ID - DeOrr Kunz, Jr., 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #30

[Hatfield]

If the critical event took place before arrival at the campsite it was illogical for 3 people to, almost simultaneously, call 911 many hours later.

I respectfully disagree.

If the Grandpa and Friend were fooled by the parents and really thought the boy was alive and well with them on the camping trip, then when the parents decided on Friday morning to unleash their "he is missing" plan, then everyone there would have begun thinking to call 911 about the same time.

Either that or if there was some collusion among all of them with the plan.

IMO, I think the grandparent and friend could have easily been fooled to think the boy was alive with the parents Thursday night. I know it sounds like it would be hard to do that but they drove separate vehicles, got there kind of late Thursday so getting dark soon, slept separately, etc. So I think it could have been rather easy to fool them.
All they would have had to do is just keep saying he is tired and sleeping in the vehicle.

 

[Hatfield]

I'm not versed (!! :blushing: ) but for me it would be more logical if the "event" took place before 5pm Thursday.

JMO
I agree this is possible and here is why I feel that way.

-the trip seemed sort of a rushed organized trip to me.
-very little information whether they even brought normal camping supplies like ice chests, food, tents, sleeping bags, charcoal.
-very little information if the trip had even been planned much in advance of going.
-think VK had never even went to that remote place before. Not sure if wife ever went there. GGP did know the place.
-The parents claimed they did not even know the friend prior to the trip.

So why did they decide to even go camping to a remote place that VK had never been to before with GGP and a friend that they did not even know.

Usually people have to do quite a bit of preparation and planning to go camping and the motive is to have fun. From what little we know, I am not sure it sounds like it would've been a lot of fun.

 

[koios]

Oh?!!

The meaning of the word "off" is crucial in
https://www.facebook.com/KleinInves...864945696095/1046384162110834/?type=2&theater
Some more examples of real world colloquial usage (each phrase verifiable by googling in quotes)
"Thats the most weight I have seen being towed off a pickup with a conventional hitch"
"You could probably haul a trailer off that"
"Truck will be set up to haul a boat trailer off of a pintle hook"

B.T.W another interesting phrase, from a linguistic point of view, is J's "we cut our backs towards ..." (if I heard it correctly?) at 5:20 in
https://www.facebook.com/KleinInves...864945696095/1131180406964542/?type=2&theater
Not in any dictionary, I guess it's a regional variation of the colloquial "we cut our tracks towards ..."?

 

[koios]

I respectfully disagree.

If the Grandpa and Friend were fooled by the parents and really thought the boy was alive and well with them on the camping trip, then when the parents decided on Friday morning to unleash their "he is missing" plan, then everyone there would have begun thinking to call 911 about the same time.

Either that or if there was some collusion among all of them with the plan.

IMO, I think the grandparent and friend could have easily been fooled to think the boy was alive with the parents Thursday night. I know it sounds like it would be hard to do that but they drove separate vehicles, got there kind of late Thursday so getting dark soon, slept separately, etc. So I think it could have been rather easy to fool them.
All they would have had to do is just keep saying he is tired and sleeping in the vehicle.

I agree that the "never at campground theory" needs considering however a difficulty for it is that both GGP and IR both state seeing the child, moving, alive.
For example GGP states he saw him sitting on the ground playing with either dirt or boots, and IR states he saw him throwing things into the fire.
To make the theory work one would need to claim that both those descriptions are fabricated.

 

[bluesneakers]

I agree that the "never at campground theory" needs considering however a difficulty for it is that both GGP and IR both state seeing the child, moving, alive.
For example GGP states he saw him sitting on the ground playing with either dirt or boots, and IR states he saw him throwing things into the fire.
To make the theory work one would need to claim that both those descriptions are fabricated.

IMO one of them is fabricated by a person who found out too late what he was getting into (IR) and the other was fabricated by someone (GGP) who was in on it.

Any kind of story might have been told to IR to make him go along with it. He seems like an agreeable sort who would agree to a lie if he thought he was covering up something more innocent.

 

[koios]

IMO one of them is fabricated by a person who found out too late what he was getting into (IR) and the other was fabricated by someone (GGP) who was in on it.

Any kind of story might have been told to IR to make him go along with it. He seems like an agreeable sort who would agree to a lie if he thought he was covering up something more innocent.

So that theory would be three people knowing what happened and lying about it and one person not knowing what happened and lying about it.
But has this theory been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[koios]

B.T.W. if anyone were to claim that the mother showed no genuine distress during the 911 call I would say they have not listened to the recording fully.

 

[bluesneakers]

So that theory would be three people knowing what happened and lying about it and one person not knowing what happened and lying about it.
But has this theory been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

???



Has ANY theory been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[koios]

???



Has ANY theory been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Parts of a theory have been professionally stated to be beyond reasonable doubt, for example
"the team has ruled out a forced abduction of DeOrr Kunz, Jr. – beyond a reasonable doubt"
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/kunz-private-investigator-releases-statement-regarding-case

 

[TxJan1971]

The meaning of the word "off" is crucial in
https://www.facebook.com/KleinInves...864945696095/1046384162110834/?type=2&theater

Some more examples of real world colloquial usage (each phrase verifiable by googling in quotes)
"Thats the most weight I have seen being towed off a pickup with a conventional hitch"
"You could probably haul a trailer off that"
"Truck will be set up to haul a boat trailer off of a pintle hook"

B.T.W another interesting phrase, from a linguistic point of view, is J's "we cut our backs towards ..." (if I heard it correctly?) at 5:20 in

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInves...864945696095/1131180406964542/?type=2&theater

Not in any dictionary, I guess it's a regional variation of the colloquial "we cut our tracks towards ..."?

BBM

FWIW - IMO, it’s "only interesting from a linguistic point of view" if the linguistic expert applies his/her “regional variation of colloquial" explanation for an alleged Jessica statement: “We cut our tracks…” IF that is what Jessica actually said.

If, however, that is a "mistruthful" representation of what Jessica said, then all the "regional variation of colloquial" mumbo jumbo is (IMO) not applicable in the least and is only twisting words in an attempt to bolster some ulterior agenda supporting the named suspects. It is so much simpler than what may be being insinuated and/or implied here.

IMO, sometimes it’s simply about using a good set of headphones, doing due diligence and listening carefully to what was said and then transcribing for context.

We "cut" our backs toward the campground...
vs
We “had” our backs toward the campground...

There’s no “colloquial” anything… (IMO, of course):

Actual Transcript:
~5:15 - 5:20

Jessica:
We um…had our backs towards the campground at that point looking at the other side of the creek where it V’d…

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvest...type=2&theater

 

[misty48]

I respectfully disagree.

If the Grandpa and Friend were fooled by the parents and really thought the boy was alive and well with them on the camping trip, then when the parents decided on Friday morning to unleash their "he is missing" plan, then everyone there would have begun thinking to call 911 about the same time.

Either that or if there was some collusion among all of them with the plan.

IMO, I think the grandparent and friend could have easily been fooled to think the boy was alive with the parents Thursday night. I know it sounds like it would be hard to do that but they drove separate vehicles, got there kind of late Thursday so getting dark soon, slept separately, etc. So I think it could have been rather easy to fool them.
All they would have had to do is just keep saying he is tired and sleeping in the vehicle.

If there was a collusion, then imo I doubt that the parents would have allowed 3 separate calls in case anyone deviated from "the script". Is there a suggestion that the 3 911 calls all differ in their content?
As a side issue - and I don't know if this has been covered before - SB said that 2 men (not VDK) were at the Silver Dollar bar. It was stated that they had all arrived at the campground at around 9.30 & set up camp. Did IR/RW return to the bar & if so, how did they get there if the other 3 were planning to sleep in RW's Suburban?

 

[misty48]

Parts of a theory have been professionally stated to be beyond reasonable doubt, for example
"the team has ruled out a forced abduction of DeOrr Kunz, Jr. – beyond a reasonable doubt"
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/kunz-private-investigator-releases-statement-regarding-case

That statement was made before the team had even spoken to IR therefore their conclusion was based on a false premise (even if the conclusion itself was correct)

 

[bluesneakers]

That statement was made before the team had even spoken to IR therefore their conclusion was based on a false premise (even if the conclusion itself was correct)

When did they speak to IR and change the conclusion?

 

[misty48]

When did they speak to IR and change the conclusion?

That particular conclusion has never been changed.
The team also concluded that there was no attack by a wild animal, despite none of the team having visited the campground at that stage.
Yet the conclusions were stated to be"beyond reasonable doubt"..

 

[bluesneakers]

That particular conclusion has never been changed.
The team also concluded that there was no attack by a wild animal, despite none of the team having visited the campground at that stage.
Yet the conclusions were stated to be"beyond reasonable doubt"..

Well... I'm not suggesting any theories I have are conclusions, so there's no way I'm going to say "Beyond any reasonable doubt this is what happened."

 

[koios]

Misty48, you suggest "none of the team having visited the campground at that stage".That might be because the campground was probably completely covered by deep snow during those 6 weeks of investigation in Dec 2015 and Jan 2016?
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/kunz-private-investigator-releases-statement-regarding-case/

 

[misty48]

Misty48, you suggest "none of the team having visited the campground at that stage".That might be because the campground was probably completely covered by deep snow during those 6 weeks of investigation in Dec 2015 and Jan 2016?
http://www.eastidahonews.com/2016/01/kunz-private-investigator-releases-statement-regarding-case/

I think that's a pretty accurate conclusion, Koios.

 

[koios]

BBM

FWIW - IMO, it’s "only interesting from a linguistic point of view" if the linguistic expert applies his/her “regional variation of colloquial" explanation for an alleged Jessica statement: “We cut our tracks…” IF that is what Jessica actually said.

If, however, that is a "mistruthful" representation of what Jessica said, then all the "regional variation of colloquial" mumbo jumbo is (IMO) not applicable in the least and is only twisting words in an attempt to bolster some ulterior agenda supporting the named suspects. It is so much simpler than what may be being insinuated and/or implied here.

IMO, sometimes it’s simply about using a good set of headphones, doing due diligence and listening carefully to what was said and then transcribing for context.

We "cut" our backs toward the campground...
vs
We “had” our backs toward the campground...

There’s no “colloquial” anything… (IMO, of course):

Actual Transcript:
~5:15 - 5:20

Jessica:
We um…had our backs towards the campground at that point looking at the other side of the creek where it V’d…

https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvest...type=2&theater

In the audio recording at 5:18 I hear "cut" MOO
https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/videos/vb.443864945696095/1131180406964542/?type=2&theater

 

[misty48]

In the audio recording at 5:18 I hear "cut" MOO
https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/videos/vb.443864945696095/1131180406964542/?type=2&theater

I hear " We.uh, had our backs towards the campground........"

 

[desert-blue]

Real examples
"I've been towing a trailer off my CanAm Spyder"
"I have a 1989 Bronco and want to tow my camper off the bumper hitch"
"I tow off a 4.8 litre petrol Grand Cherokee"

In the real-life colloquial language Americans actually speak, in the context of vehicles and trailers......
"off" frequently means "hitched to"

Jessica wrote, "... a campground. We stopped. DeOrr and my Grandpa set the camper up off the suburban and I got Lil Man out of the truck."

So you are trying to imply that Jessica meant that DeOrr and Grandpa hitched the camper up to the suburban, rather than meaning that they unhooked it? I guess that also means they had to have taken the camp trailer off the hitch at some point in order for Jessica to have meant they were hitching the camp trailer back up to the suburban. Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. She clearly meant that they arrived at the campground and then unhitched the camp trailer. There is no room for alternate interpretations or colloquialisms. MOO.

ETA: here is the video: https://www.facebook.com/KleinInvestigations/videos/1046384162110834/