ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #21

[Rayemonde]

16:55
TG: Okay. You did mention something earlier and I want to clear this up. You said something about a…a family, an older family that um…

17:03
SB: Yes, there’s the upper part of the reservoir, there was another family camped up there. They actually helped with the search on the first day and maybe even the second day and uh they uh disappeared before we got a chance to interview them but we were able to track them down. We talked to the law enforcement in their community and they helped us track them down and we uh chatted with them and we don’t feel like uh they were involved. It’s an older couple and they had some of their children come up and uh we’re fairly confident they never saw um the Kunz family, and we’re fairly confident they had nothing to do with uh the disappearance.

BBM. Wow. Looks like the parents were caught out in a lie... if the couple were there when the parents were supposed to be searching, but they never came across them, that's pretty incriminating imo.

Nice catch, Dek! I don't believe none of us made that connection before. IMO it's not just the polygraphs that have caused LE to publically name the parents as suspects, it's also inconsistencies like this that we don't know about that make LE so sure the parents are lying about what happened to DeOrr.

 

[Aurie]

You bring up an interesting idea about the older couple, dek; but I'm more curious about whether the other campers heard them, rather than saw them, if they were on the other side of the reservoir. If you were searching for your child, wouldn't you yell for them?

Is there enough info about the campgrounds to know if this would've been possible?

 

[DatelineFan]

The sarcasm is that I really am not confused, just pointing out "sarcastically/cynically" that it must be another fib that they had searched high and low for Deorr but didn't come across someone camping that close to them.

I know. Definitely a lie! And of course, I couldn't say this in the beginning, but it always gave me a bad feeling that they waited so long to call. If I were a parent and I couldn't find my toddler while camping, I would call immediately! I would much rather feel a little sheepish later, if I found my child before searchers arrived, than wait and risk the worst.

 

[persimmon]

I know. Definitely a lie! And of course, I couldn't say this in the beginning, but it always gave me a bad feeling that they waited so long to call. If I were a parent and I couldn't find my toddler while camping, I would call immediately! I would much rather feel a little sheepish later, if I found my child before searchers arrived, than wait and risk the worst.

It's a situation that warrants immediate action and look what you have to lose. The first few hours are the most critical so that delay always seemed very off to me. I would be filled with such despair if my child was missing that I would likely be rendered useless, but thankfully most of us will never have to experience that situation.

 

[gliving]

JM claims, per SB, that they returned at 1:10. Barring any other stops, they would have left the store about 12:30 p.m.

We also have this from the radio show:

18:30
TG: And when the parents went camping and, let’s see, the great grandfather and the friend. Did they have the appropriate camping gear to stay for those several days, do you think? Does that all pan out?

18:41
SB: You know one was in a camp trailer, one was in a tent, and the family was in the back of a motor vehicle, so…You know I’ve seen people camp like that, so that didn’t distress me. Food – they had food. They tried to buy other food, and then they went to the store the next morning, so yeah, I think …I don’t see any problem with that.

 

[giagreen]

I remember when we were waiting to hear back from the FBI. It was stated that the results would take about 6 weeks.

Does anyone recall exactly what we were waiting on as far as the results? I remember behavioral analysis being mentioned, and possibly more polygrams.

Anyone know if evidence was being processed in that time frame as well?

FWIW I often do not include links because I'm hearing impaired and have a difficult time with videos. Although in this case, it might be an article so I'll go look for it.

SB said that whatever they sent to FBI came back inconclusive. So I've always wondered if all they got is that inconclusive polygraph.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[sonjay]

Doing some research on the behavior of the parents of missing children and I found a very thorough case management guide. The following quote caught my attention:
As shown by Table 23, the polygraph was used 53 percent of the time to test
acquaintances of the victim, and 41 percent involved testing family members of
the victim. However, in 17 percent of the cases in which the polygraph was used,
an innocent person showed "deception" on the test. Interestingly, of those
innocent persons who showed "deception", 64 percent were family or friends of
the victim, the two groups most often polygraphed.
Table 23
Relationship To Victim Of Persons Pol~eraphed
Acquaintances of Victim 53%
Victim's Family Members 41%
Strangers 39%
Neighbors of Victim 14%
When two additional facts are considered, the polygraph issue becomes a
little more clouded: 1) The younger the victim, the less likelihood of the
polygraph being perceived by police as helping the investigation; and 2) The
younger the victim, the more likely the familylfriends of the victim will be polygraphed.

Just sharing this in case anybody finds its interesting or useful.

Here is the link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/pr/201316.pdf

That report is interesting.

But I'm having a little trouble with the section on polygraphs. If I'm reading this correctly, about 94% of the people that are polygraphed in missing children cases are family or friends of the victim. But 64% of the "false positives" for deception are family or friends. So it seems to me that the family & friends group are much less likely than others to have deception incorrectly indicated by a polygraph.

Also, the report didn't specifically address family members repeatedly failing the same critical questions across multiple polygraphs.

Also, the report didn't specifically address what deceptions the false positives related to. I.e., maybe people lied about things like what they were doing when their child went missing (doing drugs, fooling around with the mailman, etc.).

I'm going to take a WAG that the vast majority of the false positives didn't relate specifically to whether they know where the child is or what happened to him, and didn't happen over and over again on those same critical questions across multiple polygraphs.

 

[giagreen]

I agree and think at this point we are getting nowhere. This is why things get messy. In all honesty, I feel the parents are responsible but I cannot imagine a scenario wherein the other two individuals could not be at least complicit in a cover up. Nothing makes sense to me. I don't care how eldery, unhealthy, or odd they may be...they are in reality and they could not possibly have seen nothing to suggest the parents caused this. I'm willing to say it's impossible. Jmo but other theories are too out there to be believable and if they somehow were fooled they are still liars and willingly blind ones at that. There are more than two people who need to be 100% honest here.

I agree. I've personally never felt the parents where involved. But I could obviously be wrong. And if I am then I'm with ya on the other two who where there. I'm not buying IR is to slow and ggp to old. I could maybe give one a pass...but two is two many passes for me.


Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[sonjay]

SB said that whatever they sent to FBI came back inconclusive. So I've always wondered if all they got is that inconclusive polygraph.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

There were apparently a total of 9 polygraphs administered to the parents, and the parents repeatedly came up as "deceptive" on the questions relating to whether they know what happened to Deorr and whether they know where he is.

Which inconclusive polygraph are you referring to?

 

[EllieBee]

I agree. I've personally never felt the parents where involved. But I could obviously be wrong. And if I am then I'm with ya on the other two who where there. I'm not buying IR is to slow and ggp to old. I could maybe give one a pass...but two is two many passes for me.


Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

Yes, but only the parents have been named as actual SUSPECTS so we cannot discuss anyone else as a possible perp. (or can we, if they are named as POIs?)

Confused.....

 

[giagreen]

There were apparently a total of 9 polygraphs administered to the parents, and the parents repeatedly came up as "deceptive" on the questions relating to whether they know what happened to Deorr and whether they know where he is.

Which inconclusive polygraph are you referring to?

SB"Well, I can tell you that all four people have taken polygraphs.* I’m not willing to discuss um um the uh…the findings of those polygraphs at this point. Uh we’re um having some including the FBI look at the results just to give us uh their impression and uh, you know um those are difficult uh interviews and uh you know the polygraph uh experts uh, you know, sometimes they don’t agree, so…uh we’re looking at those real close and we’re doing a behavioral analysis based on their statements uh at the time of their interview."

*http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=286501

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[giagreen]

Yes, but only the parents have been named as actual SUSPECTS so we cannot discuss anyone else as a possible perp. (or can we, if they are named as POIs?)

Confused.....

I'm confused with you. [emoji844]

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[persimmon]

That report is interesting.

But I'm having a little trouble with the section on polygraphs. If I'm reading this correctly, about 94% of the people that are polygraphed in missing children cases are family or friends of the victim. But 64% of the "false positives" for deception are family or friends. So it seems to me that the family & friends group are much less likely than others to have deception incorrectly indicated by a polygraph.

Also, the report didn't specifically address family members repeatedly failing the same critical questions across multiple polygraphs.

Also, the report didn't specifically address what deceptions the false positives related to. I.e., maybe people lied about things like what they were doing when their child went missing (doing drugs, fooling around with the mailman, etc.).

I'm going to take a WAG that the vast majority of the false positives didn't relate specifically to whether they know where the child is or what happened to him, and didn't happen over and over again on those same critical questions across multiple polygraphs.

I read it the same as you, in that they are less likely overall to show deception. It would be helpful if they had provided more details about the polygraph false positives.
Overall, I have just been looking for pertinent research that might shed light for me since I feel we are at a standstill.

 

[persimmon]

I agree. I've personally never felt the parents where involved. But I could obviously be wrong. And if I am then I'm with ya on the other two who where there. I'm not buying IR is to slow and ggp to old. I could maybe give one a pass...but two is two many passes for me.


Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

If the parents are responsible, I simply cannot believe the other two either 1) are actively involved in their deception or 2) are playing dumb for a number of reasons. Playing dumb is complicit in my book and at this point I would think everybody could see that and wise up.

 

[giagreen]

If the parents are responsible, I simply cannot believe the other two either 1) are actively involved in their deception or 2) are playing dumb for a number of reasons. Playing dumb is complicit in my book and at this point I would think everybody could see that and wise up.

And I'd imagine that the questions where pretty straight forward like...did you see DeOrr physically okay and unharmed after they got back from the store? Something isn't adding up somewhere.
I also find it hard to beleive that they are playing dumb or actively involved. Doesn't make sense. But I also find it hard to beleive that both of them would be so blind not to see what's going on around them to the point a little boy could be killed and hiden.

It's true they are only poi so I will stop myself from saying anything more.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[Thor44]

I've been the lurkiest of lurkers for years. This case is driving me crazy and I'm interested in your thoughts on the following...

First, it is disturbing that LE and Klein are certain DeOrr is no longer alive but did not find blood. To me that indicates they have more than circumstantial evidence. I wonder if they found evidence of decomp or found entomology evidence in a car or other location. (Sorry.Sad.) Would dogs alert to that?

Second, if two different counties are represented by prosecutors in this case, doesn't that mean they believe crimes were committed in both counties? If so then he was either harmed before they arrived at the campsite which means he was probably never there alive, or something happened on their trip and they left in the middle of the night to hide him before returning.

 

[jmcgladr]

Just marking my spot! I was 3 threads behind, lotta catching up to do! [emoji51]

 

[The Apparition]

I've been the lurkiest of lurkers for years. This case is driving me crazy and I'm interested in your thoughts on the following...

First, it is disturbing that LE and Klein are certain DeOrr is no longer alive but did not find blood. To me that indicates they have more than circumstantial evidence. I wonder if they found evidence of decomp or found entomology evidence in a car or other location. (Sorry.Sad.) Would dogs alert to that?

Second, if two different counties are represented by prosecutors in this case, doesn't that mean they believe crimes were committed in both counties? If so then he was either harmed before they arrived at the campsite which means he was probably never there alive, or something happened on their trip and they left in the middle of the night to hide him before returning.

You have me beat I was just a plain lurker, seems like you've taken it to a whole "nother" level.

I know Klien said more items had been sent to the FBI for analysis, perhaps there is some physical evidence pending confirmation. Someone correct me if I am speaking out of school but I don't think anyone ever said there was no blood found, I don't know if they've confirmed hardly anything.

As to the 2 counties involved, at a minimum I think it has something to do with with where they are domiciled. I believe out of jurisdiction police always get local help when they are investigating residents of another jurisdiction. PURE SPECULATION but if there are concerns about how the toddler was treated while he was alive and there are possible charges in that direction I think they would have to be brought by local LE. One thing police always do is get every possible charge they can so that if some don't stick in court they still get some kind of conviction.

 

[jmcgladr]

I know. Definitely a lie! And of course, I couldn't say this in the beginning, but it always gave me a bad feeling that they waited so long to call. If I were a parent and I couldn't find my toddler while camping, I would call immediately! I would much rather feel a little sheepish later, if I found my child before searchers arrived, than wait and risk the worst.

I have lost track of each of my kids for short periods of time here and there over the years, as a single parent with 2 active boys. I ALWAYS sought out the help of others - police, the public, security officers, firefighters, lifeguards, store managers, whoever was closest - and people were always more than willing to help. My kids were always fine and yes, I felt a little stupid and hysterical - but truly all I cared about was finding my kid/kids! You can bet I'd call the police without hesitation in a few minutes, if I hadn't been able to find them in that short time! I think that's a normal parental reaction. Only takes a few minutes to call, and then you could continue to search on your own until help came.

 

[Timekeeper65]

I've been the lurkiest of lurkers for years. This case is driving me crazy and I'm interested in your thoughts on the following...

First, it is disturbing that LE and Klein are certain DeOrr is no longer alive but did not find blood. To me that indicates they have more than circumstantial evidence. I wonder if they found evidence of decomp or found entomology evidence in a car or other location. (Sorry.Sad.) Would dogs alert to that?

Second, if two different counties are represented by prosecutors in this case, doesn't that mean they believe crimes were committed in both counties? If so then he was either harmed before they arrived at the campsite which means he was probably never there alive, or something happened on their trip and they left in the middle of the night to hide him before returning.

Thor44 you need a proper welcome.

:wagon: