ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #11

[wondering25]

I could not agree you with more. The sheriff actually has NOT contradicted himself. The case is evolving, AS INVESTIGATIONS DO. He has barely spoken at all, and he had done so carefully, respectfully and gently. He has not made irresponsible insinuations and allegations. (I could see why people would be freaking if that were the case.)

If he has handled this search so poorly, why wouldn't the family be screaming about it instead of praising the search efforts to high heavens?

I think some people are confusing statements from different people and attributing them all to the sheriff. And I think when things get that accusatory it might be time to provide some links to ensure the accusations are accurate.

Does anyone really think the sheriff is sociopath in disguise as LE? And that he wakes up every morning trying to think how he can pull the wool over The eyes of American taxpayers?

WHY not be equally as disgusted at the FBI for not providing full transparency and answers to the public about all the search dates, the money spent, etc? It's a shared case now.

OR...maybe trust that they know how to do their jobs and have far more info than people totally outside the case.

It just makes no sense.

I've shaken my head so hard it feels like it's about to come off my body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM I am going to address what you wrote and i bolded above. i havent heard the family say much of anything except that first interview with Nate around day 3 when dad did most of the talking. The family is also using a PI..IMO that indicates some level of dissatisfaction with LE. Lastly, They arent going to scream to high heaven if they are at all culpable in the baby's disappearance. MOO

My ire is directed at the sheriff virtually ruling out everything. Total transparency? No.. i certainly understand he has to hold back some evidence . It is my opinion he has not been forthright with the public. He can say nothing.. he can rule out almost everything and that doesnt make him a great sheriff, investigator or public servant in my eyes.. He looks to me like he is protecting more than the integrity of the investigation. MOO

Marching under the noble banner of LE has a RIGHT to keep everyone in the dark regarding a possible crime is a scary thought. That is why we have FOIA, police reports, sunshine laws and accountability for all elected and appointed LE. How would we know if they are doing their job if they just treated the citizens of their districts as village idiots who deserve no answers? IMO Do not EVER get lulled into the "police are the ultimate arbiters of this" That promotes corruption, distrust and speculation. I find this case disturbing on many levels..and i am unwilling to say it was handled with the best interests of the citizenry also in mind. MOO

If he turns out to be Colombo.. i will apologize.. honest, i will. hdear:

Anything i write is just my opinion.

 

[ILOKAL]

Police have every right to lie to suspects.

"The police, for example, may not use torture techniques, threats, drugging, or inhumane treatment during an interrogation. The police, however, can use lying, trickery, and other types of non-coercive methods to obtain a confession from a suspect."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/faqs-police-interrogations.html#sthash.fDSHyZZ6.dpuf

I would prefer that LE would simply issue a "no comment" as opposed to lying to the public, but I also realize that lying can play a role in seeing justice done. I don't think there's a pat answer or easy solution to this issue. I'd expect each officer would be held accountable for his/her actions in every case and the outcome of those actions, good or bad.

Findlaw is a great source. Was that first paragraph introduced by "Why You Need a Lawyer if You've Been Named a Suspect"?

Lying to suspects during interrogations in an attempt to get a confession from them (guilty or not) is, IMO, reprehensible, and it is for that reason the services of a good attorney should be utilized, especially if the "suspect" is innocent. IMO

A public official should never mislead or lie to the people they serve. A "no comment" (rahter than a lie) may not get as many tongues wagging but it won't hurt a case either. IMO

 

[desert-blue]

3:53 in the video [video=youtube;FV-h82eVQ1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M[/video]

"I'd be surprised if there's a camera anywheres in Leadore."

This bugs me. I can't say it's a lie because I have no idea what the sheriff thinks or knows. I find it troubling though because I think he should know. Maybe he is saying it to send "relief" to the POI's thinking all is well because nothing is on camera. Maybe it's strategy on his part. Or, maybe none of the POI's are being investigated - maybe they all passed their polygraphs with flying colors and have been all cleared 100% so there is no need to investigate their movements any further - thus, there would be no need to look for cameras (although if they think he was abducted, finding camera footage would still be important).

All of that aside, I am fine with the sheriff keeping details under wraps and being strategic in what he says. It's his investigation and his only allegiance is to little Deorr. As long as the public is not in danger, I don't think he is obligated to reveal anything. In fact, I think it's quite interesting to see what he says and doesn't say. I also agree that some of the confusion about him ruling scenarios in and out may be attributed to poor reporting. "The sheriff thinks abduction is the least likely scenario" isn't the same as "The sheriff has ruled out abduction." They are similar but not the same. In this investigation, it seems there have been varying degrees of certainty with certain scenarios and that may make it appear that the sheriff is being wishy-washy, but after thinking about this, it may just be due to different reporters stating things in different ways - adding their own "spin," if you will.

FWIW, I didn't get the sense that anyone was trying to vilify the sheriff or imply that he's a sociopath. I know I certainly wasn't - I hope my (minor) criticism of him was not interpreted that way because it was not my intention. I think he's doing the best he can and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes for all the tea in China.

 

[kammiemc]

3:53 in the video [video=youtube;FV-h82eVQ1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M[/video]

"I'd be surprised if there's a camera anywheres in Leadore."

This bugs me. I can't say it's a lie because I have no idea what the sheriff thinks or knows. I find it troubling though because I think he should know. Maybe he is saying it to send "relief" to the POI's thinking all is well because nothing is on camera. Maybe it's strategy on his part. Or, maybe none of the POI's are being investigated - maybe they all passed their polygraphs with flying colors and have been all cleared 100% so there is no need to investigate their movements any further - thus, there would be no need to look for cameras (although if they think he was abducted, finding camera footage would still be important).

All of that aside, I am fine with the sheriff keeping details under wraps and being strategic in what he says. It's his investigation and his only allegiance is to little Deorr. As long as the public is not in danger, I don't think he is obligated to reveal anything. In fact, I think it's quite interesting to see what he says and doesn't say. I also agree that some of the confusion about him ruling scenarios in and out may be attributed to poor reporting. "The sheriff thinks abduction is the least likely scenario" isn't the same as "The sheriff has ruled out abduction." They are similar but not the same. In this investigation, it seems there have been varying degrees of certainty with certain scenarios and that may make it appear that the sheriff is being wishy-washy, but after thinking about this, it may just be due to different reporters stating things in different ways - adding their own "spin," if you will.

FWIW, I didn't get the sense that anyone was trying to vilify the sheriff or imply that he's a sociopath. I know I certainly wasn't - I hope my (minor) criticism of him was not interpreted that way because it was not my intention. I think he's doing the best he can and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes for all the tea in China.

Okay. Thank you. Is if this is part of what all the hubbub is about, let's see...

When asked about video surveillance, he could have said no comment instead of sort of shrugging it off.

He didn't want to talk about it. To say "no comment" is to say more than simply trying to move on without drawing attention to the question/answer. If he had said "no comment," that would alert me (IMO) and any possible suspects who might have been entangling themselves in stories of where they were/when that video is important to the case and that it likely exists. And that LE knew exactly if they weren't where they said they were. Perhaps that would allow those possible suspects to change their stories because they would now be aware of what LE knew. Perhaps that would lead to them not feeling like they needed to make a confession, or perhaps their new story would help foster reasonable doubt in the courtroom should the case ever go to trial, all making it more possible that justice might not be served for the little toddler.

I personally don't think it's more important that he say "no comment" to public instead of shrugging it off if it helps the investigation in ANY way. But I also don't mind that there are counter-terrorism efforts going on in my city that I am not privy to. I guess it's a judgment call.

 

[jessie]

This post, and numerous others both before and after, really make me shake my head. I mean no offence to anyone on this forum but essentially that's what we are - a forum of people from across the world with a strong interest in the subject of missing people. We all care in one way or another and WS has had some successes.

What we are not, is Law Enforcement. This sheriff doesn't have to tell us a *advertiser censored* thing pertinent to the investigation. He can obfuscate to suspects / witnesses / the media / us all he likes.

He owes nothing to people not involved directly in the investigation.

His duty is to ensure that this investigation is handled to the best of LE's ability with any & all resources available to him.

If it comes out at a later date that he messed something up that jeopardised the case then I will sing a different tune. Until then he is the man in charge and he can lie / mislead me (& the rest of the world) as much as necessary if it helps strengthen a case against the perpetrator.

MOO

I agree with all you have said - I would just change one word in your post though BBM.
This Sheriff isn't having a chat with his next door neighbour, he is being interviewed by a journalist so he must be cautious what he says as it will be dissected and pored over by the public after.
Have the parents, GGF, I|D told us clearly what was discussed in their interviews with LE ? I doubt it.

I don't feel he is lying, just being as vague as he is allowed and frankly I wouldn't expect anything else from an investigation, however frustrating it is for the public..
We aren't his colleagues in LE after all.

Don't want to upset or anger anyone with MOO, maybe just a different outlook.

 

[Eileen730]

3:53 in the video [video=youtube;FV-h82eVQ1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FV-h82eVQ1M[/video]

"I'd be surprised if there's a camera anywheres in Leadore."



This bugs me. I can't say it's a lie because I have no idea what the sheriff thinks or knows. I find it troubling though because I think he should know. Maybe he is saying it to send "relief" to the POI's thinking all is well because nothing is on camera. Maybe it's strategy on his part. Or, maybe none of the POI's are being investigated - maybe they all passed their polygraphs with flying colors and have been all cleared 100% so there is no need to investigate their movements any further - thus, there would be no need to look for cameras (although if they think he was abducted, finding camera footage would still be important).

All of that aside, I am fine with the sheriff keeping details under wraps and being strategic in what he says. It's his investigation and his only allegiance is to little Deorr. As long as the public is not in danger, I don't think he is obligated to reveal anything. In fact, I think it's quite interesting to see what he says and doesn't say. I also agree that some of the confusion about him ruling scenarios in and out may be attributed to poor reporting. "The sheriff thinks abduction is the least likely scenario" isn't the same as "The sheriff has ruled out abduction." They are similar but not the same. In this investigation, it seems there have been varying degrees of certainty with certain scenarios and that may make it appear that the sheriff is being wishy-washy, but after thinking about this, it may just be due to different reporters stating things in different ways - adding their own "spin," if you will.

FWIW, I didn't get the sense that anyone was trying to vilify the sheriff or imply that he's a sociopath. I know I certainly wasn't - I hope my (minor) criticism of him was not interpreted that way because it was not my intention. I think he's doing the best he can and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes for all the tea in China.

At.30 in this video the sheriff says they returned from Ledore and Supposedly or they thought they were turning the child over to the grandfather the childs great grandfather

what the heck is that?
Shouldn't they KNOW ?

 

[wondering25]

How about the sheriff coming out the first 24 hours and saying when the baby arrived at the campground? What harm would be done by saying "On July 9th, in the evening, this family arrived at bla bla campground". We couldnt even get that. WHO KNOWS what someone may have seen that has long been forgotten because they were never informed of the correct time of the parent's arrival? Either he was clueless or irresponsible. Neither is acceptable, JMO

 

[Eileen730]

How about the sheriff coming out the first 24 hours and saying when the baby arrived at the campground? What harm would be done by saying "On July 9th, in the evening, this family arrived at bla bla campground". We couldnt even get that. WHO KNOWS what someone may have seen that has long been forgotten because they were never informed of the correct time of the parent's arrival? Either he was clueless or irresponsible. Neither is acceptable, JMO

He said he found that out during the course of the investigation that they arrived on the the 9th.
Not the 10th. I don't believe he was initially told.

 

[Eileen730]

IMO the Detectives are only as good as the information they are given.

 

[desert-blue]

When asked about video surveillance, he could have said no comment instead of sort of shrugging it off.

He wasn't asked if there was video surveillance anywhere in Leadore. He was asked if there was a camera at the place they stopped for diesel (and Penner answered that there wasn't). The sheriff then volunteered the statement about the town of Leadore on his own. I think it must be strategy on his part.

 

[ReadySet]

More important than anything, is the victim, little Deorr. His rights transcend all. His right to be found, to be brought home, and , if a crime has been committed, to have justice. He might be lying somewhere, alone. He has the right to come home.

Our right to know, to have LE use certain words and phrases to our satisfaction, to be told certain things, takes second place to little Deorr's rights.

So it's fine with me if LE makes an error, they err on the side of finding Deorr.

And as a citizen of Lemhi County--oh wait! I'm NOT a citizen of that county. Anyone else?

All just my opinion

 

[Arnie M]

He wasn't asked if there was video surveillance anywhere in Leadore. He was asked if there was a camera at the place they stopped for diesel (and Penner answered that there wasn't). The sheriff then volunteered the statement about the town of Leadore on his own. I think it must be strategy on his part.

The Sheriff was searching for a tiny little boy in the forest

The Sheriff was not searching for tiny little cameras in tiny little towns.

If an abduction was not suspected , why should he focus on it ?

And if an abduction was suspected , it would be an FBI matter

The sheriff has handed the files over to the FBI

The FBI would check for cameras on the roads coming and going

What was the question ?

What seems to be the problem ?


.

 

[kammiemc]

BBM I am going to address what you wrote and i bolded above. i havent heard the family say much of anything except that first interview with Nate around day 3 when dad did most of the talking. The family is also using a PI..IMO that indicates some level of dissatisfaction with LE. Lastly, They arent going to scream to high heaven if they are at all culpable in the baby's disappearance. MOO

My ire is directed at the sheriff virtually ruling out everything. Total transparency? No.. i certainly understand he has to hold back some evidence . It is my opinion he has not been forthright with the public. He can say nothing.. he can rule out almost everything and that doesnt make him a great sheriff, investigator or public servant in my eyes.. He looks to me like he is protecting more than the integrity of the investigation. MOO

Marching under the noble banner of LE has a RIGHT to keep everyone in the dark regarding a possible crime is a scary thought. That is why we have FOIA, police reports, sunshine laws and accountability for all elected and appointed LE. How would we know if they are doing their job if they just treated the citizens of their districts as village idiots who deserve no answers? IMO Do not EVER get lulled into the "police are the ultimate arbiters of this" That promotes corruption, distrust and speculation. I find this case disturbing on many levels..and i am unwilling to say it was handled with the best interests of the citizenry also in mind. MOO

If he turns out to be Colombo.. i will apologize.. honest, i will. hdear:

Anything i write is just my opinion.

Well, that is a strong negative opinion of this man, but one that you have a right to have.

 

[ReadySet]

How about the sheriff coming out the first 24 hours and saying when the baby arrived at the campground? What harm would be done by saying "On July 9th, in the evening, this family arrived at bla bla campground". We couldnt even get that. WHO KNOWS what someone may have seen that has long been forgotten because they were never informed of the correct time of the parent's arrival? Either he was clueless or irresponsible. Neither is acceptable, JMO

Or, the campers weren't forthcoming about when they arrived?

 

[desert-blue]

The Sheriff was searching for a tiny little boy in the forest , He was not searching for tiny little cameras in tiny little towns.

This interview was on August 18th. The sheriff himself redirected the investigation on July 20th and called off searching in the forest. Where it was redirected to, we have no idea, but it seems like cameras in the nearest town might be worth investigating. MOO.

 

[ReadySet]

This interview was on August 18th. The sheriff himself redirected the investigation on July 20th and called off searching in the forest. Where it was redirected to, we have no idea, but it seems like cameras in the nearest town might be worth investigating. MOO.

BBM Do you have a link for that? TIA

 

[kammiemc]

The Sheriff was searching for a tiny little boy in the forest

The Sheriff was not searching for tiny little cameras in tiny little towns.

If an abduction was not suspected , why should he focus on it ?

And if an abduction was suspected , it would be an FBI matter

The sheriff has handed the files over to the FBI

The FBI would check for cameras on the roads coming and going

What was the question ?

What seems to be the problem ?


.

The problems are apparently multi-fold with this conniving, misleading sheriff who has botched the search from day one and has the gall to be "vague" about ONE sensitive question about whether there is video surveillance that comes into play in this case, instead of saying "no comment." Clearly if there was a better sheriff and he could tell exactly when every search took place, who paid for it, and used approximately 3-4 different words in one interview this case would be solved.


ETA: If all that sounds utterly ridiculous, it's because it's complete sarcasm, FYI....Gaah!

 

[desert-blue]

The Sheriff was searching for a tiny little boy in the forest

The Sheriff was not searching for tiny little cameras in tiny little towns.

If an abduction was not suspected , why should he focus on it ?

And if an abduction was suspected , it would be an FBI matter

The sheriff has handed the files over to the FBI

The FBI would check for cameras on the roads coming and going

What was the question ?

What seems to be the problem ?


.

I'm not sure if I should even respond to this, but why on earth would abduction be investigated only by the FBI? Deorr had been missing for several weeks before the FBI was called in. You're asserting that local police and sheriff departments should not investigate abduction when a child seems to have vanished without a trace? They should wait 3 or 4 weeks and then call the FBI?

 

[desert-blue]

The problems are apparently multi-fold with this conniving, misleading sheriff who has botched the search from day one and has the gall to be "vague" about ONE sensitive question about whether there is video surveillance that comes into play in this case, instead of saying "no comment." Clearly if there was a better sheriff and he could tell exactly when every search took place, who paid for it, and used approximately 3-4 different words in one interview this case would be solved.

Gaah!!!!

This sheriff has been vague about much more than the cameras. That was just an example I was giving. I have never said that he is conniving or that he has botched anything. I think his vagueness is part of this strategy. You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

 

[desert-blue]

BBM Do you have a link for that? TIA

July 20, 2015

“After ten days of searching, diving, and scouring the hillsides, the Sheriff’s Office has decided to redirect the investigation,” Sheriff Lynn Bowerman said in a news release. “The Sheriff’s Office will keep a presence in the Timber Creek area, continuing to search for clues, and has not ruled out abduction by strangers or wild animals.”

http://www.eastidahonews.com/2015/07/officials-scaling-back-campground-search-efforts-for-deorr-kunz/