Monday, August 17, 2015

Statement Analysis of William Ruben Ebron

Statement Analysis is in bold type. 
Photo by: Duval County jail booking photo
William 'Ruben" Ebron, Jr.
The following report is republished with permission from The Florida Star.
William “Ruben” Ebron agreed to sit and talk with The Florida Star Newspaper. At this time, he is the only suspect in the disappearance of 21 month old Lonzie Barton. Chief Tom Hackney says his focus is on Ebron because he was the last person with Lonzie and he does not believe the story told about his car being stolen.
Ebron is in isolation and is not allowed to see or talk with anyone other than family, including his girlfriend. Since his arrest he has talked with his father and now The Florida Star.
The first question we asked was “why do you think you are the only suspect? “
Ebron: Because they say I am the last person to be with Lonzie.

The question was "why", so "because is the expected response.  "They say" is to quote another, and not an embedded confession. 
Florida Star: Chief Hackney is saying you are refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Are you withholding information?
Ebron: No, I told them everything I know. They want to talk about drugs and other things other than finding Lonzie. I did some things in the past that does not look good and I did not want to talk about them. I answered all of their questions about Lonzie. I want Lonzie to be found, he needs to be with his mother.
The subject qualified his cooperation in the yes or no question with "no"; keep in mind that "yes or no" questions are reduced stress for deception and are not reliable.  It is is words after "no" that are important. 
He stated that they wanted to talk about "drugs and other things" but does not tell us what "other things" consist of.  He refused to talk about "them"; that is, things in his past that does not "look good."
This is to say that police believe that drugs and "other things" are related to the child's disappearance and this is where his cooperation ended.  Note that there is no talk of immunity.  He does not say that not related to Lonzie's disappearance, only that they are "other things than finding Lonzie.
This is to indicate that he is willing to talk about finding Lonzie, but not willing to talk about what caused Lonzie's disappearance.  
This suggests possible knowledge of what "things" caused Lonzie to disappear.  
Florida Star: Why did you leave the car running with the children inside?
Ebron: We were getting ready to go pick up my girlfriend from work and I remembered an item and decided to go back into the house to get it.  The five year old followed me into the house.  I took the keys but left the car running to allow me to open the front doorWe often leave the car running because you have to raise the hood to start it the first time. After that, there is a switch inside. Once you turn the car off you have to go back under the hood to start it.   Lonzie was asleep and the five year old was playing games on my phone. She wanted to stay there so I left her watching TV with my roommate.  I had to re-charge the phone before being able to make the 911 call after I discovered the car was missing.
We often say to investigators, "your answer is found in the blues"; that is, the blue highlighting used to indicate the highest level of sensitivity in language. 
When a person is asked "what happened" but explains why they did something without being asked, it indicates that this portion of the statement is extremely sensitive to them.  When there is more than just one word in blue, it is said to be a 'cluster of blues' and the answer to the crime is found there.  The need the subject has to explain why he did what he did is often where our deception is found. Here, we have 3 "blues" close together as he explains why he did what he did while not being asked making it the most sensitive part of his statement and where guilt lies, via missing information. 
Note he even gives the reason why he took the keys, though he was not asked. 
Note the entrance of "doors" in his statement is often associated with sexual abuse.  Since drugs were part of his equation and "things" besides drugs, it may be that both drugs and possible sexual abuse are part of this crime. 
Note the need to explain what he usually does

Note that this need is not what "he" usually does, but "we" usually do.  This is distancing language since he was not with any other adult. This is to 'share' guilt or responsibility.  
Note "the five year old" has no name.  Note the need to explain why he left her, although he was not asked.  
This is where information is deliberately withheld by the subject. 
Note the passive language of "I discovered the car missing";
Note also what is missing from his "discovery":  the child.  
He discovered the "car missing" but not the child missing.  This is a signal that he knows where the child is.  
Note the need to explain the delay in calling 911.  
The need to explain is all without being asked, making it extreme sensitivity in language.  

Deception indicated.  
Had this same person interviewed DeOrr's parents, we would have known far more than we do.  
Florida Star: Is there anything you have not told the investigators that would help find Lonzie?
Ebron: No, they wanted to search the car so I let them. They were able to check my phone on the spot. I told them there were no passwords, no locks. The picture for the Amber Alert was off my phone. They talked with me about four or five hours that morning. This may sound selfish but they are trying to make me look like a monster and I got to start looking at my defense.
1.  Note the need to explain why he "let" the police search his vehicle.  
2.  Note that he does not say he "let" them check his phone.  
3.  Note "they talked with me" uses "with" between himself and the police, indicating distance.  There is no "we", that is, unity, cooperation, in the four to five hour interview.  It was during this interview that the distance existed. 
In every investigative interview, the Interviewer will have one or two impressions:  That the subject is either working with the Interviewer to gain information, or the subject is working against or at distance, with the interviewer, to hinder or slow the flow of information. 
His own wording tells us that he did not work for the flow of information.  
Note that "monster" is not using their language, but his own description.  This is likely very closely associated with both drugs and "other things" he did not want to talk about, that he sees as a "monster"; police should seek to learn, even if not charged or prosecuted, any links to child pornography or molestation.  "Monster" is not the language of police, but his own.  "The last to see him alive" is him quoting police, but "monster" is his own description.  This is to say that he considers that what happened to the child will make him look like a "monster" and the defense is "my defense", that is, possessive pronoun taking ownership of what is his. 
Here he tells us that he needs a defense, without issuing a reliable denial about causing the child's disappearance.  
Florida Star: Who else should they be looking for?
Note the question is "who?"
Ebron: We had been warned to watch out for Lonzie's father as he may try to follow us to find out where we lived. I don't know .I just want Lonzie home with his mother.
He did not give a direct answer for himself, but began with "we had been warned...." but then says, "I don't know."
Note he does not want Lonzie back for himself, but only "with" (distancing language) his "mother" which avoids the child's mother's name, indicative of a bad relationship at this point in the statement.  
There is an overwhelming sensitivity in the statement regarding the child's disappearance that shows the subject to be deceptive, specifically, about the event where the child went missing, in the vehicle.  
He does not say that he did not cause the child's disappearance, therefore, we cannot say it for him.  He adds "drugs" and "other things" to the disappearance of the child which police will likely uncover a link between these things and what caused the child to go missing.  


Atlchanel said... has bio dad's and moms recent interviews. They both believe Baby Lonzie is happy and somewhere being loved by someone else right now. Bio dad believes "in his heart of hearts" that Mom had nothing to do with the disappearance. Neither parent will show their face on camera. Instead they sit with their backs to the camera. It's very strange.

Atlchanel said...

Reuben is also being charged for raping his ex girlfriend a few weeks before Lonzie disappeared.

trustmeigetit said...

Do we know when this interview occurred?

Since the video was released showing this monster running back towards his home not far from where the car was found, I have to wonder how that has or will affect his response to questions.

John Mc Gowan said...

Lonzie Barton's father believes boy is alive; wife's telling the truth

Does he really believe Lonzie is alvie?
Does he believe his wife is telling the truth and has no guilty knowledge.

These are just snippets that have been published from the 12-01 video, below.

More than three weeks after his 21-month-old son disappeared while being cared for by the boyfriend of the toddler's mother, Lonzie Barton's father spoke to News4Jax about the search and the suspect's appearance in court.

The toddler was last seen July 23 at a apartment complex on Old Kings Road. Police knocked on his door before dawn the next morning to tell him Lonzie was missing.

"They said that my son has been abducted," Chris Barton said.

Barton was emotional at times as he asked that people didn't forget his son. Despite the fact that police are now considering this a homicide case, he believes Lonzie is alive and being loved.

"I think that he's out there somewhere, that he's happy that he's playing and making someone else smile, the way he makes us smile," Barton said.

Barton did not want to show his face during the interview, saying he wanted to focus all the public's attention on his son.

Chris Barton says he heard his son's voice on the phone two days before he disappeared, and he'll never forget the last time he laid his eyes on his youngest child.

WATCH: Raw interview of Chris Barton talking about his son's disappearance

"Before he left to go back with his mom, he held me real tight and gave me a kiss on the cheek," Barton said

Note the word "left" is one of the highest levels of sensitivity. However, the sensitivity isn't in the negative but the positive, his mind is focused on the last time he saw Lonzie.

Barton said it's these memories of his little boy that keep him from falling apart and also believing he'll see his son alive again one day.

"You got to believe. You got to believe in something, and now is not the time for negative thoughts. I pray and I hope that he's out there somewhere," Barton said. "Naturally, no one can love him like me and his mom. Let's hope someone's showing him love. You can't help but love him. If you're around him, as you lay eyes on him, you get a feeling for his personality and you fall in love with him right away."

Note here he uses the second person pronoun "you", this is distancing language.. He is distancing himself from wanting to "believe". Which may tell us he doesn't, sadly. "Believe" is repeated making it sensitive.

"Naturally, no one can love him like me and his mom."

This is to take for granted that they both love him the same. Does he believe he loves him more than the Mother, or she loves him less?


John Mc Gowan said...

Barton said he said questioned Lonzie's mother, Lonna, and believes she doesn't know anything about what happened.

"In your heart of hearts and your intuition as a dad and a husband, you believe that she had nothing to do with this,"

Barton said. "I've been married to her for seven years and very few people know her as well as I do. I can tell when she's lying and I can tell when she tries to avoid the subject and when she doesn't. Her mind is set on one thing, and that's finding her baby."

Note he doesn't answer and avoids the question. Making the question it's self sensitive.

He also said he doesn't focus on the prime suspect, Ruben Ebron who sits in jail charged with two counts of child neglect and one count of lying to police. Instead, he's laser-focused on Lonzie's 5-year-old sister.

"She's great; she's doing good, she's happy. She's with her granny and she talks about (Lonzie)," Barton said. "We try not to push the issue. I haven't asked her not one question about this, about him, about the whole situation. Anything that she says is strictly coming straight from her heart, her thoughts."

Barton said if the sister knows anything that could help investigators, it will come out in her own time. He said he comforts her and she comforts him.

Barton said there are several fundraising accounts using Lonzie's name on the Internet, but the only one he as approved is the Go Fund Me account of the Lonzie search group.

Anonymous said...

If Reuben was seen on video camera running away from the car where it was abandoned, and he was; then obviously he is the one who lied and left it there. The only question remaining then, would be what did he do with the baby?

Does it really matter so much what bio-daddy thinks since he wasn't there? What does matter is why daddy Barton wasn't appealing the courts to take his two kids away from their negligent white-trash mother since she did have them shacked up with a disgusting black-ass felon thug while she robbed food out of their mouths and kept him up, exposed and twisted her butt half the night in a sleazy joint, leaving her babies alone in the presence of this animal and sleeping most of the day, STILL ignoring and neglecting her babies. The low-life POS.

So bio-daddy cares now, why wasn't he caring THEN?

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

Color be it "White" or "Black" has nothing to do with it.

New England Water Blog said...

'We will always be innocent'

jenniewren said...

I am a slow learner but even I caught that the brothers did not make a reliable denial.

jenniewren said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ima.grandma said...

Another blue? "left"

She wanted to stay there so I "left" her watching TV "with" my roommate.

Previously referred to as "the five year old", I wonder what exactly happened to make him pause and change his mind and leave her "with" his roommate.

Another blue? "with"

Isn't this distancing language? From the roommate? Who is distanced from the roommate? Him or the five year old?

Anonymous said...

'We have nothing to hide. And the truth always comes out,'

WHERE is the truth hiding RIGHT NOW?

'Me and my brother have been innocent and will always be innocent.'

'It's never over. My dad is always like ''It's going to get worse before it gets better'' and it just keeps getting worse.'

Statement Analysis Blog said...


Leaving a child, or leaving a voice mail, is not an "unnecessary connection" between places; therefore it is not a signal of missing information.

This is a common mistake, so I appreciate the opportunity to address it.


ima.grandma said...

I must have missed the part about leaving a child. I do remember you teaching about "unnecessary connections" This is why I am an advocate of searching your archive via the search box feature. It's a treasure trove of valuable information. I'll revisit and keep learning. I hope to never be too old to learn or admit my mistakes. Thanks Peter.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, ima.grandma

I hope your doing well :)

Your right about the "Search Box" i use it all the time, and i would recommend all to utilize it.

ima.grandma said...

Hi John,
I had my wheaties for breakfast so I'm feeling a little onry this morning. I anxiously await you body language synopsis on Deorr Sr.

John Mc Gowan said...

Hi, ima.grandma

The thing with analyzing BL is that it is very time consuming. A 30 second clip can take hours to analyze, going back and forth and back again, freezing framing, slowing it right down to pick up on any "Micro Expressions", if there is any. This being 15 mins and 02 seconds is the reason i focused on the posture alone.

I posted this a while back. It's more about body posture than sensitivity indicators. sensitivity indicators are just that, indicators. When looking for sensitivity in BL, it is best for the interviewer to ask questions based on their language, that is, the one who is being interviewed, ( I can't express enough how important it is to have a base line) Given that this interview was dominated by Deorr Snr rambling on and not responding to questions. I didn't delve into it. Plus i don't have a base line.

It's only a quick scan.

Body Language:

Note. This maybe their norm when sitting together. They are also in separate chairs. I would have sat them together on a sofa bringing them closer together. I will explain my reasons below.


look at Mum. She is sitting back, slumped, shoulders arched, legs crossed and clutching her sons not "exact replica blanket" she is very closed off. Again this maybe the way she sits, except for holding the blanket, which she maybe using it to comfort herself or use it as a barrier. Also, holding on to something disguises are hands from shaking (nervous). Being nervous however, is expected in this situation for one reason or the other.

look at Dad. He is sat forward, leaning in. His legs are open and planted firmly on the ground. There are no arm barriers. This is the stance of a dominant (alpha) person. keep in mind as said above. We do not have baseline of them. This may also be his posture (norm) when speaking.

In 15 mins and 5 secs in this clip. Not once do they make contact with each other. No holding hands, no comforting each other, nothing. Now, although i have said this maybe their norm. Here is the but. This is an extreme situation. Their son is missing, a parents worse nightmare. Yet, they can not bring themselves to touch and comfort each other.

Putting them on a sofa, would have brought them closer, physically. We would then be able to see, if they, closed the gap between them. Would they have then held hands? Would they keep their distance from one and other?. If one touched the other, would there be a negative reaction?

This, along with, him not letting her get a word in edge ways, and when she does, he talks over her. He also addresses her as "she" he never uses her name, suggests that their relation at present is not a good one.

These are just my observation at a quick scan. Please jump in and say what you think is going on with their BL. If anyone watches it again and does notice something please let me know where, the time, it is at and i will take a look.


John Mc Gowan said...

He dominates the interview. I suspect he dominates in their relationship too.

ima.grandma said...

I'm not able to view the video. I rely on your credibility which is HIGH. I believe you are "on the money" in your views about mom and the blanket. She is probably holding the blanket for all the reasons you mentioned. I would have liked them sitting together to see if the mom would reach over and touch the dad's hand or grab his arm when she corrected him. Thanks John. I appreciate the time and energy you spend contributing.

Jessica Blans said...

Off topic

Sheriff gave a statement in DeOrr case.

Jessica Blans

Jessica Blans said...

SALMON — Lemhi County Sheriff Lynn Bowerman believes missing Idaho Falls toddler DeOrr Kunz Jr. will be found, even though it’s been nearly six weeks since he disappeared.

In an extensive interview with, Bowerman said nothing has been ruled out in the investigation, although he doesn’t believe the child was abducted.

“I think an abduction is one of the least likely events,” Bowerman said. “Grandpa was sitting within 20 to 30 yards of the only roadway into the campground, and absolutely no one was seen at that lower campground coming or going.”

Bowerman is “99 percent sure” DeOrr was at the campground with his parents, DeOrr Kunz Sr. and Jessica Mitchell, great-grandfather, Bob Bates, and Isaac Reinwand, a friend of the grandfather, when the 2-year-old was last seen.

Early in the investigation, there were conflicting reports about when the family arrived at the Timber Creek Campground in Leadore. Authorities had said the group arrived Friday, July 10, but Bowerman said the group actually arrived late on Thursday, July 9. The next morning, DeOrr’s parents said they took their son to a store about 20 minutes from the campsite.

“I don’t believe the store has a surveillance (system), but we have a receipt that shows they purchased certain items,” Bowerman said. “The time was stamped on the receipt, so we believe that’s where they went.”

When asked if the family was anywhere else during the trip, Bowerman said they stopped for diesel fuel traveling from Idaho Falls to Leadore, but the gas station doesn’t have surveillance video either.

Jessica Blans said...

After the Friday morning shopping trip, the family returned to camp, and DeOrr’s parents said they left the child with Bates while they went exploring.

“Isaac (Bates’ friend) was in the same general proximity,” Bowerman said. “He’s downstream, they’re upstream and they’re all within probably 100 to 150 feet of each other.”

When the parents returned, they couldn’t find DeOrr and called 911.

Weeks of extensive searches focusing on a three mile radius around the campsite resulted in nothing.

Meanwhile, Bowerman said DeOrr’s parents and the great-grandfather 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.”

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.”

Bowerman said everyone at the campsite has had their vehicles and homes searched several times, and Bonneville County deputies and the FBI are now working with Lemhi County detectives.

“All four have voluntarily taken polygraphs and right now they’ve been turned over to the FBI,” Bowerman said. “We’ve given the FBI lots of items to analyze behaviorally and we’ve given them some physical evidence.”

Jessica Blans said...

Bowerman wouldn’t go into details about what specifically has been turned over to the FBI but he said he wants “all bases covered” to help solve the case.

“We’ll wait until we get the report from the FBI,” Bowerman said. “It’s going to be critical in this 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.

Bowerman said his office has received hundreds of tips in this case and he continues to ask the public to contact his office at (208) 756-8980 with any information about DeOrr’s disappearance. will post the unedited video interview with Bowerman on Tuesday afternoon.
-end of story-

So.....what do ou all think? Is the sheriff revealing anything?
Jessica Blans

Anonymous said...

The sheriff is lukewarm on IR & chose his words for him carefully. No way to accuse him now...but waiting on evidence?

Sus said...

Words from sheriff on video about Isaac Reinwand:

"He was in the same general proximity. The creek is just over the bank, um. He's Dow strewn, uh, they're upstream. Uh, they're all within probably, be, a hundred, a hundred fifty feet from within each other."

"Obviously, there's a relationship between him and Grandpa, you know, um, you know. I mean, they're friends, um, but part of that trip he'd never met Mom or Dad."

"You know, I'm not getting any feeling that he's nit being trutbfu. I think he's being very truthful and I appreciate his help. He's come up to the area on a second occasion with me an, uh, until, uh, we find a piece of evidence or locate anything that tells me otherwise, I think he's being very truthful."

Oh my.

Sus said...

Oh my gosh. I was typing blind. I can't see the screen as I type on my kindle. Let me correct some of this.

"He's downstream, uh, they're upstream."

"You know, I'm not getting any feeling that he's not being truthful."

trustmeigetit said...

"I THINK he's being VERY truthful"

Thinking allows others to think otherwise
Very is a qualifier

trustmeigetit said...

I thought Iaasac was with greasy grandpa? Now he was not?

That's concerning

biscuit baker said...

Peter- please?

Bethany said...

On the East Idaho News FB page
If you look at the "posts to page" section
There is a post by "Monster Polish"
Who says he will be conducting a search up in the woods with family and sheriffs blessing- he is a Bigfoot enthusiast.
Big into Bigfoot and Missing411

Even stranger, Deorr Sr. Posts underneath it his thanks to Mr Monster Polish for coming and helping them.

Can this case get any stranger?

Do they really believe BIGFOOT took him?

Juliet said...

John - on the body language, at certain points in the interview Jessica starts rocking her foot, or moving it circularly, I don't know which without watching again. Does that indicate anything - any sensitivity or stress going on at the points at which she foot fidgets, or is she just impatient to be out of there, maybe?


I can't think about this poor little lad, too emotionally invested in DeOrr. The photo of him in the over-sized cowboy boots seemed an insensitive choice on the part of the news outlets which published it - but they couldn't all be expected to know about DeOrr, much less his boots, I know.

trustmeigetit said...

I meant "great" not "greasy"

lynda said...

I have transcribed the whole 11 minute interview with the Sheriff regarding Deorr that was put out today. Where should I post? Or can I send directly to Peter somehow?

Anonymous said...

lynda: How about right here? :)

Anonymous said...

I can believe the cops were "assuming his guilt" and that he felt he needed to protect himself at some point - this could be the case no matter what his guilt /lack of guilt is.

I can understand why the cops would lock him up like this - he does seem to be hiding something. although what - I'm not sure. I think the most suspect thing in his statement was not SAYING and "I realized the boy was missing"

this could be because it's too painful. or he "feels" guilty even though he is not. or because he's guilty.

I can't tell, I hope they get to the truth asap.

lynda said...

Sheriff is there along with Deputy Tanner. They are casually sitting on a picnic table along side a highway with the reporter sitting across from them.
I - Let’s go back to the beginning, can you kind of give us a timeline as to when the family arrived and what proceeded.
S: Well the family, from what I understand, that we learned during the investigation, arrived the evening prior to July 10th sometime uh, fairly close to dark on Thursday, July 9th. And then uh, they went to uh, went to town in Leodore and upon returning they supposedly they thought they were turning their child over to their GF, the child’s GGF, they went down to the crick which is right next to the campground and within 10-15 minutes they go up to find their child to show him some fish in the stream and he’s nowhere to be found and GF assumes he’s gone down to them because he was within their line of sight and uh, wasn’t to far from the campground. They started their initial search and eventually called 911 when they realized they oculdn’t find their child.
I: Where was Mr. Reinwald during all this?
S: He was in the same general proximity, the crick is just over the bank um..he’s downstream, they’re upstream, they’re all within uh, probably 100-150 feet of each other.
I: Very close proximity?
S: Very close.
I: So they call 911, you guys arrive, and you begin searching?
S: Correct.
I: And uh, at this point, were there vehicles searched? The tents? I bet everything out there was probably searched.
S: We did a co.., I think uh, a very thorough investigation. We uh, we took 2 initial track dogs in. One being mine and one being Salmon PD. Their trained to search for people who are lost, uh, they were given a scent, uh, they went from the campground up to the reservoir and back to the campground and we searched everywhere a small child could easily hide, or climb into, or fall into.
I: And nothing?
S: We found absolutely nothing.
I: Talk a little bit about the cremains that were dumped, cuz the dogs were getting a scent, weren’t they?

lynda said...


S: Right, unbeknownst to us, while we were doing our gridsearch, someone came in and wanted to deposit cremains of a loved one at that site. I’m assuming it’s a favorite site of their loved one and without thinking they deposit these cremains not realizing they were in the middle of a crime scene , what it would do. Within a couple a days our dogs are telling us we need to spend more time up at the reservoir so we dove it for 2 or 3 more days and put sidescan sonar and then we found out from one of our PL rangers that they stopped this individual coming out and were informed that they had deposited their cremains in the reservoir.
I: So if Deorr had been in the reservoir, his remains would have been discovered by now?
S: We believe so, yeah we really believe so (at this time, the deputy sitting beside sheriff seems to say the same thing as the sheriff but it is mumbled and unintelligible.)
I: The store, did the family go down to the store in Ledore and was there any survellience captured of this boy?
S: Uh, I don’t believe they have any survellience but uh, we have a uh, a receipt that we documented that they purchased certain items, they were on the receipt, the time was stamped on the receipt sooo we believe, ya know, that’s where they went.
I: And that was Friday morning?
S: Yes it was.
I: Do you know if they stopped anywhere else on their way to camp?
Sheriff is shaking his head no, and then Deputy jumps in with…
“ Yeah, they stopped to get diesel fuel.”
I: Were there survellience video at that gas station ?
Deputy: No
Sheriff : I’d be surprised if there’s a camera anywheres in Leador.(Chuckles) Deputy chuckles also ) It’s a real small community.
I: Okay, as far as the PI told us a few days ago, that Jessica said there was an older gentleman staring at Deorr, have you heard anything about that?
S: Just the report, I don’t know that we’ve confirmed who that individual is , but uh, ya know, if we had to go out and look for everybody that stared at you personally, or anybody, for any uh, type of crime, ya know, it’d be a pretty difficult undertaking to check those stories out, but ya know um,….yes, we have heard that information.

lynda said...


I: How much of that area was searched, I mean you guys searched for 2-3 weeks before you scaled back
S: Shaking his head yes…”Yeah, absolutely.” At this time Sheriff looks at Deputy and there is about 5 seconds of silence and Sheriff puts his hands slightly up, palms out, like telling the deputy to take over the question. The deputy doesn’t say anything for a second and then says,
“Almost, almost a 3 mile radius”
I: With no sign?
S: Absolutely not.
I: Do you believe it was an abduction?
S: Ya know personally, I think an abduction is one of the least likely events, primarily uh, the information we have is GF is watching the child, he tells me he looks away momentarily and when he looks back he’s gone and he’s assumed hes gone over the bank .Right where GF is sitting, he’s within 20-30 yards of the only roadway into the campground and absolutely no one was seen at that lower campground coming or going, and when my personnel went in, no one was seen leaving. So I think its ya know, I mean I can’t completely rule it out but its one of the least likely things that occurred. (Interestingly, this is the first time that Sheriff makes continued eye contact with Interviewer and his voice is firmer, stronger.)
I: What can you say about Mr. Reinwald?
S: Uh, at this point, he’s a still cooperating, um, um, ya know, I’m not getting any uh, 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, 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.
I: How about the parents, and the GF?
S: Ya know, I think all 3,a those 3 , have been very cooperative, uh, they’ve given us everything we’ve asked for and , and, I feel real good about the parents and uh, the GF.also
I: The FBI, so have they taken over, or I guess they are working with you?
S: Their working with us, we’ve given them uh, lots of items uh to uh, to analyze uh, behaviorally and uh, we’ve given em some physical evidence, I, I can’t go into those details but we’re basically uh trying to cover all of our bases and we’re looking for any clue whatsever that will help us resolve this
I: Can you tell us how Isaac ended up being on this trip

lynda said...


S: Yeah…ah…I hate to go into to many details uh, I mean, obviously there’s a relationship between him and grandpa ya know, um, ya know, their friends, uh, but prior to that trip he had never met mom or dad.
I: The family says their vehicles and cars were searched which sounds like in any case, that would be standard procedure..
S: Ya know, even tho we searched them that night, ya know, ya always second guessed it, did we miss something, could he have been in another compartment? Did we not search everything, yeah so, everything’s been searched at least a couple times, if not, not more.
I: How have you guys been handling this as a dept? That’s a lot of manpower and hours and I’m sure a little bit of frustration trying to find this kid.
S: Oh it’s definitely been a challenge eh, we’ve got some fabulous volunteers, our search and rescue is second to none. And uh, they’ve been overwhelmed by this, we’ve uh, had some issues on ah, on stress that we’ve had to deal with and our office is a,,, my chief deputy has spent endless hours up there, he’s climbed literally up to the top of some of the peaks up there, he’s walked into some of the old uh, dens of some of the animals that live in those areas, and he’s been frantically searching for a clue and uh, it’s been overwhelming, I mean, there’s been days where I’ve been the only patrolman on the road because all my personnel are up there workin it to see…
I: Have you ruled out wild animals? I mean, has anything been ruled out?
S: Nothin!, Ah…absolutely nothing has been ruled out….Deputy interrupts the sheriff now, he is mumbling and difficult to hear..
Deputy: There coulda been some interference from some, ya know, a predator, at some time in the scenario , in the beginning, or part way thru, you don’t know.
S: We had bears and wolves running literally thru camp while we were searching. Absolutely.
I: And there’s wolf dens right?
S: Well, some old ones, we haven’t found any fresh dens, but ah, just over the top of the divide there is Persimoni? And we’ve understood they’ve had some issues over there with some wolves and they’ve uh, taken out, uh , some of the wolves to take care of the problem.So.
I: Where do you guys go from here?
S: Well, we wait until we get our report from the FBI, that’s going to be critical. To identify a 2 ½ year old with blond hair, I..I…Im not sure that’s a positive, ah, ah, thing for our office because every 2 ½ year old with blond hair (chuckles) looks like Deorr. And so I’ m askin the public if they know the family and they didn’t have a 2 ½ year old prior to this time period, that’s one I want to look at closely, but if, if its somebody they don’t know to contact their local law enforcement and have them follow up for us because it’s just so overwhelming for our small office.

lynda said...


I: Have you guys just been bombarded with tips?
S: Absolutely, absolutely.
There is an obvious edit and cut here in the video
I: What are your thoughts on the PI, I guess that just something the family is doing on their own..
S: Yep, Yep, totally ah goin…ah..kudos to them for, ya know, lookin for more help um …I can only do so much uh, maybe he can turn up something that we’ve missed ah, but I think he primarily thinks its an abduction and I..I..think that’s very remote.
I: As far as the lie detector test, you said you couldn’t say much about?
S: ah..yeah..ya know, I.. they’ve all, all 4 have taken,voluntarily taken polygraphs and right now that, those have been turned over to the FBI along with the statements and I would prefer to have them look at the reports and look at the evaluations on the polygraph to make sure we’re looking at everything correctly and we didn’t miss anything
I: At this point would you be comfortable saying something criminal happened?
S: at all.


Anonymous said...

wow those Bell brothers are guilty as can be.

I bet the FBI agent dad got the surveillance footage doctored to look like it happened at a different time of day then it did, get the right timing - those boys did it.

so sad the family has been stonewalled like this!!!! justice is not being served. good luck to them so sorry such a sad murder.

ima.grandma said...

Nice job lynda

John Mc Gowan said...

Juliet said...

John - on the body language, at certain points in the interview Jessica starts rocking her foot, or moving it circularly, I don't know which without watching again. Does that indicate anything - any sensitivity or stress going on at the points at which she foot fidgets, or is she just impatient to be out of there, maybe?


Note what is said or asked to elicit the change in the "baseline". Baseline is paramount.
Jessica may have cramp in her foot. There are numerous possibilities for her to "rock her foot, circulate etc"


Because someone crosses their arms, it doesn't necessary mean they are closed off, or defensive. They may be cold, or , it maybe how they feel comfortable.

Observe their baseline.

John Mc Gowan said...

From my FB feed

Don Cissell Sr shared Lisa Irwin-Footprints in the Sand's photo to the group: Take a pause for the missing and amber alerts.
8 mins ·

Lisa Irwin-Footprints in the Sand
Someone knows where this precious little girl is... speak up for her!

Haleigh Ann-Marie Cummings has been missing since 2009, yesterday was her 12th Birthday. Happy Birthday Sweetheart... where ever you are.

Five-year-old Haleigh was last seen sleeping in her family's trailer on February 9, 2009 in the area of Hermit's Cove in Satsuma, Florida.

Haleigh's case remains unsolved.She has a genetic disorder called Turner's Syndrome and requires hormone treatments & monthly visits to a cardiologist and endocrinologist. She may be in need of medical attention.

She has a left lazy eye, pierced ears, red highlights in her hair, a round birthmark on the lower left side of her back which is about 4 inches in size and brown birthmarks on her left cheek and right jawline.

Haleigh's nickname is Haleigh Bug and she is short for her age.

ANYONE HAVING INFORMATION SHOULD CONTACT the NCMEC at1-800-843-5678 or the Putnam County Sheriff's Office (‪#‎Florida‬) at 1-386-329-0801

Juliet said...

John, thanks - I'll have to take another look and see what was being said at the times she was moving her foot.I think my problem is that I want everything to be a clue, whether it is or not. :)

Lynda - thanks for making the transcript, and commentary - very good work. It's strange how different the spoken word appears once it's on the page, even though it is the same. Endlessly fascinating. :)

John Mc Gowan said...

Thank you, Lynda, for the transcription!

ima.grandma said...


JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The mother of a missing Jacksonville toddler has been arrested, deputies said late Tuesday.
Lonzie Barton, Lonna Lauramore’s 21-month-old son, was reported missing July 24.
Lauramore was charged with child neglect and giving false information to law enforcement. The case has turned into a homicide investigation.
The child was in the care of Lauramore’s boyfriend, William Ruben Ebron, the night he disappeared.

"Part of these charges are the fact that Lonna is a liar," said Jacksonville Sheriff's Office Chief Tom Hackney.
Hackney said Lauramore was neglectful after learning about an unexplained bruise on Lonzie's head, and without finding out how it happened, still left him in Ebron's care.
"She left Lonzie and her 5-year-old in the care, and custody, control of someone who may have done something to hurt the child, and then went to work at Wackos," said Hackney.

Bethany said...


Mother of missing Jacksonville toddler arrested Tuesday (8/18)

The mother of 21-month-old Lonzie Barton was arrested late Tuesday on two separate charges as police continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the July 24 disappearance of her son.
Lonna Lauramore was charged with child neglect and giving false information to law enforcement investigating a missing person under the age of 16 years old, Chief Tom Hackney said.

He said the charges are not directly related to the disappearance of Lonzie but they help to build the case against her boyfriend, 32-year-old William Ruben Ebron Jr.

Ebron was arraigned Monday on charges of felony child neglect and giving police false information.

Even if he posts bail, Ebron is on hold for Baker County where he faces drug charges and would be detained without bail.

Hackney said Lauramore lied to authorities about knowing Ebron the night her son was reported missing and by not telling investigators everything she knew, it interfered with the early stages of the investigation.

“I’m not going to try to put myself in her head,” Hackney said of why Lauramore wasn’t telling the truth. “Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be there [in her head].”

Ebron reported the child missing along with his car July 24 about 2:20 a.m.

The car was found a short time later but Lonzie has not been located.

The investigators’ biggest publicly shared breakthrough in the case that began in the early morning hours of July 24 was the discovery of a home surveillance video.

The grainy images found more than a week after the 21-month-old toddler disappeared show what appears to be Ebron’s distinctive Honda speeding past the camera and then minutes later a man described as Ebron running the other way toward his apartment. It was the same night he reported the vehicle stolen with Lonzie in it.

“They better look out, we are putting a case together,” Chief Tom Hackney said Tuesday about Lauramore and Ebron.

Hackney said Lauramore was aware that Ebron kept, sold and used narcotics in a bedroom in their apartment yet she knowingly let him watch both of her young children while she was working at Wackos, a club on Emerson Street.

Hackney also said Lauramore and Ebron would frequently bring Lonzie with them to make drug transactions.

Investigators learned Lauramore and Ebron got into a heated argument the afternoon before she left Lonzie in his custody because of a bruise on the back of the child’s head, behind his ear, Hackney said.

He said there was also a yellow fluid coming from Lonzie’s ears and he was lethargic and throwing up but she still left the 21-month-old and her 5-year-old daughter with Ebron despite the fact that her boyfriend possibly hurt the young boy.

Lauramore was booked into the Duval County jail Tuesday night.

Times-Union writer Phillip Heilman contributed to this report.

Joe Daraskevich: (904) 359-4308

Anonymous said...

The new info in the post above mine is not good news. Yellow fluid, lethargic, throwing up.....I'm afraid Lonzie died.

Juliet said...

Trustmeigetit - re 'greasy grandpa', for a moment there I was wondering what you knew about those French fries which I didn't know. :)

Atlchanel said...

Lonna tried to deny knowing Ebron when the police first confronted her after the disappearance. She knew the baby was dead then. Why else would she try to distance herself?

Atlchanel said...

The poor baby was probably suffering a major headache and nausea. How do you leave your baby in that condition to suffer without medical treatment? She is not a mother.

Juliet said...

Re DeOrr - of some interest has to be why, at the beginning, everyone was left thinking they all arrived at the campsite, and were setting up camp, on the Friday, when DeOrr disappeared. It was not until grandma went onto local news 8 Facebook news story and commented that it was on the Thursday they arrived, that this was known. So, was the story spun that way by the parents, was it a deliberate misleading to have people not think about the possibility that DeOrr vanished much earlier - can we know that he did not disappear sometime on the Thursday, but was not reported missing until the Friday?

I may be being more than a bit dense here, but I do not get it clearly from the Sherrif that the following did not all happen on the Thursday, or what time lapse might be represented by 'eventually'.

'I - Let’s go back to the beginning, can you kind of give us a timeline as to when the family arrived and what proceeded.
S: Well the family, from what I understand, that we learned during the investigation, arrived the evening prior to July 10th sometime uh, fairly close to dark on Thursday, July 9th. And then uh, they went to uh, went to town in Leodore and upon returning they supposedly they thought they were turning their child over to their GF, the child’s GGF, they went down to the crick which is right next to the campground and within 10-15 minutes they go up to find their child to show him some fish in the stream and he’s nowhere to be found and GF assumes he’s gone down to them because he was within their line of sight and uh, wasn’t to far from the campground. They started their initial search and eventually called 911 when they realized they oculdn’t find their child.'

They arrived very close to dark, and 'then' they went to town in Leadore, and when they returned all the other events occurred. He does not say it was the next morning that they went into town, but 'then'. I think I would've mentioned that they then turned in for the night, or that it was the next day they went into town. That's what I expected to hear, anyway, as he was asked for a timeline of events and puts them so closely together it sounds as if the night did not happen. Maybe he was just highlighting in quick succession the main points, but the 'thens' make me curious, because 'then' is usually what happened right next, rather than what happened the next day? If I was meaning the next day, I might say 'then, the next day', but not just 'then' to mean the next day because it's just not 'then' - it's the next day. I wonder if anyone else agrees with my thought on that, or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

Juliet said...

Or rather, not that the night did not happen, more that all he mentioned there happened that night - because he does not say night occurred between the event of arriving and them going into town.

Sus said...

Lonna denied knowing the man caring for her children. That is enough distancing to say it all.

The poor little boy had a bruise behind his ear, yellow fluid coming out of his ears, and was lethargic. And she left him. My God! That's brain fluid. He probably went into seizures soon after.

He can't be hidden that far away.

Tania Cadogan said...

Investigators learned Lauramore and Ebron got into a heated argument the afternoon before she left Lonzie in his custody because of a bruise on the back of the child’s head, behind his ear, Hackney said.

He said there was also a yellow fluid coming from Lonzie’s ears and he was lethargic and throwing up but she still left the 21-month-old and her 5-year-old daughter with Ebron despite the fact that her boyfriend possibly hurt the young boy.

This speaks to a severe head injury, in particular A SKULL FRACTURE

Skull fracture

If a person has a head wound, be alert for a possible skull fracture. An affected person may have impaired consciousness.

A skull fracture is serious because there is a risk that the brain may be damaged either directly by fractured bone from the skull or by bleeding inside the skull. Clear fluid (cerebrospinal fluid) or watery blood leaking from the ear or nose are signs of serious injury.

Suspect a skull fracture in any person who has received a head injury resulting in impaired consciousness. Bear in mind that a person with a possible skull fracture may also have a neck (spinal) injury and should be treated accordingly.

Wound or bruise on the head.
Soft area or depression on the scalp.
Bruising or swelling behind one ear.
Bruising around one or both eyes.
Clear fluid or watery blood coming from the nose or an ear.
Blood in the white of the eye.
Distortion or lack of symmetry of the head or face.
Progressive deterioration in the level of response.

If it was accidental, why would they need to cover it up?
This speaks then to deliberate injury.
The fact he was removed from the house and abduction claimed when the video shows the father driving his car along a street and then running back along the same street.
I would love to know how he explained that away.

I suspect the little boy was battered and died of his injuries, if not immediately then not long after.
That the mom mentioned a bruise and a discharge from his ear shows he was still alive after the abuse and succumbed to his injuries.
That she did not seek treatment makes her just as guilty of murder as the one who battered Lonzie.

Sus said...

OT ima.grandma,
One of the anons over on the long Deorr thread is worried about how I gave you a bad transcription. I did. I missed copying in a part. Anon and I disagree about a "to" and an "and", though. I hear "and." He/she/it hears "to." You can check the 100% correct version out on that thread.

I apologize to you for not checking for accuracy before I commented. I didn't like how he/she/it spoke to you, and I jumped in. Lesson learned. There are some snippy posters on here lately. :-)

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Juliet @ 10:22 a.m. It was skimmed over for several weeks that Miz Clegg said the parents had arrived at the campsite the day before on Thursday evening at around 9:30 p.m., not Friday morning. I kept coming back to what she said, she being Jessica's mother and little DeOrr's grandmother, and felt that if anyone would know when they arrived, it would be her. Everyone else ignored it.

Now we find this is actually when they arrived. I'd also lay money on it that it WAS daddy DeOrr AND little DeOrr down at the store earlier ON THURSDAY EVENING with the baby pitching a screaming hysterical fit, filthy dirty, and daddy trying to calm him down by buying him candy.

I have never felt that the store clerk made up this story, only in the transposing of when it actually happened was mistakenly stated or either lied too by daddy DeOrr. Let's face it, how many fitting their description AND driving a black truck just like daddy DeOrrs could there be in that neck of the woods? Only one.

Further, I question that THIS evening is likely the time when baby DeOrr met his untimely death and that it happened with his daddy flying into an angry rage and beating the life out of the little fellow. Daddy had all night to get the hell outta dodge and dispose of the child; OR the parents might have tried to cajole, console and save his life during the night but he died anyway. IMO, this little boy will not be found anywhere near the campgrounds. Even if the "accident" didn't happen until the next morning, they still had hours and hours to dispose of him.

Whatever the case, IMO, they conspired to make up this disappearing act and so far have gotten away with it for more than five weeks now. This couple has lied and lied and lied, the first lie being that they got to the campgrounds on Friday morning. LIARS! Until I hear differently this is my belief.

Bethany said...

I'm just going to say (type) it.

You know you are a heartless piece of crap when you can let your boyfriend beat your baby, see that he is slipping away and needs medical attention, go to work at some trashy strip joint anyway bending over all night for men, and letting him get rid of your sons body and then cover for him and yourself saying you don't know him.

This makes me rage.
I have a son Lonies age and one that will be 13 in October.
I can't imagine NOT protecting them from anything and anyone.

lynda said...

Juliet...I noticed that to about the sheriff talking and running on to make it seem like it was thursday NIGHT everything hit the fan.

Did you also notice later on when asked about the cars being searched he said they were searched "that night', leakage or did they actually not search the cars until Friday NIGHT....hours AFTER they started searching. That would be incredibly shoddy police work if that is true.

Sus said...

The search did not begin in earnest until Friday evening. That's how long it took all search personnel to assemble. If you read Brennon Birch's (Jessica's ex) timeline, he is gathering together volunteers and just gotten off the phone with search and rescue at around 1:45 am Saturday.

The sheriff gave the bare skeletons of this case, and wasn't about to give away any more to the public.

My guess now is that there is much we do not know about Isaac Reinwand's behavior at that campsite.

I would like to see an analysis of the parents language in view of what the sheriff has revealed about Isaac R ...and ggp.

MzOpinion8d said...

Just FYI, in the first clip of the article it refers to Bob "Bates" - an error - it has been corrected to Bob Walton which is the correct name for Jessica's grandfather.

trustmeigetit said...

Some snippets on the Lonzie case posted a few hours ago

William Ruben Ebron Jr was arraigned Monday on charges of felony child neglect and giving police false information and plead not guilty.
It was requested that any source of any bail money that Ebron tries to use be investigated and reviewed in a court hearing. Bail money cannot come from an illegal source, and Ebron has said he is not employed, Mantei said. Ebron has also attempted to sell his story by only granting interviews if he is paid for them.


Lonna Lauramore Barton, 25, faced a judge Wednesday afternoon.
Her arrest on two counts was announced late Tuesday night by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
Lauramore, 25, is charged with one count of child neglect and one count of giving false information to law enforcement after lying to investigators and allowing "unsecured" drugs in the presence of her children, Chief of Investigations Tom Hackney said.

Atlchanel said...

Secret recordings between Lonna Lauramore and a friend concerning Lonzies disappearance have been turned into news4jax

trustmeigetit said...

Are they sharing?

Atlchanel said...

Yes, there are transcripts on their website.

Juliet said...

Anon at 3.42 - yes, I largely agree, though I can't find any reason to think DeOrr beat, or otherwise deliberately harmed his baby. Can you find any indication of that, any leakage for it, in any of the words he has spoken? I can't, but he doesn't say much about little DeOrr, and when he does, he mentions tripping. I think there is likely to be some truth in some of their accounts, but it's so difficult. The grandfather being in shock makes me believe he either was witness to, or discovered something terrible. I don't think he, or Isaac would be willing or have reason to cover up for DeOrr if he had beaten his son to death. Grandpa isn't DeOrr Sr's grandfather, and Isaac was apparently a stranger - why involve himself, or themselves, in a cover up of a repulsive crime if there were not somehow, somewhere along the line, shared responsibility for whatever has happened to DeOrr?

I also believe the six o clock sighting happened, and wonder what preceded it for him to be filthy at that stage. He wouldn't be filthy if he'd just been sat in the car travelling all day, a bit sticky and grubby perhaps, but not filthy. Maybe they'd already been at the campsite a while before then, to enable him to get into such a mess. Or maybe the store clerk exaggerated somewhat - always a possibility, a missing child, gossip, things might have become embellished, and he may just have been a bit grubby and grizzly. I would be so surprised were it to turn out that DeOrr had harmed his baby, and that they all would be willing to not call 911, and just to lie about everything, and try to cover it up - I can't see how any of that might work, or how that could be to anyone's advantage, except DeOrr's. They would just turn him in, and be glad to do that, surely?

Lynda - I'm pleased you thought that, too, I'm pretty convinced now that DeOrr disappeared on Thursday - he could be anywhere and never found, so sad for everyone.
I don't know what to think about the cars being searched 'that night' - I'd like to be able to take a Sherrif at his word, but on this occasion I can see how it might be better not to. :).

Anonymous said...

Juliet, there isn't much to 'think about' in re the cars being searched that night. What's the problem? It's pretty clear, simple really: 911 wasn't called until Friday afternoon, no one even knew little DeOrr was missing prior to this 911 call by both parents ON FRIDAY; therefore, it would have been impossible for any searches of the automobiles to have taken place PRIOR to late Friday afternoon or evening.

I am losing faith, however, in any explanations being made by the sheriff as he does not weight his words prior to speaking them. He leaves a lot of doubt in statements he makes by not being more thorough in making his comments. He's another one who causes one to have to try to untangle what he said vs. what he meant. IMO, he is not much help to the case.

Anonymous said...


Mark Redwine (finally) named a person of interest in his son's death.

Sus said...

OT Deorr
Would someone please help me sort upstream and downstream?

Which is the closest to the reservoir? I think upstream is considered toward the reservoir? The water flows into the creek from the reservoir? Do I have that right?

Sus said...

OT Deorr
Looking at how the sheriff sees the family:

"I think" leaves room for others to think differently.

Rather than answering with "they", he chooses to emphasize them with "all". The "all" weakens the three. Someone is singled out for him.

He then distances the three with "those."

He weakens "cooperative" by saying "very cooperative."

"They've given us everything we've asked for.."
There is something about this statement that sits with me wrong. I'm not sure what. Maybe it's that the parents should be begging the sheriff for help. Deorr is their missing child. Maybe it's because it sounds more like a criminal investigation and the family are witnesses, well poi. Maybe it's because "everything we've asked for" is just above and beyond.

"so I feel real good about the parents.."
SO indicates sensitivity about his next statement, which is feeling good about the parents. Not only good, but REAL good, which weakens it. And why does he feel real good about them? Because they've given them everything they've asked for...maybe he feels they haven't.

Notice the parents have given "us", then the sheriff changes to "I". He might feel they are holding back.

The great grandfather is added, separated in the sheriff's mind now. With much stumbling and an "also." , "and uh, the grandfather, also."

Juliet said...

8.08 anon. - late afternoon or evening is not night. The Sherrif said the cars were searched that night. He did not say that day, that afternoon, later afternoon, early evening or evening, he said 'that night''. I do not disbelieve him or question that he knows day, afternoon and evening from night. SAR were there mid afternoon, according to DeOrr, I doubt the police would have been very far behind them, much less have left it until nightfall. Even grandma Clegg was there before five, and she travelled two to two and half hours - I bet search and rescue and the Sherrif were able to arrive well before the grandma. I would imagine the vehicles would have been searched almost immediately. The Sherrif says they were searched that night. I don't disbelieve him, but I find that strange - I would expect the vehicles to be searched upon arrival, because that's what they do when a little child goes missing - FIRST rule out the obvious. Perhaps,he meant the vehicles were searched more thoroughly that night, just to check they hadn't missed anything, another compartment, or something. I don't know, it just seems strange he either said it that way, or it was edited in that way, so that he could be misunderstood, and the impression created that he might have meant the Thursday night, when 911 was not called until Friday afternoon. It's just odd, and could do with some clarification.

trustmeigetit said...

I knew it was him.

Not if only we can get past this. So many other guilty parents were a POI yet years later are walking free.

trustmeigetit said...

So if Police were at the camp site from that afternoon to did dad leave with the child at 6.

They called 911 around 2:30. They would get there about 3 and then there needs to be plans made on how, where to search.

No way this was wrapped up by 6pm where dad could just leave.

That's why I think that sighting is a mistake.

The search efforts for things like this go on for hours. I don't see how they searched 3 hours and then everyone just left.

And at 6pm would still be day light. So they could still be searching.

I just don't see dad being able to leave a scene like that.

Juliet said...

Trustmeigetit - The thinking is that the store sighting took place on the Thursday, and that they arrived in Leadore some hours earlier than grandma Clegg said (when she was trying to straighten out 'the story,, as she put it, in Facebook comments on local news 8 page, now deleted, though posted here in an earlier DeOrr thread). She said they arrived around 9.30 but DeOrr was seen at the store with little DeOrr in the truck, at six, so DeOrr Sr was in Leadore then, with the baby.

lynda said...

The thing that amazes me about the 6PM sighting is that no one is talking about it and it only makes sense that it was Thursday at 6PM, not Friday, but zip? That crappy reporter guy doesn't think to ask, "So hey, it was Thursday at 6 you were spotted not Friday, so why did you immediately muddy the waters in your interview saying that woman had the time wrong, and then totally avoiding the question by rambling about your "Black truck" That is just out and out deception and no one has called them out? I don't get it.'

I did notice tho

I: What can you say about Mr. Reinwald?
S: Uh, at this point, he’s a still cooperating, um, um, ya know, I’m not getting any uh, 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, 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.

Sheriff uses the term "VERY TRUTHFUL" 2 times in 2 sentences. Granted, the second sentence is a rambling one.

So all of you...does the fact that he qualified truthful with "VERY" weaken the statement? And the fact that he uses the same phrase 2 times in 2 sentences make Mr. Reinwald's "truthfulness" sensitive?

lynda said...

Forgot to add that the word "Truthful" is said 3 times, only preceded by "VERY" 2 times. That's alot of "Truthful" in a couple sentences, right?

Sus said...

