ID - DeOrr Kunz, Jr., 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #29

[Maggie_Mayz]

If you really read all of that stuff and found no examples where the story the parents told differed from a different time they told the story then there is no helping you.

[emoji817] [emoji736]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Little Ol Me]

Yes I'm questioning some conclusions reached in some parts of the investigations.
I hope to do another cougar post, which takes on board some of the valid objections, by suggesting a different scenario for it.
Also to examine of the background audio in the 911 call, and suggest two ways it can be further checked, to ensure that the done and dusted conclusion is actually correct.
MOO the questioning of parts of a theory can be a constructive contribution.

I would be interested in further discussion of the background audio of J's. 911 call.
Simply because I have a hard time joining in the consensus that J. is saying "I made the call" to Vernal, who is suppose to be there with her.
If he is there with her, or he is close enough, that his voice can be heard in the background, why does J. need to tell him "she made the call"? If he is there with her, or close by, he'd know she made the call. He would hear her conversation.
Also because you can hear the operator talking to another while J. is on hold.

I also agree it can be constructive to question parts of a theory. I don't have a fixed or firm theory on what may or may not have happened to Deorr. I appreciate hearing and reading ALL opinions, thoughts, and theories. They all give me something to think about.

 

[ccapriciouss]

I have been wondering why jessica pointed out that they bought red dye diesel. It is not legal to put red dye in a passenger vehile, so I wonder what her reason is for pointing that out?

 

[Maggie_Mayz]

I have been wondering why jessica pointed out that they bought red dye diesel. It is not legal to put red dye in a passenger vehile, so I wonder what her reason is for pointing that out?

Thats a good point...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Maggie_Mayz]

I would be interested in further discussion of the background audio of J's. 911 call.
Simply because I have a hard time joining in the consensus that J. is saying "I made the call" to Vernal, who is suppose to be there with her.
If he is there with her, or he is close enough, that his voice can be heard in the background, why does J. need to tell him "she made the call"? If he is there with her, or close by, he'd know she made the call. He would hear her conversation.
Also because you can hear the operator talking to another while J. is on hold.

I also agree it can be constructive to question parts of a theory. I don't have a fixed or firm theory on what may or may not have happened to Deorr. I appreciate hearing and reading ALL opinions, thoughts, and theories. They all give me something to think about.

I dont mind discussing things just not the same stuff like theories over and over again, if it has been discussed then no thanks. Whereas I am fine with new angles or theories.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[koios]

I would be interested in further discussion of the background audio of J's. 911 call.
Simply because I have a hard time joining in the consensus that J. is saying "I made the call" to Vernal, who is suppose to be there with her.
If he is there with her, or he is close enough, that his voice can be heard in the background, why does J. need to tell him "she made the call"? If he is there with her, or close by, he'd know she made the call. He would hear her conversation.
Also because you can hear the operator talking to another while J. is on hold.

I also agree it can be constructive to question parts of a theory. I don't have a fixed or firm theory on what may or may not have happened to Deorr. I appreciate hearing and reading ALL opinions, thoughts, and theories. They all give me something to think about.

I think that V's voice is audible in the background of the recording of J's call MOO (and B.T.W the voice of the operator speaking to V is there too MOO).
There are two ways V's voice could have gotten onto the J call recording.
1. By his voice travelling a short distance through the air and into the microphone of J's mobile.
2. By electronic crosstalk in the mobile/ground networks, the call-handling circuitry or call-recording circuitry.
There are two ways to check whether #1 or #2 is the correct answer.
A. Enlist a telecoms expert who has good knowledge of the specific equipment installed at Salmon (B.T.W it is very modern equipment). Ask him/her to listen to the J recording. Ask him/her whether or not electronic crosstalk can occur either on the mobile/ground networks or in this specific equipment, and whether he/she determines that V's voice is due to electronic crosstalk or not. Ditto for the voice of the operator speaking with V.
B. In audio editor software load the J call and the unreleased V call as 2 audio tracks. Use the background voices of V and V's operator which are in the J recording to time-align the two tracks. Study of the aligned tracks should determine whether V is speaking entirely with an operator at Salmon, or whether he is also intermittently talking to J.
All just MOO

 

[koios]

I dont mind discussing things just not the same stuff like theories over and over again, if it has been discussed then no thanks. Whereas I am fine with new angles or theories.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

It seems unlikely that a cougar attack occurred at the actual campsite (dog nearby, every square inch of adjacent wooded area searched including under leaf piles etc). If a cougar attack happened MOO it is more likely to have happened away from the campsite. Hypothetically if while unwatched the child walked for example to the cattle guard area, and it happened there, this is further from the dog, and the adjacent woodland there although searched was possibly searched less completely than that adjacent to the campsite. So that is a slightly new angle maybe? I agree it sounds very unlikely, and am not surprised if people say it's impossible. MOO it's one of many theories to be considered concurrently until the case is solved.

 

[koios]

I have been wondering why jessica pointed out that they bought red dye diesel. It is not legal to put red dye in a passenger vehile, so I wonder what her reason is for pointing that out?

It would have come out anyway as soon as LE went to the inn opposite the taxed-diesel outlet. LE would learn from the guy there that the pump opposite had been out of action and that he had directed them to try at the engineering place.

 

[Maggie_Mayz]

It seems unlikely that a cougar attack occurred at the actual campsite (dog nearby, every square inch of adjacent wooded area searched including under leaf piles etc). If a cougar attack happened MOO it is more likely to have happened away from the campsite. Hypothetically if while unwatched the child walked for example to the cattle guard area, and it happened there, this is further from the dog, and the adjacent woodland there although searched was possibly searched less completely than that adjacent to the campsite. So that is a slightly new angle maybe? I agree it sounds very unlikely, and am not surprised if people say it's impossible. MOO it's one of many theories to be considered concurrently until the case is solved.

There still could be drag marks depending on the situation and most definitely scents that the SAR would be able to pick up on, even across a semi shallow creek. Blood has a very unique and distinguisable smell. So while I see where you are coming from I just personally do not think it is probable given my experiences, the experiences of others and what we have seen and heard in and around where we live.

 

[Lilibet]

There still could be drag marks depending on the situation and most definitely scents that the SAR would be able to pick up on, even across a semi shallow creek. Blood has a very unique and distinguisable smell. So while I see where you are coming from I just personally do not think it is probable given my experiences, the experiences of others and what we have seen and heard in and around where we live.

Not to mention the fact that a mod told us to stop the mountain lion conversation.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

O/T but maybe comparable ...

"The one person who possesses this knowledge of Aliayah's whereabouts is in police custody," said Sheriff Adam Gissy.

http://www.wdtv.com/content/news/Lundsford-case-The-latest-400069061.html

 

[Maggie_Mayz]

Not to mention the fact that a mod told us to stop the mountain lion conversation.

Thanks for the reminder.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Onebest]

Yes I'm questioning some conclusions reached in some parts of the investigations.
I hope to do another cougar post, which takes on board some of the valid objections, by suggesting a different scenario for it.
Also to examine of the background audio in the 911 call, and suggest two ways it can be further checked, to ensure that the done and dusted conclusion is actually correct.
MOO the questioning of parts of a theory can be a constructive contribution.

Remember, We have been instructed not to discuss THAT fur creature. Good idea to respect that IMO.

While I appreciate efforts to analyze 911 calls we can only go off of what we have been given and we dont even have enough information on that because some of it is not released. Our ability as lay folks on a forum does not give us authority to ensure anything for LE, FBI or even PI hired by the family.

We cannot be "constructive" working on half a deck because thats is all that is allowed due to the fact thats it is an active investigation. We can only review facts as given and those are slim to none. Thats why folks keep suggesting that we stick with what we have been given as slight as it is. JMO

 

[Hatfield]

Thanks. I'm glad to hear you have done your homework. And I understand what you are saying about a fresh pair of eyes. But rehashing the mountain lion/predator theory that has been discussed to the point that a mod put a stop to it does not add new insight. Questioning whether JM has lied when the in-depth investigations of both LE and KIC have determined that she has lied adds nothing new to our understanding. If someone is new to a case, it just doesn't work well to start the discussion over again, especially looking for ways to defend people who have become suspects. We can't just ignore everything that has been said and done in order to raise doubts without a real basis in facts.

KIC's fresh eyes were that of a PI with the ability to search out information. He did the the work, as did LE. Who are we to try to "reinvent the wheel" so to speak? And with what new facts? What can we possibly add at this point? LE and KIC likely have facts they haven't revealed yet. Unfortunately, until new information is released, we have reached the end of the line IMO. Sometimes that happens on threads. There are many threads in a holding pattern including Stephanie Warner's in my signature. It's sad. No one wants to just move on, but that's reality and it doesn't mean we will forget. I'm not someone who wants to waste time and energy rehashing and picking at the details of a case and debating. So, personally, I would encourage everyone to find new cases to support and pop in here from time to time. Much better for stress levels.
JMO

Im with you and that is what Ive resigned myself to do for this case. Which is what Im doing today. Checking in to see if anything new has surfaced and sorry to see that its about the same as when I last checked.

It became pretty obvious to me on this case that we hashed and rehashed things until we kept going in circles with similar or same information. That was a sad sign that we may be stuck unless someone can think of a new angle or something breaks this case wide open.

Wish LE could maybe go on the offensive and do something drastic like maybe use an informant to try to get close to one of them. The old fashioned way. Find a way to get associate with one of them and take a few months or more gaining their trust and maybe they would slip up some information after a night of partying or something.

This case is going to need something along those lines to break it open IMO.

I would not be so pessimistic about it if I wasnt so convinced of their involvement. All it took for me was my first listening to the interview and watching their body language and the way V played the reporter like a fiddle to sidetrack the entire interview. I kept putting myself in their shoes and if I had valuable air time to find my missing boy I would not spend the first 10-15 minutes giving no real accurate account of what happened.

Most people would have gotten right to the point and gotten down to business.
-What day time did you arrive at campground?
-Who came on the trip?
-What vehicles were used and who drove with who?
-What exactly happened from the moment you woke up at campground?
-Who slept where and where did boy sleep?
-How many people were there right at campground when he went missing?
-Where exactly was everybody and what did they last see when you first noticed him missing?
-What time was that?
-Did you have breakfast?
-Was there a fire built that morning?
-Whats his full name?
-What was all the clothes and color of clothes he had on?
-Will he respond to strangers if they call him by name?
-How long did you search before calling 911?


For the first 10 minutes or so of the interview we got very little of that. We mostly got him praising the SAR teams. Thats fine and dandy when your boy is found but no real victim would do that as much as he did with the boy still not found and its your first 10 minutes of air time to get public help.

Nope It just would not have happened that way.

And then add in all the eye contact and expressions from the other person while person X does all the talking. Nope. Not gonna happen.

LE needs to go on the offensive somehow. We need something to help break open the case.

The PI gave it a good shot and helped renew interest. But he hit the same wall many of us have hit.

 

[SweetT]

OK just checking in, I see it appears all is about the same as last time I checked in and no real movement and no answers.

 

[Niner]

Just checking in here too... I see nothing has been happening as I just skipped 7 pages... no arrests, eh?

:wave:

 

[Lilibet]

Im with you and that is what Ive resigned myself to do for this case. Which is what Im doing today. Checking in to see if anything new has surfaced and sorry to see that its about the same as when I last checked.

It became pretty obvious to me on this case that we hashed and rehashed things until we kept going in circles with similar or same information. That was a sad sign that we may be stuck unless someone can think of a new angle or something breaks this case wide open.

Wish LE could maybe go on the offensive and do something drastic like maybe use an informant to try to get close to one of them. The old fashioned way. Find a way to get associate with one of them and take a few months or more gaining their trust and maybe they would slip up some information after a night of partying or something.

This case is going to need something along those lines to break it open IMO.

I would not be so pessimistic about it if I wasnt so convinced of their involvement. All it took for me was my first listening to the interview and watching their body language and the way V played the reporter like a fiddle to sidetrack the entire interview. I kept putting myself in their shoes and if I had valuable air time to find my missing boy I would not spend the first 10-15 minutes giving no real accurate account of what happened.

Most people would have gotten right to the point and gotten down to business.
-What day time did you arrive at campground?
-Who came on the trip?
-What vehicles were used and who drove with who?
-What exactly happened from the moment you woke up at campground?
-Who slept where and where did boy sleep?
-How many people were there right at campground when he went missing?
-Where exactly was everybody and what did they last see when you first noticed him missing?
-What time was that?
-Did you have breakfast?
-Was there a fire built that morning?
-Whats his full name?
-What was all the clothes and color of clothes he had on?
-Will he respond to strangers if they call him by name?
-How long did you search before calling 911?


For the first 10 minutes or so of the interview we got very little of that. We mostly got him praising the SAR teams. Thats fine and dandy when your boy is found but no real victim would do that as much as he did with the boy still not found and its your first 10 minutes of air time to get public help.

Nope It just would not have happened that way.

And then add in all the eye contact and expressions from the other person while person X does all the talking. Nope. Not gonna happen.

LE needs to go on the offensive somehow. We need something to help break open the case.

The PI gave it a good shot and helped renew interest. But he hit the same wall many of us have hit.

Great summary, Hatfield. Thanks!

 

[Sillybilly]

Thread #30 is now open for posting, so please move on over.

This thread is now closed.

:wave: