Thursday, August 13, 2015

DeOrr: Analyzing Possibilities from the Language

When a person goes missing and those closest to the missing person speak, I have repeatedly written articles with strong conclusions.  I often say, "if he speaks, we will know."

My confidence in the system is such that I sometimes stake my reputation on my conclusion.  I rarely give ambivalent analysis. The record of accuracy is well known, and due to the scientific nature of analysis, if analysis is wrong, we can and must learn where we went wrong.

Over the years, two cases stand out to me.  One where I highlighted a father for deception while his child was missing.  It is true; he was deceptive, but he was deceptive about substance abuse that caused him to fail to protect his child. This is why you sometimes hear me say that the subject is deceptive, but while he is deceptive, we must learn if the deception is related, or attendant.

The other was not about deception, but an opinion regarding guilty knowledge.  After reading the viral statement made by Tammy Moorer regarding missing Heather Elvis, I did not think Tammy was involved, after all, her rage towards her victim was open, which is something that goes against the percentages of analysis:  the guilty often debase and or blame their victims but only in a subtle manner; not overtly.  It was a good reminder that even in the world of "90% likely", the other 10% arises.  I had not seen, to that point, an open ridicule of a missing person, or victim, by one suspected, nor have I seen it since.  (This status is for the 'unknown' or non adjudicated cases, where the one suspected does not wish to be seen guilty.  Tammy's rage had no subtle tones).  Sidney Moorer's guilty knowledge of then, missing Heather, was indicated, but looking only at Tammy's online smear of Heather:  guilty people mask their hatred, or suppress it, in the least.  Innocent people do not wish to speak ill of one missing, which should be noted.  Tammy could not contain her rage and it remains the only case I know of where, during that critical period of time where guilt/innocence is not established, that a deceptive person, with guilty knowledge, has openly defiled the victim, while missing. Since that time, I have remained on 'alert' for the possibility, wishing to learn from my mistake.  I apologized to her father, Terry, a man I admire.

For al the other cases, including all published on the blog, all of my own investigations, or of investigations for law enforcement, companies, or assisting in law enforcement, I have not concluded "deception indicated" in any case only to be proven, or even seen, as in error.  Most cases I give a very strong conclusion with not only "deception indicated" but with even greater content.

Also, in private and public cases of anonymous threatening letters, I have been fortunate enough to have the profiles come to resolution with either an admission, or a closed case.  This includes those done privately, or those I was involved as a team member.

Do you see why I am as confident as I am?  It is not confidence in me, but it is confidence in the system, so much so, that any error must have a way of being traced and corrected.  

The system is strong.

Unlike 'suggestions', when someone is going to be arrested if the analysis is correct and I am asked, "How certain are you?", and I say, "I base my career on it" is not irresponsible wagering.  After working through analysis deeply, and coming to such a strong conclusion, having an innocent man arrested would destroy my career.  Therefore, with much 'on the line', I take care to never leap to conclusions, nor indicate deception lightly.  This is why you have read many cases (if not most) that have such strong conclusions:

"This person is accused of X and he is deceptive about X and shows guilty knowledge of X and has revealed..." and so on.

Yet, in the short interview with DeOrre's parents, I have not written a strong conclusion.  Yes, in a sense, the interview was poorly conducted, but also there has not been good media coverage, in general, of this case.

What I mean by "good media coverage" is the asking of questions.

For this, I remain grateful to Nancy Grace, in spite of the theatrics associated with the show:  she asks questions and...

we know.

We know, even if she misses it.  Recall her pronunciation that Tiffany Hartley was truthful, and this was discerned by...

looking at her.


I'll have to repost some of the analysis.

True enough, it brought more than a few chuckles, but it was that Tiffany Hartley was repeatedly asked, "What happened?" as she went from network to network and she revealed that her husband, David, did not die as described as she took the scene from the Hollywood remake of "Titanic" and added the number 3 to it, and called it her own.  She fled from Mexico prosecutors and later, while still talking, revealed a 'connection' of sorts to a drug cartel via a rented home.

With DeOrre's parents, we do not have interviewers asking, "What happened?" and the important, "What do you say to people who say you are involved?"

How difficult is it for an interviewer to say, "People on social media think you know more than you are saying..." or "some think an accident happened and you are covering it up..." or anything along these lines?

We now have a Private Investigator, 19 years experience in law enforcement, who media says is a "former family friend."

What does that mean?  Is he no longer on a friendly relationship with the family?  It matters little, unless there is a need to persuade the public that this is being done from a "completely neutral" stance, which, itself, is impossible, though strived for.  If he is a family friend, offering to help them is a good and kind act, as long as the family understands that he is responsible to the truth, no matter where it leads him.  If his goal is to clear the family, we may see it in his words, and due to other similar cases, not be surprised.

The PI said something easily analyzed about the parents which reveals his own doubts:

honestly believe in my heart of hearts that these are grieving parents and I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something."

This reminded me of the denial of Ryan Braun, where it sounds like a love story.  
"I believe that these are grieving parents", alone, uses "belief", which is necessarily weak, as it allows him, or someone else to "believe" that they are not grieving parents.  Yet, this belief is not only "in his heart", which would be a second level of weakness (in his "heart" instead of his "head") but his "heart of hearts" is the third level of weakness.  

Next, he says that they are "grieving parents" which indicates a belief that the child is dead.  Yet, when police said that they did not believe he was kidnapped, the PI said,

"I feel that he was abductedEverything points to an abduction.”
That he "feels" DeOrre was abducted is also necessary weakness.  He "feels" this way, which allows him to later "feel" differently, and it allows for others to "feel" differently, yet, he only "feels" this way while claiming the all-inclusive "everything" that "points to an abduction."

This moves on to what he believes about the child's status.  The parents are "grieving" is compared with:  
"“I feel that there is a possibility that he is still alive. Other kids have been abducted and located months, sometimes years later,"

Next note:  "I want to hope that they feel like I feel, that somebody out there knows something. "

The average person has a vocabulary of about 25,000 words. The PI's is likely higher.  When he reports something he must choose which information is important to him, which he should leave out, which words to use, which not to, what verb tenses to use, where to place each word in order to sensibly communicate, and all of this takes place in less than a micro second in time.  This is the speed of transmission. 
In this speed, we have our accuracy. 
We note that he does not say "I hope that they feel..." which would suggest to us that he has doubts that they feel the way he does, which is weak.  He goes even further in weakness when he chose the additional wording with, "I want to hope..."

It is not that he hopes, but he wants to hope.  This is to create even further distance from the thought, which is already reduced to a "feeling" which has emotional connotations. 

This man does not strongly affirm the parents' innocence.

How is the communication between him and LE going?

“I'm not saying that the Lemhi County Sherrif's Office had tunnel vision, but they should have expanded their search and put out an amber alert," said Vilt.
There must be a reason to issue an Amber Alert and in the description of the size of the location, had someone been there, unless DeOrre was unsupervised by all, it is difficult imagining a kidnapper entering. 
This, however, leaves us with what we may be considering: 
Did the father leave, in his truck, for so long, that a sex offender could have snatched the little boy?
Vilt said that had the Sheriff's Office acted sooner, he believes they could have gotten surveillance footage from the gas station near Caldwell.

“I've called the department several times and they've never returned my call," said Vilt.
Plainly, should the parents sit down and write out statements, separately, about what happened that day, we would likely know if DeOrre met an unintended death, (such as an accident that came as a result of neglecting to supervise him) and the father, in particular, panicked and hid the remains.  
If Mr. Vitt were to do this, the analysis of the statements would reveal if, indeed, these parents do not know what happened to their son, or are in cover-up mode.  Even if they decided to write out very short, or vague statements, it would reveal the need to withhold information.  
It is not unexpected that law enforcement would be unwilling to share information with him, if they feel that they may need to build a case against one or both of the parents.  This does not set him at odds.  Police would not share details with me if they knew the details would be released to the public, here at the blog, or through main stream media. It could jeopardize the integrity of the case. 
There are several cases, per month, that readers would be thrilled to hear about, especially when the guilty party, for example, "got away with it", until Statement Analysis showed otherwise, and the investigator got a confession because he used the analysis in the interview (Analytical Interviewing).  It is thrilling.  There are cases, almost weekly, that the analysis changes the game:  a subject who even passed his polygraph, but still got caught in the analysis, is arrested...and so on. 
It is very exciting and quite rewarding, yet these cases will not be published here.  Even with a conviction, I will then only publish with the specific department's permission because my work is background, support work, and they are on the front line.  They deserve the credit.  I love highlighting the scientific process of analysis, and love to let it receive its credit, but it is the investigators, themselves, that must take the skill, apply it, and obtain the success. They deserve the credit for their work, even while the science that Statement Analysis stands upon, is recognized.  
I wish the public knew the work that these professionals do, and how committed they are to learning and growing in their craft, and how much they love obtaining justice for victims.  
I do not know Mr. Vitt, and there may be some anger towards him, but what if he, too, simply wants DeOrre found, no matter where it leads, and is not just another shill for a guilty family?  
The public is a bit jaded. 
The "fake hate" cases are more numerous and we are all familiar with cases where Private Investigators or retired Profilers got involved more as support and public relations managers than investigators.  Baby Lisa case became a "joke" as one who was hailed as the "country's leading expert on lie detection", himself, lied about Deborah Bradley.  They played the network and the public did not buy it.  
We will listen to what Mr. Vitt says and hope that DeOrre is found, though as time has progressed, hope has diminished.  
Let's also hope that media will ask the father plain questions...


lynda said...

One can only hope Peter but I think in all likelihood, Daddy Deorr will not be speaking to the media at all. I also hope that LE is aware of your brilliant blog and skills and are, as we speak, utilizing your information and the science of speech analysis to bring this case to a close. That poor boy deserved better than he got and he deserves a decent burial.

ima.grandma said...

thank you

Anonymous said...

"I feel that there is a possibility that....."

This, to me, is double-hedging, and far from convincing. The only other time I've heard or seen this wording is on my online banking account:

"During future online sessions, we'll ask you some of these [security] questions if we feel there is a possibility that someone other than you is attempting to access your account."

Lis said...

I was remembering how thoroughly they combed the area where Jenise Wright's body was and completely missed it until they brought in dogs. It is difficult to really comb a wilderness area thoroughly. Babies can become lost and bring themselves to harm in an instant. Is it possible that parents who are responsible might feel so guilty about a lapse in supervision that it would affect their statements?

LisaB said...

As I understand it, the parents left the campsite together in the truck. They thought that grandpa was watching the baby, but grandpa assumed the boy was with them, as he did not see him again after they left. I do not know where the parents went, or why, but am curious as to whether DeOrr could have been in the truck without them knowing it. When they got back and started looking, they disagreed over calling authorities. Mom dialed, Dad got in the truck and drove off looking for a stronger cell signal.
Is it possible that, after talking to grandpa, the parents realized they might have left their son where they went, or that he could have fallen off or out of the truck along the way, resulting in his accidental death? Dad could have found him some distance down the road and concealed his body before making his own call. Then the search began in the area of the campsite, where Dad knew he would not be found. Does this fit with what we know?

John Mc Gowan said...

OT Update:

Georgia police chief who shot ex-wife in bed pleads guilty

EACHTREE CITY, Ga. -A Georgia police chief who said he accidentally shot his ex-wife while they slept pleaded guilty Thursday to a misdemeanor reckless-conduct charge and was sentenced to a year probation, reports CBS affiliate WGCL.

Then-Peachtree City Police Chief William McCollom called 911 early New Year's Day to report inadvertently shooting his ex-wife, Margaret, as they slept in their suburban Atlanta home. The shooting left Margaret McCollom paralyzed below the waist. William McCollom resigned from the chief's job in March.

In deciding to charge William McCollom with reckless conduct, Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard said in April that investigators found no evidence William McCollom intended to harm his ex-wife, but added that the shooting could have been prevented.

Ballard said William McCollom told investigators he drank alcohol and took medication to help him sleep that night. According to Ballard, an investigation found William McCollom, a former firearms instructor, woke during the night when he heard barking dogs, prompting him to grab his service handgun from a dresser and search the house. He returned to bed with the gun and told investigators he woke next to the sound of a gunshot, Ballard said.
"The gun was in the bed, I went to move it, and I put it to a side and it went off," William McCollom told a 911 dispatcher, according to a recording of the call.

Margaret McCollom told police at the hospital that she was asleep when the shooting happened but believed it was an accident, according to state investigators. The couple divorced in 1999 but later reunited.

William McCollom worked in policing for nearly 30 years in Wyoming, Florida and Georgia. Personnel records reviewed by 48 Hours' Crimesider showed no evidence of criminality, serious misconduct or recklessness in his past.

According to WGCL, William McCollom now lives in Florida. It is unclear whether Margaret McCollom lives there as well.

Anonymous said...

To LisaB,

How have i missed that both parents were in the truck going somewhere, i thought they went exploring on foot up and down the stream only to return to Deorr missing.

Anonymous said...

LisaB -- The only time Deorr Jr. was left alone with grandpa was for 10-15 minutes while the parents went "exploring" on foot.

The parents claim they went to the store "as a family" at some point on Friday. This trip apparently included Deorr Sr, Jessica and Deorr Jr. They got back to the camp site by 1pm. It was at some point after that (close to 2pm which is little Deorr's regular nap time) that Jessica and Deorr Sr went exploring for 10-15 minutes while little Deorr was supposedly "good with grandpa by the campfire". When they came back from their 10-15 exploration, little Deorr was missing.

The above is the parents version of the story from their 15 minute interview which is available on Youtube.

LisaB said...

From Peter's article:
"This, however, leaves us with what we may be considering:
Did the father leave, in his truck, for so long, that a sex offender could have snatched the little boy?"

He can't be referring to the father's driving to find a cell signal, which happened after D Jr. had already been discovered to be missing. It would have to refer to an earlier drive in the truck that corresponded with the actual disappearance. The baby is alleged to have gone missing during the time they were off "exploring" which made me think they had left in the truck, for some "adult time", to talk privately, enjoy some AC, or just to get a break for a few minutes, thinking their son was in the capable care of 2 adults.

LisaB said...

As I understand it, the parents left the campsite together in the truck. They thought that grandpa was watching the baby, but grandpa assumed the boy was with them, as he did not see him again after they left. I do not know where the parents went, or why, but am curious as to whether DeOrr could have been in the truck without them knowing it. When they got back and started looking, they disagreed over calling authorities. Mom dialed, Dad got in the truck and drove off looking for a stronger cell signal.
Is it possible that, after talking to grandpa, the parents realized they might have left their son where they went, or that he could have fallen off or out of the truck along the way, resulting in his accidental death? Dad could have found him some distance down the road and concealed his body before making his own call. Then the search began in the area of the campsite, where Dad knew he would not be found. Does this fit with what we know?

LisaB said...

I'd like to know when the last time was that anybody saw the baby. The grandfather said he had not seen the boy after the parents left to go exploring. When was the last time he did see DeOrr? Was it shortly before the parents left? Not since the trip to town? Minutes before, picking up stones? Was he missing a while before anyone realized it?

Statement Analysis Blog said...


these are the very basic questions that are NOT being asked by MSM.



Sus said...

Lisa is correct in that the parents did not mention "walking" to explore. Deorr said "do a little exploring"

Deorr sr twice said "that's when" - he got in his truck or he drove down to the road. Always look at "that's when." It may signal missing information.

Sus said...

I thought it was eerie I had to verify by choosing the trucks, then the trees. Now I had to choose the candy. Who sets this stuff up?

Anonymous said...

: they could've come in and you could never know it. The water was not very, it was not a fast running creek, but it is quite loud moving through the logs and things like that, so hearing range is not all that far's you couldn't hear anyone coming up either.
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? This area is pretty well blocked in and you can see, you, there is no way you couldn't not see him, in what we thought, and just a split second your whole world is upside down and - vanished, there's not a trace found. That's the reason why they, this been called on the news a suspension, because it is not a suspension, but there's not s single trace of him. This child loses stuff. He's two, almost three, anybody who has a child that age range knows, they leave trails, they lose stuff..

Anonymous said...

50 yards and ten mins.
He says, he came up to you, because it's such a small area

If they were driving to explore, why would they be only 50 yards away and why would grandpa "send him up to them" or allow him to wander in the direction the truck drove off.

Anonymous said...

Picture of Little Deorr with camo jacket and Matchbox cars(?). Ironic T Shirt. No indication of when or where taken.

Anonymous said...

They came back from exploring because Dad saw a little minnow he thought child might like. Hard to see that from a truck.

Juliet said...

The PI said he knew DeOrr from his time in Monpelier, and on his Facebook deOrr's info gives him as being from Montpelier, so it's quite likely the families were friends or good neighbours years ago but fell out of contact when DeOrr's family moved to Idaho Falls, 'Former' need not mean there was a falling out, just that they maybe weren't so close, more casual, or just too busy to keep up contact from a distance. The likelihood is PI was friends with older family members, and knew DeOrr more as a son of the family rather than a personal friend. 'Former' would be more apt than 'old' if that were the case as 'old friends' gives an impression of a continuing longstanding friendship. He could just have said that he used to know the family if there had not been an actual friendship with one of them - so I should think that for a time he was a friend of at least one of DeOrr's parents or grandparents. Maybe that is all he said, that he used to know them, not that they were also friends - I'll listen again.

So true, Peter, some of us are quite jaded. I was not willing to give him much of a chance, and still can't make head nor tails of where he is coming from, but I do know that I would not be too happy with him if I were one of the parents, and not happy at all if I were genuinely at a loss as to what had happened to little DeOrr. So that in itself should have given me pause for thought, but it didn't because I had already decided he was basically the PR guy, that he hadn't ever investigated an actual missing in the wilderness child, was new to the PI role, and also hadn't been on the most helpful course. He did track down his own missing children to Mexico, but he knew they were with their mother. He also said he 'mostly' had been involved in cases of child-custody disputes, so I should imagine that's the extent of it, and that he has no particular expertise in cases like DeOrr's. So, that made me cynical, as if I was hiring a PI, I would want one who could say that he had helped resolve similar cases, or at least one, not child-custody cases, which are quite different. I didn't stop to think that maybe he wasn't hired by Jessica and DeOrr, or that he may be an appropriate person for the job because there may be unknown paternity issues relating to the child. What of the outside possibility that someone who thinks he's the dad, or even just that he should be the dad, has taken the child? Too outlandish, but if I am not to be too cynical of his purpose, and if to him, everything points to abduction, could anything point to that possibility? DeOrr stresses his fatherhood several times, but that's about it. Why though, and if he's not there for any purpose other than to try to uncover the truth, does the PI say, that everything points to an abduction, when everything so far points more towards the cover-up of the child's death? It's so strange that he should say or think that.

Anonymous said...

Someone on another site posted that Little Deorr's Dad did some body work on the PI's car, and that they were more acquaintances than friends.

The press implies that Mr. Vilt recently joined the case, but earlier utterances from Dad have mentioned "the P.I." and one article referenced that he had been on the case for several weeks. I wonder if Mr. Vilt, upon hearing of the disappearance, might have said "Oh yeah, that's the guy who fixed my car. I'll call him and see if I can help."

Or course, "former family friend" could just be bad editing, as previous articles have said (paraphrased) "former US. Marshall and family friend." It could have just as easily meant "Family friend and former U.S. Marshall."

Buckley said...

He was in present tense when describing it.

Anonymous said...

Juliet - Some theorists have posited that it was a staged abduction for the sole purpose of getting money, the child would then be safely returned, but that something went horribly wrong during the process. If so, then "everything points to an abduction" could still be technically true in Vilt's mind.

Juliet said...

Also, and forgive my persistence on this one:

If they are not grieving parents, what does that mean? I am stumped and can't get my head around it. Tania was very specific as to her definition of grieving - one only grieves for the dead. I think she has made a good analysis, overall (but I don't know enough SA to be sure, as I only go from what I pick up here, and my own understanding, experience and instincts. 'You're SO level three..' as my kids would say, alluding to the World of Warcraft games, where the levels go into the hundreds, maybe even thousands by now. Even that might be too generous, and I should listen more and say less) - still, I found a lot of it good, and all of it interesting, but take issue with the narrow definition of grieving, it's too perfunctory an application. It may be the most common use and understanding but grieving is not exclusive to death. One can also grieve for the living, as in when a healthy person is brain-injured in an accident, or develops Alzheimer's - there is grieving there, for the loss of the person as he or she used to be: a person might grieve over the end of a long friendship; at children or grandchildren moving to the other side of the world, especially if they lack the financial means to visit; those are very real losses, and a form of bereavement, though the person being grieved for is not dead - in one way or another, they are still gone, someone is missing, even though they might be present, or if not present, still very much alive, but no longer present in the life of the person who is affected. How much, then, would DeOrr's parents grieve for one of such tender years, so helpless, not knowing where he is, if he is dead or alive, or nightmare of all nightmares, if some insane person has him, if he's being kept as a plaything, hidden away in a basement or shut up in a cage somewhere? I cannot begin to imagine, but also I can, as any parent probably can, and so I don't understand how they could not be grieving, and would argue that must be the case, they must be almost besides themselves with grief, whether they know what has happened or not - they will still be grieving, either over his death or over his unknown fate, because they LOVE their son. How can that be wrong, how can they not be grieving?

I can only think of one circumstance in which they would not be grieving, and that would be because they knew DeOrr was alive and well, and that they would see him again soon, and so had no reason to grieve. I don't see anything to indicate that could be the case, and so I remain confused by the possibility of them not grieving. Could it be that the PI is clumsy in the way he expresses himself, and didn't quite mean to say what he did, or is there no room for debate on what he said? I sometimes say something which wasn't quite how I meant to put it, or not what I actually meant, where one misplaced or 'wrong' word can make quite a difference - doesn't everyone, at least sometimes? I correct myself straight away, or if someone else is talking, as soon as politely possible, by saying something like 'that was the wrong word, it's not what I meant, or not quite what I meant', so as not to leave what I said open to misunderstanding. He didn't do that though - but being interviewed isn't like normal conversation, there's pressure time wise, it's physically uncomfortable, the interviewer is most likely a stranger, and there's an audience - add to that the likely knowledge that your every word will be analysed- well, I don't know. Help, anyone? Maybe I've just been kidding myself all these years, and I really only ever mean the first thing I say, even when I'm sure I don't, and the same goes for everyone else - how grim is that? Can we really be quite so self-deceiving, and so divided against ourselves? But, to end where this began, my question is - if they are not grieving, what does it mean? I am SO stumped by this.

Anonymous said...

"Grief, the sense of suffering that accompanies loss, is a common part of mortality as we lose loved ones or experience other tragedies."

"A foolish son is a grief to his father, and bitterness to her that bare him."
Proverbs 17:25

Juliet said...

Anon at 1,27 - have you listened to the interview? If not, it might help. They went off exploring, DeOrr was tired and wanted his nap, his father apparently watched him go back towards the campsite, where the grandpa, who must be good at telepathy, was meant to be looking after him. DeOrr saw some minnows and decided to fetch DeOrr down to the creek so he could see them, even though presumably he should have been fast asleep by that time, or if not, too tired and grumpy to need to be shown minnows right then. DeOrr asked grandpa where little DeOrr was, and grandpa went into shock, as he didn't know he was meant to be watching him, though he also saw him playing in the dirt, whilst believing he was with his parents. Jessica and DeOrr searched the creek, DeOrr then drove round for some time searching the area, then he and Jessica decided to call search and rescue to scour the area, because they were sure he had been abducted and taken out of the area. Makes sense, not. We don't know where they were when they discussed making the call, or if Jessica went in the truck to search, and if DeOrr then took her back to the camp to make her call, or if he called her and they discussed calling 911 while he was still out searching. Jessica appears to have made her call to 911 from the campsite, and DeOrr makes it sound as if he was at the campsite when he decided to jump in his truck and go hauling, but it's quite possible DeOrr just stayed in his truck, called Jessica from his truck, and then called 911 before he returned to the campsite. That might explain some of his angst round being in the truck - he may have gone hauling a good while earlier, and they may have decided to try to synchronise their calls to be made when he was quite near the campsite, with the excuse about not wanting to risk not getting service, explaining his being in the truck. He maybe didn't want to risk mistiming his call and encountering LE while he was still too far from the campsite to be able to explain the distance. He didn't need to go down the road to make the call, and little DeOrr would not have been able to cover much distance, so there would be no reason to be searching in his truck too far from the campsite, possibly even at all, at that stage. It's possible DeOrr's call was an attempt to create an alibi for his having been in the truck. Maybe someone saw him in the truck, so he created a reason to have been in it - there was, after all, no need to make two calls. He spends some time justifying and explaining why he was in the truck -really we don't need to know all that, but it's important to him, because he is worried someone will question why he was in the truck - when there was no reason for him to be in it.

Juliet said...

Anon - at 2.24 - Quite. . :)

Juliet said...

Sus- Blogger sets it up, I think maybe there's some algorithm which links the images to words you've used a few times, or photos you've viewed on Blogger blogs a few times. I get trucks, candy, cakes, mountains, trees, eggs, baby carriages, bicycles and tricycles. Also, steak, which is not even in my vocabulary- they do that in order to make me think I'm paranoid and that really, they don't use algorithms. :)

Juliet said...

Anon at 2.01 - a lot of people have said the same about Madeleine's abduction, too. Can't they think of anything new, or even just more likely? :)


I just got boats, also not in my vocabulary., Blogger's getting paranoid -who knew computers could think? It's trying to convince me it's not a robot, lols. :-D

Juliet said...

Oh, I meant I am so level three, not that Tania is so level three, though I see now that it could read either way. That would be a very unfortunate misunderstanding to create, and that's the sort of thing I mean - putting things clumsily and thereby potentially creating misunderstanding by being misread, because it's not what is intended, or what one is trying to convey, but it might seem that way. Obviously, my kids would be saying that to me, not Tania, so hopefully that also made it specific to me in the reader's mind. Meh. Well, that's enough of me now. I might have started getting somewhere with the heart of hearts grieving problem, but I still need to think about it some more.

Anonymous said...

The whole thing stinks.
The child missing.
The parents story.
The RSO up there with the family....the RSO's appearance.
The manner in which the disappearance has been far as we the general public can see.
The parents look and sound like major drug addicts to me.
The whole thing really stinks !
Poor little boy .

Juliet said...

Anon at 1.57 - interesting DeOrr said 'the PI' rather than 'our PI'. Maybe DeOrr and Jessica didn't hire him, maybe it was one of the grandparents, or he has offered his services pro bono.

Ali said...

Peter, Jessica says: "......keeping ME together" not keeping US together.

Can anyone help analyse the following? Why, in the microsecond that he has to choose a word from his internal subjective directory, does DK Snr. seem compelled to say "snake river" twice?

DK Snr.: " I've tried...I'm going to be getting with the Lehmi County Sheriff-Snake River, er sorry, the Salmon -snake and river - (frustrated sigh) Salmon Search and Rescue"

On another site, someone said it wasn't strange because the name "Snake River" features in the name of lots of businesses in the area, but I googled Salmon and Snake River... And there is virtually nothing that contains Salmon and Snake river, together. There is a Snake River SAR but they were not involved in the search for baby DeOrr. I also note the word "sorry" in the sentence.

To John, the "blonde hair" case you are referring to might be Patsy Ramsey's 911 call.
911" how old is your daughter"?
PR: 6 years old. she's blonde...6 years old.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this was on DKSr's mind when he said "Snake River"

Anonymous said...

I think Frank Vilt knows DeOrr Jr was not kidnapped and the parents know what happened. Vilt moved from California to Idaho in 2011. He is apparently trying to make a name for himself as a conservative "pundit". He ran for the Idaho House of Representatives in 2012 (lost) and is currently writing a book about his years as a Deputy US Marshal. He writes a blog and is a guest on local talk radio. A recent segment was titled "President Obama Can’t Pass a Background Check". On his website bio, he says he was seriously injured on the job and retired on disability. ( However, in United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Daniel Lee LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. MAYLE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 03-16152. Decided: November 29, 2004, the last paragraph reveals that Vilt was removed from his position of deputy U.S. marshal on charges of issuing bad checks, failure to pay debts, and inattentiveness to duty (

I'm not sure what Vilt intends to gain by tying his wagon to a case in which his clients will eventually be found guilty of involvement in the disappearance of their son (my opinion). It's clear to me that he is using this tragedy to raise his own profile. After listening to the PI's interview, I thought maybe he and DeOrr Sr met at the Montpelier Toastmaster's Club. The two of them provided masterful demonstrations of talking without saying anything. They both must be unfamiliar with statement analysis and how it can be used to decipher meaning from apparent gibberish.

Neither DeOrr Sr or Vilt deliberately provided any verifiable facts in their interviews. Vilt says everything points to abduction, but then doesn't list a single example. Deorr Sr practically tells us he killed his son by picking off, one by one, every possibility besides foul play on his part. Drowning? 100% not. Animal attack? Nope. Still on the mountain? Definitely no. Seen at the Stage Stop with a kidnapper, four hours after he disappeared? No way!

The parents' focus on social media rumors is another neon sign to me. It would be painful to have strangers suspecting you of hurting your child, but if he has truly been kidnapped, the opinions of strangers would not take up large parts of your and your agent's (PI) interviews. Who would let someone's criticism of a child's camo jacket keep him/her from doing everything possible to get that child's face and name on every television screen in America? Their refusal to talk to main stream media because their words might get "twisted" is bizarre.

Forgive my long rant. I've been following this case since the beginning. When I heard the parents' interview, all kinds of alarms went off in my head. It wasn't until I started reading about statement analysis that I understood the logic behind my gut instinct.

I really enjoy this blog and all the comments.

Anonymous said...

Snake River runs through Idaho Falls -- the town the parents live in.

Anonymous said...

Juliet, Deorr Sr indicates he got into his truck AFTER they searched "up and down the creek and around the camp" for about 20 minutes.

lynda said...

The Sheriff in Deorr's case has given an interview...interesting...what does everyone think? Peter?

lynda said...

Oh my...the sheriff has spoken on Deorr Jr. update. The interview they released was 4 odd min. long which I gave the link above too. The UNCUT is over 11 minutes and you can find here...

I might have to do a transcript...yikes

Anonymous said...

How long was the family at the camp ground before they noticed he was missing. Days, hours, to the minute. What time did they arrive? Am or pm. What was everyone doing before the child was to take that daily nap with that blanket he CANNOT be with out. Cranky tired two year old would want that blanket. Who laid him down and where? and why a nap with his boots on. We all know children shoes off asap. And where was his blanket found at after the child so called disappears? Everything revolves around his nap...a nap I feel he never woke up from.