ID - DeOrr Kunz, Jr., 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #26

[haven71]

You're right. It is worse. I was looking at that from the POV of the parents, without even realizing it. But, the POV of DeOrr is the one I'm trying to stay focused on. And, yes, wandering off and being terrified and alone and hungry and tired is much worse than an accident that he likely (hopefully) died swiftly from that his parents covered up. The indignity of it would be nothing compared to him being lost and dying alone in the woods. Thanks for snapping me back a bit.

Oh, I didn't mean to sound like I was reprimanding, I promise, I wasn't! I was just thinking out loud because the word "wandering" jumped out at me. And led me to a sad place. Sorry if it seemed like I was implying anything, I truly wasn't!

 

[courtneyb]

I don't know how many participating in these discussions have sat on a jury, but to answer your question, I must place myself in the jury box. When ALL the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, has been presented, then, and ONLY then, would I be able to determine one's guilt, providing the evidence lead me to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the parents are, in fact, guilty (of whatever crimes were charged).

I have been called to jury duty twice. Once I was an alternate for an armed robbery case. The other time was a case for the murder of a young man who was a delivery driver from the neighboring town. While I did not know the man or his family, my husband went to school with his younger brother and so I knew enough to know I would not be a good juror and I was excused. It's a heavy feeling of responsibility, and I was just an alternate in the one jury.

I guess more specifically, if I may ask...

If you were sitting on this jury (all this hypothetical) and the parents were vehemently denying the charges, what types of proof would bring you to the point of knowing in your heart that they were guilty.

I really appreciate you humoring me. I just find the topic fascinating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[courtneyb]

Oh, I didn't mean to sound like I was reprimanding, I promise, I wasn't! I was just thinking out loud because the word "wandering" jumped out at me. And led me to a sad place. Sorry if it seemed like I was implying anything, I truly wasn't!

Ha! Don't feel the need to apologize to me! I am pretty easygoing, lol. What you said was something I'd forgotten that was a important point of focus for me from early on. It was totally clear you weren't nitpicking; that what I said made you think of that. And it should have made me as well, when I posted it.

I'm ok with having anything I post dissected, corrected, disputed, whatever. You guys are intelligent and logical; it's how what I think evolves because nothing I think about this case is set in stone, unlike other cases I have been subscribed to. As long as there's no attacks of a personal nature or just unnecessary rudeness in telling me how wrong I am, I'm good, haha! So, now you know you don't have to waste that time saying you're sorry to me for little stuff. Makes me feel bad that you did!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

I have been called to jury duty twice. Once I was an alternate for an armed robbery case. The other time was a case for the murder of a young man who was a delivery driver from the neighboring town. While I did not know the man or his family, my husband went to school with his younger brother and so I knew enough to know I would not be a good juror and I was excused. It's a heavy feeling of responsibility, and I was just an alternate in the one jury.

I guess more specifically, if I may ask...

If you were sitting on this jury (all this hypothetical) and the parents were vehemently denying the charges, what types of proof would bring you to the point of knowing in your heart that they were guilty.

I really appreciate you humoring me. I just find the topic fascinating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I don't think for a moment that I'm humoring you . . . .

First, I would need to know the charges, no?

 

[haven71]

Ha! Don't feel the need to apologize to me! I am pretty easygoing, lol. What you said was something I'd forgotten that was a important point of focus for me from early on. It was totally clear you weren't nitpicking; that what I said made you think of that. And it should have made me as well, when I posted it.

I'm ok with having anything I post dissected, corrected, disputed, whatever. You guys are intelligent and logical; it's how what I think evolves because nothing I think about this case is set in stone, unlike other cases I have been subscribed to. As long as there's no attacks of a personal nature or just unnecessary rudeness in telling me how wrong I am, I'm good, haha! So, now you know you don't have to waste that time saying you're sorry to me for little stuff. Makes me feel bad that you did!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're so nice! :blowkiss:

 

[haven71]

While I don't think for a moment that I'm humoring you . . . .

First, I would need to know the charges, no?

Respectfully, and not to change the subject, Ilokal what draws you to these kinds of boards? I am honestly just wondering why you come here if you feel you can draw no conclusions based on evidence from LE, PI's, statements, polygraph results, etc. unless you are a literally a member of the jury of a trial? I think if I felt this way I would likely become too upset to post or even read others' posts, or I'd be bald from pulling out all my own hair.

Honest question.

 

[courtneyb]

While I don't think for a moment that I'm humoring you . . . .

First, I would need to know the charges, no?

I apologize for not being more clear. I wouldn't unfairly ask you for a breakdown of that magnitude. What I'm really interested in is, if in pretend land, JM and VDK were on trial for simply not telling the truth as related to this case (as your belief in their honesty at this point is obviously a gateway that would have to open in order to consider further guilt or innocence)

1. If both parents went to this "trial", still denying being dishonest or changing stories multiple times, what evidence, proof, etc. would the Prosecution have to put forth to change your mind and believe, without a doubt, that the parents (either or both) have been and are not telling the truth?

As far as humoring me, I was referring most closely to the usage defined as "to adapt or accommodate oneself to (something or someone)." And, I can "humor" you if you'd like, by fetching a link for that definition. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ILOKAL]

Respectfully, and not to change the subject, Ilokal what draws you to these kinds of boards? I am honestly just wondering why you come here if you feel you can draw no conclusions based on evidence from LE, PI's, statements, polygraph results, etc. unless you are a literally a member of the jury of a trial? I think if I felt this way I would likely become too upset to post or even read others' posts, or I'd be bald from pulling out all my own hair.

Honest question.

I don't come to "these kinds of boards". I came to THIS board because a little boy vanished while camping in the wilderness and I learned of his disappearance while we also camped in the wilderness. Having said that, the parents weren't named suspects until January at which time I was already vested in this case. As for the conclusions I have drawn . . . . I don't draw them from any evidence in this case, because there isn't any.

 

[neesaki]

And obviously my opinion on this case is different from most on here which seems to warrant personal attacks on me. Do you know Allen Browning? Or are you making a generalization about attorneys? Because he is an attorney, he must be evil? Do you know any attorneys in real life? Are any of them just regular human beings? Or is it just anyone who has an ounce of compassion for this family that is fair game for attacks? It's just so frustrating to come to a public forum designed to discuss case information and to be bullied by those who feel one can post as long as the opinion is the same as the majority. How about we keep the personal attacks off this thread and just discuss the case.

As far as Klein - I do find fault with his methods. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION I think he started out to solve the case and now it's all about proving his theory right and less about finding DeOrr. He said in a pervious statement his new employer (client) told him to not make any public statements and then he does just that. If this link has been out there a whole six days why did Klein even feel the need to make a post about it.

Why would a professional PI start out to solve a case, then later decide that proving a theory right was more important than finding Deorr. What's the reasoning?

Why he posted that statement now, I can only guess... for one, why not? Stirring the pot? Pressure? Idk, but maybe someone needs to. Because at least two of the group of four seems to have hunkered down, tight.

The fact is that according to all of the professionals in this case, there is evidence of deception regarding something to do with Deorr's disappearance. Yet no matter how many times it's been addressed, no matter how many times they've been confronted, this charade of lies on the part of at least one person in the group of four, continues to gone on and on and on. Maybe it's just time to end the charade, IMO.

 

[giagreen]

I don't come to "these kinds of boards". I came to THIS board because a little boy vanished while camping in the wilderness and I learned of his disappearance while we also camped in the wilderness. Having said that, the parents weren't named suspects until January at which time I was already vested in this case. As for the conclusions I have drawn . . . . I don't draw them from any evidence in this case, because there isn't any.

I get it. And I agree there is no real solid evidence in this case. At least none that we the public know of.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Why would a professional PI start out to solve a case, then later decide that proving a theory right was more important than finding Deorr. What's the reasoning?

Why he posted that statement now, I can only guess... for one, why not? Stirring the pot? Pressure? Idk, but maybe someone needs to. Because at least two of the group of four seems to have hunkered down, tight.

The fact is that according to all of the professionals in this case, there is evidence of deception regarding something to do with Deorr's disappearance. Yet no matter how many times it's been addressed, no matter how many times they've been confronted, this charade of lies on the part of at least one person in the group of four, continues to gone on and on and on. Maybe it's just time to end the charade, IMO.

I really don't understand why everyone is so in awe of the PI's ? They are not LE or attorneys, and i for one am ignoring their public display from them and concentrating on what LE says and does in Deorr's case. Do PI's really get to cross examine anyone on the stand in a court of law? I'm asking because i have not heard of that before?
If the four are guilty of a crime in regard to missing Deorr Kunz then it needs to be proven, so some need to place their money where there mouth is IMO.

 

[ILOKAL]

I apologize for not being more clear. I wouldn't unfairly ask you for a breakdown of that magnitude. What I'm really interested in is, if in pretend land, JM and VDK were on trial for simply not telling the truth as related to this case (as your belief in their honesty at this point is obviously a gateway that would have to open in order to consider further guilt or innocence)

1. If both parents went to this "trial", still denying being dishonest or changing stories multiple times, what evidence, proof, etc. would the Prosecution have to put forth to change your mind and believe, without a doubt, that the parents (either or both) have been and are not telling the truth?

As far as humoring me, I was referring most closely to the usage defined as "to adapt or accommodate oneself to (something or someone)." And, I can "humor" you if you'd like, by fetching a link for that definition. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now YOU'RE humoring me, no? I don't mind a hypothetical based in reality, but there's not going to be a trial that asks the trier of facts to determine if the parents have lied.

I think my position is clear and I have explained why my position is what it is. There really is nothing more for me to add that would clarify it more, except maybe the fact that I believe the parents to be completely innocent of harming little DeOrr or of knowing what caused him to disappear.

 

[Karinna]

And just a few weeks ago, Judge Walker requested special prosecutor Shane Phelps to pursue an indictment against Hartman's employer, Philip Klein.

Klein is a private investigator and political blogger who has published critical reports on Walker.

In response to Walker's action, Klein last week filed suit against Walker claiming the judge had violated his first amendment rights.

Klein was also seeking an injunction to stop Walker and Phelps from pursuing the indictment, but the case is pending because District Judge Milton Shuffield is asking that a visiting judge to preside over the case.

http://www.12newsnow.com/story/2416...lker-wont-seek-a-third-term?clienttype=mobile

 

[bessie]

The thread is closed.

We haven't decided when or if it will re-open unless there is a major new development.

You have only to thank each other for the constant snark, barbs, and antagonism -- not to mention ignoring mod instructions NOT to reference particular, troublesome sites.

To those of you who truly care about DeOrr, and have exercised restraint and respect, on behalf of Tricia and all the WS staff, I thank you, and apologize for the inconvenience. Please continue to make your usual positive contributions to other case discussions. Perhaps after I review the last couple of threads over the next week, and make a few "adjustments", we'll give it another try. But I honestly don't know at this point.

To those of you who visit merely to cause trouble, as I've said before, take your immature attitudes and your ugliness elsewhere. There are hundreds of active threads on this board. The amount of staff time spent covering this one case over the past eight months is highly disproportionate to the others, due to the members whose only interest is to serve an agenda (one which has more to do with being "right", than with showing support for DeOrr).

Continued prayers for precious little DeOrr, his loved ones; and for all of the authorities, searchers, investigators, volunteers, and sincerely concerned citizens, who have put their hearts and souls into resolving DeOrr's disappearance.

Bessie
WS Administrator