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.
"I 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.
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?
Or
Did something happen to DeOrr that caused the father to put DeOrr in his truck?
Did something happen in the truck?
Or
Did something happen to DeOrr that caused the father to put DeOrr in his truck?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
"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.
None.
Um, so we decided to call search and rescue, uh, and that's when I drove down.
"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.
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?
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
595 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 595 Newer› Newest»And Kara's a first class drama queen. :).
The tip BSG wanted someone to call in was actually a false tip/crime. He wanted someone to call LE and say they were in the Silver Dollar bar and heard that the female RSO was paid $1000 by the parents to cover up the murder of Deorr. This was all based on a vague reversal he claims implicated the RSO, and another one that he claimed mentioned the number 1000.
I hope the Backwards Speech guy gets arrested for this.
The funniest and most ridiculous BOMBSHELL news from Mr. Backwards was his post showing a picture of Deorr's dad (the paternal grandpa of little Deorr). He had something attached to his belt. Backwards Speech guy insisted it was mace which backed up another reversal that he claims said mace was involved. Someone posted a picture of the exact same thing that Deorr's dad had on his belt -- it matched PERFECTLY. Guess what? It was a cell phone case. BSG deleted that and stuck with the mace story.
He's a fraud.
Anon at 7.30 - That is very serious, as are his accusations of cold-blooded murder, and all the nasty words he has put into the parents' mouths - he could have endangered Jessica and DeOrr's lives if the wrong person took against them on account of his claims, but he doesn't care. It's all about how terribly threatened he feels by them, for uncovering 'the truth'. He wants sympathy for persecuting, harassing and defaming them. Dangerous man, he twists everything, manipulative and deceitful. Yes, he should be answerable for what he has been doing and saying, but probably he will not as such doubt surrounds the parents' story anyway. Still, there are limits - they should not have to put up with that, regardless of what they may or may not know about DeOrr's disappearance.
Backwards speech guy had a backwards speech with "murder" in it, but the forward speech didn't have "redrum" in it. Didn't he even watch The Shining? I'm majorly disillusioned!
This case is so very perplexing! I wonder if at the point of using DeOrrs real name it might be a moment of distancing. He says, where's lil.... well lil DeOrr. (I paraphrased there) Could it be they call him by his nickname much more than DeOrr, so in effort to distance instead of using man, he says DeOrr. It seemed very awakward for him to even say his real name.
Just looked at his website - the mace story and photos were up there for a while after he took them off Facebook, but they are gone from there, too, along with his delighted welcome to the renowned psychic, who had solved all those cases. Shyster. I hope he turned in all those hundreds and hundreds of tips he had received from all DeOrr and Jessica's family and friends. i love that his FB is headed up with a photo which says LIES. At least he tells the truth somewhere.:)
Anon at 8.07 - I heard they mostly called him DJ, as in DeOrr Junior - social media, so no idea if it is true.
That might explain the awkwardness though, and he might still be avoiding his name if they did call him DJ.
I read they mostly called him "Little Man".
With 3 Deorrs living in the same house, it would be so confusing!
He couldn't be expected to start kindergarten only knowing himself as 'Little Man', though, so they must use something like a real name for him, too, even if DeOrr would not be it - DJ would be okay. Not going to argue for it, though, as I don't have a clue.
Backward Speech's analysis of Deputy Steve Penner:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Backward-Speech/1568196156801408
More on Steve Penner:
http://www.localnews8.com/news/update-officerinvolved-shooting-in-lemhi-county/32218780
I have read a number of places that there wasn't a shred or a thread of evidence that DeOrr was ever there.
One example -
PARAG SHAH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Like you said, there`s no forensic evidence or anything suggesting that the child was there."
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/15/ng.01.html
However, the sheriff said his office has passed all evidence to the FBI. Search warrants were supposedly executed on the parents' vehicles and home. Perhaps other warrants were not announced. If nothing was found at the campsite, what evidence could the sheriff have turned over to the FBI?
Anon at 9.29 -Backward Speech Guy is begging for trouble, slurring anyone who won't let him play.
Anon at 9.42 - Sad the guy was shot, but at least he was only injured, rather than killed. Very bad reporting though - I agree with a few of the comments there, it's as if a police press release has been published verbatim. That incident was in April, it's not anything connected to DeOrr. Sure BSG will try to capitalise on it just the same, now he's decided LE are also worthy of his attentions. He should calm down- if there is any issue about how the case has been handled at the local level, that's for the FBI to establish, and they would have no interest or reason to be anything other than professional and impartial. BSG doesn't understand things like that because he has such a poor grasp on basic morals.
I fear this case is quickly going cold, unless the FBI comes up with anything.
What could DeOrr Sr have possibly meant by
"I seen him to the point I figured out he was gone"? The parents left the baby, not the other way around. DeOrr Jr was supposedly playing with his great grandfather when the parent went "exploring".
Sounds like what someone would say about sitting next to someone's death bed. He watched him until he was sure he was dead.
He "figured out"? Odd choice of words. Dad also refers to the toddler as a "goer."
"I seen him to the point I figured out he was gone" makes no sense in the context of their story. It's creepy. Would that be considered potential "leakage"?
His ego has has got the better of him. He is posting again on his original FB
Backward Speech
1 hr ·
Rebecca Cox knows more about missing DeOrr than you would think. This entire case is going to shed light on some Idaho corruption.
Video
....................................
Backward Speech
6 hrs ·
Here is a speech analysis of Steve Penner. I decided to put reversals into videos now to make it easier to hear and have control over sharing of the video. If you saw his original reversals, I reanalyzed them and made some slight corrections. I'm very concerned by the reversals in this video.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Backward-Speech/1568196156801408?fref=nf
Who is Rebecca Cox? Is the speech analysis of Steve Penner more backward speech crap? To save me, I can't imagine why anyone would want to converse with the devil. All this backwards speech and psychic hocus pocus is from the devil and is deceitful and THAT is evil. Why keep spinning it like spinning a giant spiders web? Thank heavens Peter has been ignoring it as not being worthy of statement analysis.
From a common sense standpoint, I don't have an ounce of faith (sorry to say), that this little boy will be found alive. I hope and pray that I'm wrong and he will still turn up alive; however, there are too many discrepancies in both parents words and actions that could indicate little DeOrr is no longer with us.
Yes, their actions too. How much did they REALLY care about the overall welfare of their child? Not enough to marry and give the baby a stable and secure future. They are both divorced, why not? What kind of security would the child have (or the mother) should the father die? The mother would not even be able to draw his social security or retirement benefits. Ditto for the father should the mother die or decide to run off with another man.
There is no security in such an arrangement. Either one could throw the other one out on a moments' notice. What kind of stability is THIS for a child? This fly-by-night situation alone provides no security of any kind for the child or either parent.
Also, considering that she gave up her other two kids, why would she make it her lifes' mission to take care of this one? And so much more. For instance, why has a known RSO been allowed as a family friend around the little boy? IMO she is just as guilty of being irresponsible in the care of the welfare of her child as daddy DeOrr appears to have been, and maybe more so.
Dad does not speak the language of a child abuser, but this does not mean that neglect did not cause an unintended death. In fact, it would mean, if this proves to be the case, that the father may have neglected the child due to drugs, for example, and will mourn and hurt terribly.
I have interviewed fathers who have beaten their children to death, in a moment of fury, who had great remorse about their own station in life, but nothing towards the child.
His distancing language appears more related to what happened to DeOrr than to DeOrr, himself.
Let's say that he was high, not watching the child, and the child drowned. Rather than face prison over negligence, he disposed of the child's remains and has gone into cover up mode.
This takes on a life of itself and will eat away at him. There are those who do not ache for their children: Deborah Bradley comes to mind. Justin DiPietro.
Others are more sophisticated in their cover up. McCanns come to mind.
But there are those who just want the child out of the way: Casey Anthony.
DeOrr's father does not does not sound like that, though the sample is small. This is why I think unintended death by negligence may be the answer.
Sadly, if unintended death by negligence is the answer, I believe this is where it happened...drowning in the creek.
Deorr Sr: " ...fifty yards away and ten minutes. Well, but by the time we, I seen him and the point I figured out he was gone. And I come back up from the creek and I actually seen some, a little minnow I thought he would just love. So when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to Grandpa..."
This translation is a bit different than Juliet's. I saw a different one online, so I listened myself and this is the correct translation .
Notice how he switches from "we" to "I" unable to lie. And how he "figured out he was gone" while AT THE CREEK. Then begins the cover up by yelling over at Grandpa.
Campsite is about four-tenths of a mile from the reservoir.
Deputy Sheriff Steve (paraphrased): For children ages 1-3, 75% are found within four-tenths of a mile.
Paternal Grandpa (who was not on trip): Four minute window.
Let's say you are correct, Peter; which, you very well could be. How much do you think mother Jessica knows by now? It's been five weeks. Surely she has put it together by now even if she hadn't known when she first called 911.
However, I think she knew or suspected when the first interview was given with them sitting together distantly on the couch. Something in her face and tone of voice seemed to show anger to me, or was it just drugs? I've learned SOOO much from your teachings over the last several years; however, I've never seen her as being as innocent, or not showing guilty knowledge as you appeared to do.
What are your thoughts now on the mother concerning possible guilty knowledge, now that more time has elapsed since the initial interview and more is known about her background and lifestyle?
This case drives me nuts! There are two things that Deorr Sr said in his interview that stick with me, that make me think he is innocent of harming Little Deorr. Here they are.
"Yes. As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore. The searching advances they used, and was just very thorough for miles, there wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't, and we're going to continue to search, but being his father also, that's what my heart and my gut tell me, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
Look at that. After all that rambling about the great searching and what his heart and gut tells him, he comes out with it. "I'M NOT SURE."
"So everything has been 100% thoroughly checked, BUT NOBODY CAN GUARANTEE ME 100%, so I'M gonna keep looking.
Here again he displays natural behavior for a father with a missing son.
Although I respect your views Sus; to me, this statement, however rambling, and pointed, does NOT signal DeOrrs' innocence. IMO, it points to the exact opposite.
For one thing, it may be that he is a good liar doing and saying everything he can think of to cover his tracks. For another, he maintains that his little boy was kidnapped, so why such an avid continuous search, continuing the same places over and over when it has been PROVED to him repeatedly that the baby is not there.
Secondly, IFF he actually believes his son was kidnapped, why isn't he appealing to the kidnapper(s) to bring his baby home? IMO, he KNOWS his baby was not kidnapped and he KNOWS his babys' body will not be found anywhere around or near that campsite OR on the mountain.
IMO, he knows exactly where he placed his deceased baby and mamma Jessica may know too. I suspect she does.
"I yelled over to Grandpa, uh, “Where is, you know, where’s little Deorr?” he, immediately shocked he says “I th- he came up to you.”
1. What is significance of "you know"?
2. We are supposed to infer that "I th-" means "I thought." But what if it's a lisp, such as "I saw he came up to you."
Dogs kept going back to reservoir.
Sus,
I don't know. The father's comment here:
"Yes. As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore. The searching advances they used, and was just very thorough for miles, there wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't, and we're going to continue to search, but being his father also, that's what my heart and my gut tell me, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
Is suspicious to me. For one thing, in the interview he's shaking his head no during the statement as if he does not agree with what he's saying, then he feels the need to double qualify his statement with "and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore."
I think this is a lot like, "George and I don't believe Caylee's in the woods, or anything." She's also using what other people think as her evidence and the knowledge leaked out anyway.
Peter,
What's weird to me is that he lies when describing what happened but seems to genuinely believe DeOrr will be found alive with this statement.
"I will, we will search for you, and search for you, and search for you, until we find you, no matter how long it takes, no matter what we gotta overcome, we will find you,son."
I dislike the "search for you, and search for you, and search for you" as well as "no matter how long it takes" but he does end with "we will find you,son."
It's not, "we will search for you for the rest of our lives" or "we will never stop searching". There is an end point. That's why I'm wondering if DeOrr was alive the last time he saw him. If he had knowledge of his death, would he make this statement?
Hang in there Sus. I'm going to stay out for awhile. It's too confusing for me to keep up. Too many anons. I keep going back to the interview when he seems to naturally speak in present tense. I don't think he is that clever or has the self control to command his brain to pull that off. I am enjoying the discussion. I agree with Peter. There are some pretty smart people posting here.
Yikes,
The more I look at this statement:
"As his father I believe and I think after being up there, and a lot of people agree with me a lot, that he is no longer up the mountain anymore. The searching advances they used, and was just very thorough for miles, there wasn't a stone left unturned, there still isn't, "
The more I'm thinking the investigators need to check up the mountain and under a stone...
Before I go out, I want to compliment ~mj for the best post of the discussion. Great insight Buckley.
~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. :)
August 16, 2015 at 2:34 PM
What could DeOrr Sr have possibly meant by
"I seen him to the point I figured out he was gone"
I have always understood that little Deorr was "right here with" them when they decided to go further & explore. It seems to me that they told him to go back over to Grandpa by the campfire & watched him out of sight as he walked back that way. They assumed he made the short distance around the brush, went straight back to Grandpa & was safely back with Grandpa until they finished exploring. They then went a bit further & discovered the minnows, walked back to camp to get him & realized he never made it back there. Grandpa was clueless as to his whereabouts, as he assumed Deorr was still with them - who knows, Grandpa could have went to the bathroom or left for a refill on a drink, anything really. Deorr, coming back to the site may have seen Grandpa wasn't there and went looking for him elsewhere, or IR may have seized an opportunity - I don't know. Or Deorr may have been distracted by the creek and stumbled right into it. 10 minutes or 60 would be enough for a wee tike to be washed away, or even abducted. I am not a huge fan of the abduction theory, but having been molested as a child, I am cognizant of the opportunists that lay in wait for some such chance to entice or grab a vulnerable child for their own use. Such things can happen quickly.
Anon at 6,20 - Rebecca Cox is a RSO who lives in the area and who either owns or works at a small shop or cafe there. She was interviewed and was asked what she thought about DeOrr's disappearance. Once BSG discovered her RSO status he decided she was fair game for his accusations, too.
Both parents are recently divorced, so that they may not want to rush into second marriages seems fair enough, to me. Young people are prone to thinking they're invincible and going to live forever, and maybe would think no further than that they could rely on family to raise DeOrr in the unlikely event that anything might happen to them both, as would most young parents, regardless of their financial status or security - kids need family, and family can't be bought. If either became a single parent how would that render them incapable of providing for him? It need not, as they are both able to work. Also, Jessica may very much have wanted to turn her life round after giving over custody of her other babies to their father, and be able to raise this one well, make a new start. It's easy to assume otherwise, but actually we don't know. So, I wouldn't be too harsh on them on account of any of that, or expect everyone to either want, or be able, to live by anyone else's standards - it's not how life is.
Also, so far as I know, Isaac is not a RSO, though you'd need to check back through some other DeOrr posts for where that info was posted by some in the comments.
--
That's an Interesting observation - 'not in THAT' water, whoever made it. Is that enough to suggest he might be in other water? The other water DeOrr mentioned was Snake River, though he didn't mean to say it.
"I yelled over to Grandpa, uh, “Where is, you know, where’s little Deorr?” he, immediately shocked he says “I th- he came up to you.”
1. What is significance of "you know"?
2. We are supposed to infer that "I th-" means "I thought." But what if it's a lisp, such as "I saw he came up to you."
Again, as noted in my last post, I think Deorr was "right with" them as they were initially walking away from the camp. It seems to me that once they told him to go back to Grandpa, or he wished to go back to Grandpa, they watched him out of sight as he walked back toward Grandpa, perhaps making a turn around some brush. Their mistake was not walking back with a toddler all the way and assuring themselves that Grandpa was aware of his whereabouts and that he would be responsible for watching him from that point on. Instead, they allowed him to walk back alone that short distance, never thinking he would go astray or be waylaid or that Grandpa may not be waiting at the campsite. It seemed such a small area and he likely had been warned about the creek already. Perhaps they were getting high. Who knows? They ay have stayed gone longer, thinking he was safely at the campsite. But this explains why Grandpa was confused about the fact that he was to be watching him. Back to the statement using "you know" - doesn't that mean an awareness of the audience listening to him? He is trying to describe his conversation with Grandpa where he asks where little Deorr is, and notes he is not there. This does not stand out to me as suspicious. I tend to think they were getting high & his venture in the truck was to rid their campsite of traces of marijuana so dogs wouldn't hit on it. His sensitivity in much of his speech could reflect his natural guilt for not having seen his son safely back to Grandpa, for getting high, for having the need to dispose of traces of illegal activity. I tend to think he isn't involved in other drugs as drug testing for truckers would likely reveal that. I still believe in their innocence regarding anything deliberate involving little Deorr, and would even go as far as to believe they did last see him alive and his "guilty knowlege" is all related to his personal guilt for not taking better care of Deorr, for possible drug use, and for the lie involving the truck and why he was in it. I think the baby's things were in the truck from their earlier venture during the day, and that getting ready to take his nap is simply a manner of speaking that means it was getting close to the time he would normally get sleepy.
Igjproduct - that's how it sounded to me, too, at least at first - that they let him go back on his own, and that DeOrr watched him out of sight. Grandpa may have been fishing at the creek with Isaac, and so unaware of DeOrr, even if he did go back to the campsite where he thought Grandpa was (by the campfire). Even if grandpa and Isaac were just a few yards away, they'd be facing the water and not see him behind them and a little way off.
Now I am not sure what to think, but that does seem a likely scenario.
Great discussion:) I'm learning a lot!
Are you aware that there is/was a paroled child predator living in a forest ranger tower nearby the campground? If I recall correctly, he was convicted of violent sexual abuse on a child under 6yrs of age.
He does happen to be a grizzled older man such as the PI (suddenly) mentions. I agree the PI is strictly PR for the parents and probably himself, but it does give me pause. Especially as there's been little mention of his existence & close proximity at the time DJ disappeared. I've only seen it on Websleuths, where I assume its been confirmed as fact.
Could this guy have been informed by ggdad's friend that they'd be arriving with the child and when? Does friend IR have any connection to the camptower RSO?
I agree that the limited words we have scream red flags allll over. And the confusion in the timeline is also concerning. But as Peter has said, guilt over what? Inviting IR to go, so grampa could go, so they ALL could afford to go in a nice cushy camper? Perhaps the parents knew IR was bad news but decided to ignore it because grampa was financier?
One thing I took from Peters analysis was his advice to befriend & not accuse in order to obtain more info from the party involved. I can't ignore the fact that IR was essentially invisible the first week or so of the investigation...
The male RSO is not living in a tower near the campground. He and his wife are camp hosts at the Meadow Lake campground which is 25 miles from Leadore. Someone on Websleuths contacted the sheriff about it and that is allegedly what he replied. I think the mods may have deleted the posts referencing this, maybe they were concerned people would harass him, I don't know.
This doesn't mean the RSO couldn't have been in the Leadore area when Deorr disappeared, though.
I would be pretty ticked off if I took my kids camping and found out the forest service had hired a sex offender as the camp host. Not that RSOs can't be anywhere, but to actually give him a job in a rural area where kids may be running around is wrong.
Someone on another site has posted that East Idaho News is going to be publishing a "substantial" story about this case tomorrow.
The statements I posted from Deorr Sr are expected from the father of a missing child. (The bolded part.) It's like he spends all his time rambling trying to convince himself everything is checked, but ends with, 'No, it's not. It can't be. I don't have my son.'
Parents cannot give up. They just can't. But, then again, maybe as some of you say, he threw them in to deceive.
As far as Isaac Reinwand goes, I still have a weird suspicion about him. I do not get why he was protected by the sheriff and his name was not released immediately. Even stranger, the parents omitted him from their account. It's like he wasn't at the campsite. grandmother, Trina Bates Clegg, says the ggf said IR was fishing at the creek, but IR told investigators he was at the campsite.
So one of two things is going on here:
- The family is lying and purposely trying to put suspicion on IR or...
- IR did something and is trying to take suspicion off himself.
Wow! I have researched quite a bit, and it just occurred to me. The drama queen from backward speech's guy page, the one setting up the search...is friends with IR's sister. IR also has a lot of friends in Leadore...young girls. I wonder how much of this stirring is his. Again, just a thought.
"I yelled over to Grandpa, uh, “Where is, you know, where’s little Deorr?” he, immediately shocked he says “I th- he came up to you.”
Why would the Grandpa be immediately shocked on being asked where Little Deorr is?
The expected would be a casual, calm response of he was over whereever/he went into the tent/ or wherever grandpa last saw him.
He wouldn't be shocked since he wouldn't have known Deorr was missing or in any danger.
At best he would have said he followed you into wherever they went.
it wouldn't cause alarm until they had called his name for a couple of minutes and checked the immediate area.
Only once he didn't respond to his name and could not be found would i expect to have any kind of shocked reaction or expect to see a reaction.
A shocked reaction would be if Grandpa didn't know Little Deorr was even with them on the trip and was shocked to learn that he was and wasn't around.
The perfect emotion in the perfect spot.
___________________________________
Buckley said...
Backwards speech guy had a backwards speech with "murder" in it, but the forward speech didn't have "redrum" in it. Didn't he even watch The Shining? I'm majorly disillusioned!
He obviously skipped that class.
It is compulsory reading and viewing for all reverse speech students.
There, there Buckley, it's fine, don't let it get to you, he isn't worth it.
Hugs you tight xx
From Nate Eaton's East Idaho News interview
Nate: So he was just with you and the grandfather when he wandered away?
Isaac: Uh,huh
Isaac: Have you ever talked to the grandfather yet?
Nate: I haven't. So, he was just with you and the grandfather when he wandered away?
Isaac: [pause] Uh,huh
Nate: And then you guys thought he was with the parents
Isaac: [pause] Yeah
Nate: And the parents came back and he was gone?
Isaac: [pause] Uh,huh
(TBC comments from Local News 8 Facebook, comments which she subsequently deleted)
Trina Bates Clegg Baby DeOrr wanted to "stay with grandpa". My Dad seen him playing in the dirt and then he said he looked over and he was gone so he thought Baby DeOrr had walked to his parents. When DeOrr Sr. came to get him my father was in shock.
Like · 6 · 9 hrs · Edited
Trina Bates Clegg Creek is 20'-30' from camp area
Like · 3 · 8 hrs
Trina Bates Clegg ... I have been informed Isaac was at the creek but the interview he stated something different
---
Nate Eaton did a report from the campsite and showed how close to the creek it was - very close. So grandpa and Isaac could have been at the creek fishing, just twenty to thirty feet away, as grandma describes it, though I think Nate Eaton said it was forty yards away. But maybe it was feet. So they could have been at the campsite and fishing at the same time, close enough as to be virtually at the site. One, or both of them - a hairbreadth from where they were camping. If it was just Isaac, he could still consider himself close enough to have been at the campsite, and close enough to still be loosely 'with' grandpa.
If they were smoking pot and it was not medically prescribed, then it was illegal.
So if it was prescribed to them and it was legal for them to be high, you would feel it was ok for them to be the caretakers of a toddler?
I've been telling you since this happened that Isaac did it. His computer should be checked for child pornography.
"If they were smoking pot and it was not medically prescribed, then it was illegal."
Medical pot is not legal in Idaho either.
From what I understand Isaac rode to the campground with the GreatGrandfather, he did not drive there himself. If he did something to DeOrr, what did he do with the body?
A sad case in New Mexico:
http://news.yahoo.com/father-backs-truck-over-toddler-campsite-killing-her-190014621.html
The latest from BSG on his public facebook page:
"...DeOrr going missing was a mess up on the parents. Now people are trying to protect the parents to protect their own asses. I feel there is a crooked cop who really has something to hide. I believe Rebecca Cox is dealing meth to this tiny town. This is exactly how these rings work. Future predictions...Rachel [sic] Cox will go on the run...just wait..."
"Feel"? "Believe"? Just skirting the edge of libel?
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?287006-ID-Deorr-Kunz-Jr-2-Timber-Creek-Campground-10-July-2015-6/page62
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/heartbroken-parents-of-missing-2-year-old-well-find-you-son/
2:10
DK: We have been racking our brains and… I don’t know anybody that doesn’t have a few people that either they like ya’ or they hate ya’ ...
JM: interrupts… “But I don’t…”
DK: but not to harm a 2-year-old almost 3 year old …(interrupted)
2:21
JM: interrupts: “not to harm us this way…”
DK: …(unintelligible as JM continues speaking)
JM: especially knowing how much he…he means to us. He’s… everything to us
.
I see the full interview is not quite the full interview, so that's misleading - there is a shorter video which includes the following snippet, which obviously was part of the longer interview but which was edited out of the 15.05 length 'unedited interview' (someone must have cut rather than copied it for the shorter report, a bit remiss of them it was, too. I have seen Jessica's words quoted elsewhere, and attributed to the interview, yet not found or heard them myself until a few minutes ago - I really thought I was not hearing things when I couldn't find them.. :) DeOrr's words I have not seen, so in case anyone else also has not seen/ heard this strange utterance:
-----
http://youtu.be/IqtP8dqKdC8
DeOrr we have been racking our brains and - I don't know anybody that doesn't have a few people that either you like you or you hate you
Jessica: But I.....
DeOrr: But not to harm a two year old almost three year old
Jessica: Not to harm us this way, especially knowing how much he - he means to us, he's everything to us
-----
it may sound unlikely, but that is what DeOrr says, I almost one hundred percent guarantee it. :) I'm going to miss him when the DeOrr case is done, he has such a unique way with his words,
Meh. Someone beat me to it. lol. never mind. :) I wouldn't have bothered posting if I had seen the previous post. Pretty similar.
Thanks, Tania! It's ok though- I've moved on to my own project: autocorrext speech. You know those "mistakes" we get with speech to text? Nope- gateway to truth.
I tried: Deorr Kunz is missing. Can you help me find him, pretty please?
Becomes...
Your constant Dinner is what's my Atlanta
So I'm on a road trip to Georgia to scour the diners, drive ins and dives. I just hope to goodness it wasn't supposed to be "Mylanta" 'cause if I get heartburn, Deorr Kunz Sr is going on my list!!!
Little DeOrr's middle name is Jay - odds on him being called DJ looking a bit better, but still no idea.
DeOrr said hearing was not that good, sound of the water over the logs and suchlike...if Grandpa and Isaac were at the campsite but also at the creek fishing, they would not have heard little DeOrr as he wandered back to look for grandpa by the campfire.
He could've fallen into the creek.
Sus- Did IR really tell us he was at the campsite when the parents took their exploration? His words tell me he's more committed to Deorr being with parents than with him and ggf.
That's interesting, Buckley. I'll find his entire interview such as it is.
Just posted on East Idaho News.com Facebook page:
East Idaho News.com Hi Cynthia. Thanks for your message. I just met with the sheriff today and he confirmed they did arrive late Thursday night. There were conflicting reports early on about their arrival date but the sheriff confirmed it was Thursday. We will have more details on the investigation tomorrow. Thanks. -Nate
It's the difference between "Mm Hmm" and "yeah."
Jessica at Candlelight Vigil:
“He could be very, very close,” Mitchell said. “He could be very far away. We don’t know but we are covering all bases at this point.”
....very, very close
The prayer vigil was held at Freeman Park In Idaho Falls. Maybe Little Deorr is very, very close to there.
Freeman Park is right along the Snake River:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Russ+Freeman+Park,+Idaho+Falls,+ID+83402/@43.5140202,-112.0508329,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x53545bf69566a37f:0xae56e1e1609e2350
Another thought. In the interview, Jessica says this is his blanket, the one he was brought home from hospital in, etc. DeOrr describes the blanket as 'an exact replica of a security blanket', then goes on to say that it is 'his actual, genuine blanket'. Jessica doesn't contradict him there, doesn't say it isn't a replica, which is interesting, as at other points she corrects him, but maybe it seemed he corrected himself enough. Still, that he introduces the word 'replica' cannot but raise suspicion that it might not be little DeOrr's 'genuine' blanket. When DeOrr says it's his actual genuine blanket, does that mean he is actually thinking of another blanket as his favourite blanket, and this is NOT his actual genuine blanket? I know 'actual' can be iffy, but I'm not sure how it might apply here- it's complicated.
Jessica says 'this is his blanket', and what she goes on to say sounds convincing, to me. Up till now I thought it likely there were two blankets, and that the one shown is a duplicate, due to DeOrr announcing first that it was a replica. I thought that because a baby is missing, possibly dead, he is likely to have been hidden or buried by someone close, and as such, he would likely be wrapped in his favourite blanket, because that's often the case with small children, wrapped in, or at least covered by, their blanket. Say, though, there is just the one blanket. It's not 'with' him.-Jessica doesn't say he doesn't have it, just that he always has it 'with' him. He doesn't go anywhere without it. (He has not 'gone' anywhere without it? If he's dead, he can't 'go' anywhere).All three items were left at the campsite. Left by whom? If little DeOrr has not 'gone' anywhere, he also could not have left the blanket or other items.
I am wondering if what Jessica says there is an expression of regret; that whoever took DeOrr away from the campsite left and forgot the items, that they were not 'with' him now. People are buried or cremated 'with' favourite items, especially children.
But say that is a replica/duplicate blanket, which seems likely' otherwise why would DeOrr say it, could that still apply? Could it be that the blanket Jessica has is his actual most favourite, while the duplicate emergency blanket might be 'with' him. I don't know. Perhaps someone just grabbed a blanket, either would do, but Jessica is upset that he does not have his favourite blanket 'with' him.
Just an FYI
I know there was a lot of speculation on whether or not Deorr Sr. was "hauling" down the road trying to get service for his 911 call, that no one is sure he made....and also that it sounded like he might have been standing next to Mom Jessica because you could hear him in the background.
If you go to www.localnews8.com/news/911-call-reporting-missing-toddler-released/
You can listen to clear audio of the call (not whole 911 call)
But at 1:51 stamp on the video, you can hear the 2nd 911 operator in the background taking the information and saying very clearly "What's your name? Vernal?"
And that is Deorr Sr. First name.
I did not hear him talking on Jessica's end of the call. She seems to be cutting out service in some spots.
Now that isn't to say anything fishy didn't happen, but I feel that he did leave to make a 911 call now, and that it wasn't just made up.
Carry on!
Ugh. I just typed this and lost it. Trying again.
Here is the interview of Isaac Reinwand. He is asked three questions which pertain to him being with ggp. He answers in the affirmative to all three, at least letting it stand without saying different.
IR: Yeah, I don't have any questions.
Nate: You don't have anything you want to say? Alright. Sorry to wake you up. We just want to see if you have anything to say about Deorr missing.
IR: umm. I don't.
Nate: You don't?
IR: No problem. (I think this is what he says.)
Nate: Can you tell us what happened up there?
IR: umm. As far as I know, he jus', he disappeared , is all.
Nate: Did he wander away? You know? Or?
IR: I I I ... I'm not (I can't make this out.)
Nate: A lot of people have heard from the family and everything. I know a lot want to hear from you and the grandfather.
IR: Have you ever talked to the grandfather yet?
Nate: I haven't. So he was just with you and grandfather when he wandered away?
IR: mnhuh.
Nate: And then you guys thought he was with the parents?
IR: Yeah.
Nate: And the parents came back and he was gone?
IR: mnhuh
Nate: Ok, Did you get a Facebook message?
IR: I didn't. I didn't get you guys' Facebook message, but like I said, I don't want yo answer (some stuttering in here) anymore questions or anything.
Juliet, I find it very hard to believe that they could locate a replica of the same exact blanket -- and would have the time to search for a replica blanket while simultaneously searching for Deorr. The interview was just a few days of him being missing -- and the blanket had to have been purchased close to 3 years ago.
I think what he may have meant by "replica of a security blanket" is simply that the blanket was a major source of comfort/security. Security was replicated in the form of the blanket.
Nor sure why you think Jessica would have to correct Deorr over saying replica since he immediately followed that up saying it's his actual blanket.
Bethany, the 911 call has been out for almost 5 weeks with the call from Deorr being heard in the background. I agree it's a little strange that he said in the interview that he was calling search and rescue, but it's not new info that he really called 911.
BSG is now claiming that EVERYONE believes in backwards speech. If they didn't, why would they be following his page, yada yada.
Maybe for entertainment and to watch a train wreck?
He doesn't allow anyone to post anything skeptical of backwards speech or his pathetic "work" -- but everyone supposedly believes!
He and his followers remind me of how dimwitted people get pulled into a cult.
@ anon @ 1:49
Jessica's 911 call has been out for some time yet.
I wasn't aware that everyone could hear Deorr Sr. in the background.
I couldn't hear Deorr Sr. In the background.
I could only hear the 911 DISPATCHER who was on the phone with Deorr, speaking in the background. I couldn't hear anything that Deorr was saying.
I thought that was what this whole "Changing Language" analysis by Peter was about, not being sure if he called 911, or if he actually called Search and Rescue, since he referred to them both in his interview.
:/
I live near mountains and although 911 and Search and Rescue are 2 separate entities, I don't see a problem with switching between "calling 911" and "calling search and rescue". Calling 911 is generic for police, fire, ambulance, search and rescue, help of any kind etc. If I need help on the mountain of any kind, I would call 911 who would put me in touch with the appropriate help.
My dad use the word "haul" all the time to indicate he was hurrying. It was part of his dictionary.
Statistically/probability with the water near by, the most likely scenario was an accident with the water. Abduction theories and talking about how great the rescue team was and how they were not successful finding him gives them hope that he is yet alive out there. If I was a parent and the water had been searched and my child not found there, I would be grateful that scenario could be ruled out (but not with 100% certainty because no search is fool proof.)
Ok Buckley, I now get what you are saying. IR changes to "yeah" from mmhum when asked if Deorr was with his parents. He actually perks up and answers it clearly, without the sleepy attitude. Notice he does the same thing asking NE if he's talked to the grandfather yet. I'm only certain what that means or where Little Deorr was.
But certainly IR is putting HIMSELF with ggp at the campsite. The parents, by omission, did not put him there. Trina Bates Clegg, ggp's daughter posted that ggp says IR was fishing at the creek.
Why is IR putting HIMSELF at the campsite with ggp and possibly Little Deorr when no one else is?
Sus, good question, especially since IR was the one who led the parents away from the campsite...
How did IR lead the parents away?
Just looking at little DeOrrs' photo; he is the cutest little bugger. I'd bet he could be a real handful.
I've been wondering when the sheriff is going to get around to naming these parents as suspects in his mysterious disappearance, or at least as being persons of interest. IMO, when the sheriff made the statement that there was no sign of an abduction or kidnapping, no sign of a drowning, no sign of animals having absconded with the boy and no sign of him having wandered off; he did everything but name them as suspects.
It's possible this could indicate there was never a sign of the child ever having been at the campsite in the first place. You know, if daddy DeOrrs' statements are suspicious to us, (as are some of those made by mamma Jessica), they would be just as suspicious to this sheriff, who likely could have explored other angles of his investigation that we know nothing about. Maybe he's just waiting for FBI agents to complete their report that could reinforce his own suspicions?
If either one of these parents had anything to do with the death or disappearance of this little boy, or knows who did; whether they end up claiming it was an accident or not, I hope they spend years behind bars for it. Even if they claim accident, there is no excuse for covering up the accidental death of your child no matter how it occurred, causing searchers to spend millions and week after week looking for your child when you knew all along where he was.
Tell you the truth; I don't believe it was an accident in the first place. I believe DeOrr went whacko down at the grocery store that Thursday night when little DeOrr, all filthy, dirty and tired, was pitching his screaming hysterical fit and daddy bought him candy trying to calm him; he forgot his own strength and fiercely beat the living daylights out of this baby, causing his death.
I wouldn't exactly call this an accident; or the analysis not showing any signs of previous abuse, does not mean there is not a first time for everything. OR, even if it happened in some other setting and not as a result of the supposition that it could have been that Thursday evening, I still do not see this as any normal kind of reasonable circumstance that happened accidentally.
I see this as killing, denying, and disposing of your child because you know you are guilty as hell. A simple drowning in the little creek while your back was turned? Come on folks, you're all sharper than this. There would be no reason to hide an accidental drowning, now would there be?
Anon@3:39 ~ I challenge you to answer Sus's question.
#pickaname
Not only did Isaac lead the parents away from the campsite, he was gone along with baby DeOrr when the parent's got back. He did not return until minutes before the first responders arrived, and refused to help search.
Imawhatever you are, I challenge you to #kissmybutt.
Please provide article quoting your claim that Isaac led the parents away.
Please provide article quoting your claim that he was gone when the parent's got back.
Please provide article quoting your claim that he did not return until minutes before the first responders
Please provide article quoting your claim that he refused to help search.
#thoughtso
Trina Bates Clegg What can I do to help make this happen? I can't stop the searching until he is found. I'd give anything for answers in regards to my Grandson DeOrr Jr.
https://www.facebook.com/events/489787187855269/
It's not in any article. Reporters don't know crap. #thinkagain
Sorry, it should say I'M NOT CERTAIN, instead of only.
To Anonymous who is making accusations about Isaac without any proof:
Slander and libel are crimes.
(I am a different Anonymous).
Well then Isaac would have to bring suit against me, and prove me wrong. I have said nothing slanderous or libelous. How is stating he led the parents away from the campsite libelous? Bring it on Isaac, bring it on. How would the parents answer that question on the witness stand Isaac? Hmm? #thoughtso
Credibility is based on words and actions. Credible is also another word for believable.
Picking a name shows you are willing to accept responsibility for your words.
Credibility on this blog? You're kidding, right?
This a Statement Analysis blog. We analyze statements. This is not Facebook.
Look, either I'm psychic, have inside information, or I'm lying. This is a blog about statement analysis, you people figure it out. Putting a bogus name on the words changes nothing.
#pointmade
Anon who gave fb link:
I can't go to it. What does it say? I'm assuming it gives words from TBC. You may paste the words here. Facebook cannot keep any words private and warns users of such.
Anon claiming libel and slander: get real. First anon cannot be sued for that by copying someone else's words.
I am right back to my original supposition...
- The parents are covering by throwing suspicion on IR, or...
- IR did something and is covering by lying about being at the campsite.
Still, it's good to know Isaac's lawyer is keeping such a close eye on this thread, huh Peter?
I would also like to know what you know about the "sway" IR has with the courts. Is it simply that his father was a respected professor? Is there more to it? Being a sociology/ anthropology professor and expert in the radical Mormon movement, I imagine he has quite a bit of "dirt" on some in Southern Idaho, maybe??
This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
lol.
Hey Isaac! "What's in the box?"
If anyone has the link for the classes Peter offers on SA please let me know.
I am thinking of taking them.
Then I can put better use to my time, instead of reading the comments on these posts 24/7.
Maybe I can learn something (I hope).
Thanks
Poor Isaac...they didn't even buy him any candy or French Fries.
Bethany - Try here:
http://www.hyattanalysis.com/about.html
Sus, I’m saying, if IR’s “yeah” is more reliable than his “MM HMM” that IR does not tell us he was with Deorr when the parents walk away. With “yeah” IR’s strongest assertion is that he though Deorr Jr was with parents. His assertion that he and grandpa was with Deorr Jr. is less reliable. Why is that? Is it possible no one was with Deorr? That they put him down for a nap and left him to explore/go to creek?
Interviewer: so he was just kind of playing, you guys were doing your thing and then you noticed...
D: he was playing with grandpa
J: he, yeah, he was with my grandfather
D:.he was over, he was getting ready for a nap, uh say it was almost, by that time it was almost two, and he usually takes his nap, um...we was just, yeah, we decided we were going to go a little exploring, and he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire, we weren't more than fifty.
J: ten minutes
D: fifty yards away and ten minutes, but for time, we, I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone and I come back up to the creek and I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love, so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa, um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr? He, immediately shock. He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight?
“Playing” is reflexive language from the interviewer. Both add he was with grandpa.
He was getting ready for nap, but they leave before he takes a nap. DK does not say grandpa was going to put him down for a nap. So who was getting him ready for nap? A two year old does not get himself ready for a nap.
“he was going to be good with grandpa by the campfire”
Does this imply there was a question as to whether he would be “good with granda.” Why not simply “he was going to be with grandpa”? Or even “He was with grandpa when we left.” Why “going to be”?
“we weren't more than fifty..
J: ten minutes
D: fifty yards away and ten minutes,”
Stated in the negative, though understandable it would be sensitive. If he was going to be “good with grandpa, why the need to state how close they were?
“I, seen him to the point I figured out he was gone”
This statement needs a lot of clarification.
If Deorr Jr. was staying with grandpa by the fire, what could “I figured he was gone” mean? Parents were the ones leaving, not Deorr Jr. “Gone” could be leakage about his death, but here’s where I start to wonder if they put Deorr Jr. down for a nap and he was not actually “with grandpa”. “Figured out” he was gone doesn’t seem like watching him die, but guessing if a toddler is truly down for a nap, that involves a little guesswork.
“I come back up to the creek and I actually seen, there were some things down by there, some little minnows that I thought he would just love, so when I come back up”
Present tense “come back up” signals this might not come from experiential memory. “Actually”- trying to convince us. “Some things down there some little minnows…”
Why does he not immediately convey they are minnows? Story building?
“so when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to grandpa, um, where, you know, where is little DeOrr? “
Present tense again. Notice he does not tell us he “didn’t see Deorr there” as expected. He goes from “come back up” to “yelled over to grandpa.”
Why not “asked grandpa.” “Yelled” implies he was either angry or at a distance. If Dad was far away, how did he already know Deorr was missing? Why not approach the site, look, then ask. It seems grandpa was not close to where Deorr was supposed to be.
Further, Dad says “you know,” wanting us to accept he yelled at grandpa.
He, immediately shock.
Dad does not directly tell us “he was shocked” yet he wants us to insert shock into the narrative.
He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area. That's what a lot of people, they don't understand, they just assume how could you let your child out of your sight?
Dad exits the “what happened” narrative exactly at the point we expect to hear him say “we searched.” He is sensitive about letting a child out of “your” sight, but supposedly he left with an adult watching Deorr.
I think either this whole narrative is story building OR the Deorr Dr was napping and they left him alone, thinking “we were only 50 years away, grandpa is close, if he gets up ‘there’s no way we can not see him’…” I do not believe he was left in grandpa and Isaac’s care.
Bethany, in the meanwhile, reading through the several years of archives can provide meaningful learning skills necessary to practice this science. Also, the search box is excellent for researching particular basics. Yes, the comments can go off target and sometimes show immaturity (#guilty) but are usually few and far between. Hang in there with us. Emotions will subside soon. You will gain knowledge to assist you in everyday life and have some fun along the way.
No one got it right. You are all posting anonymously, using fake names whether you give yourselves a nic-name or not. The only person here using their real name, to my knowledge, is Peter Hyatt. But this doesn't matter either, as whose to say he's always the one making his posts?
What matters is your PC user identification which can all be traced very easily. But then, the person filing the complaint would have to have a damned good reason for the U.S. Justice Department to file a claim causing your PC identity to be established, AND a recommendation that action be taken; then the next step is an investigation of your PC by the FBI. Just yelling slander isn't good enough. The claimant has to be able to PROVE they have suffered a monetary loss that cost them a loss of income and only then could one file a libelous suit in civil court.
I don't know why it bothers some here so much anyhow that some post as Anons, since it doesn't seem to bother Peter all that much, except that sometimes he does request certain ones to give themselves a name just for the sake of being able to refer to that person directly; it IS his blog site and it's up him to make this request if that's what he decides to do, and no one else.
Buckley, re your post at 10:21; DeOrr Sr was trying to lay the blame on the great grandfather when they supposedly came back from their so-called ten minute walk and found little DeOrr was missing. The only problem with that is, the great grandfather didn't know a damned thing about the baby having been left with him. BOTH parents lied about this, blaming the old guy who never saw the child at all, nor did he have a reason too. He assumed the baby was with THEM. Liars.
Regarding Dad saying that GGF was "shocked." The word does seem strong, but could mean stunned or taken aback. But it could also be leakage that Baby Deorr suffered some kind of an electrical/mechanical shock. "Shock" also refers to extremely low blood pressure, which can result from (say) falling into cold water.
Who wants your real name? My name is not ima.grandma but I consistently post by that name. When you see my post, you can follow my train of thought during the particular discussion. I am simply asking you pick a name to ensure a steady flow of debate and understanding. Even if you pick a different name for each article. It is difficult to respond to an anon as there are many anons with varying opinions. How do you expect to participate as a separate entity?
My comments are not intended to inspire an argument involving the freedom of speech and the rights of anonymity. I don't have to. Our forefathers did that for us.
Below are the sheriff's only words about Isaac Reinwand:
"Yes, he was at the scene."
-A direct answer placing IR at or near the campsite.
-Note the sheriff chooses the word "scene." An expected word for a crime or accident, not a missing child.
-"scene" narrows the action to one location rather than an undermined area where Little Deorr could be lost.
"He's a personal friend of grandpa's for about five years."
-Just a mention that it's in the present. The sheriff still considers him a friend.
-Added the qualifier "personal" , making it sensitive. I'd look into if they did any little "business" together.
-"grandpa's" gives no social introduction to the grandfather or to his granddaughter, Jessica. I'm not sure if this is showing familiarity or disrespect.
-"for about five years" is unnecessary and tells me they looked into how they met.
"We are treating him no differently than the family,"
-Legal speak. You can bet your bottom dollar the sheriff's office was accused of honing in on IR by IR himself or by his attorney.
-said in the negative, sensitive...either because they are, or because they are accused of it.
-"the family" is who to the sheriff? The parents? The parents and ggp? Whoever they are to the sheriff, he's not including IR in that safe circle.
"he has been questioned numerous times"
-he rather than a name. Notice the sheriff is careful never to say IR's name. He only answers to the reporter's research.
-"has been questioned" is passive and does not say by whom. I wonder why there is not a strong commitment to questioning with a missing child, like "We question him.." Is he lawyered up?
"and has been to the scene with me."
-"and" stops a thought and may show missing information from the previous phrase.
-"has been to" again he is using passive. He does not say "We went to..." or "I took him to.." The sheriff is not committed to what he is saying.
-He repeats "scene" reiterating that the sheriff sees something happening in a narrowed location.
-"with" separates the sheriff and IR. I would say the sheriff did not have IR's full cooperation.
Anonymous said...
Juliet, I find it very hard to believe that they could locate a replica of the same exact blanket -- and would have the time to search for a replica blanket while simultaneously searching for Deorr. The interview was just a few days of him being missing -- and the blanket had to have been purchased close to 3 years ago.
I think what he may have meant by "replica of a security blanket" is simply that the blanket was a major source of comfort/security. Security was replicated in the form of the blanket.
Nor sure why you think Jessica would have to correct Deorr over saying replica since he immediately followed that up saying it's his actual blanket.
----
Anonymous, as said previously, it's not unusual for parents to have a second blanket or favourite toy. If they do, they likely would have got it a long while back, to have to hand if the other was lost, mislaid or was in the washing machine when nap-time or bedtime came round. There are two monkeys - one brown, one blue. They may or may not both belong to DeOrr - the blue monkey might belong to his little girl cousin, who is also in the photograph (Tanisha, DeOrr Sr's sister, FB). Alternatively, it may be his emergency monkey, same reasons as for the blanket. I just noted there are two monkeys, the blue one is newer than the brown. There may also be two blankets, similar or the same. If there are two, both are likely to have been taken on the camping trip. If there are two of either item, he is likely to prefer the 'genuine' older one, but can be placated for a while, till the other is found again or clean and dry enough for him to have it.
So, if there is a spare, they would already have it with them or at home - no need to go hunting for a copy at the height of a search. Even if it had been left at home, they may have got desperate enough to call a relative and ask them to bring it out - or even, later when he went missing, just to bring it when they came to join the search, because they couldn't know if, when DeOrr was found, he would still have his blanket, and he'd want it, so bring the spare, just in case he does not still have it.
Yes, I agree, DeOrr may have meant that security was replicated in the form of a blanket, but to the baby it's a real sense of security/comfort which is provided by the blanket, not just a replicated form, it doesn't only represent security for him, it provides a real sense of security - you can almost guarantee, therefore, that he will not be willing to settle to sleep without it - or is it likely that DeOrr imagines his baby to be a philosopher already? DeOrr did not say that it replicated or represented security for his son - he said it was a replica of a security BLANKET. It's a strange choice of word - I am trying to go on what he actually said, rather than what he did not say.
As I said, Jessica maybe did not correct him, because DeOrr immediately corrected himself, or tried to.
IMAGRANDMA - Thank you so much.
I have been reading Peter's blog sites since 2012, when he posted the statement analysis of the 911 call of Darlie Routier. A girlfriend and myself were reading the transcripts of the trial, and we're really on the fence about whether she killed her children or not. Peter's analysis is what made me come to the conclusion that she was in fact guilty. So I have been here for awhile, I just haven't commented until the Little Deorr case.
Anon @ 10:17 - THANK YOU!!!
I am seriously looking into this.
Grandpa Kunz says the blanket was in the truck. What say it was as simple as that? Maybe, as they all live together, the blanket was left at home in Grandpa Kunz' truck. Maybe this was not discovered until they were at the campsite and DeOrr was needing to sleep, and there was no blanket? Was he possibly besides himself in the store at six because he wanted his blanket? Did someone get called to bring his blanket? Had Jessica not since then, let go of the blanket, which had been left in grandpa Kunz' truck? I think this unlikely, as they would not have left his blanket at home, because the blanket would rule, but it's possible they couldn't find his very favourite blanket when they were packing, because it had been left in Grandpa Kunz truck, so they took the emergency blanket, and hoped for the best. What say he freaked out because they were in a strange place, it had been a long journey, he was tired, hungry, and to cap it all, when they arrived there was also a stranger, Isaac, and some little kids are easily terrified by strangers.what if he had a meltdown, became inconsolable, and only the real, genuine blanket would do. Remember Grandpa Kunz also speaks wistfully of how little DeOrr would cuddle up with him for a nap. Is the blanket on his mind? He speaks, in a different interview of the creek - did DeOrr drop his blanket, or his emergency blanket in the creek? Did his blanket, whichever it might have been,if there were two, somehow get too wet and dirty for him to have? I don't know - I only have questions, not answers.
Yes, and the little that Reinwand says reinforces that.
Bethany, statement analysis is not a proven science, however, it is gaining momentum daily and is becoming more widely used all the time by those in LE, human resources, investigators and others who have the need to use it in their daily lives or in the workforce. Ii is an excellent tool in helping to determine deceit and I highly recommend that you take it if you have an interest in it.
I would take Peter's course myself but at this stage of my life it would be an extravagant expense that I wouldn't have need of at this time. My business is of a different nature entirely which does not require so much truth and honesty as it does money, stability and credit worthiness, requirements that are easily established. Employees, that is licensees who practice in my business, do not handle the money but must be of high integrity, otherwise they are out the door real quick with no second chances.
Of a personal nature, I have a vital interest in child abuse matters and am awaiting the publication of Peters' new book on child abuse as soon as it is on the market. I have been reading and learning statement analysis here since little Haleigh Cummings first went missing in Feb, 2009 and appreciate all I have learned from Peter.
PS. Ima.grandma
I enjoy your posts, as well as John McGowen, Tania and Buckleys immensely.
Thanks for taking time to chat.
East Idaho News.com
16 mins ·
DEVELOPING: Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman opens up about the DeOrr Kunz case. He spoke on-camera with our Nate Eaton and broke down the timeline of events...plus what the FBI is doing and what happens next in the search for the little boy. We're putting the report together right now and it will be posted very soon on EastIdahoNews.com.
Bethany, forgive me as I made the universal mistake of assumption, thinking you were new. I lurked for months before finally posting. I think most remember the subject or statement triggering their first comment. I'll watch for your name.
Oh, and BSG just posted that he will do an analysis of the East Idaho news report as soon as it is published.
Thank you Anon @ 11:14!!!
I am seriously interested in taking the course.
I am also looking forward to Peter's book.
This whole blog has changed my outlook on the things people say.
Thank you for all the info.
Oooooooh, I can't wait for that interview. Thanks for the info Anon. Get ready Sus and Buckley, do what you do...
East Idaho News.com
Update· video uploaded 8/18/2015
DEVELOPING: Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman opens up about the DeOrr Kunz case. He spoke on-camera with our Nate Eaton and broke down the timeline of events...plus what the FBI is doing and what happens next in the search for the little boy. We're putting the report together right now and it will be posted very soon on EastIdahoNews.com.
FB Link: https://www.facebook.com/EastIdahoNews
News Link: http://www.eastidahonews.com/
Bethany,
I'm taking Peter's Statement Analysis course and I'm almost halfway through. It's amazing. I've already learned so much!
The course is more than worth the cost. The value of what I'm learning is priceless. I hope he puts together (or he may already have) an advanced course.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Regarding Dad saying that GGF was "shocked." The word does seem strong, but could mean stunned or taken aback. But it could also be leakage that Baby Deorr suffered some kind of an electrical/mechanical shock. "Shock" also refers to extremely low blood pressure, which can result from (say) falling into cold water.
August 18, 2015 at 10:52 AM
Respective Anons - We also have grandma Clegg's statement 'my father was in shock.'
IN shock. She wrote this on the Local News 8 Facebook page, on a thread from which she subsequently deleted all her comments. at the point at which Asia Payne posed questions about a letter allegedly written to BSG by one of grandma Clegg's friends. All TBC's comments are here somewhere, in the comments on earlier articles concerning DeOrr. This is the one relevant to grandpa and shock:
Trina Bates Clegg Baby DeOrr wanted to "stay with grandpa". My Dad seen him playing in the dirt and then he said he looked over and he was gone so he thought Baby DeOrr had walked to his parents. When DeOrr Sr. came to get him my father was in shock.
Like · 6 · 9 hrs · Edited
Buckley,
I so sit on the fence about this. I did an analysis of the very part of the interview you mention. If the parents, or Deorr Sr, found Little Deorr deceased and covered it up... I believe this is where it happened.
Look at it with the first part of the sentence.
"Well, but by the time we, I seen him and the point I figured out he was gone."
Notice the next sentence begins with "and" signaling missing info. And he is coming BACK UP FROM THE CREEK. Meaning he is at the creek while seeing and figuring out Little Deorr is GONE.
"And I come back up from the creek"
As you pointed out, he switches to present.
Then he tells the minnow story. It's a story. It's a reason to go to the campsite and find him missing. He has already told us he "figured out he was gone."
"So when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to Grandpa.."
Begins with SO making it sensitive. He is giving us a reason to go get Little Deorr. Keep in mind, he has already told us he figured out he was gone.
Again in the present. Not committed to it.
He yelled over, yet he couldn't possibly see all of the camp immediately after coming up and not going over to ggp's area.
Now where was Isaac Reinwand?
The whole mess is a snarled up bunch of lies. They first said little DeOrr was getting ready to take his nap. WITHOUT his blankie & etc, that he NEVER goes anywhere without?
He was going to be good with grandpa, when grandpa didn't even know he was there? If he'd been ready to take his nap he would have been taking it ten minutes later when the parents came walking back to get him to take him to see the minnows? All bullllshyt. You don't snatch your sleeping baby up from his nap ten minutes later to go see some minnows.
Their lies are endless, including all the sensitivity about the security blanket, the search & rescue call, the good luck and the truck, also those Sus just pointed out above, as well as their keeping their mystery friend Issac under wraps for several days.
Five weeks later and no one can find hide nor hair of this little boy? This child is not there and there is a good chance he never was. If he ever was, IMO, daddy DeOrr & mamma Jessica know exactly what happened.
As someone said upthread, at the vigil that was held in a park in Idaho Falls, Jessica said he might be "very, very close." This park is adjacent to the Snake River, which Dad slips up and mentions a couple of times, then corrects himself to say Salmon SAR. Draw your own conclusions.
Some of these theories in the comments are quite....imaginative. When the ideas get too "out there" the credibility of a person is lowered. When almost every single thing is potentially sinister, it's time to step back and realize that some of these ideas are absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable.
(Bowerman said) "Even though it's been 5 weeks since DeOrr disappeared, he still believes the young boy will be found...."
snippet from East Idaho News.com
Notice the absence of the words ALIVE or SAFE.
Sus, could this be the point where Deorr saw his baby's little body floating? if it was an accidental drowning?
Look at it with the first part of the sentence.
"Well, but by the time we, I SEEN him and the point I figured out he was gone."
I wish I could listen to it and hear if and where there are pauses in this sentence.
I have been inclined to think Isaac was given a pass right off because he and his family are long time locals. I am not stating anything like corruption. I am keeping small town mentality in mind. People sometimes take care of their own. We dont know that the sheriff is not giving him a second look. I read of his mother's passing in a car accident in 2009. The father and children were also in the car. Isaac was one of them. The Sheriff's office was mentioned in handling the accident.
ima.grandma,
You can listen to the interview here if you want:
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/uncut-entire-interview-with-parents-of-deorr-kunz/
I couldn't agree with you more, Anon @12:28. Some of the ideas are so far out there they become not worth reading. More than this, they drift away from the principals of statement analysis that Peter has been patiently trying to teach us for years now.
Without Peter making the first direct accusation, he gives us what we should be looking for in the article, yet some run wild with imaginations that have nothing to do with Peters' statement analysis of the situation. On poster in particular just goes on and on and on with detailed scenarios that have no basis whatsoever. It's gotten ridiculous.
Trina Bates Clegg Baby DeOrr wanted to "stay with grandpa". My Dad seen him playing in the dirt and then he said he looked over and he was gone so he thought Baby DeOrr had walked to his parents. When DeOrr Sr. came to get him my father was in shock.
Like · 6 · 9 hrs · Edited
Looked over what, his shoulder, possibly. Was Grandpa with Isaac fishing at the creek, virtually at the campsite? He saw DeOrr playing in the dirt, all seemed fine, turned back to his fishing, next time he looked, 'he was gone SO he thought Baby DeOrr had walked to his parents.'
I'm anxious to hear the sheriff's new statement. From his first, I think they handled IR with kid gloves. Maybe that's because he lawyered up immediately, which is my guess. He certainly has an attorney at hand with all his past charges. Maybe it's because of his family. His father was a well-respected BYU professor who did some highly regarded interviews and research on the Fundimentilest Mormons in Southern Idaho. His interviews are quoted in books and other's research. His siblings are well established and highly regarded in their careers and communities. And as you mention, the family suffered the tragedy of their mother dying in a horrific car wreck where six others were injured. I'm sure that plays on the sheriff's and deputies minds. I see also the family lost twins at a young age. My feelings are that IR has been given quite a few passes in life out of pity. Is this one?
Anon at 12.28 - Absolutely.... :-D
Thank you so much Brooke but my first gen iPad is in such bad shape it locks up when going to audio or video. Another reason I'm addicted to this blog and am protective of its integrity. I rely on accurate details.
ima.grandma, yes it would be nice if you could listen to the interview, considering the quote you used in that post is not accurate. There are a lot of transcripts/quotes out there with errors in them.
Sus, I'm not sure what to think of the IR situation. It was extremely bizarre how the parents did not mention him at all in the interview. I would have expected something like, "...and as soon as we realized DeOrr wasn't with Grandpa we asked his friend if he had seen him..." or "...we then thought he might be somewhere with Grandpa's friend...". But nothing, no mention of IR, as though he wasn't there at all. WHY? At first I thought maybe IR really was DK & JM's friend and they were protecting him for some reason. Then I thought as you did Sus, I thought maybe he lawyered up immediately and they were told not to speak about him. But if so, why did IR not refuse to speak to Nate during the interview? Why didn't he say that his lawyer advised him not to talk to anyone, or direct Nate to talk to his lawyer? I am currently considering that the reason IR was excluded from the interview is because he was with the parents the whole time therefore there is nothing worthwhile that IR could contribute. I could be wrong though, and I still am suspicious of IR. But yeah, it's weird how he and the Great Grandfather were so protected in the beginning and G-Grandfather still is.
Could IR be working with law enforcement, such as a confidential informant?
Isaac is the mystery, the unknown factor, in the story. Is it because he is the main suspect, or is it because they think he is the one most likely to tell what really happened, as he is not related to little DeOrr? Someone very early on came on here and said they smelled a plea-bargain, but that seemed too early in the investigation to be likely. It may be the same someone posting here today who claims inside information. It will be interesting to see the update, but it would be even more interesting if there is anything new from parents, grandfather, or Isaac. I wonder if the person posting here today does have information or if it's an attempt to distract attention from the parents' involvement, and to cast blame on Isaac, or primarily upon him. It can only be hoped that time will tell all.
The quote Ima.grandma used is accurate. It was transcribed by me.
"...fifty yards away and ten minutes. Well, but by the time we, I seen him and the point I figured out he was gone. And I come back up from the creek and I actually seen some , a little minnow I thought he would just love. So when I come back up to get him and I yelled over to Grandpa..."
I went through the video myself when I saw translations were not matching up.
Sus said
Is this one?
It probably "was" one during the initial phases. Hopefully, it won't continue to hold. I think he is most definitely involved. I think Isaac knows it all and will eventually blow this thing up. You're right, Isaac is most assuredly lawyered up, probably right after his unexpected surprise visitor showed up on his front porch. He knows the drill by now.
I also think Isacc is the motivation for the ex husband's remark about keeping his mouth shut.
Sus, I just noticed he said "actually seen some"
Isn't that choosing between something, a comparison, when he says actually.
What did he see when he "come back up from that creek"?
Just posted:
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/08/lemhi-sheriff-opens-up-about-deorr-kunz-case/
"Bowerman said the FBI would have results in six to eight weeks. Meanwhile, the search for DeOrr will continue and, with hunting season starting soon, Bowerman hopes a hunter in the Lemhi mountains might discover the child."
Hopes? Might? The Child (or a corpse?)?
and who is Bob Bates? Grandma Trina identified GGF as Robert C. Walton.
Re: Bob Bates.
Trina Bates Clegg is the grandmother, and daughter of the GGF who was on the trip. Maybe just a name mixup, since Trina appears to have been married at least twice.
Anonymous said...
ima.grandma, yes it would be nice if you could listen to the interview, considering the quote you used in that post is not accurate.
Kiddo, dont you think by now I KNOW who gives accurate details on this blog. There are some who post accurately, and you can take it to the bank. Integrity.
I'm tiring of this foolishness with you. peace out:)
The sheriff gives qualifiers weakening this statement.
"Reinwand has also been questioned, and Bowerman revealed Kunz Sr. and Mitchell had never met him before this camping trip.
“I’m not getting any feeling that he’s not being truthful,” Bowerman said. “He’s come up to the area on a second occasion with me, and I think he’s been very truthful and I appreciate his help.” "
At the creek. All the adults were at the creek. Deorr was left alone to nap.
Robert c Walton is Trina Bates Clegg's birth father. He gave up custody to her and her brother when he divorced her mother. She then married LaVar Bates, who adopted Trina and her brother. I don't think she's been near Walton till her adult years, but I could be wrong.
From East Idaho News interview with Sheriff: "They have a receipt that confirmed they were at the store Friday." And how does that prove that the baby was actually with them?
(As an aside, people in my area dig receipts out of store trash cans to try to return items that they never purchased there).
So was Robert C. Walton the one on the trip? His date of birth (1939) fits. And Trina hired Jessica to take care of him.
...I think he’s been very truthful and I appreciate his help.” "
Haven't we seen a clear ongoing pattern of LE romancing the perp? Maybe the FBI can cut the honeymoon short.
Tina's adoptive father Lavar (not Bob) Bates was deceased before 2009:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/postregister/obituary.aspx?n=lynda-s-bates&pid=127206337
First impressions of the news story:
Poor Nate E. He's trying to get a big story and once again he messed up. The sheriff calls ggp "grandpa." Nate E didn't even research to get his correct name.
The sheriff is right, Little Deorr is not abducted.
We now know who the sheriff believes killed and hid Little Deorr. He just can't prove it. He's waiting for that piece of evidence.
How can anyone say Issac is lawyered up if they don't have knowledge of this? Where is it written? Who said it? More speculation without basis?
I just checked Nate Eaton's earlier report to see how far from the campsite the creek is, and he says a few yards, which confirms grandma Clegg's twenty or thirty feet. I wonder if anyone has any information with regard to how far the creek is from the road? As the current update has it that grandpa was sitting not far from the road. I would like to favour my theory that grandpa and Isaac were both at the creek fishing, but if the creek is not near enough to the road to also be where grandpa was sitting, then it needs to be discounted,
Jonbenet Ramsey, Kyron Hormon, Caylee Anthony, Lisa Irwin, Ayla Reynolds, Heather Elvis, Haleigh Cummings, Hailey Dunn, DeOrr Kunz and on and on.. I dont think justice will be served in our courts. What tragic circuses each case has become around the loss of such innocence.
So the Sherrif thinks Isaac is being VERY truthful. Okay. :) Just not truthful enough. They all surely must know more. Such as why grandpa was in shock.
I''m waiting for someone to post their error-free transcript. It's easier to just go through someone else's' work and to tidy it up, I suppose - it might leave one less open to criticism, too. :) I don't think it needs a transcript, personally - a lot of it is already transcribed beneath the video, anyway.
Snipped:
Meanwhile, Bowerman said DeOrr’s parents and Walton were questioned multiple times by Lemhi detectives.
“THOSE three have been very cooperative,” Bowerman said. “They’ve given us everything we ask for, and I feel real good about the parents and the grandfather.”
Telling statement.
I'm sorry you feel that way, Juliet. I appreciate that you did the interview transcript. I know how hard it is, especially with a speaker like Deorr, Sr.
If that was meant for me, I want you to know I noticed differing transcripts. I wanted his exact words. I wanted to know if he used the words "from the creek". I think you can see how important it is to check ourselves if we have a question.
To the anon questioning IR's lawyer. Yes, it is speculation...based upon his and the sheriff's language. I gave several reasons the sheriff may have said what he did, lawyering up being one of them.
Ima.grandma,
Compare it to what he said about Isaac R.
"I'm NOT getting any feeling that he's NOT being truthful. He's come up to the area on a second occasion WITH me, and I THINK he's been very truthful and I appreciate his help."
Juliet, I hope you didn't think I was referring to you in my smartass remark to my pesky friend. I appreciate the work you put in. Peter solicited volunteers and you were the first one to stand up. Thank you. I feel badly if you think my comment a disparagement toward you or your efforts.
I should have known my first post would win me a trip up the slippery slope.
Unedited tape is now available on eastidahonews.com
It is my understanding cadaver dogs are trained to find cadaverine, a biological substance quickly emitted by the deceased. Crematorium temperatures would I think eliminate any trace of cadaverine. I do not understand why scattered cremains would thwart the dogs, unless even cremated bones can throw them off.
Thought this was interesting.
Nate Easton: "Do you believe it was an abduction?"
Sheriff Bowerman: "You know, personally, an abduction is one of the least likely events. Primarily the information we have is Grandpa's watching the child, he tells me he looks away momentarily, when he looks back, he's gone and he's assumed he's gone over the bank."
So Grandpa (GGP) has confirmed he was the LAST person to see Deorr, to the sheriff.
He looks away momentarily, when he looks back he's gone, and he's ASSUMED HE'S GONE OVER THE BANK??
The same bank that leads to the CREEK? And has steep sides??
WITHOUT HIS PARENTS OR ANYONE ELSE AT 2 1/2 YEARS OLD??
Why didn't he go look for him??
Sheriff has discounted Abduction, but what about Kidnapping?
http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-abduction-and-kidnapping
@ Ima.grandma
Nothing to forgive!!!
You didn't know and we're just being helpful, thank you!!!
Ps. Don't feed the trolls...
Or the snide anonymous haha
Sus and ima,grandma - thanks, it's fine, though I was getting to feel it was some sort of competition. ;) I know accuracy is important, which is why I asked people to check whilst listening, for themselves, when I posted it. I said at the time there were likely to be mistakes. We can all only do so much in the time we have available, and with the equipment we are using. Unfortunately no-one appears to have done that at the time, spotted the errors, or made the corrections at an early enough stage to prevent this later confusion. Overall, though, it is accurate, If you could listen, you would find that to be so, ima.grandma. I appreciate you can only go on the transcripts, but I didn't know that at the time. Still, this mustn't be allowed to become a distraction, we've all made our points, so please carry on. :)
In the unedited video, Sheriff says, "they deposited the cremains not realizing they were in the middle of a crime scene." CRIME SCENE?
Ima.grandma - just wondering, do you completely power-down your iPad every now and again? If not, it might give it a new lease of life, at least for a while, maybe even enough to view the videos if the problem is not due to poor wi-fi. I'd power it down and leave it for a good while before turning it back on. In case you don't already do this, or know how to do it, here is a how-to link. If you already do it, someone else might not, and find this useful for better performance. I wish I came with a built in power-down option, ha.. ;)
http://m.wikihow.com/Completely-Power-Down-Your-iPad
Is everybody getting enough sleep???
No reaction from P.I. Vilt yet?
A Bigfoot wearing Oversized Cowboy Boots?
Oh my...the sheriff has spoken on Deorr Jr. case. The interview they released was 4 odd min. long. Now The UNCUT is over 11 minutes and you can find here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M&list=PLHxHvR1OFyNDkpZrKmKgKJCsujxaoOlUU
I might have to do a transcript...yikes
Where's the Body Language expert? Sheriff's head is shaking no when he's saying yes, and vice-versa.
The sheriff believes his own words. He is not lying.
Peter
Thanks for the info, Lynda. I'm going to get some matchsticks to prop open my eyes,a big pot of coffee, and then settle down to watch it. It's almost midnight here, but the night is young. :)
"Peter Hyatt said...
The sheriff believes his own words. He is not lying."
So he believes that it is a Crime Scene?
The longer interview is confusing as events are relayed in such a way as to make it sound as if DeOrr disappeared on the Thursday evening - or is he just making a massive leap summarising the timeline?
The dogs are trained to search for people who are lost. Strange they should have picked up on cremated remains, then, as that would take a differently specialised type of dog.
It's all still incredibly vague, but that's not to suggest the Sherrif is being deliberately obscurantist, more constrained in what he can say during an ongoing investigation. It's frustrating.
How do we know the Sherrif believes what he is saying? Why would I be wrong in thinking he may not be totally convinced by Isaac, Peter, or anyone who can explain this to me, please? I don't think he is lying - I think he may not be totally convinced, and is not saying as much as he could (if he were able) which is very different. Necessary prudence?
Juliet- what Peter said and what you said about the sheriff are not contradictory.
I really don't care for Nate E's reporting. He edited the shortened version into a much different interview than the longer uncut. So here is the part where NE asks about the poi.
NE: What can you say about Mr. Reinwand?
Sheriff: Uh, at this point he's still cooperating. Uh, um, you know, I'm not getting any feeling that he's not being truthful. I think he's been very truthful and I appreciate his help. He's come up to the area on a second occasion with me and, uh, until, uh, we find a piece of evidence or locate anything that tells me otherwise, I think he's being very truthful.
NE: How about the parents and the grandfather?
Sheriff: You know, I think all three of those have been cooperative. Uh, they've given us everything that we have asked for and, uh, I feel real good about the parents and the grandfather, also.
Peter and anyone else, I hope you will analyse this. I especially wonder about the pronouns. He pretty much sticks to "I" with IT, but switches between "I" and "we" with the family.
What if this family truly made an error, and this child went out of their sight. Their guilt from that will be overwhelming. Everyone is a great quarterback the next morning
Of the vehicles: ''Even though we searched them that night'.
Which night? So frustrating, as the Sherrif makes it sound as if the disappearance was on the Thursday night. Would they wait till night time to search the vehicles if DeOrr went missing on the Friday? One of the first places they would check, I would imagine.
(Already posted this on an unrelated thread in error, sorry)
Buckley - good, and thanks. :)
Anon a bit above here, so far the Sherrif has referred to a crime scene and to a crime, but I stopped to post my observations so that's all I've noticed so far, and on second listen. Yes, he believes a crime has occurred and the area is a crime scene.
Juliet- We know Jessica called 911 Friday at 2:28 PM. We know emergency personnel arrived in under a day. So Friday evening.
Anon at 7.51 - I think, as do others, that is most likely what happened, he went out of their sight. It does not need long for an accident to happen if a two-year old child is let go from sight. Of course their guilt is overwhelming, they have lost their child.
Buckley - DeOrr said they were with search and rescue till 4 something (can't be more precise without checking) on the Friday afternoon, so SAR and LE must have been there an hour or so before then, at least? The parents wouldn't leave the search effort very early on. By that reckoning, SAR were there before early evening, and much sooner than night - I would think by mid to late afternoon, at least. They would check the obvious places first, and the vehicles and tent would be the most obvious - even if the parents said they had checked themselves, they would still be checked out again. I can't imagine that they would not, but I might be wrong, of course.
Juliet- You asked which night. I answered Friday. I'm not sure what else you're inferring. If it's about searching the vehicles- I assume they first searched for Deorr and later searched it for evidence. The former likely in the afternoon and I can believe the latter was night.
I remember Deorr Sr saying that but I thought he meant they were with SAR from 4 on. If they were called at 2:28, I seriously doubt their vehicles or selves left the park at 4- anything.
The Sherrif thinks Isaac's been very truthful and 'until, uh, we find a piece of evidence or locate anything that tells me otherwise, I think he's being very truthful.'
So, does that mean the Sherrif is anticipating finding evidence, but in the meantime, he's willing to think Isaac is being truthful? I ask because he said 'until', rather than 'unless' - or would that be to split hairs?
Juliet. I do think this was a bad oversight...I can't condemn, I can't condone. But can't say its criminal. cant help but think the little man will be found close enough . At least I hope for the parents sake otherwise they will never have peace in SM
Buckley - I am wondering if DeOrr disappeared on the Thursday evening, shortly after they arrived, because in the full interview the Sherrif relates it in such a way as to give the impression it happened on the Thursday night, rather than the Friday. He agrees the family went to the store on the Friday morning (we don't know if that included little DeOrr) - he is not specific as to when DeOrr went missing. if you listen carefully from the beginning of the long interview, is it clear that DeOrr did not go missing on the Thursday evening? Is it clear that he went missing Friday? I find it is not made clear.
Well, I'm not starting a new theory on that - it's just that to me, it's unclear.
approx 10:50 on unedited tape:
Nate Eaton:
“At this point would you feel comfortable saying something criminal happened?”
Sheriff Bowerman:
“No!”
Juliet that would make perfect sense if he was wearing a cameo jackets, pajama pants and boots.
*Camo sorry
Post a Comment