Friday, August 14, 2015

DeOrr Kunz Jr: Examining a Change of Language

A change of language means a change in reality. Many cases have been solved by this principle and for new readers, I offer a few quick samples that I frequently reference:

"I didn't steal no jewelry. I showed the customer the necklace and when I went to put the jewelry away, it wasn't on the counter." 

When the guilty salesperson handled the jewelry, it was a "necklace" but when it was denied in theft, or went to be put back, it was "jewelry." She was truthful in that it was not on the counter (it was in a bag near her personal belongings). 

"The car sputtered and I left my vehicle on the side of the road" is where a "car" turned into a "vehicle" when it would no longer run.  When he picks it up, repaired, it will "turn back into" a "car" again.  

In the case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz, jr, the change of language of his father may be important.  First, let's look at all the missing questions in this case. 

I don't know if I have ever seen a missing child case in which the press asked fewer questions. 

DeOrr Kunz jr is a missing toddler who vanished while on a camping trip with his parents and grandfather.  

Some of the most basic, simple questions remain unanswered because press has not asked them.  

Who was the last person to see DeOrr?

Was he with Jessica's grandfather?

If so, who left him with grandfather?

How long was his with grandfather?

What was he doing with grandfather?

Where was father during this time?

Where was father just prior to this time?

Where was mother during this time?

Where was mother just prior to this time?

The televised interview should have yielded information, instead, the father was able to control the scope of the interview as the Interviewer passively watched.  This allowed the father to go not only off on tangents (which does give us some information) but allowed him to avoid any and all important questions. 

So often the advice to "control the interview" is misunderstood and the subject is interrupted.  In Analytical Interviewing, we do allow the subject to talk on and on, but we do not allow him to do so at the expense of critical questions. 

We do less than 20% of the talking yet, when we note sensitivity, including sensitivity in avoidance, we get our information by asking specific questions based upon the subject's own language. 

Instead, we have a vague question about what time 911 was called and the subject (father) corrected by mother, but then permitted to go off in a tangent, which, if there is a time constraint, must be redirected.  

Better still, let him ramble and ramble and ramble and later edit it down to the pre set time frames but let us have the information.  

In boh analysis, and commentary, I have mentioned that in the case of missing toddler, DeOrr Kunz, jr, the father has shown "sensitivity" in his answer to the question about calling 911.  

The question was about calling 911, and was in a general sense.  He first answered that it was "2:26", giving an exact time right after stating that he did not know what day it was.  This, as noted, would appear to be a father so exhausted that he cannot even remember what day it is, while immediately spiking up and giving an exact time, which, itself, is not expected. Yet, in comparison to his first assertion of ignorance, was he attempting to elicit sympathy for himself? If so, this is not expected from a parent of a missing child, as innocent parents care little for anything but the child.  

Look how he takes "what time was 911 called?" (which wasn't even the direct question) and moves into a narrative about himself:  

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. 

He reaffirms this with, "2:36 when she called and I..." but then immediately moves the topic towards himself...He agreed to her correction, but moved the topic from the call to his activity. 

No one asked about his activity.  

I have mentioned before about the word "decided" in analysis. 

1.  When a child is missing, 911 is called. 

When someone says that "we decided to call", in order to "decide", a discussion of some form had to take place, so that a decision is made. 

What discussion is possibly needed about calling 911?

If the parents frantically searched for him, in and out of the house, and around the yard, calling for him, and asked whoever it was that was watching DeOrr, there is no decision making process necessary:  911 is called.  

Yet, is it even 911 he was referring to?

2.   Because there is no follow up, we do not know.  He said "we decided to call search and rescue."

Is "search and rescue" a separate entity for a parent of a missing toddler who fears not getting a signal to call 911?

No one asked for clarity, either.  

Would you have a phone number for a search and rescue operation?  

If he is talking about 911, this only increases the already sensitive topic of calling 911.  

"was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it.

No one asked, "Hey, why were you in your truck?" but he anticipated this being asked and answered it before the Interviewer had a chance to ask. 

This makes the location of him in his truck very sensitive.  In fact, as it fits the "reason why" he was in the truck, in an open statement, without being asked, meaning:

There is missing information at this point and it is not related to traffic or rushing.  He already gave us the editorialized "hauling" description. 

The father is withholding information at this point.  


  "I was in the truck hauling down to the road trying to get service because I didn't think one bar would get it.

He first makes it about himself, and now, specifically, about his location:  "I was in the truck" is offered but his wife already called. 

If you were the Interviewer, would you have asked about this?

"Your wife already called.  Why did you feel it necessary to call, too?"

It is a basic question.  

His location is very sensitive to him.   He needs a reason to place himself in the truck.

Did something happen in the truck?
Did something happen to DeOrr that caused the father to put DeOrr in his 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.  It is:

a.  Unnecessary
b.  Repeated
c.  Reason why given 

This increases the sensitivity three fold.  

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

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

Think about the upcoming statement that someone saw a boy in a black truck. 

For the innocent parent, there is no need to worry about it because "it wasn't me and DeOrr", which is not his answer, instead, he does not deny being in the truck with his son, but goes to "time line" regarding what time the person saw a man, boy and a black truck.  

It should have no reason to raise his concern but it goes without a single follow up question.  

Please note:  

The mother had called 911, therefore, it was not necessary, at least, apparently, for him to even call. 

The father in the truck has produced intense sensitivity in his language.  Did he think he needed to give police different information than his wife?

Did he feel that he would appear cooperative by also calling?  

Is he more concerned with appearance than his son?

"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. 

The use of pronouns in the English language is instinctive.  Pronouns are intuitive, 100% reliable, and are not subjective.  When pronouns are "incorrect", we are looking at deception.  

Here, we find 'self-censoring' or 'self-correcting' which means he has stopped himself from completing a sentence.  This is to conclude:  missing information.  

Yet, it is unusual that it takes the form of pronouns.

This concerns me.

Who got lucky?

Why is luck involved?

His child is missing and he is "lucky"?  Why is there any raising of "success" when his son is missing?

This does not add up. 

This is not the language of one who is concerned that his son has been kidnapped.  

Yet, nothing is asked of him.  

I was blessed that she was able to get service 

There is no blessing for DeOrr jr.   There is no luck, either. 

Question:  Why was he the one who was blessed by her ability to get service, and not his wife?

Question:  Where was he that he, himself, was the recipient of blessing, by her obtaining a signal?

The Interviewer could have asked anything along these lines, but did not.  How could a father of a missing child call himself both "lucky" and "blessed" while his child remains missing?  

Was reaching 911 a blessing since it did not produce finding his son?

Where was he at this moment in time?

Why is his location, in the truck, so very important to him?

What bad luck would have come to him, beyond losing his son, had she not been able to make the call?

What change in reality transpired to change "luck" (random) to "blessing" (specific) that is found within the context?

This is to say that something was very wrong for him and things improved, not for the child, but for the father, by her ability ("able") to call 911.  

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. 

Would you care?

Would you not just dial and try and if it did not go through, then walk or run around to find a better signal?  Then, if all else fails, get in your vehicle?

Yet, would you need to do any of these things if your wife had already gotten through?

Expected V Unexpected:  

Expected:  Pick up the phone and try!  

Unexpected:  everything he did and everything he said.  

This next change of pronoun is alarming:  

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

He began with "we searched" indicating unity, yet it follows after "I" in emphasis.  

Where is the Interviewer saying, "How long did you search for?"

We searched for...and then stops himself.  He then jumps time to "after",when he said, "after about twenty minutes" from the guy who said, "2:26" and didn't know what day it was.  

Emotions in a Statement 

Statement Analysis shows that it takes time to process emotions.  Therefore, when there is an account of 'what happened', the emotions are found in reliable accounts in the 'post event' portion of the statement.  Here is an example:

"I searched for my son and couldn't find him. 
I called 911 and reported him missing.
I was so scared and now I am..." 

The emotion came 'after' in this short sample.  Now, here is the same short sample with a subtle change:

"I searched for my son and couldn't find him.  I was so scared.  I called 911 and reported him missing. "

In this second sentence, we would like to know when this statement was made.  If this is a re-telling of an account from years ago, the emotions have long since been processed and the subject is more working from memory of his re-telling, than he is from re-living the experience.  

Since this interview was so close to DeOrr's disappearance, the inclusion of emotions, in this portion of the statement, including "hauling" and now, "panic" appears to be artificially placed here; that is, editorializing rather than reliably accounting for what happened.  

That he uses the word "dead" in "dead panic" is alarming and it may be 
 leakage in his language. 

Is he here revealing that his son is dead? 

If this is true, and he is 'leaking' this information, his next sentence makes sense:

"I knew I was in trouble" 

Remember, he just said, "we" after all of his exclusive use of "I" and has introduced:

luck and blessings while the child remains unfound;
that he "didn't think" is repeated; 
That he seeks sympathy for himself, not his son, and used the alarming phrase, "dead panic" in his statement; 

To follow his own words, it sounds precisely true:  he in the one in trouble, and not his son.  Thus far, he has shown concern for himself, and talked about his own activity but not about his son and not about what happened in the specific time period when he went missing. 

There are no questions about the most critical moments when DeOrr was being watched.  


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

"Wait a minute.  You said that "we decided"; (turning to mother) 
"Did you want to call 911?"

We can only guess how the father would have interpreted the mother for this question.

Decisions take time. 

Decisions mean weighing the pros and cons and since "we decided", these pros and cons were vocalized and not internal thinking. Therefore, the Interviewer should have targeted the mother.  The mother could have even been gently 'accused' of not wanting to call 911 with:

"Did you want to keep searching longer before calling?" and see if she would be permitted to answer.  It is a very subtle accusation and she would have likely defended herself.  Remember, she did not mind correcting him and she is not likely willing to be blamed. 

"We decided" is bothersome.  It means that one of the two did not want to immediately call, but at this point, we cannot be sure if he was speaking of 911 or another entity known as "search and rescue" because he was allowed to make this statement without any clarification sought. 

Let's consider this. 

911 and Search and Rescue.

1.  One and the Same
2.  Separate entities.  

If they are separate entities, it means that he, the speaker, knew this and either had the number or could get the number and it is not sensitive. 

yet, if it is not a separate entity, we have a problem. 

To consider this, we must look at context. 

Is this a "change of language"?

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

Please understand:  if 911, called at 2:36, is different than "search and rescue", the following analysis does not apply. 

If it does, we must examine it as a "change of language" which should represent a change of language . 

Which is it?

Please note the context:  "That's when I drove down."

Did he "haul" down twice? or... "and that's when" speaks to his earlier reference. 

Since the Interviewer failed to get any clarity, we are not certain. 

It appears to me to be one and the same. 

I conclude this due to the words, "and that's when..." speaking of the time he "hauled" down the road in his truck.

Remember, the timing of him in his truck is sensitive to him.  He dismissed the eye witness, via time. 

What is the difference between 911 and search and rescue?

This may be a key in this case.

911 brings police,  and police investigate crimes and arrest people.

Search and Rescue looks for and rescues people. 

One is authoritative.  The other is helpful. 
One has the power to arrest.  The other just assists. 
One can make one in trouble.  The other's work ends when the searching is finished.  
One brings consequences, while the other brings recovery. 
One can be the bad guy, while the other is always the good guy.  (please note the excessive praise of the specifically detailed search.)

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. 

"She tried getting a signal out" is unfinished.  To complete this sentence would have been a direct lie.  "Tried" in the past tense means attempted but failed.  She did get through and he acknowledges it shortly.  Then, he moves to the praise of failed officials.  