Yes, it weakens it. I wote about it on the loooong post about Deorr. There is also the embedded, "he's not being truthful."

Notice how the sheriff uses "I" when speaking about IR, but changes to "we" to "find a piece of evidence or locate anything". The sheriff is dealing with IR while the sheriff's staff is looking. This is probably due to IR's personality and how he relates to older men as father figures. Same reason the sheriff said he appreciates his help.

Look at the "still" cooperating. The sheriff knows IR may clam up at any point. He also knows and mentioned before how IR's arrest and court records don't match.

IR is lying, the sheriff knows it. He is keeping him cooperative and talking.

Buckley said...

IR is lying, but it's someone else's lie.

This is what's surprising about the car search, if we can get beyond when it was:

I: The family says their vehicles and cars were searched which sounds like in any case, that would be standard procedure..
S: Ya know, even tho we searched them that night, ya know, ya always second guessed it, did we miss something, could he have been in another compartment? Did we not search everything, yeah so, everything’s been searched at least a couple times, if not, not more.

First, notice he says "them" for cars.

But the main thing- A month after Deorr went missing, the sheriff went outside the specific question asked, told us he still has doubts, that Deorr might have been in a *compartment * in the car (/truck), he can't be certain. If that doesn't tell us he suspects Deorr's body was hidden and removed...

And..."another compartment"???

Sus said...

That is very observant, Buckley. It went right over my head. Could you please tell me why you are pointing out "they"? There were three family vehicles at the campsite - Deorr Sr's truck, ggp's Suburban, and ggp's camper.

Buckley said...

Ah- did not know about the suburban and camper.

Buckley said...

I...I did not know ;)

Sus said...

I know. Coffee dims the memory cells like that, while vodka fires new neurons. You might consider switching. :-)

Juliet said...

They may have thought it unnecessary to check the vehicles, if SAR had arrived first, and already done it, and only decided to search them when it became clear little DeOrr was not in the area, and there was no sign that he had been. That wouldn't have been before nightfall, so It's quite possible the Sherrif found no cause to search the vehicles before then. If I'd been them, I would have been straight in there, and not satisfied unless and until I had checked the vehicles out for myself, too, but I'm not them. It's still strange though, that it sounds as if it all happened on the Thursday.

Buckley, - I think the compartment sentence is especially interesting, also for the second-guessing, possibilities of whom by whom, or does he just mean hindsight's a wonderful thing? - I don't know. ;)

Anonymous said...

Juliet, you keep raising the question concerning WHEN the automobiles were searched, over and over, and repeatedly you have been answered by several posters that it was on FRIDAY NIGHT, that it could NOT have been done on Thursday night since 911 wasn't even called until Friday afternoon.

Why can't you just ACCEPT it, the autos were searched on FRIDAY, whether late afternoon, early evening, or during the night. That should satisfy your question once and for all. If it doesn't, why don't you just google the sheriff, get his phone # and call him up and ask him? Maybe THEN you can put it to rest. What difference does it make anyhow?

Juliet said...

Anon at 2.56 - I sometimes find my own, and others' repetitive questions tedious, too, but ''question everything' works better for me than 'just accept it'. I'd rather read twenty questions than be told I should just accept something, and don't see how being repeatedly told something can somehow cause it to be true. How does that work? When the Sheriff was interviewed by Nate Eaton, I heard some,things I did not expect to hear, and in Statement Analysis one is meant to take note of the unexpected, which is what I did.

Obviously, it would make a significant difference if the vehicles had in fact been searched on the Thursday night, in view of the Friday afternoon 911 calls reporting that baby DeOrr could not be found. The Sheriff's words left me with the impression that he had been led to believe by the parents that DeOrr had disappeared on Thursday night, and also that he and others had searched the vehicles on that night, but later worried in case their search might not have been thorough enough, and if there might have been in one of the vehicles another compartment in which the baby might have been. If the impression is correct, then the implications would be more than a little discomfiting, yes, but that doesn't give me leave to not think about it any further - 'question everything'. It's particularly difficult to keep thinking about it because it's the Sheriff saying these unexpected things. If I phoned the sheriff, and the vehicles had been searched on the Thursday night, do you think he would be very happy or likely to confirm that? It's probably the middle of the night over there now, anyway, plus he's probably sick of tips. :-D.

At least one other person heard it in the same way. I am not saying either of us are not mistaken in what we think we heard. If you had read my other post you would see I had considered it feasible that the vehicles were searched on the Friday night, but it is still seems only barely feasible, as it's difficult to imagine LE would not have taken it upon themselves to have searched those vehicles some hours earlier, and again before nightfall, one, the other, anyone, one last time. They were looking for a tiny defenceless two year old; they would all be frantically searching, checking everywhere again and again, just in case, in the hope of finding him before the night fell. I can't imagine it otherwise, but I don't know, I wasn't there. That's why I 'can't ' just accept it'. I would like to be sure of the sequence of events, but to date there doesn't appear to be a decipherable timeline.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I have read every post you've made concerning when the vehicles were searched, Juliet, back and forth, back and forth; they have been numerous. Over and over you keep coming right back to this same pesky question. You have asked it in every way you can think of to ask.

Like you think it's going to make a difference in the big picture? Like you are the prosecutor getting ready to file charges, or you are a Philadelphia lawyer preparing for your defense? Be reasonable, Juliet! Enough already.

However, since you are intent on belaboring this issue to the point of madness; let me ask YOU this: What more do you expect any of us to say when we have all read the same statements you have. What more do you expect US to know that you don't already know? I mean, WHY keep hounding everyone about it over and over when we don't know anymore about it than you do! Same as you, we know ONLY what we are told.

NOW, if you can't accept the only answers and statements the public has been given; like I suggested, call up the sheriff and ASK him! he he... I'd just LOVE to be on the other end of that call.... go ahead. do it.

Anonymous said...

Sorry. Forgot to identify myself...."ABB"

Juliet said...

ABB - I don't think you are getting this - if I did decide to call anyone, it would not be the Sheriff. :)

Anonymous said...

Oh hell Juliet; there isn't anything you have said that I didn't get. It is YOU who doesn't get it, or refuses to get it.

I suggested you call the sheriff PERSONALLY, then maybe you can get it straight from the horses' mouth since you won't accept it any other way. Course, I doubt you'd ever be able to get through to him, or anyone else... WhatEVAH! - ABB

Bethany said...

How could they (LE) have searched the vehicles on Thursday night if the 911 call was made Friday at 2:36?
(Scratches head)

Anonymous said...

Several of us have already tried to make this point to Juliet a few times, Bethany. It doesn't seem to stick. Hate to tell you but it won't now either. ABB

Betty said...

In the ramblefest DeOrr Sr. gave he used the pronunciation of "crick". When I watched that video I thought it sounded unnatural and forced, as if he was trying to give off a good ol' boy image. In the above sheriff's statement he, too, says "crick". Is this common to that region or could DeOrr Sr. be mimicing the sheriff to create a bond between them. My lying, manipulative brother does that and since I think DeOrr Sr. is lying, I wouldn't put it past him to do it, too.

Anon "I" said...

When do sheriff's change shifts? They might call "night" 6pm when its still light if the night shift took over...

Anon "I"

lgjproduct said...

I am a bit confused about this part of the interview and the analysis: Florida Star: Why did you leave the car running with the children inside?
This is clearly a why question. However, the analysis that follows addresses those who give reasons why without being asked why. This seems to be contradictory?