ID - DeOrr Kunz Jr, 2, Timber Creek Campground, 10 July 2015 - #17

Discussion in 'DeOrr Kunz, Jr.' started by bessie, Jan 22, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eileenhawkeye

    eileenhawkeye Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,763
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ok I've seen quite a few posts that speculate Jessica is guilty whereas Vernal didn't know anything? Is this a reason why only she is being blamed?
     


  2. neesaki

    neesaki Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,087
    Likes Received:
    26,123
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Oh, I see. Yes, very helpful. Thank you, SS and MM. :)
     
  3. Rayemonde

    Rayemonde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, I can't remember if it was reported in msm yet but the family said that LE confiscated the guns when they got there just in case things got heated since everyone was so stressed about DeOrr being missing... I always thought that was a bit strange...
     
  4. neesaki

    neesaki Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,087
    Likes Received:
    26,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry about that sillybilly, I didn't realize. :blush:
     
  5. Midge Montana

    Midge Montana Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,410
    Likes Received:
    2,784
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, when did Vilt's opinion change so drastically? I was searching for video of the reenactment and saw a news clip dated September 15 of him pushing pretty hard that it was an abduction and that the parents had nothing to do with it.

    When did he offer the reward and was turned down, which is one of the big reasons he now states is what made him suspicious?

    He wrote his letter on September 25, so it seems he had a complete change of heart within 10 days, am I right?

    Also, I've tried to find a video of the reenactment but can only find a short clip of Vilt talking. Is there a video that shows more out there?
     
  6. SeriouslySearching

    SeriouslySearching Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    35,527
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I can only take a wild guess it is because so many believed him during the interviews and maybe didn't get the same vibe from her. Maybe not, but it is only what I recall from reading posts early on. People seemed to honestly buy what he was selling (and I was way over on the other side).

    Can I ask why people are calling him Vernal instead of DeOrr Sr.?
     
  7. Rayemonde

    Rayemonde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I have my own opinions about Vilt and have from the start, but we weren't allowed to post them or sleuth him at the time. Disagreeing with what he said is fine, but calling him "despicable" and making him out to be dishonest or money-grubbing?? It's going too far IMO. IMO we should just move on from Vilt and his theories and speculations rather than vilifying him for them. He's not the suspect in this case, after all.
     
  8. kammiemc

    kammiemc New Member

    Messages:
    2,626
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ack! Too many crazies in this world. I am working backwards from the most recent posts so just seeing this. Apparently the parents would not be breaking new ground to fake disappear their son for dough, then later try to reappear him. That doesn't sit right in my gut as what happened. But I am not on the investigation team!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  9. Rayemonde

    Rayemonde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Bowerman called him Vernal in his last interview with Tricia. It's his first name - DeOrr is his middle name. I find it useful as it distinguishes him from the two other DeOrr Kunzs connected to the case.
     
  10. mrjitty

    mrjitty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,128
    Likes Received:
    33,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Remember we are already dealing with unlikely outlier events here.

    In the Matthews case it did turn out that a different family member had indeed hidden the child (alive) in collusion with the mother.

    There really are only two possibilities now with abduction ruled out.

    1. The father has hidden the body outside the search area using the truck

    2. A 3rd party has picked the boy up and taken him away with collusion of parent(s)


    What i do think is you can see grief in the mother - so I think the child is dead.
     
  11. SeriouslySearching

    SeriouslySearching Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    35,527
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Good observation. Exactly what I thought watching the interviews.

    bbm
     
  12. mrjitty

    mrjitty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,128
    Likes Received:
    33,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Re Occams razor - let's make sure we invoke it correctly!

    <modsnip>

    So for example, in the McCann case, invoking a gang of eastern europeans who steal children to order and ship them to wealthy families (or worse) violates the principle because there is no evidence such gangs exist. The theory is essentially founded on urban myth.

    In the present case, the police sensibly start with the following theories.

    1. Wandering

    2. Occultation

    3. Abduction

    4. Animal attack.

    The point of pursuing a "theory of the case" is that as evidence is gathered, a correct theory will be supported.

    So theories 1 and 4 have been ruled out because evidence that should have been discovered was not discovered.

    Theory 3 is difficult to disprove because of the difficulty of disproving a negative. Yet as no evidence of abduction emerges the theory is overtaken by theory 2.

    We do have evidence of Occultation (apparently). So this is the "last theory standing".

    So returning to Occam - Given Occultation - how can it have occurred?

    A) In the truck. This is a good theory as it does not invoke anything extra. Also the fact that the child is missing supports the idea that a reason for occultation existed.

    B) In a 3rd party's car. This theory of itself does not actually violate Occam. It's an efficient explanation for why the child is not in the search zone.

    Also "if not in the truck" then theory B must be correct in the alternate.

    The stuff about adoption I agree might amount to wild speculation, but I think the theory that someone else picked the kid up in collusion is not actually far fetched.

    Reading between the lines my feeling is the Sheriff is saying that at least one other person in the extended family knows the truth.
     
  13. mrjitty

    mrjitty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,128
    Likes Received:
    33,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As with the most famous case that I won't mention, I tend to find these "search efforts" are often directed towards areas that can only draw a blank

    Look in Morocco! Look in Australia! Look for a boy disguised as a girl!
     
  14. mrjitty

    mrjitty Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,128
    Likes Received:
    33,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Re the Truck

    The combination of cadaver and blood dog place logical limits on disposal range / theories

    Blood dogs hits are immediate. A decent dog will hit on bleed in the truck, even if cleanup is attempted.

    Cadaver dog will reliably hit on a dead body around 90 mins from death - perhaps earlier.

    This means that:

    a) The body was removed from the dogs operation area inside 90 mins OR

    b) the body never was inside the dogs zone of operation

    If the boy died at camp - logically he cannot be more than say 60 mins drive away, allowing time for discussions etc. Otherwise I think the cadaver dog would hit on the truck.

    However if the boy died somewhere else, logically the body could a lot further away. Say up to 60 mins drive from the point of death.

    Or the body could near the point of death - and never was in the truck.

    This makes LEF's job very hard - especially when you consider that in several cases bodies have been removed from temporary hiding places and deposited far far away.
     
  15. katydid23

    katydid23 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    59,714
    Likes Received:
    150,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not possible that she adopted him out legally without LE knowing about it. There would be obvious legal records and the social workers, courts and attorneys would know his name and come forward.
     
  16. crh8

    crh8 New Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I have thought about the many places Deorr could possibly be. If he was never on the mountain or was only up there long enough for Isaac R. to see him then maybe the parents put his body in the EMT bag (that Jessica didn't want to bring up in the first interview) and then tossed it into a dumpster somewhere.

    Very horrible but possible.

    If one was going to bury a body, they'd have to dig 6 feet and then put the body in the ground.. (body's wrapped in plastic or non biodegradable containers would leave too much evidence if ever discovered.) A 6 foot deep hole is not easy to dig and would take some time. I think a cadaver dog would hit on the person that dug the grave and put the child in there. All of that would be difficult to do in 90 minutes before the body starts to decay enough for a cadaver dog to get a hit.. and presumably the dirt would get the truck dirty with earth. Even if the clothes the gravedigger were thrown out, I don't think washing could get the smell of decay off the skin in time. But then there weren't cadaver dogs up there the first day, correct?

    One more thing, in the first interview Vernal misspoke and said "Snake" river before correcting himself to the Salmon river then he says snake and salmon search and rescue...The snake river runs right through idaho falls.
     
  17. Trident

    Trident Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,277
    Likes Received:
    11,810
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This has been my theory since the beginning - after the cat - but could never express it. I'm not sure about adoption, but a friendly, non-forced abduction is not out of the question in my opinion.
     
  18. Rayemonde

    Rayemonde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The bag went missing during the searches, so do you mean that they stole the bag to move the body? That would be very risky... Too much chance of someone seeing them wandering around with an EMT bag. Why wouldn't they just use one of their own bags, or take a friend or relative's bag, rather than breaking into a car and taking a very distinctive bag.
     
  19. Rayemonde

    Rayemonde Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    400
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If the parents were unaccounted for for 4 hours though, that is plenty of time to dispose of a body far away, clean themselves up (maybe find somewhere to take a shower), change their clothes, dispose of any other evidence...

    Plus we don't know that the cadaver dogs didn't hit on anyone or anywhere. Bowerman wouldn't tell us if they had, IMO.
     
  20. PainExpress

    PainExpress Active Member

    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If anything the adoption story should at least invoke a decent discussion between Mum and Dad.

    If it doesn't - and surely people are listening - then that will answer alot of questions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice