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

[koios]

Hi CoverMeCagney
Deorr wandering off into the woods & getting lost is one of the more likely scenarios (but doesn't follow with all my thinking). There are several cases where tracker dogs have failed to follow the scent of a child who went missing & was later found alive. (There was one in Ourem, Portugal just 2 days ago, 2 year old Martin who was found nearly 2km from place of residence). I am wondering if the tracker dogs in Deorr's case were actually tracking JA's scent rather than Deorr's - we don't know which "uncontaminated" item the dogs used for scenting.
The parents weren't the only people to fail the polygraphs, were they - all 4 parties did.? TBC, who wasn't even there, also failed one. Sometimes the police can be very good at distorting the truth into an apparent lie - it has happened often & innocent people have been wrongly accused. The Joanna Yates (Bristol UK) case is a prime example - fortunately for Christopher Jefferies the victim's body was found & DNA of the real killer identified, otherwise I dread to think what would have happened to that poor man.
My main concern is that Deorr allegedly disappeared during what seemed to be the first & only time period on the trip he was not under the watch of either parent. IMO he either fell or was taken down the bank, out of GPP's sight,. IMO IR holds the key as to where he was then taken & concealed.
Were there any firearms or axes found at the site, do you know?

There were two periods when DK was not under the watch of either parent.
1. the period from when V and J went down to the creek, until V returned to the campsite and it was realised that DK was missing.
2. the period after it was realised that DK was missing.
MOO the second period, for a small child, had an elevated risk of serious accident relative to the first period, have LE and KIC considered the second period?

 

[ChasingMoxie]

There were two periods when DK was not under the watch of either parent.
1. the period from when V and J went down to the creek, until V returned to the campsite and it was realised that DK was missing.
2. the period after it was realised that DK was missing.
MOO the second period, for a small child, had an elevated risk of serious accident relative to the first period, have LE and KIC considered the second period?

LE has considered all of the facts and determined that the parents are responsible for killing their baby boy. Horrific.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Has everything got solved while the site's been down?

Hope so.

 

[katydid23]

Hi CoverMeCagney
Deorr wandering off into the woods & getting lost is one of the more likely scenarios (but doesn't follow with all my thinking). There are several cases where tracker dogs have failed to follow the scent of a child who went missing & was later found alive. (There was one in Ourem, Portugal just 2 days ago, 2 year old Martin who was found nearly 2km from place of residence). I am wondering if the tracker dogs in Deorr's case were actually tracking JA's scent rather than Deorr's - we don't know which "uncontaminated" item the dogs used for scenting.
The parents weren't the only people to fail the polygraphs, were they - all 4 parties did.? TBC, who wasn't even there, also failed one. Sometimes the police can be very good at distorting the truth into an apparent lie - it has happened often & innocent people have been wrongly accused. The Joanna Yates (Bristol UK) case is a prime example - fortunately for Christopher Jefferies the victim's body was found & DNA of the real killer identified, otherwise I dread to think what would have happened to that poor man.
My main concern is that Deorr allegedly disappeared during what seemed to be the first & only time period on the trip he was not under the watch of either parent. IMO he either fell or was taken down the bank, out of GPP's sight,. IMO IR holds the key as to where he was then taken & concealed.
Were there any firearms or axes found at the site, do you know?

I agree with many of your points. But one thing that you have not taken into account in the above post, is the very many conflicting stories and changing versions of events that were told by the family to LE. WHY would anyone lie repeatedly and be inconsistent about the facts concerning their missing baby?

 

[koios]

DK had seen the initial direction his parents had walked (south), when he watched the parents leave the campsite. However he probably didn't see where they turned off of the cleared area to go down to the creek. If DK walked in the direction his parents had gone, but walked past (overshot) the place where the parents had turned right into the trees to go down to the creek, he would come to the end of the cleared area (where the other campfire and picnic table are) then probably onto a path into the trees there. This might go against the generalisation "lost children walk downhill", but for a strong reason, that he had seen his parents set off apparently in that direction.

 

[The Apparition]

There were two periods when DK was not under the watch of either parent.
1. the period from when V and J went down to the creek, until V returned to the campsite and it was realised that DK was missing.
2. the period after it was realised that DK was missing.
MOO the second period, for a small child, had an elevated risk of serious accident relative to the first period, have LE and KIC considered the second period?

This is of course based upon your ability to suspend reality and blindly believe "selected" bits and pieces from the parents rambling, tortured, changing, account of events. If we are going to cherry pick things to believe as truth in no particular order I go with "bottle of whiskey, took nap until noon, what's done is done, and when is the funeral?".

It is actually kind of fun, we could do a Mad Libs type game where everyone plugs in their own random thing from any of the 4 adults statements. We will be no closer to the truth of course...

 

[The Apparition]

DK had seen the initial direction his parents had walked (south), when he watched the parents leave the campsite. However he probably didn't see where they turned off of the cleared area to go down to the creek. If DK walked in the direction his parents had gone, but walked past (overshot) the place where the parents had turned right into the trees to go down to the creek, he would come to the end of the cleared area (where the other campfire and picnic table are) then probably onto a path into the trees there. This might go against the generalisation "lost children walk downhill", but for a strong reason, that he had seen his parents set off apparently in that direction.

I'm confused which narrative are we using? I remember when Jessica did her interview with Klein (closed eye version) she said GGP was watching Deorr. Surely GGP didn't just let Deorr wander off, are you using the original version where both parents took off and kinda sorta just figured the old enfeebled man was going to watch the toddler for this narrative? Personally I like that version better because what parent hasn't left a 2 year old in the woods, near a stream, a reservoir, and possible wild animals, without clearly putting a plan in place? Just the other day I left my 4 year old alone in Grand Central Station while I went off and bought some Hot Sam pretzels (oh man they were so good) I figured the elderly lady in the wheelchair would watch my kid because we exchanged a knowing glance when I walked off.

 

[koios]

I'm confused which narrative are we using? I remember when Jessica did her interview with Klein (closed eye version) she said GGP was watching Deorr. Surely GGP didn't just let Deorr wander off, are you using the original version where both parents took off and kinda sorta just figured the old enfeebled man was going to watch the toddler for this narrative? Personally I like that version better because what parent hasn't left a 2 year old in the woods, near a stream, a reservoir, and possible wild animals, without clearly putting a plan in place? Just the other day I left my 4 year old alone in Grand Central Station while I went off and bought some Hot Sam pretzels (oh man they were so good) I figured the elderly lady in the wheelchair would watch my kid because we exchanged a knowing glance when I walked off.

Acknowledging that there are variations between various accounts given in press interviews and released KIC interviews, I try to work out what actually happened.
In my opinion a situation arose where the parents thought the child was with the GGP, and the GGP, with whom the child indeed was initially, on seeing the child no longer with him, assumed that the child had then gone off to the parents and was therefore safe. Such situations do happen, and it would be interesting to find some links to other cases where this situation has happened.

 

[koios]

Another sad case, at a campground in Canada, where, while two adults each genuinely honestly believed the child was with the other adult, the consequently unwatched child wandered off.
"When the children came back they gave W back to his mum and she then told him to go back to his father. Both parents thought he was with the other parent, that’s when he wandered off"
http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/uncles-tell-parents-grief-toddlers-5365646

 

[Maggie_Mayz]

Acknowledging that there are variations between various accounts given in press interviews and released KIC interviews, I try to work out what actually happened.
In my opinion a situation arose where the parents thought the child was with the GGP, and the GGP, with whom the child indeed was initially, on seeing the child no longer with him, assumed that the child had then gone off to the parents and was therefore safe. Such situations do happen, and it would be interesting to find some links to other cases where this situation has happened.

If that is the case then where is he? And why the changing stories? Why not say this is what we thought happened and we really do not know. Not go from well maybe he followed us, then maybe he was kidnapped, then maybe etc. Etc. There would have been trace evidence of that even with the trained dogs. So not sure why the parents would lie if it was in fact a tragic case of him wndering off, just take the the hit of possible outrage etc. I think one of the reasons they are not fighting or even attempting to look for their son is 1) he was not there to begin with and they know where he is at, either sold etc, died etc. 2) or they accidentally did something to him or he was there and he is hidden somewhere. I just have a hard time believing they would not take certain steps or do nothing or very little in the search for their son. And if it was truly a vanished situation or he got away from them then say so and do everything you can to find him. Not consistently change stories do one search and then another a year later etc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[koios]

If that is the case then where is he? And why the changing stories? Why not say this is what we thought happened and we really do not know. Not go from well maybe he followed us, then maybe he was kidnapped, then maybe etc. Etc. There would have been trace evidence of that even with the trained dogs. So not sure why the parents would lie if it was in fact a tragic case of him wndering off, just take the the hit of possible outrage etc. I think one of the reasons they are not fighting or even attempting to look for their son is 1) he was not there to begin with and they know where he is at, either sold etc, died etc. 2) or they accidentally did something to him or he was there and he is hidden somewhere. I just have a hard time believing they would not take certain steps or do nothing or very little in the search for their son. And if it was truly a vanished situation or he got away from them then say so and do everything you can to find him. Not consistently change stories do one search and then another a year later etc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I've shown by an example case in Canada, that it is quite possible for two adults to each truly believe a child is with the other adult. I can probably post more examples.
Translating to the DK case, this means that the statements by the father and the statements by the mother that they each believed the child remained with the GGP, and the statements by the GGP that he genuinely assumed the child had walked off to go to the parents, are in my opinion true statements.

 

[jessie]

I'm confused which narrative are we using? I remember when Jessica did her interview with Klein (closed eye version) she said GGP was watching Deorr. Surely GGP didn't just let Deorr wander off, are you using the original version where both parents took off and kinda sorta just figured the old enfeebled man was going to watch the toddler for this narrative? Personally I like that version better because what parent hasn't left a 2 year old in the woods, near a stream, a reservoir, and possible wild animals, without clearly putting a plan in place? Just the other day I left my 4 year old alone in Grand Central Station while I went off and bought some Hot Sam pretzels (oh man they were so good) I figured the elderly lady in the wheelchair would watch my kid because we exchanged a knowing glance when I walked off.

OMOO but the BBM is what this whole sad business boils down to. How believable of a two year old's parents is this scenario ?
Honestly, parenting is a learning curve I know but she (J) had other children. You KNOW a 2 year old cannot be out of your sight - ever - and in such an area ? No, no, no, FGS tell the truth !

 

[katydid23]

Acknowledging that there are variations between various accounts given in press interviews and released KIC interviews, I try to work out what actually happened.
In my opinion a situation arose where the parents thought the child was with the GGP, and the GGP, with whom the child indeed was initially, on seeing the child no longer with him, assumed that the child had then gone off to the parents and was therefore safe. Such situations do happen, and it would be interesting to find some links to other cases where this situation has happened.

IN what universe does a loving GreatGrandparent watch a toddler head for a steep bank overlooking a rushing stream, and then they just *shrug* and assume the 2 yr old is 'safe' ?

 

[Maggie_Mayz]

I've shown by an example case in Canada, that it is quite possible for two adults to each truly believe a child is with the other adult. I can probably post more examples.
Translating to the DK case, this means that the statements by the father and the statements by the mother that they each believed the child remained with the GGP, and the statements by the GGP that he genuinely assumed the child had walked off to go to the parents, are in my opinion true statements.

Ok i get it but why the inconsistencies of statements and no attempt to further find their son and why not just stick to that story if that is what they truly believe? Why not do everything they can to find him or continue searching for him?And why not say they did not know? Why hire two private investigators? I am so confused. Sorry I just do not see it adding up in that scenario. Why change it say abduction? Just to many questions and no answers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

I've shown by an example case in Canada, that it is quite possible for two adults to each truly believe a child is with the other adult. I can probably post more examples.
Translating to the DK case, this means that the statements by the father and the statements by the mother that they each believed the child remained with the GGP, and the statements by the GGP that he genuinely assumed the child had walked off to go to the parents, are in my opinion true statements.

He thought a 2 yr old was going to be able to go off into the wilderness area, alone, by a rushing stream, in a dense forest, and he assumed he'd be able to find his parents, who had a long head start and didn't even know he was coming their way?

 

[koios]

OMOO but the BBM is what this whole sad business boils down to. How believable of a two year old's parents is this scenario ?
Honestly, parenting is a learning curve I know but she (J) had other children. You KNOW a 2 year old cannot be out of your sight - ever - and in such an area ? No, no, no, FGS tell the truth !

Yes I agree a walking 2 year old should never be unobserved even for a second by a carer adult.
But in the real world it happens. By imprecise communication, or by momentary inattention (or a combination of both in the DK case), it happens in many cases.
It happened in the Canadian case I posted. And in the Leuewenburger case it happened due to an adult looking away for probably only a few seconds.

 

[Purplepixii]

This is of course based upon your ability to suspend reality and blindly believe "selected" bits and pieces from the parents rambling, tortured, changing, account of events. If we are going to cherry pick things to believe as truth in no particular order I go with "bottle of whiskey, took nap until noon, what's done is done, and when is the funeral?".

It is actually kind of fun, we could do a Mad Libs type game where everyone plugs in their own random thing from any of the 4 adults statements. We will be no closer to the truth of course...

I wish WebSleuths gave prizes for comment of the day - this one has me in fits [emoji23]

 

[SubtleGrace]

I've shown by an example case in Canada, that it is quite possible for two adults to each truly believe a child is with the other adult. I can probably post more examples.
Translating to the DK case, this means that the statements by the father and the statements by the mother that they each believed the child remained with the GGP, and the statements by the GGP that he genuinely assumed the child had walked off to go to the parents, are in my opinion true statements.

Can you show an example where two parents truly believed the child was with the other adult, AND the stories changed more than say, two times? Because IIRC the story has changed 4-5 times in the Deorr case. If you could do that, I would jump on your bandwagon. If that were truly the case, and the parents thought the kid was with another adult THERE WOULD BE NO REASON to have changing stories. None whatsoever. And don't bring up adding details, that is to be expected. I am talking about totally changing stories. Because at first, Grandpa saw him walk towards the parents. Then he went in his camper, and when he came out, Deorr was gone. Then, Deorr did follow the parents. I don't even know where we are now with what story "du jour".

 

[koios]

IN what universe does a loving GreatGrandparent watch a toddler head for a steep bank overlooking a rushing stream, and then they just *shrug* and assume the 2 yr old is 'safe' ?

He did not watch the child heading for a steep bank. He noticed the child was no longer at the campsite and assumed the child was with the parents. It's a mistake, but an easy one to make, made by many other adults in other cases.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

IN what universe does a loving GreatGrandparent watch a toddler head for a steep bank overlooking a rushing stream, and then they just *shrug* and assume the 2 yr old is 'safe' ?

Only in Kunzville!