Did the father, who knew he was "in trouble", and in a "dead panic" having "put to rest" that his son was not in the water, prefer "search and rescue" to 911?

DeOrr's mother called 911. 
The father called search and rescue. 

The difference between 911 and "search and rescue" may be, in DeOrr Kunz' Jr's father, an important insight into his perception of verbalized reality.  

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

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.

Please note:

I wanted to know, "Who was watching him when he disappeared?" along with:

"What was he doing?"

Yet now, "he, uh, was right with us, where it's at, I mean, I thought it would be perfect..."is to stop himself from telling a direct lie. 

Was he right there with you and his mother?
Was he right there with his mother's grandfather?

Note:  "uh" is a pause as we see the internal stress of direct lying being avoided. 

"I mean" is stopped, as he interrupted himself. 
"I thought" is past tense and now speaks to another time. 

"He, uh, was right with us, where it's at" is self-censoring which appears to be an attempt to stop the direct lie before it is said. 


Or he is telling the truth, and stopped himself due to the consequences from his wife calling 911. 

"He, uh, was right with us" also places his wife (or girlfriend) in the difficult situation with himself. "I was in trouble" is not "we were in trouble", however.  

Could this be a sharing of guilt?

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

Possible leakage: "put to rest" should be questioned along with "dead panic", "blessed" and "lucky", within his language.  None is expected language from a parent of a missing, and still unrecovered child. 

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 praise, when given strength of detail, is related to search and rescue. 

Nothing is mentioned of kidnapping investigation, sex offenders, police "investigating" or anything similar, in spite of the PI's claim of "everything" pointing to abduction. 

Could it be abduction where neglect permitted it to happen?

This theory does not fit the language. 

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

After all the extreme self censoring, confused pronouns and changes of language, this is the question asked.  

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

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

They would not be together if not for the support around them.  This strengthens the view that there was strong disagreement between them regarding calling 911.  

In his verbalized perception of reality: 

She called 911.  

He called Search and Rescue.  

The father goes right back to the calling and not about his son:  

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

Note all the use of "we" now, instead of all the use of "I" before police involvement.  

Note the praise of the failure to find his son continued. 

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

The interviewer did catch some of the sensitivity about him being in the truck:

D: No, we both did, I -

J: We both did.

Recall "we decided" is something that indicates a delay, a possible debate or discussion and the joint sharing of responsibility.  This is a sensitive point to them both, now, and she affirms it.  It is as if the interviewer was confused about the truck (rightfully so) as he referenced it twice, and went out of chronological order to return to it.  

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.

"and he wasn't there" is utterly unnecessary therefore:

It is very likely that DeOrre Sr, the father, knew that when he spent this 20 minutes up and down the creek, his son was not there.  

There are so many questions that should have been asked, even when pressed for time.  In a televised interview, he could have said, "excuse me" when father was going on and on about search and rescue and asked a specific question. 

Regarding the change of language, it is significant. 

As each of us has a personal subjective internal dictionary, so it is that we are not viewing reality, but someone's perception of reality as verbalized. 

The language reveals that in the minds of the parents:  

The mother called 911. 

The father called Search and Rescue. 

These appear to be two very different realities, though the same entity.  Just as a "gun" is very different from a "weapon", even when the same firearm is being talked about, so it is, unless they called different phone numbers, the difference between 911 and Search and Rescue is the difference between:

Criminal Investigation and Professional searches helping a situation.  

                                                        Which arrived?

It depends upon what you project. 

If you project guilt, you want only search and rescue.  

If you project innocence, you want police, who will investigate, and bring in search and rescue.  

The change of language is very concerning in this statement.  


1 – 200 of 594   Newer›   Newest»
Apple said...

Peter, as other people have commented, is there any significance in "the" truck when he had in other comments called it "my" truck? Or because they are not in the same answer is it not significant?

Buckley said...

"the same with the rest of our family, they were just up there, around us."

No mention of searching


"D: After twenty minutes of up and down the creek and up and around the camp"

No pronoun, no "searched"

We see the noun "search" a lot, in reference to the professionals, but rarely do we see the verb "searched". The only place I see it is

"we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic"

He starts to say how long they searched, but then it turns into how long they were in a dead panic. He doesn't say they searched for 20 minutes, nor does he say they searched for HIM.

Anonymous said...

"The service [phone service? rescue service?] up there is very hearsay"

Interesting word choice. Does he mean spotty, unorganized, informal, spread by word of mouth?

Sus said...

You are brilliant! I caught the "that's when.", but did not tie it with the change in language. 911 to search and rescue...brilliant!

Anonymous said...

911 OPERATOR: Hold on. We need search and rescue. Jessica? Jessica?

Maybe that's when Dad decided to haul down the road to call SAR?

Anonymous said...


When I went to school many years ago, I was taught to write using different words to describe what I was saying. In writing I may use car vs vehicle based on what I was taught. I know language and learning evolve over time, is this one of those cases? I mean, what I learned in the 70's as opposed to today.


Anonymous said...

More context:
911 OPERATOR: Do you know which campground you`re in?
MITCHELL: It`s Stone Reservoir, Timber Creek.
911 OPERATOR: Stone Reservoir?
MITCHELL: Yes, or Timber Creek.
911 OPERATOR: Hold on. We need search and rescue. Jessica? Jessica?
911 OPERATOR: What`s your son`s name?
911 OPERATOR: OK. What was he wearing?
MITCHELL: He was wearing cowboy boots, a blue pair of, like, pajama pants, and a camo jacket. And he`s got shaggy blond hair.
911 OPERATOR: Is your husband calling, too?
It does sound like Dad left to call once the operator mentioned SAR.

Buckley said...

As a former English teacher, I've instructed students to vary their words. I reminded them again and again. Why again and again? Because their natural inclination was to keep using the same word.

John Mc Gowan said...

911 OPERATOR: OK. What was he wearing?
MITCHELL: He was wearing cowboy boots, a blue pair of, like, pajama pants, and a camo jacket. And he`s got shaggy blond hair.

And he`s got shaggy blond hair.

This goes beyond the question asked. She was not asked to describe his physical appearance. Did she say this because it is a very distinctive color and maybe easier to pick out in the foliage?. Or, is this what she remembers seeing before he "vanished or something more nefarious, the last thing she saw of him was his "shaggy blond hair" This reminds me of some other case and i cant recall what it was. I do remember something about blonde hair hanging down?

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Buckley. I've often wondered if I ever had to write an official statement, would I be flagged because it's ingrained to use different words. Fortunately the only trouble I've ever gotten into was a speeding ticket. I brought my clean driving record to court and asked the Judge to waive the points.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I think "what was he wearing?" is a general topic of appearance and that to go to height, weight, hair, and so on, is more helpful than going beyond the boundary of the question.

The spirit of the question is his appearance, so he can be recognized.

I don't find this, itself, sensitive.

I'm still on some of the father's self censoring. It is a very large amount.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I will take a look at it.

The truck...

who owns it?

Perhaps you can answer this:

Are they married?

Married couples use "the", unless one takes a vehicle exclusively.

if not married, do they live together?

Let's say that the truck is hers, exclusively ---this would warrant closer examination.

Let's say that the truck is exclusively his, and only he drives it. The word "the' before truck, would then be "distancing language" from the truck, itself.


Statement Analysis Blog said...


I was taught the same thing.

However, for years analysts have shown the difference in written statements to spoken ones.

When someone is speaking and changes language, I have often asked them "why?"

Not once has anyone said anything but, "I didn't realize..."

This is the speed of transmission and in verbal communication, it is very unlikely that someone will pause long enough to change a word to avoid being tedious.

Next, take this speed of transmission and put someone in front of a television camera, or a police interview.

There is no chance of them now pausing, changing words, just to avoid sounding tedious.

The change of language principle has solved cases for me.

Next, if we go to writing, even if the person identities that they have changed language as taught, to avoid tedium, the word chosen is still important because...

it is the word they chose!


John Mc Gowan said...

Thanks, Peter

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Buckley, part two:

"we searched for - after about twenty minutes in a dead panic"

He starts to say how long they searched, but then it turns into how long they were in a dead panic. He doesn't say they searched for 20 minutes, nor does he say they searched for HIM.

Excellent point and one that liars do use, in many different settings, when they attempt to confuse, or persuade.

"Went to office."

Who went to the office?

Who's office did they go to?

It is an excellent point because it shows specified listening and NOT interpreting.

Buckley said...

Makes sense, Peter. My point reinforces the principle in that getting writers to vary their word choice, unless they have a reason to use a different word, goes against what their brain wants them to do. If people naturally varied their language for the sake of better style, we wouldn't all be saying "but my teacher kept telling us to..."

Anonymous said...

I understand now! Thank you. I do tend to always say car when speaking.


Anonymous said...

The above thank you was meant for Peter, explaining written as opposed to speaking words.


Buckley said...

This case has been a real eye opener! I started from a point of wanting to believe the parents and only by reading and rereading have I started to really doubt my initial trust.

GetThem said...

Agreed, I would love to hear him talk about the truck and getting into the truck. It would be interested if they "left" the scene.

In addition to the 911 transcripts for both of them, I would love to see some other responses from the mother. The only comment I saw needed further questioning because the response was unacceptably weak coming from a MOTHER. Maybe it would help clarify why the mother called 911 and the father called search and rescue.

He says: "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." Yes, he uses "that" 3 times, very sensitive. The water is very sensitive to him.

Juliet said...

Peter, I'm pleased to have got the search and rescue vs police one right. I knew there must be a reason why you kept drawing attention to it and so inviting us to think about it - if you had not, I doubt I would have thought it needed to mean anything.


I posted on the previous thread why I think DeOrr was so sensitive about the truck - I think his being in the truck in order to make the call might have been an alibi for being in the truck at all - he had no need to be in the truck, but I think he may have been in it for quite some time, not searching for his son, and was worried that someone had seen him.

Juliet said...

Also, I wonder if the disagreement was about when to call, rather than who, or in addition to who? I am thinking they are not together when they have this disagreement - DeOrr is still out hauling, and went earlier than he makes out in the interview, perhaps quite a while earlier. He is on his way back, but doesn't want to risk encountering LE while he is at too great a distance from the campsite to make plausible to them that he is just searching, because DeOrr could not have wandered so far. Jessica wants to call, grandpa is insisting she call, but DeOrr is maybe saying 'not yet'. He doesn't want his first encounter to be with LE, he wants only to deal with search and rescue. Perhaps he waits down the road to see who arrives first, and only returns to the camp once search and rescue is on the scene, so he can throw himself into the search and sideline the police - 'please, let's just find my boy.' Perhaps search and rescue arrived first, and that's why he felt blessed, and that Jessica was lucky, too. Perhaps Jessica only needed to be lucky - maybe he felt blessed because he had prayed so hard all the while he'd been hauling, about one or some things, and that's how it turned out.

Buckley said...

Deorr Kunz Sr doesn't seem like the kind of man who likes to ask for help or give up control. I find a disagreement about how quickly to call 911 (or the resulting responding agency) very believable.

Is calling 911 a given at 30 seconds missing? 2 minutes? 5? 10? Would we all arrive at the same answer?

That's why I'm surprised his "haul" in "the truck" is only about the call, and not also about continuing to search.

Juliet said...

Why didn't the interviewer just ask 'What were you hauling?' Or 'why were you hauling?' Doesn't hauling mean moving something heavy? If he means he was driving slowly, well we would expect that on those roads, so it's an unnecessary word, but it's a free world, he can say that if he wants to, though it hardly seems the time for him to turn all poetic. If he means he was driving fast, well, he couldn't have been, not on that type of road. So, what, or why, was he hauling? Why did he say that?

Buckley said...

I take it to mean "hauling ass" as in driving fast, but as I said in another thread, if my son were missing in unfamiliar territory, I'd be driving slowly, being careful and looking.

"Hauling" as in carrying something needs a direct object, since there's not one, that's why I lean to moving fast. He's a trucker by trade so how does he use the word? It might be in either way.

ima.grandma said...

Re: the preoccupation with search and rescue. I was convinced I would figure this one out within those first couple of days. I thought Deorr was wanting to call a separate emergency contact than Jessica. I kept reading (most likely rumors) that Jessica was related to LE. I was also thinking Deorr Sr. may have a contact in one of the search & rescue departments. I think it could be that they disagreed who to call for help. Mom called 911 and he got mad and hauled ito make a separate call. 

I made myself nuts googling all the search and rescue depts within that area. I searched for the staff roster at each location and tried to tie it to Deorr Sr. - a buddy, a cousin, a school chum, etc. Somehow, just some reason he wanted SAR.

But now it seems so simple. He didn't care which SAR was called, just that a SAR be called in lieu of 911.

Buckley said...

"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."

Again, we don't see the verb "search." If we believe what he says, they are great because they were "concerned" and "emotionally attached."

What more could a father ask?

Buckley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
trustmeigetit said...

I would think the average person with an emergency would call 911. Not search and rescue. And in fact, I would think that it would be required and that 911 would then contact the needed resources. Kinda like they determine if they need police or ambulance or both and dispatch accordingly.

I mean can someone just call "search and rescue" and get help? Or would they be directed to call 911 first? Anyone followers know the answer to this?

I did google "Salmon Search and Rescue" and found a phone number right away.. So not impossible for him to have found it.... But it does say that it's a private company. I live in a rural area and we have a private fire department. But if there was a fire, we would not call them. We would call 911.

If you can call them.... My next question would be...... how did he know who to call?

I mean if I needed search and rescue in my own town.... I would not have a clue who to call..... I didn't even realize they had 'names" per say. I would not know oh "Salmon Search and Rescue" handles this area..... I would call 911 so they could handle the resources.

Then more talk about the truck, the more I am thinking Deoor may have died in that truck. Maybe he was put down for a NAP in there so they could go explore. Maybe they were gone a really long time.... They could have felt they would be held responsible... And I think that dad drove the body away from the site and called who ever he called while doing this so if anyone did happen to see him, his alibi was that he went there to ensure he had service....

It was 74 degrees as a high that day in the nearest town I could find. They say it only needs to be 60 degrees out to be hot enough inside a closed car to cause a death.

They may have argued about calling because mom figured it would be seen as an accident and dad may have been concerned they could be charged. If they had to then admit they were not with the child and the only caregiver was that family friend and a very ill grandfather.

Buckley said...

911 is a means to get various emergency personnel there. 911 and Search and Rescue aren't two "opposing options." One is an operator who connects you with:

1. Police
2. Fire dept
3. Ambulance
4. Search and Rescue

So it's not either 911 or Search and Rescue, it's 911 then search and Rescue.

ima.grandma said...

Appetizer suggestions anyone? I'm going to need something that pairs well with all the crow I'm going to be eating soon.

Buckley said...

Yes, what Trustme said- we were posting at the same time :)

Buckley said...

I think he wants to say the noun "search" as much as he can since he's having difficulty saying the verb "search."

Ima- anything with chocolate!

ima.grandma said...

Buckley, I do remember reading info at the particular SARs I googled. The information was that all the 911 calls go to the Lehmi County Sheriffs Dept and they in turn determine the needs by calling fire, SAR, etc. You are right, my guess is thats how most 911 call centers work. I was thinking he knew his "contacts" direct line or cell, etc. and wanted someone he knew up there before 911 was called.

trustmeigetit said...

On moms 911 call, shortly into the call she asks if dad is calling too. I think that would mean he called 911?

ima.grandma said...

I'll take the dark chocolate. I need some additional endorphins this evening.

Sus said...

Deorr Sr called 911, but he's thinking and calling it search and rescue. He reached the same number as Jessica.

I'm wondering how much Jessica's ex played into this. Remember, her ex DID call search and rescue directly. According to his Facebook, he called two counties TELLING them to get search and rescue up there and offering to pay for a helicopter himself.

Ima.grandma, I believe I'll skip the appetizers and wash that crow down with a nice glass of red wine.

Sus said...

I've seen the suggestion that Deorr died in the truck or even that he was hauled in the truck.

Wouldn't the cadaver dogs pick that up? I thought I read in the Lisa Irwin case (where the dogs did find a scent) that a body only has to remain in a spot a few minutes for the dog to hit on it.

The recent msm article said the FBI investigated all of their vehicles and returned them. They would surely hold them for evidence if a cadaver dog hit. Right?

ima.grandma said...

Sus, I hadn't heard that about the ex. Interesting. He is still a piece of this puzzle. He made some remark earlier about how hard it is for him to keep his mouth shut like he knows a little something. Maybe, the ex overshadows Deorr Sr. thus we have "I'm the father"

I'll see your glass of wine and raise you a bloody mary

Buckley said...

I hadn't heard about the ex. I agree with Ima's comments.

I'm boring- just drinking coffee :)

Sus said...

Oh my gosh! I would much rather have a Bloody Mary, but thought maybe it sounded too hard core. Then heck. I'm going for a vodka gimlet. Haha.

Sus said...

dropped pronoun, with "just". Come on, Buckley. :-)

Buckley said...

Haha- I am drinking coffee, but after hearing the drinks you gals are lining up, I'm a little embarrassed I'm not having something more sophisticated.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

If you look at Buckley's statement on coffee backwards, you will be stunned at how much she reveals about the origins of the universe!

Hobnob's last post backwards solved the Jimmy Hoffa case.

Buckley said...

Shhh! Peter, it's a secrety, illuminati kind of thing.

Though I will reveal I'm a he, not a she :/

Sus said...

That backwards stuff makes a lot more sense with a vodka gimlet in my left hand and a Bloody Mary in my right. Just saying...

Sus said...

But apparently it's more difficult to recognize eggs...and pies...and pancakes. I got the food one correct to verify. :-)

Buckley said...

I don't take offense though; I hear gender identification in anonymous writing is tough to discern, and I've only been posting as Buckley since the Zimmerman verdict.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I learn every time I read here! Reading Peter's analysis here and I was reminded of his recent lesson on answering questions and going outside the boundary of the question.

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

NOTE: The question is "how are you guys holding up?".

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

Dad DeOrr goes way beyond the question here. It's unexpected that he begins with the phone calls (especially given his sensitivity about coverage and callers possibly being cut off). He's supposed to be addressing how they're holding up. His language at this point is completely devoid of any concern about cell coverage or interruptions with these call...yet his son is still missing when he makes those calls. This lends weight to the idea that cell phone coverage was not his primary reason for hauling in the truck.

Post 1 of 2

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Post 2 of 2 Cont.

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

NOTE: The question is "how are you guys holding up?".

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

Then, he immediately returns to discussing the search and the large number of responders. Is this why her call is "lucky" and his is "blessed"? Because 2 people calling made the situation more dire? Or because his prayers were answered that his/their story would be believed?

He seems to realize that he tripped with the nonchalant "a few phone calls is all it took at first" and he seems to catch himself by reiterating how unpredictable the cell service is (except he can't decide if it's "here" or "there"). He's attempting to persuade the interviewer and the public.
After all that, he finally gets down to answering the actual question, but he rambles on vaguely about hope...even though 175 have combed and combed and combed the immediate area (helicopter and all) and his son is still missing. He doesn't sound hopeful or convincing.

As Peter always says, order is important. What message was Dad DeOrr interested in conveying at this moment in the interview. Remember the question? "How are you guys holding up?"

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Oops, forgot 2 things from my 2-part post above.

Did you notice Dad DeOrr seems to take credit for getting all those people with "and anybody I called"? Remember, his search and rescue (his definition) call was "blessed". So, did the cell service coverage suddenly get better that he was able to make numerous calls? Where did he make those calls from? Does he think he single-handedly got 175+ responders on the mountain? Hero complex? It seems all about him and his efforts.

Did you also notice what he says about their hope? It's directly tied to the search...the unsuccessful search for his missing two-year old. Nowhere in the entire interview does Dad DeOrr ever consider little DeOrr- how terrifying it would be to him being lost in the woods, how horrifying it would be to a toddler to be attacked by an animal, how painful it would be to injured without his mother or anyone to comfort him, how terrifying it would be for him to be all alone, how terrifying it would be for him to be grabbed by a stranger. At this stage of development, most two-year olds are terrified of strangers.

DeOrr's focus is on the search and perpetuating the search. Why? He seems almost desperate that the search cannot end or scale back. Yet, there seems to be an overwhelming lack of concern for little DeOrr and his ordeal, if indeed he's lost or been abducted. The desperation is attached to the status of the search, not the missing son.

Juliet said...

Maybe he had no worries about DeOrr's condition because there was no longer anything to worry about, Foolsfeedonfolly. Bad to say, but there it is.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Juliet- I'm sorry to say it, but I concur. That's exactly what I've been thinking for quite awhile.

If, there was an accident due to neglect or otherwise, I wish DeOrr would just come clean instead of putting everyone through this. Accidents can happen to the best of parents(and have). Anyone parenting a toddler has usually had at least one near miss. Sometimes, a toddler masters a physically developmental skill faster than a parent expects or anticipates and that's all it takes. It's far better to tell the truth and man up, than to jerk everyone around emotionally only to find out it's all been a lie. Trust is stolen and the public is less likely to help when there is an actual emergency or missing child.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Not to mention the physical, emotional, and mental trauma inflicted on searchers and LE. Then there's the financial costs of searching, draining a community's already limited resources.

Juliet said...

Sus - 7.56 - The cadaver dogs would almost certainly have picked up his scent, which is why I wonder if they called family to bring a replacement black truck, and if any of them might be minus a black truck, hidden, destroyed, sold, to prevent forensics getting to it. The family asked people to look out for a black truck, unknown model, and blue Chevy which had been seen in the area. I wondered if those vehicles might have been a replacement black truck and Chevy arriving on the scene, then the drivers leaving with DeOrr's truck, which then got disposed of, with the Chevy driver needed to take the truck driver to his/her home once they'd got rid of the truck. It's just a theory, obviously, but that could explain no cadaver scent in the truck. Maybe also why DeOrr went hauling, he could possibly have exchanged trucks down the road. We don't know, if DeOrr did die, who discovered him or how many of the group knew - it could all have happened without anyone except DeOrr knowing, and the rest of them just wanting to call 911 as soon as they realised he was gone, perhaps while DeOrr was already busy hauling. Maybe she called him, asked if DeOrr was with, then wanted immediately to call 911, with him telling her to search a little longer, wait five minutes, or whatever. Jessica may genuinely have believed he was missing, to begin with, at least. It's probably too outlandish to be possible, but just trying to look at it from different angles, and what might fit the little information there is.

trustmeigetit said...

What I have read was that it can take an hour or so after death to leave cadaver scent. But then it only takes minutes to transfer the scent. I'm no expert, just basing off things other bloggers have said.

Juliet said...

Foolsfeedonfolly - I agree, it's awful. I can't see that any accident involving the truck, or drowning, would be so terrible in consequence for the parents that they would even have a thought towards covering it up, accidents happen - and usually, even if there's no hope of saving the child, parents will still call 911, it's instinctive, nothing else matters. So this is very strange -but if we go along with them, and try to accept their story, it's just as strange as there is no reasoning away their silence, no explanation as to why it might be best not to try to appeal to the better nature of an abductor, to try to get a word to DeOrr, or just let him see mummy and daddy's faces on the screen, on the outside chance he might have been put in front of a television. The silence speaks volumes. What this must be doing to their family, their parents, DeOrr's siblings, is beyond words, and if they have drawn any of them into it unawares, that only makes it worse. If they know what happened to him, at least they have the knowledge that he is at peace, and he can come to no more harm, but to deny the rest of the family that knowledge and small comfort, in the hope of saving their own skins would be cruel beyond words. I am so mad about this, then I think, hold on - what if they are not lying? What if there is some unknown factor we know nothing about, and which would change everything, and, also, what is it with Isaac, and his failure to express concern for the missing baby just, 'have you spoken to the grandpa yet?' Poor grandpa knows, or discovered something which caused him a terrible shock, I fear. Someone is not telling the whole truth, or not being allowed to tell the whole truth, or anything like it- babies don't vanish from remote campsites without a trace.

I was looking at the photo of the parents, the one at the beginning of the PI video post. I wonder what they think when they look at that photograph. Not nice of me, but I thought good thing they like orange, as they might find themselves wearing a lot of it at some point in the future, They should just fess up, it's getting past the point of sympathy now, as they are not speaking. If they have nothing to hide and are telling the truth, fear of social media, statement analysis, even of backward speech guy who is now hiding in his private group so that people outside it can't keep mocking his every utterance, should not matter more than their son, unless he is no longer in need of worrying over, that is.

Juliet said...

Sorry, if that sounds like I'm ranting at you - not intended, I just started ranted in general :)

Turtle said...

Nice analysis. One point though is that I don't think his wife's call rendered his call pointless. They were both calling to maximize chances of getting through, so once they decided to call, she started dialing and he hopped in his truck to go somewhere with a better signal. He may not have know she got through, or if he did, he believed the call would be dropped. In other words, I don't really think it's odd that they both called.

Cat said...

iWhen my son went missing, I called 911 immediatly. I turned around and he was gone. I looked where logic said he should be. As soon as the expected (finding him) did not occur, I called.

Juliet said...

Trustmeigetit i found the website of Canine Specialized Search Team, California. This is dated information, results only up to end of July 1997 for the

Cadaver Scent Project (research)

PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.


(In the article entitled)
Forensic Evidence Canines
7) Training for dogs used in search-and-rescue for lost persons (cadaver dogs) and for general field searching to find visible decomposed remains is generally appropriate and effective for that type of situation, but not for highly specialized situations or to build probable cause based solely upon residual scent.


There's a lot there but these seemed the pertinent bits of info. Those were only trials, and a long while back, but at that time one hour twenty-five minutes minimum, for cadaverine, and from the other article, it seems that if they were standard search and rescue dogs at the campsite they would not be trained to detect residual scent, only a body or remains. Other dogs might have been used since, but it's unlikely any information would be released about that unless there's a trial. There's bound to be more up to date info out there, but I stopped there first then got absorbed, so I don't feel like looking at any more sites. Dog tired now, heh.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Is that really you Peter, @August 14, 2015 at 8:25 PM or another member of the Hyatt family cunningly disguised as you? I say this because you usually sign your name at the bottom of your posts and take ownership :)

Ali said...

There are so many things about this case that nag away at me. I was wrong when I said, in another thread, that DK Snr. did not mention Deorr's name in the 15 minute interview. He does. Once. It is at a pivotal moment in the story. The moment he realises little DeOrr is missing.

DK: So when I come back up to get him, and I yelled over to Grandpa, Where is -- you know, where`s little Deorr? He immediately. Shock.

He says,

"I thought he came up to you"

Do you believe Grandpa really said that? I don't see how that quote can have come from experiential memory. Think about it. What would you say? Would you say "I thought he came up to you"?
Or "I thought he WENT (not came) WITH (not to) and surely the creek is DOWN no? (Not up.)

I'm not sure why it bothers me so much. It just feels wrong. Maybe grandpa did say that. Maybe he makes no distinction between came/went, with/to and up/down.

Certainly DK just blurts out whatever- Snake River- inappropriate word that - Snake River- comes into his head.

I also note that, as soon as DK gets to the very moment he realises Little DeOrr is missing, his story veers sharply away from what happened next, to what people don't understand and a description of the area, complete with the confusing assertion that "you couldn't not see him."

This case is perplexing in so many ways.

Juliet said...

So, there would be no need to get rid of the truck, but they wouldn't have known that - well, not unless they did a quick Google and a long skim. Still, that's another potential rabbit hole, so I'm not going down it.

Juliet said...

Ali, I think 'came' is okay because DeOrr was with grandpa in the place to which he he said little DeOrr had come. 'I thought he went to you' would mean to a spot other than the one they were standing at?

I agree, the 'he says' is not from memory, he's thinking that up as he goes along.

I think grandpa has been ill used and ill represented - we were told via the media via LE that he was of declining mental faculties - grandma Clegg said her dad's head is quite together, thank-you, or words to that effect. Someone wants us to think he's a bit confused, and not to take any notice of what he might say. Isaac would like to know what grandpa might have said though.

Juliet said...

Ps Ali - I think the true bit there is that grandpa was in shock, not 'immediately' however, and in response to any question, he just was already in shock.

Juliet said...

Cat - that's weird. Why would you call 911 and then look around and see that he was gone? Lols.:)

Lis said...

Well, I don't want to jump to any conclusions but Peter's painstaking analysis makes it pretty clear something is up.

It's really hard to follow the dialog because it is all over the place, sentences interrupted and all mixed up. I don't even know what he means half the time and I'm thinking maybe he's answering people he's talked to who aren't there right now? I don't know.

Like this statement: "He, uh, was right with us, where it's at" what does that even mean? Where what's at? Does he mean he was right with us at the campground? All of his statements seem to require some kind of translating to try and figure out what he's trying to say. Maybe this is a sign there is too much missing information.

I think this is an odd statement: "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 haven't "said" - they have "put out" -what does "put out" exactly mean in this context?

Saying there is a 100% chance of something not being true is an odd way to put it, I would expect to hear there is a 0% chance he is in that water. It seems kind of backwards. (I'm surprised they could give such a definitive guarantee.)

Anonymous said...

Great Grandfather (b. 1939) just got a speeding ticket at the end of July, so he is apparently of sufficient physical and mental health to drive his car - fast.

Cat said...

I called 911 as soon I realized he wasn't where he should be and wasn't found in an expected amount of time. My point is, I didn't wait or argue with someone over calling. I just called. From the beginning this has bothered me about this case.

Now, In trying to play devils advocate, I can see how if my husband had been with me at the time, he may have wanted to wait to call. (My husband sees things more optimistically perhaps, or perhaps he's a bit naive,or maybe just independent and not wanting to ask for outside help and wanting to solve the problem on his own. Me, I'm a quick reactor, more prone to worry and a background with more intense street smarts/more exposure to harsher vicissitudes than my dear Spouse.). But there would have been no argument or disagreement. I would have just called. No explanation about why or when.

(Long story short: we found my little guy after about 40 minutes. Longest hour of my life! This experience happened right before I read about this case in the news, so I think it has struck some sensitivity with me and I have ever since been comparing my reactions and emotions with what the parents have been saying to rule out foul play/hope for innocence on their part. There are a few areas where this case befuddles me. If I were in their shoes, and I had hope that he was abducted and still alive, I would be on every news outlet whenever I could. I wouldn't care about people analyzing my speech or rumors, etc. I would keep talking and keep his face fresh. One public interview would not be enough. )

I feel there is guilt, but it could be guilt of taking a child so young near water and left in the care of incapable or culpable others. Guilt about not calling 911/search and rescue sooner. Or guilt about an accident.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Regarding a debate calling 911...

I could not find my little one, many years ago. I ran through the house, yard, and even down around the corner, into all the local stores and came back to the house thinking that I was going to call 911.

I then found little monkey had climbed up on his own changing table, but fell asleep!

There may be a moment or two where a couple hesitates calling 911 to consider if they should just check here or there, first.

This is a short period of time and one that is not likely to produce a significant debate. I probably would have said, "I then called 911..." but not likely "decided."

If I did use "decided", even though it was my wife and I, I would have said, "I decided..." and not "we", since it would be me dialing the phone.

I concluded that a significant debate took place between mother and father in this case not only based upon "decided" but even their time quotes, ten minutes apart, and other gaps of time in his story.

I believe the gap in time, and debate, was significant and not ten minutes worth of time.

This is an opinion based on analysis and not something definitive.

Interviewing many couples gives a sense, as does analyzing lots an lots of statements. This is where the analyst must apply not only principle, but experience, and move into opinion.

There have been some great comments here, and sharp speculation.

I have noted a few, by quotes, but there are more. Astute reading and listening.

Good work!


Trigger said...

Deorr Sr. said that the blanket, toy monkey, and cup were in the truck. He didn't say how they got there.

If little DeOrr was right there with them (mom, dad, ggrandpa, and Isaac), getting ready for a nap, wouldn't little DeOrr have his favorite possessions with him to make him feel comfortable?

Were they planning to let little DeOrr nap inside the truck? or somewhere else?

Anonymous said...

Buckley said...

Ahhh! Good catch, John!

Sus said...

I have never had to call 911 because thank God I've never lost one of my kids.

But many years ago I was the lost child, and I've heard the story many times. Not once have I heard the word "decided." It was before 911, and my parents always say, "We were about to call the sheriff."

This is with my dad, my mom, my grandma, and a hired man looking for close to an hour, all around a farm house and buildings. I think the hired man searched the woods that edged the barns.

I was found asleep in the dog kennel in a dog house with a coon hound and her new pups. They didn't think to look there. They were looking in open areas, not thinking I could open (and close) a gate. And my dad still can't believe the meanest coon hound he ever owned allowed me in her house so easily.

Don't underestimate a two-year old.

Anonymous said...

"Alexi Bredehoft Does this page not show anything about deorr anymore?
Backward Speech No everything is in a secret group now."

Notice that BSG said SECRET group, when before he called it a PRIVATE group.

Cat said...

More thoughts:

Another statement that was said in the interview that make me wonder:

"Who would do this to us?" "to us"... This is close, this is not distancing from the subject/"who"/person.

I have also compared this statement against my own speech. (My own "dictionary" -- so maybe this way off base.) I use the phrase "Who does that??!" when I know who did it. For example... some parents in our neighborhood allow teen drinking parties and other bad behavior. When I talk or think about it, I say something like "Sheesh! Who does that?" when I know darn well "who" does that. It is somewhat passive-aggressive way of saying that I know who does that.

Did they know "who" did it "to us"?

Also, if I thought my child was abducted, I wouldn't be asking "Who would do this to us?" Random kidnappers aren't trying to inflict anguish on a parent ("to them") -- they are seeking their own perversions. Would would abduct a child? A sicko. When my child went missing, and the fear of abduction went through my mind, I never once thought of who was doing this "to me". It sounds absurd, out of place, and unexpected.

I hope I am proven wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Who would do this to us?"

and who exactly is "us?" Mom and Dad? Mom and Child? The entire family?

Anonymous said...

"Would would abduct a child? A sicko."

There are other possibilities: Someone who wants a child, but can't have one. Or someone who asks for ransom money, or someone who wants to emotionally hurt the parents.

C said...

Yes, exactly Anonymous. Ransom money/drug/gambling debts or someone with a personal grudge against them did come across my mind as who could be the "who". And I would think if that were the case they may have an good inkling of "who" it is with the grudge/owed debt etc.

But that would not be a random abduction as they purported.

Anonymous said...

decide (v.) 1. reach, make, or come to a decision about something; “We finally decided after lengthy deliberations”; make up one's mind; determine; 2. bring to an end; settle conclusively; “The case was decided”; “The judge decided the case in favor of the plaintiff”; settle; resolve; adjudicate; 3. cause to decide; “This new development finally decided me!”; 4. influence or determine; “The vote in New Hampshire often decides the outcome of the Presidential election”;


Decisions mean that options have been explored:

"I decided to go to work." - I did not to call in sick.

"I decided to drive to work." - I did not take the bus.

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

We did not call LE, DEA, CPS. We did not just resume our exploring activity, figuring he'd soon be back for supper anyway.


"Luckily, we - a few phone calls Is all it took at first, and we had, as Sheriff David said in the news, a hundred and seventy five plus people up there in the grid searches, volunteers, uh, professionals, and anybody I called. The service up there is very hearsay - here, there - it's camping, you know."

How many are "a few phone calls"? Who is "anybody I called"? Why was this a tough call?

Anonymous said...

There has been discussion as to whether Jessica called her mother right before she called 911, so I'm wondering if they might have made some other such calls.

Anonymous said...

To me, one "decides" something after discussion, debate, evaluation, reflection, research, etc. In other words, after some passage of time has occurred.

Anonymous said...

Are we making too much out of Jessica calling 911 and DeOrr, Sr calling search and rescue? Both calls went into the same place, right? We know they did since the 911 dispatcher can be heard talking to Jessica with DeOrr on the other line.

Maybe DeOrr Sr saying he went to call search and rescue was just his hill-jack way of referring to calling for emergency, or 911. I say this is a mute point.

IMO, there are far greater issues involved in who called who, or why. There are the many other discrepancies in many of DeOrrs' statements and not the matter of referring to 911 as search and rescue as being so all-fired important.

Anonymous said...

Coming back from the greatest adventure
Who knew it was going to be like this
Who would do this to us, what kind of creature?
Do I wanna know, or is ignorance the bliss?
Our lives will never be the same again
Tell me why did it have to end up like this
No hope for future left, was it random, was it faith
Doesn't matter now, because we're coming home
Is the word "faith" supposed to be "fate"?

Anonymous said...

Actually, I believe, 'in my heart of hearts' that you've got to dig deep to find; (God, I hate that term!) (like we have more than one heart, another heart inside multiple other hearts, but your first other heart could be wrong and your second other heart is on the fence?); but my heart of hearts finally kicked in, so that some time went by before it was decided to call 911, like more than ten minutes, more than 20 minutes, more than an hour; maybe even overnight since prior to the night before; that other family members and maybe even some friends were called before 911 was called and that at long last DeOrr came to realize that he had no other choice than to make that call. Well duh.... Jessica's own mother said that Jessica and DeOrr arrived at the campsite at 9:30 p.m. on Thursday evening.

And who was running the show? ONLY Daddy DeOrr, Sr? Do we even know the truth about anything, in our heart of hearts? I'm thinking not. We don't even know if Jessica & DeOrr, Sr were married; were they living together as a family; was he employed with any stability; did they own their own home; did Jessica work; did she pay support to her other kids; does he have other children; how did Jessica wind up giving up her other children; were these two on drugs or perhaps one of them? We know little to nothing about these two parents OR their backgrounds.

Anonymous said...

We actually do know a lot about them. Both are divorced. They are not married to each other. Jessica has two other children who live with ex-husband (their Dad). She has a drug conviction. Dad is a truck driver. Jessica is a CNA, and was hired by her mother to take care of her maternal Great Grandfather (who went on the trip with them). Mom, Dad and Little Deorr have lived with the child's paternal grandfather for the past year and a half. Jessica had a suit filed against her in early July for nonpayment of a debt.

Bethany said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Buckley said...

Notice the change in language here. IR= Isaac Reinwand

"IR said he was with DeOrr and ggp when DeOrr disappeared.

NE: "So he was just with you and the grandfather when he wandered away?"
IR: "Um hmm."
NE: "And then you guys thought he was with the parents."
IR: "Yeah."
NE: "The parents came back and he was gone?"
IR: Pause. "Um hmm."

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous 1:50 pm
Jessica and DeOrr Sr are not married. They live with DeOrr Jr in Jessica's father's house. DeOrr Sr is a truck driver (no longer long-haul) and Jessica works as a home health care aide. Jessica filed for divorce from her ex-husband on January 31, 2012 and the divorce was granted on August 15, 2012. The divorce decree was modified on October 4, 2013. ( DeOrr Sr's ex-wife filed for divorce on July 22, 2011. The divorce was final on August 29, 2011. (

For those who don't know, DeOrr Sr's full name is Vernal DeOrr Kunz.

I don't have answers for the other questions.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 2:15pm
I should have read down before answering - you know more than I do! Would you be willing to share the jurisdiction in which Jessica had the drug charge? I haven't been able to find it in Idaho. Thanks in advance.

Anonymous said...

Jessica's former married name was Birch. This may or may not be her:

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 4:09 pm.

Thank you for sharing that.

I think that is a different Jessica Birch. Jessica Mitchell (Birch) was born in 1990. The one with the drug charge was born in 1986 and spells her last name Burch. A fugitive warrant was issued for Jessica Burch in 2006 when Jessica Mitchell would have been a juvenile.

Anonymous said...

Yes, that does appear to be a different Jessica. However, there have been several posts on Social Media (including from an alleged friend of hers) that Jessica lost custody of her two older children due to meth use.

Anonymous said...

Interesting info on Sheriff:

Jessica Blans said...

My mom said something interesting. I told her about this blog and the discussions and a brief run-down on the "decided to call 911" part. She said every parent she knows has a story about when they couldn't find their kid (may be hyperbole! IDK), but she doesn't know anyone who actually called 911. She says the stories usually go "Suddenly I couldn't find So-and-so, I looked here, I looked there, I even looked there, and was just about to call police/911 when I found So-and-so." She said women share these stories in playgroups and at Bible studies, etc... And they generally end with "I was about to call 911," which means that they were thinking about it, but hadn't decided to actually do it yet.

I told her she should read the analyses and contribute to the discussion, as she knows the basics of the case and I think she would do well with statement analysis. She patted me on the head and said something like, "In my heart of hearts, I hope that you feel that I feel that I love talking with you, and you alone." lol, she's a fun mom.

Jessica Blans

Anonymous said...

In other words, we're talking about a couple of deadbeats who were living off others. Yep. That pretty much sums up what I thought anyhow.

Anonymous said...

I don't think they're necessarily deadbeats, but Jessica may be paying child support. Dad and his former wife have no children.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 4:29 I don't doubt that at all.
@Anonymous 4:44 Another interesting fact - the mortuary the sheriff owns handled the cremation of the mother of the female RSO in town. Perhaps his business also handled the cremains that were dumped during the search. It would certainly explain how he was able to quickly hunt down the local woman who dumped them. Why would a local woman weave her way through 200 searchers, dogs and LE to dump cremains in the reservoir. I'd think the peace and solitude that makes that place so special would be missing. I'd turn around and come back later. Why was it important to dump the cremains that day in that place?

Anonymous said...

The cremains were dumped on the other side of the reservoir, far away from the searchers. Ashes are sometimes scattered on memorable dates: the deceased's birthday or wedding anniversary, first anniversary of the date death and the like. The folks doing the scattering were described as a elderly couple.

KO said...

Press Released July 911 Call audio

Link to Video showing transcript / Audio
of Mother and Father (?) heard Audio

I thought I had read that the mother interjected
Bushy Blonde Hair, maybe it wasn't during the 911
call. If you listen @ 1:50 in the backdrop you
can hear another woman " presumed on speaker phone"
she asks " what is your name?"
she replies " Vernal" in confirmation to who is
" the caller" she on the phone with yes / no " Dad"
Vernal DeOrr Kunz Sr, who is the missing baby boy's father.

He, Mother Raw interview that has been analyzed here

He, She is asked tell me about
He responds, Friday about " 2:26" he looks to
Mother, she reiterates "2:36, it was when I called"

Father: it was 2:36 when she called

I was in the truck hauling down to the road on and on

How is he (assuming it is him) he heard at 1:50 in the Audio
of the 911 call that the Mother placed at " 2:36"
he calling after her 911 connection,
she dialed 911 she was already speaking to a 911 Operator

this why the operator she is speaking with
asks " is your husband calling too"
as this is when you can hear another woman ask
What is your name, ' Vernal' she says to confirm
whom offered her this as their answer

Its' contradiction of his voluntary
this is what happened his long drawn out of
everything but what happened, toss in the kitchen sink
He doesn't stop talking for anyone to interview him.

As another person posted above, " Hair is mentioned"
Is there Redacted Audios floating of the 1 or 2 911
calls? each parent called in less than mins apart
But Dad says " he was in his truck hauling " ..
as he says it Raw Interview

KO said...

It's either one or the other
the Audio is heard from within the 911
operators "echo" they working desk to desk
close to each other, in proximity

and or the Father is next to the Mother
in proximity that they are both captured
on the mothers' 911 call audio.

Why then would the operator who is on with
Jessica, Ask Jessica is your husband calling
too if she could ask the operator next to her
is that the husband? she to confirm with the other
operator who they were dispatching " same moment
that this was the same party" calling for Emergency

They supposedly in the middle of no mans land
he to offer up that his fear was he wasn't able
to connect with anyone " unless he left the area"
in his truck.

The other in the same video Presser Dated July 15,2015
the Media shows the photo of Baby standing in gravel / rocks
that he is holding the orange ball. A second image is shown
of camping chairs, a fire pit, the media not to state clear this
is images taken by the parents, it's alluded, this where the boy
was last seen, 10 miles from, site said.

Was this photo taken of Baby D on that Friday?
and if it was why isn't wearing the same
clothing as mother said. The Grandmother on social media
answering the public, is on record that they arrived
on Thursday at 9:30pm, this then post sun down or at sundown.

If this image was taken of him Friday, what time was it?
Why are there to many non questions asked of this baby boys

The image (taken Friday?) what is wrong with his skin
around his cheek, his nose, his mouth that it's darkened,
not dirt. Who was the last person to see him prior to they landing
at the camp site, Thurs, Friday, this one of many mystery
non stated, who needs to ask, I guess someone does.

His free arm appears with pink patches
of areas, sunburned or burned, irritated, pink views painful.
He standing in an awkward stance due to the rocks or the lack
of proper shoes? His feet, is he wearing on one foot a slipper
with an animal head ? image link

Very sad

Anonymous said...

Someone has posted (on the Where is DeOrr Kunz Jr. Facebook page) that the family is on the mountain searching today.

If they think he wa kidnapped, why are they searching there?

Anonymous said...

That pic of Deorr is not from this trip. It's an old pic.

Anonymous said...

"Wow. Let me get this straight in my head...

a LOCAL woman, who is a REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, just lost her 75 year old Mother, who was staying with her in Leodore, on June 25th.


the local crematorium is owned/ran by Sheriff Lynn Bowerman and his wife.

They dealt with the RSO funeral/ cremation for her mother and obviously had easy access to cremains.

Sheriff.Lynn Bowerman is possibly a relative of Kunz.

all coincidences?..... Give me a break"

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

I think he says there was no trace of My son because it was HIS fault hes missing. They say theres a lottle truth in every lie, and when he says "he isnt in THAT water", its a way of being truthful if hes in water somewhere else. Hes not in THAT water. I also question jessicas reference to what he WAS wearing...and starting at his feet and describing him toe to foot vs head to toe...weird. im wondering if the last thing she saw were his boots. They also packed up camp supposedly when they couldnt find him...I think they never unpacked or stayed the night there. I feel they moved campsites after this tragedy occured, and originally they were camping closer to idaho falls. They may of decided to call in the report in a town where they had connections...which is leadore. Also the lady spreading ashes knew by her own admission in her news interview that a search was going on. she said they all sent up food for searchers. She also is a registered sex offender. Seems strange her name keeps coming up.

Anonymous said...

Good question, Anon @8:58 pm. Did you go on their facebook page and ask them this? Seems to me if they think he was kidnapped they would go home and wait there, wouldncha think? But of course, they know he wasn't. Another sham.

Juliet said...

More Speculation (first of two posts - too long for one)

I've been thinking about DeOrr not taking off his orange jacket through the first few days, despite the weather. Someone made this observation on one of the earlier DeOrr posts, and at the time I thought only of the most obvious possibility that maybe he was trying to hide scratches or other marks - but that couldn't have been it, as LE would have checked that out after a day or two. I think on that thread, unless I am imagining it (there's too much to look back through) that someone posited the idea of him trying to blend in with search and rescue. If so, I would, at that point most likely have dismissed that likelihood, but more recently I've begun to consider it much more likely.

I was watching this video :

I wanted to see the SAR people at work in Idaho, get more of an idea of the environment, and to check out what colour their EMT bags are (a good number are orange). An off -camera comment in the parents' interview was that the missing EMT bag needed to be addressed, but in the event, it was not. There is no MSM information, but social media had it early on that apparently one was stolen from a SAR vehicle at the campsite.

Also, their jackets are orange, which brought to mind DeOrr's jacket, and how easy it would be to appear to be part of the search and rescue effort, and so avoid early engagement with LE, not only by being dressed like one of them, but also to be seen carrying a SAR bag, possibly lifted from one of those open backed vehicles on his way back to the campsite - an orange one to look as much the part as possible - opportunistic, and convenient, He could have passed by with little attention from LE and made his way to some area round the campsite where he could continue to avoid LE for a few more hours, whilst also being able to say he'd just been searching all the while, or had needed to go a little distance to be able to make his numerous phone calls, signal,fine then - well, it's camping, you know. ('A few phone calls is all it took, at first.') He could have dumped the EMT bag, once it had served it's purpose, and maybe also found a little something in there to help calm him. At some point the helicopter crew spotted the bag, and possibly also him, but they weren't about to tell him that. All those wonderful people, Sherrif Dave, the guy hanging off the helicopter, whose name he couldn't remember (I bet he remembers his face). All so sincere, so concerned - but the hearsay has gotten out of hand... Who would make up rumours about a two year old? Well, quite, no-one, obviously - but they might have had a few ideas about his dad and the EMT bag, and him sloping off to make enough phone calls to fill the mountain with hundreds of untrained volunteers, while the experts were already to hand. Who could have taken the EMT bag, DeOrr? Well, anyone, there were hundreds of people up there. That's convenient. Maybe he felt extra blessed because he just happened to be wearing his lucky orange jacket that day, then also managed to lift an EMT bag - well, it could have happened that way.

Juliet said...


How about someone, LE or SAR informs the parent/s, there's something which the helicopter has spotted over there, something orange, and we wonder what that might be. Kids lose stuff, they leave a trail, it may be part of a shoe (as in wild animal might have the rest of it, and him) we/they are going to check that out. I wonder if either of them reacted just a bit, or if DeOrr tried to persuade them not to even bother looking because it couldn't be anything of Little DeOrr's as he was wearing cowboy boots, not orange shoes, or clothes.

As it turned out, It was only an insect repellant can, or so the parents were told. I so don't believe that. DeOrr said they were dead-on, but they weren't, as they had said they thought it was a shoe, anyway, he was just trying to convince himself that they were being straight with him. SAR doesn't rescue insect repellant cans, but they might have messaged someone on the ground to go and pick up what looked like one of their EMT bags, dumped where it should not have been -maybe some of the contents had been scattered if it had been rummaged through for drugs. I have to admit the possibility that they might have recovered an insect repellant can, but if so, not just any insect repellant can, but one which came from the EMT bag. Someone got hysterical over it on here, anyway.

If a crime was by then suspected, LE would feel no obligation to tell what really they might know, or what item really had been recovered. If it wasn't DeOrr who took the bag, well sorry about that, but who, except someone who was pretty desperate, would take an EMT bag, particularly in those circumstances, and why did he keep on wearing the jacket unless he wanted to be assumed to be part of SAR and so,remain more difficult to locate, or recognise, during the early days of searching? Maybe he had no other clothes with him. It could all be coincidence, but they might also be coincidences which he worked to his advantage.

It's impossible to watch the video without feeling upset that little DeOrr was not recovered, and also at the abuse of the goodwill of these amazing people if it should turn out they were called upon to search for a child when the parents knew he wasn't there.

Anonymous said...

It appears that the Websleuths Deorr forum has now gone private as well.

Juliet said...

Also, if the bag had just been lifted from an open vehicle, and he was caught out, he could have passed it off by saying he was just being helpful, thought he'd help by carrying one of the bags along, as he saw them there - less risky than breaking into a vehicle, or even going into an unlocked vehicle - would they even bother to lock their vehicles, though? Unlikely they'd be expecting to be stolen from by the family, who must have still been the only people there when SAR arrived, along with LE, if they also had arrived by then.

Juliet said...

Anon at 10.06 - maybe they finally decided to allow conversation about the parents possible involvement, but don't want to do that in public.

Unknown said...

Thank you everyone for your continued comments on this case! I haven't had time to post for the past few days, but this case has continued to be on my mind. Great observations by everyone!

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

Something is very likely to have been found dumped, as the word was used early on - it was applied to the cremains, but people don't dump the remains of their loved ones, they scatter them. Dumped stuff is unwanted, surplus, or of no further use. I don't know if it was the deputies or the press who introduced the word, but if it was a press reporter, he or she would not have plucked the word out of thin air, it's likely how it had been told to him or her. So that something had been dumped was on someone's mind, and it got applied to the cremains, but in the normal course it would be inappropriate and disrespectful for anyone to say that.

Also,the Idaho SAR cadaver dogs are trained to locate human bodies or their remains, but perhaps more specialised cadaver dogs had been brought in by then. Whatever, people don't dump their relatives' ashes, or think to describe others as having done so, which makes that someone did say it, what - unexpected? Perhaps not, as this was not a normal situation - someone might just have been extremely frustrated, and said it out of anger at the people who did it, for messing up the search.

Anonymous said...

Rapidly spreading wildfires in Eastern Idaho could destroy any remaining evidence.

Dispatch: What’s the address of your emergency?
Mother: Um, I’m actually camping in Leadore, just outside of Leadore.

I'm not reading too much into that. She doesn't know the (street) address, since they are camping.

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

Websleuths admins often will close a thread down to clean up posts (remove) which are against their Terms of Service. This could include sleuthing/accusing anyone who is not named a suspect by LE, but also if non-verified information is discussed by any posters (social media by non verified sources, Facebook comments and the like). Often the admins will leave a message stating that the thread is closed for that reason, but not always.

Anonymous said...

Websleuths is a big joke. Tricia, (is that her name?), their leader and head chief; thinks she has all the answers and knows everything about everybody, actually could make me throw up if I hung out over there or paid attention to her c'rap. She disgusts me. As do her little brainless minions who do not have a single thought of their own in their silly head. WHAT a waste of time!

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

Apologies if this has been posted before

Evidence in case of missing 2-year-old given to FBI

LEADORE (AP) — The Lemhi County Sheriff’s Office has passed all evidence to the FBI in the case of a missing 2-year-old who disappeared during a family camping trip.

Sheriff Lynn Bowerman said Tuesday it could be six weeks before the county receives any information back from federal investigators.

The boy, DeOrr Kunz, was last seen July 10 at his family’s campsite at Timber Creek Campground, just south of the town of Leadore near the Montana border. For the past three weeks, search teams have combed the remote backcountry to look for the boy.

Bowerman says deputies are still searching, though they are no longer there 24 hours a day. Deputies have received reports of human bones being found, but they have turned up to be false.

Anonymous said...

It is nowhere to be found that is accessible to ordinary members.I guess it was moved to a super-hidden moderator's forum or something.
Frustrating.I hadn't finished reading the entire thread before it was pulled.I don't therefore know if it was squashed due to discussion of SM rumours or the like.
For a moment,I held my breath,hoping it would be tagged "Moved -Found",thinking maybe Websleuths had insider info,but,alas,no.

Juliet said...

The pattern of interruption in the interview is that Jessica speaks when she wants to correct DeOrr. So they were told the item might be part of a shoe. DeOrr had said they thought it was an orange insect repellant can, but Jessica corrects him because that's not what they were told, and she doesn't want him to be so obviously and publicly contradicting LE on TV, they need to stay on good terms with LE and SAR. What he maybe means there is - that's what HE thought it was, and what he had anticipated they would find? If so (eats crow) it very likely WAS an orange insect repellant can. It wasn't what they had said they thought it was, though - they said it might be part of a shoe. Later, the parents were told it was an insect repellant can. Still, I reckon it was not just any random discarded can, and it came from the EMT bag, and that's what DeOrr thought/knew they could have seen. There is sensitivity round it, as he brought it into the interview without being asked about it, also someone else on here seemed unduly concerned about it, and wanted to end speculation and discussion round it. ('End of story!!!!' - though maybe there were fewer exclamation marks.) Unnecessary if it really was just any old discarded insect repellant can.

Anonymous said...

"For a moment,I held my breath,hoping it would be tagged "Moved -Found",thinking maybe Websleuths had insider info,but,alas,no."

That was my first reaction, too. But it was not to be. Even the older, closed Doerr threads are no longer there. I wonder if they and Backwards Speech received some kind of "cease and desist" letters?

Anonymous said...

We have all spent a lot of time on this precious little missing child, when we already know (in our 'heart of hearts'), that these ner'do-wells will get away with losing this innocent child due to their own neglect and God knows what else they did or allowed to be done to this child. Don't they always?

LE has already said there is no evidence of a kidnapping, no evidence of a child lost in the woods, no evidence of a drowning, no evidence of animals absconding with the child. What MORE do we need to know? Why are they not suspects!

Fricken' cons, users and takers. Living off the hard earned works of others. Sure, Jessicas' reputed to be a CNA, but what is she doing with it? Living off the social security benefits of her great grandfather that are handed over to her by her mother to care for him, WITH their RSO friend Issac hanging out with the old man; while she and (unmarried) bed partner DeOrr live in the paternal home provided by HIS father. Free loaders.

Just like Justin Depuke, Debra Bradley, BILLY JEAN & Shawn, Casey, George & Cindy Anthony, and so many others who get away with disposing of their children. These hayseeds are obviously smarter than the LE agencies who 'investigate' them.

We can analyze them until we drop dead of fatigue, so big whoopee. Don't they ALWAYS get away with it? Un huh.... they sure do.

Anonymous said...

It is only the most recent thread (#8 ?)that is unavailable. The previous ones are still there and still available. The newest one was just started late yesterday. Perhaps there was too much or too zealous speculation overnight by posters.

Anonymous said...

Juliet, very insightful post regarding the orange jacket that DeOrr was wearing. Your theory on that matches his bizarre excitement and inappropriate focus on the search activities during the interview. That interview was all about DeOrr Sr, not about baby DeOrr at all. What you theorized about the EMT bag also makes sense, there is definitely something more to that situation and DeOrr Sr avoided that discussion like the plague.

Could the disappearance of DeOrr been set up so that DeOrr Sr. could "play rescue"? I know that sounds terrible but there it is. Now I read upthread that the family went back to the mountain to search, has that been confirmed? Wouldn't that be something if while they were up there, DeOrr Sr. happens to find DeOrr and be the hero after all? This case is so weird I don't know what to think anymore.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:37, Tricia over at Websleuths has done this before. Without rhyme or reason, suddenly she will have the forum of interest snatched out from under those posting and reading. All it takes is for someone smarter than she is to raise a few questions or points of interest that she hadn't already thought of herself.

I dropped reading over there (never did post there) years ago for this very reason. If you read my post above @ 11:10, you will find this is nothing new. She thinks she's a real heavyweight but actually is stupid.

Anonymous said...

Thread #8 at WS was most likely pulled because it was clogged with stupid OT posts about ghost images in truck windows and other garbage. I'm sure it will re-open after the mods clean it up.

Juliet said...

Brooke- I think he meant what he said, it was a replica of his blanket, but maybe not an exact replica. It looks a little darker than the one the elder sibling has in his stroller, at around DeOrr's age (photo for comparison is/was in grandma Clegg's FB mobile uploads album) and presumably that's the one which became DeOrr's blanket - it's quite an unusual blanket, and things get passed down between siblings. Difference in shade could be due to the lighting, or Jessica has a thing against biological detergents, and it gets dragged everywhere, so maybe it's not as bright as it used to be. I think there it's likely there were two blankets - one for when the other was in the washing machine or mislaid. It's not unusual for parents to source a duplicate of a blanket or favourite toy.

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

See this:**NO-DISCUSSION-quot

Anonymous said...

"Could the disappearance of DeOrr been set up so that DeOrr Sr. could "play rescue"?"

Bingo! Like folks who set fires so that they can be first on the scene.

Dad keeps yammering on about all the SAR personnel, vehicles and equipment; "hauling" down the road; looking "up and down" etc. He uses the word "I" a lot. I wonder if ever applied to be a first responder, but was turned down.

Peter, what do you think?

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

12:19pm That's what I wonder as well and I too am hoping Peter will comment as to this theory.

Has anyone heard anything about DeOrr Sr.'s behavior during the searches? I saw images of him riding around on a 4 wheeler, was that his? Did he bring that to camp with him or was it someone else's? I'm curious as to his behavior during the search, if anyone knows anything please post!

Juliet said...

Anon at 11,38 - if the baby has been hidden on the mountain, and if DeOrre were to find him at this stage (and yes, the family has been up there searching on weekends, perhaps DeOrr has been more frequently) it would look very suspicious, to say the least. So, even if he does know where the baby is, too much time has passed for such a discovery on his part to not at least appear suspicious. It's a big area, thoroughly and professionally searched, and the baby is so small - DeOrr is not trained in how to search, where to look, it would be like searching for a needle in a haystack, he would have virtually no chance of finding him. Personally, I don't think the disappearance was pre-planned, or that anyone intended for little DeOrr to be lost or harmed, but once the crisis had occurred, DeOrr began to think fast, acted in haste, and has been trying to talk, and more not talk, himself out of the situation ever since.

Anonymous said...

To the person who said that Jessica and Deorr live in Jessica's father's house, that is incorrect. They lives with Deorr's dad.

Jessica's dad, Jerry J. Mitchell, is in prison.

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

Deorr mentions something about the call being at 2:26, Jessica says she called at 2:36. The problem with that is the timestamp for Jessica's 911 call is actually 2:28. I have never encountered a cell phone with the incorrect time (unless it's a time zone or DST issue which might show as a different hour, but the minutes are the same). Was she relying on a watch that was 8 minutes off the correct time instead of the cell phone in her hand?

Betty said...

Wow, I know this site is about statement analysis but the photo of the parents in that link speaks a thousand words. She is keeping her arms close in while he is kind of reaching for her. Secondly, she is wearing a short sleeved tshirt and he is wearing a BRIGHT NEON ORANGE jacket (similar to the color used in search and rescue?). It's like he's wearing the jacket to give the impression he is part of the SAR team.

The dad is so desperate to be respected and powerful.

Anonymous said...

If you are speaking to me, Anon @1:04, I commented that they are living in the PATERNAL grandfathers' home; that would be DeOrrs' fathers' home. Paternal = father's side of the family; maternal = mother's side of the family.

Anonymous said...

They're in a tv studio, so itmay be cold in there. Jessica also has her sunglasses on her head in this and other photos I suspect she's been wearing them a lot because her eyes are swollen from crying.

Notice that Dad keeps twiddling his thumbs? "thumb twiddling is frequently used as an example of a useless, time-wasting activity. It has even been proposed as "the ultimate exercise for the bored and lazy".

Maybe he's anxious to get back out there to search?

Anonymous said...

I hate to say it since I don't want to create an argument, but I find some of these speculative suspicions totally ridiculous. Do some of you people actually believe that daddy DeOrr left the kid somewhere else for these past four weeks so he could be the one to rescue him? Or on an earlier post, switched black trucks with someone else? Wowzer. What wild imaginations.

Some of you must have had one hell uv a bad night last night and for several days on-going...

Why not just stick with the facts, or what we know to be true and untrue?

Anonymous said...

I think the correction re living arrangements was in response to the poster on August 15, 2015 at 3:25 PM.

Juliet said...

The speculation is that the parents do drugs, Jessica maybe had a drug problem around the time her two elder children were small, so it was agreed they would have a more stable upbringing with their dad. In the meantime she tries to get her act together with her new man, goes to college, gets her caring/nursing qualification, while DeOrr is working as a truck driver. They planned to move to Utah, but the job opportunities fell through, and they find themselves living for eighteen months with grandpa Kunz - not unexpected that they might say let's take a couple of days out, give grandpa some peace and quiet. Jessica is her great-grandfather"s carer, so he needs to go,along too, but that's not a problem as he enjoys camping, in fact he would like to go to this particular campsite, Timber Creek, because he has good memories of it. Jessica doesn't want to spend the whole time with grandpa, they want to be able to go off exploring with little DeOrr, so they take Isaac along, too, to keep grandpa company, (and maybe because he's got the marijuana). Okay, so they might like some recreational marijuana, that doesn't, of itself, make them no good drop outs and ne'er do wells. It's caricature, but that's easy - we also don't know if they did indulge, it's just speculation. To me they come across as a young couple struggling, but trying to move forward in their lives, because they have a child and want to be responsible. Jessica wouldn't want to mess up again, but she also may still not be quite over the drug problem, so a bit of weed is the compromise. Isaac, from his Facebook and some of his associates, seems not adverse to a little cannabis, so it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to think it likely that a bit of recreational weed might feature on a camping trip. Consider also, grandpa and Isaac are both alcoholics, and we don't know if they are dry or drinking -they too may like to get out of town, away from judgemental friends and family, for a couple of days. Too relaxed, lack of attention to little DeOrr, something happened. DeOrr thought it was safe, but he was a bit concerned about the creek. He didn't choose the site, as he claimed, if it's true that they were going there because grandpa liked it, and wanted to go there, which is what grandma Clegg has since said. Anyway, he decided it was okay, they could let little DeOrr be without too much danger because he's very attached to his parents and does not wander away from them. He was right there with them, where it's at. Where, and what is IT? If that's their lifestyle, a couple of days out here and there to indulge their possible vices in peace, camp, go fishing, then I doubt they are great plotters and planners, more just go with the flow, stuff happens, and they try to catch up with it later. I think there is too much negative judgement on the parents - some like to paint them as villains by default, based upon on their presumed lifestyle, but that's at least a bit unfair. Something terrible has happened, but we don't yet know what that is, only that their little boy has gone, DeOrr said he watched him till he figured he was gone, after which no-one saw him again.

Anonymous said...

Oh. Okay then. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

I think the poster was speculating that Dad's plan was to find the child very shortly after he disappeared, but that something bad happened. (Either the child wasn't there, or had died).

Anonymous said...

You can make all the excuses you want too, Juliet, but the truth is they were not watching their child. Period.

If they were smoking pot and it was not medically prescribed, then it was illegal. Take it or leave it.

You make excuses. I find none.

A child is missing. A child THEY were responsible for. Nothing comes ahead of the child. And THAT's the bottom line.

Juliet said...

Brooke - did you even read my post? Motivation to appear part of SAR so as not to be immediately identifiable as family by LE, to be able to pass them by and avoid being questioned for as long as possible - the jacket alone might not have done it, as SAR carry equipment or EMT bags. Not planned, just impulsive,opportunistic, convenient. It's possible.

Anonymous said...

Juliet: "Something is very likely to have been found dumped, as the word was used early on - it was applied to the cremains, but people don't dump the remains of their loved ones, they scatter them. Dumped stuff is unwanted, surplus, or of no further use. I don't know if it was the deputies or the press who introduced the word, but if it was a press reporter, he or she would not have plucked the word out of thin air, it's likely how it had been told to him or her. So that something had been dumped was on someone's mind, and it got applied to the cremains, but in the normal course it would be inappropriate and disrespectful for anyone to say that. "


Family fears missing 2-year-old was abducted
By Diane Kaye
updated2:52 PM EDT, Fri July 17, 2015

Police divers have been methodically searching every square inch of the reservoir for the little boy after cadaver dogs indicated there may be something there. However, Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman tells HLN they just learned that someone had been dumping human cremains in the reservoir, and that very well could be the smell the dogs picked up on.

“It’s pretty disappointing. Someone was depositing human cremains up there while we’re searching the area. It contaminates the reservoir and the entire area,” says Bowerman.


Anonymous: "Another interesting fact - the mortuary the sheriff owns handled the cremation of the mother of the female RSO in town. Perhaps his business also handled the cremains that were dumped during the search. It would certainly explain how he was able to quickly hunt down the local woman who dumped them. Why would a local woman weave her way through 200 searchers, dogs and LE to dump cremains in the reservoir. I'd think the peace and solitude that makes that place so special would be missing. I'd turn around and come back later. Why was it important to dump the cremains that day in that place?"


Lynn D. Bowerman running for Sheriff

"Lynn and his wife Tammy also own Jones & Casey Funeral Home,"

Juliet said...

Anon at 1.48 - I don't care - I think it's horrible to judge the parents in that way. Plus, they'll be making onions and beer illegal next. :) Also, DeOrr was watching his child, at least up to the point he figured he was gone.

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


>>Brooke - did you even read my post? Motivation to appear part of SAR so as not to be immediately identifiable as family by LE, to be able to pass them by and avoid being questioned for as long as possible - the jacket alone might not have done it, as SAR carry equipment or EMT bags. Not planned, just impulsive,opportunistic, convenient. It's possible.

Ah, I see. No, I did not read your post well enough at all. I do see what you are saying.

Anonymous said...

Websleuths Deorr thread is back online.

Juliet said...

Anon at 1.56 - so deputy realises that it didn't sound too good to have said the cremains had been dumped. he tries to rescue himself by then saying they had been deposited. That's not the next best word though, he's still having problems. I'd go for scattered, maybe spread, those are the terms I am familiar with, and I'm very familiar with this, but also I am not American, so maybe that's more a term there. :) Here, if one were to deposit ashes, it would be to bury them.

Betty said...

I thought he said "not an exact replica".

Juliet said...

Brooke - thanks, and sorry to have been a tad snarky. :)

~mj said...

There is a regular poster here, John, that has learned amazing insight on body language. I know I look forward to when he posts about it.

Stick around, this blog is insightful, educational, has the ability to change your life, and at times down right entertaining. :)

Juliet said...

Brooke - yes, what you say does sound right , as though he was worried someone could have seen from above what was happening below,-it's a pity some of it was inaudible there. If he was worried someone may have seen something, there must have been something for them to have seen. So, maybe whatever happened did happen right there,where they were at, in the campsite.

And yes, maybe the motivation with the SARS bag , if he took it, was to give DeOrr medical aid, but I think by then, he was not there, and had possibly been hauled some distance away.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
~mj said...


I can only speak for myself here: I have 4 kids and they are all older now, but when they were younger there were certain shoes expected for them to wear for certain activities.

Example: no flip flops at parks with playground equipment as my daughter slipped on some monkey bars in flip flops and put her teeth through her lip. A trip to the ER and stitches later ... No flip flops at playground parks.

Shoes that tie onto their feet are required for adventurous hiking...etc. My husband does not share my diligence in appropriate footwear. Therefore, there have been many times that my husband and I get into a disagreement about what shoes they should be wearing. Usually at some point I am called a safety Nazi.

I'm thinking cowboy boots are not appropriate footwear for a toddler (who does not adeptly walk, by the parents own admission) whilst camping.

So perhaps the footwear is quite sensitive to mom because she opposed it from the start? Just another observation to outline the myriads of reasons why something may be sensitive. :)

~mj said...

I have always favored refferring to Ayla's sperm doner as Justin Dippy-doo-doo. But after reading your post... I think I like Depuke better! Lol!

Agreed. Your post has merit. It really does, I just keep hoping that one of these precious babies will have justice brought forth for them.

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

Mj - I would like that, too. I want to know if DeOrr is suffering from duper's delight in some moments on that video. I think he might have been, but i don't know - maybe he was just so animated and excited over all the SAR, rather than over them not finding little DeOrr.

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

Peter, sorry about this, but there's a mistake in the transcript - it's the part where Jessica says that's what is keeping us together - she actually says 'me' not 'us'. Family is keeping her together. Sorry, as you have been working off what she said there. I did say at the time though, to double check it. Still, there's no excuse, and I'll try to take more care another time. :-/ it's quite clear, too, so I don't know how that happened. :-/

Anonymous said...

According to Freud, people who twiddle their thumbs are likely to be oversexed.

Juliet said...

Brooke - I think yes, guilty knowledge.

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

Freud would have a half-baked theory on why people mishear crystal clear words in a transcript, too, but we don't need to go into all that.:-/

Juliet said...

How can my reply to Brook appear above his post? Did you delete and repost it, Brooke, for it to now be under mine? Weird.

Anonymous said...

When the 911 operator asked Jessica what the child was wearing. her first response was Boots, then pants, then shirt. I think that most folks would start at the top (shirt/jacket) and then work their way down (pants, etc.)

To me, Boots are sensitive to her. Was the child lying down the last time she saw him? ("They died with their boots on.")

Anonymous said...

It's a stretch to imply the cowboy boots were expensive. Cowboy boots from the Goodwill or some other thrift store are not expensive. Neither are cowboy boots that were hand-me-downs. Free.

What concerns me more is why the child was wearing a jacket on a hot July mid-day. Not so much the jammies since I am pretty well convinced the parents let him run around in whatever was handy or suited them on a moments notice. Or maybe this is what he WAS wearing on Thursday evening. Obviously Jessica didn't do very well in taking care of her two older kids, else she would not have lost them to their father. What the hell kind of mother gives up her kids for Christs' sakes!

While all this speculation goes on and on, why don't you all speculate on the merits of Jessicas' mother stating earlier that daddy DeOrr and Jessica had arrived at the campsite at 9:30 pm on Thursday evening. THIS would explain the jacket since there would have been a chill in the air and misquotes would have been biting; AND the jammies necessary to cover up his little legs. OR, was baby DeOrr ever at the campsite at all! His pitching a big hissy fit down at the store around 6:00 pm on Thursday evening might have been his final undoing. Did you ever think about THAT?

You might ALSO speculate on how it was that little DeOrrs' baby blankie, his little toy monkey and cup were found inside the truck, yet 'they' said he was getting ready for his nap, yet said he wouldn't do anything without these things. NO small child gets himself ready for his own nap. Right there the f'kers tripped themselves up! They either left or placed those items inside the truck to make it look like a kidnapping; then possibly did not go on down to the campsite until the next day WITHOUT LITTLE DEORR, or if they did, went without baby DeOrr. Ever think about THAT? So there, I'll do some speculating for ya.

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

There are timelines all over the place, but Grandma Trina is the only one who said they arrived on Thursday evening. Even the Sheriff said it was Friday morning.

Juliet said...

Brooke - well, I knew it was your post, I didn't notice it was anonymous.:) Electa Complex, lol, not into penis-envy, me, I don't think, but then I wouldn't know, would I? Lols.

I have transcribed much more difficult speakers than DeOrr who have specialist vocabularies, and general vocabularies which far exceed my own, and which have left me reaching for the dictionary on many an occasion. By comparison, the interview was a doddle which made me over-confident. I should have taken more care, and been sure to listen back through with the transcript in hand, and also to have checked out correct spellings of the place names, but I didn't, I left that open to others to do. To me, that mishearing is a mega fail, but especially mortifying is that Peter applied his analysis to it. :-/

Anonymous said...

Mr. Vilt has been very quiet lately.

Juliet said...

Anon at 3.34 - there has been speculation on earlier threads round why we might have been misled about the time the family arrived at the campsite.

If there was an accident, it may have happened very early morning, when he might still be wearing his jacket - how is it there, I wonder, round 6, 7am - is it chilly, dewy? Maybe he just woke up, and was still in the clothes he had slept in, maybe it wouldn't be warm enough to take off his jacket before mid-morning. We don't know that he didn't disappear earlier in the day. Perhaps Jessica woke late, DeOrr Sr was not there, nor little DeOrr, so she assumed father had taken son off exploring, or down to the store.

I haven't given much thought to the comfort items being left in the truck so far. Did Jessica say, 'all three were left in the truck?' If so, when did she say that as it isn't in the interview. 'Left' means missing information when someone says they left a place, but I don't know if it applies to inanimate objects being left.

Juliet said...

Anon at 3.55 - the PI in his interview confirms that they arrived Thursday evening. Check out the full interview if you want to verify that, I don't know if that's in the edited version.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I think the PI says something comparable to "the morning after they arrived." One could interpret that as "the morning,[insert comma] after they arrived."

Anonymous said...

Anon 1;32 If you didn't say it, you were not the one being responded to -- simple as that. The person who actually posted the wrong info was who I responded to. "They live with DeOrr Jr in Jessica's father's house" was the quote.

Anonymous said...

It would be highly unusual for someone to say "the morning after" to describe the same morning.

Anonymous said...

I see adults wearing pajama pants in the middle of the day (where there are a lot of people around -- Walmart, Target, etc -- all the time, so I don't think a little kid wearing them while alone with his family is unusual at all.

Anonymous said...

Since Trina lives with the GGF, she would know what day he left for the camping trip, or do you think Trina is involved in some sort of cover-up too?

Anonymous said...

Juliet, Jessica didn't say those 3 items were left in the truck. She said left at the campground. The one who stated the blanket was in the truck was Deorr's father, who wasn't along on the trip.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:34 says the high in Leadore was 69 that day. It was likely cooler at the campground due to the high elevation. If you look at pics of the searchers, lots were wearing jackets or long sleeve shirts. Also, if you have been following the case much you will see numerous pictures of Deorr without his blanket, cup and monkey. I don't think the parents meant he literally had all 3 in his hands 24/7. As far as "getting ready to take a nap", that seems like just a type of expression to me. It doesn't necessarily mean an activity is taking place, it could simply mean it's almost time.

Juliet said...

Anon at 5.10 - thanks for that info.

Juliet said...

Anon at 5.06 - mmm, best to think not, and it was she who went onto the news site and clarified their time of arrival. I had the impression that she wants to believe them, but was maybe putting her doubts out there, intentionally, or otherwise.

Juliet said...

Anon at 1,37 -stick with which facts? Do tell how you know what is or is not true, and what is or is not fact in the parents story. They don't actually say very much, but that's all there is to go on. If you have some truth and facts, please share.

Anonymous said...

Just posted on

"From Kara Rowbury:
Harry and his dogs is no longer wanting to participate in this search. He notified me that due to all the corrupt things going on he is backing out. I am refunding all the money donated to the go fund me....I'm now stepping out of the search and I encourage others to do the same. Search and rescue doesn't wish to participate due to the same reasons Harry isn't. I'm not putting my family or myself in danger. I don't want any of the searchers in danger as well. The FBI was called in for a reason and this is much bigger then you or I could imagine..."

Anonymous said...

Backward Speech Guy also mentioned corruption going on when he visited and searched there. But who really knows?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting that Anon 6:23. I went to the page and noticed that she must have edited out the part re: FBI. What kind of "corruption" was going on do you think?

Anonymous said...

I just checked, and the FBI reference is still there.. Scroll down to the Holly Massey-Tomlinson post which cites Kara Rowbury. Be sure to click "See More"

Anonymous said...

I would not believe a word of what the Backwards Speech guy has to say. I have witnessed him delete info that refutes some of his claims and proves some things he says aren't true. He has encouraged his followers to do highly questionable things that could impede the investigation. He and some of his followers have claimed Jessica has a serious felony record and was locked up during most of her pregnancy with little Deorr -- but that Idaho has removed those records from the Idaho Repository due to the investigation (big lie, the records were never there). He has taken his pages about Deorr to a secret group -- quite professional, eh?

Anonymous said...

Holly Massey-Tomlinson
15 mins ·

From Kara Rowbury:
Harry and his dogs is no longer wanting to participate in this search. He notified me that due to all the corrupt things going on he is backing out. I am refunding all the money donated to the go fund me. There customer service let me know it takes 2-5 days to refund it. Thanks to everyone Who donated. If your donation doesn't get to you by then please contact me and I will call gofundme again. I'm now stepping out of the search and I encourage others to do the same. Search and rescue doesn't wish to participate due to the same reasons Harry isn't. I'm not putting my family or myself in danger. I don't want any of the searchers in danger as well. The FBI was called in for a reason and this is much bigger then you or I could imagine. Pray they find baby deOrr And take care of the things happening so close to home. It's a very sad situation. I have done everything in my power to try and find baby deOrr but as of Now I'm not able to do anymore.

Kara Rowbury likes this.

Juliet said...

Hmm, backward speech guy is not beyond a bit of corrupt behaviour, is he? Starting with all those recordings he corrupts - well, that mi fought give a clue. Maybe they are twisting this, just a little. Would you want to be in a search party headed up by BSG, if you were a professional? No, the professionals have got his number, and have decided they are not willing to be characters in his pantomime. Remember how he decided the police were corrupt because they did not take him to their leader? How he tried to make out he was in their confidence? Remember how he wanted someone to call in a tip for him, off one of his reversals, because the police don't take his reversals (him) seriously? Making a 'secret' group, to hide his unethical behaviour from LE, and to prevent further criticism of him - how infantile. Who would want to lend an ounce of credence to his hateful antics?

Juliet said...


«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 594   Newer› Newest»