensitive allegation. Note the use of second person distancing language. This is not coming from truth.
Cut to Jessica, no question asked
JM: If somebody has him I want them to know that we're not going to give up and we'll find him and doesn't matter what you do as a parents, we will find him.
Please take note of the hopelessness of the words. It is only "if" somebody has him, which the mother allows for him to be dead, given his age and that he was incapable of self care. Again, as from the very beginning, a biological mother of a toddler expresses not a single thought of what the child might be experiencing.
"If": she does not believe her own words.
It "doesn't matter" because he is dead.
"What you as parents do", is not "what I as a mother" or "we as his parents"
Note the distance of not using his name.
DK: Till the day I die, I, till the day we die, I will, I will find him. I refuse to leave this earth not knowing where he is and what happened at least. At least knowing that he's ok.
He lets us know that the searching will never be successful because he expresses such confidence that until the day he dies, and the day Jessica dies, too, the searching will still continue.
Since the topic was someone having him, notice that there is still no natural, plain parental care about what the child would be experiencing "if" someone has him.
No, "please treat him right" or "please take him to a doctor", nor anything.
The parents of DeOrr jr know that he is dead. They have this knowledge and even in such a poorly worded interview, they still reveal:
No care for the child;
Distancing language from him; avoiding his name;
A desire to blame others;
A desire to avoid issuing a denial;
Acknowledgement that an accident may have happened; yet only wishing not to be blamed for it.
DeOrr jr. is dead and the parents have guilty knowledge over what happened to him and intend to continue, for now at least, to withhold information from the police on where his remains could be recovered.