ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #9

Status
Not open for further replies.
After I saw the edited video today, I was suspicious of IR because he lauded the other 3 as being cooperative and truthful. Then the reporter asked specifically about IR, and the sheriff said he felt IR was being "very truthful."

BUT, I just noticed in the unedited interview, the reporter asks about IR first! Did they purposely show that clip out of order, and if so, for what purpose?
Yes. It gave me a totally different feel in the unedited video. They talked about Isaac first.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
Does anyone have a link to GGP's photo? I can't find it, but when I looked at it I wondered how recent the picture had been taken. Honestly, it was not what I expected at all. I guess I expected to see some sign of physical or mental impairment. But honestly, he didn't look like a 74 (?) year old grandpa...he looked more like a Hell's Angel!
 
In the uncut version of the interview the Sheriff does indeed say, "They went down to the creek, which is right next to the campground". At the 0.39 sec mark.
[video=youtube;FV-h82eVQ1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M&list=PLHxHvR1OFyNDkpZrKmKgKJCsujxaoOlUU&index=1[/video]
 
Does anyone have a link to GGP's photo? I can't find it, but when I looked at it I wondered how recent the picture had been taken. Honestly, it was not what I expected at all. I guess I expected to see some sign of physical or mental impairment. But honestly, he didn't look like a 74 (?) year old grandpa...he looked more like a Hell's Angel!

I think you are thinking about the other grandfather; the one that wasn't camping.
 
2. He's 99% sure little Deorr WAS there.

I think that's a little more accurate, no?

I really don't see how he can say "any" percentage of being sure DeOrr WAS there...He's just taking everybody's words...HE wasn't there, no photos, as far as I know...

and I wonder...OK..so they have a store receipt that says they bought stuff at the store...Can anybody from the store confirm little DeOrr WAS THERE??? And if so, again, just people's words....

Argh is right!
 
If mom and dad were over the embankment they are upstream and the friend is downstream and DeOrr was seen possibly going over the bank, then SOMEONE had to have seen him. They were right there. So, if he didn't go over the bank, where is he?????
 
After I saw the edited video today, I was suspicious of IR because he lauded the other 3 as being cooperative and truthful. Then the reporter asked specifically about IR, and the sheriff said he felt IR was being "very truthful."

BUT, I just noticed in the unedited interview, the reporter asks about IR first! Did they purposely show that clip out of order, and if so, for what purpose?

I was just about to post the same thing. now WHY would EIN swop the sequence of those two comments around?
In the edited version they made it look as if the Sheriff spoke about the " 3 family members being good" THEN added almost as an after-thought about IR being truthful, as if he separated him from the "good" people. But in the unedited version, the only reason the Sheriff didnt mention IR in the same sentence as the family members, is because he had ALREADY mentioned IR first.

EIN deliberately mislead. Why? And then show the unedited version, to show how they edited the first version wrongly.

EIN seem to make a lot of shoddy mistakes. They aren't a reliable source, in my opinion. And whether it was done to put IR in a bad light or no, Im not sure. Maybe he did something, or maybe he's just a patsy. An easy target. Odd case, full of odd people, and, it seems, an agenda or cover-up by ALL the family closing ranks. Imo.
 
If mom and dad were over the embankment they are upstream and the friend is downstream and DeOrr was seen possibly going over the bank, then SOMEONE had to have seen him. They were right there. So, if he didn't go over the bank, where is he?????

That is the impression I got. IR and the parents should have been able to see each other, though yards away; therefore should have seen a tumbling 2 year old coming down. JMO
 
Kinda weird how at the very beginning of the interview, the sheriff says Deorr disappeared on Friday, July 10th, which we all know. But then when asked when they arrived, he said it was Thursday, June 9th (which we also know) when it was just starting to get dark outside. Then he says the family went to the store with Deorr...yet he was still talking about Thursday night, and made no attempt to clarify that the trip was actually made on Friday. Probably just an oversight.
 
That is the impression I got. IR and the parents should have been able to see each other, though yards away; therefore should have seen a tumbling 2 year old coming down. JMO

Not only that, but if you look at those pics I posted of what's down over that bank, had he fallen, he wouldn't have gone directly into the water, he probably would have been hurt and crying because he had really hurt himself.
 
Bumping for TheTruthWillOut

Thanks for the link. Interesting how the reporter labours the point about how difficult searching it is and about the divers doing their best.

The only reason I site the Alice Gross case is that the dogs kept going to the reservoir and then returning to camp before there was substantial people there and before the cremains incident (as far as I can tell?)
 
Was it a slip of the tongue when the sheriff called the site a crime scene?

I highly doubt it was. I mean the reality of the situation is, DeOrr went missing from that campsite while 4 people were there within yards of him. What else could it be called??
 
I was just about to post the same thing. now WHY would EIN swop the sequence of those two comments around?
In the edited version they made it look as if the Sheriff spoke about the " 3 family members being good" THEN added almost as an after-thought about IR being truthful, as if he separated him from the "good" people. But in the unedited version, the only reason the Sheriff didnt mention IR in the same sentence as the family members, is because he had ALREADY mentioned IR first.

EIN deliberately mislead. Why? And then show the unedited version, to show how they edited the first version wrongly.

EIN seem to make a lot of shoddy mistakes. They aren't a reliable source, in my opinion. And whether it was done to put IR in a bad light or no, Im not sure. Maybe he did something, or maybe he's just a patsy. An easy target. Odd case, full of odd people, and, it seems, an agenda or cover-up by ALL the family closing ranks. Imo.

Good point, why on earth would they have cut and swapped it round, now I've listened to the full version it was definitely a deliberately misleading thing to do. Who here was in touch with EIN, can this be asked? It's disgraceful behaviour and I want answers!!
 
Geez this far into the investigation and the LE and his deputy can't confirm one way or the other if there are cameras at the store or the gas station
 
Not only that, but if you look at those pics I posted of what's down over that bank, had he fallen, he wouldn't have gone directly into the water, he probably would have been hurt and crying because he had really hurt himself.

I am surprised that little De'orr could even manage to maneuver along the bank if the boots are as oversized as reports have made it sound like. Even in well fitting boots, a toddler would probably be clumsy in boots. Yet, apparently the boots did not fall off of him as he toddled on that terrain. That seems really strange to me.
 
<modsnip>

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&#8217;ve given us everything we ask for and I feel real good about the parents and the grandfather."

Ironically perhaps, when talking about the friend he used the truthful twice, while nodding his head yes.&#8220;I&#8217;m not getting any feeling that he&#8217;s not being truthful,&#8221; Bowerman said. &#8220;He&#8217;s come up to the area on a second occasion with me, and I think he&#8217;s been very truthful and I appreciate his help.&#8221;

&#8220;We&#8217;ve given the FBI lots of items to analyze behaviorally and we&#8217;ve given them some physical evidence.&#8221;

Hopefully, this will help rule people in or out and provide direction. I wonder if the 6 to 8 weeks waiting period is more to get results back from physical evidence testing more so then behavioral or reviewing polys?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
1,767
Total visitors
1,848

Forum statistics

Threads
594,150
Messages
17,999,672
Members
229,323
Latest member
Websleuth0000
Back
Top