ID DEORR KUNZ: Missing from Timber Creek Campground near Leadore, ID - 10 July 2015 - Age 2

DeOrr was last seen in Lemhi County, Idaho on July 10, 2015. He was with his parents, Jessica Mitchell and Vernal "DeOrr" Kunz Sr., his great-grandfather, Robert Walton, and Walton's friend Isaac Reinwand. The group was camping at Timber Creek Campground in a remote, mountainous area about ten miles west of Leadore, Idaho.

At 2:35 p.m. Mitchell called 911 and said her son had disappeared. According to her, she left DeOrr with Walton and she and DeOrr Sr. went to explore the campground, and when they returned about ten to fifteen minutes later, the child was gone. They looked for him for about twenty minutes before calling 911.

According to Mitchell, DeOrr never went anywhere without his blanket, his cup or his toy monkey; all these items were left at the campground. An extensive search of the area turned up no indication of his whereabouts.

Although DeOrr's parents speculated he had been abducted, police have named them as suspects in their son's disappearance. They had been engaged, but they ended their relationship after DeOrr's disappearance. Neither of them has an arrest record.

Investigators said there were inconsistencies in the parents' stories and they had both failed polygraph exams; they believe DeOrr was killed, either intentionally or by accident, and his parents know where his body is.

According to the sheriff, there was "no credible witness" to say they had definitely seen DeOrr at the campground, and it's possible he was never there at all. His case remains unsolved and foul play is suspected.


Charley Project - http://charleyproject.org/case/deorr-jay-kunz-jr
NCMEC - http://www.missingkids.org/poster/NCMC/1251277
NamUs - https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Case#/29726




Media - https://www.crimewatchers.net/media...near-leadore-id-since-10-july-2015-age-2.272/

 

[Regina]

Re tiny body of Deorr, imagine how tiny his boot was but since no boot was found, the former sheriff ruled out the theory that Deorr was carried off by an animal.
Thank God the current sheriff is far more sensible.

 

[SheWhoMustNotBeNamed]

Thanks but no thanks. I don't have the patience, it's just not my cup of tea.

Anyway, from that written account, I don't see the Budweiser guy denying that he saw Deorr, I see him denying to remember that he put a child in his truck.

I'm with you there. I don't do 90% of podcasts and 99% of YouTuber drama. Especially those without a source that I can see or hear the information for myself firsthand.

Yeah, I hear over and over that there are lies and inconsistencies and that's why I try to find the source of info.
As for inconsistencies, in general, I'd expect that there would be. As for lies, I don't know of any.

Edit: I want to add that I recall hearing Vernal say something about Deorr excited to see a truck but it seems like that was all there was to it.

I don't know of any lies either. All I know is that two Private Investigators (Klein and the one before him) said that the parents lied to THEM. I don't know how they determined that. I do know that Klein, the investigator who is now back on the case, has been sued by more families that just Deorr's. Personally, I discount just about anything he says.

The former Sheriff did say the parents were "less than truthful" during polygraph exams. But he also basically said that because the parent's didn't admit to an accident happening, that the logical conclusion was murder...

I don't know. Even if they failed polygraphs, I still feel like it was a case of neglect / drug use and he wandered away or fell in the creek. Every bit of info about specific lies or inconsistencies or whatever comes from Klein. Not law enforcement.

 

[Guess Who]

I'm with you there. I don't do 90% of podcasts and 99% of YouTuber drama. Especially those without a source that I can see or hear the information for myself firsthand.


I don't know of any lies either. All I know is that two Private Investigators (Klein and the one before him) said that the parents lied to THEM. I don't know how they determined that. I do know that Klein, the investigator who is now back on the case, has been sued by more families that just Deorr's. Personally, I discount just about anything he says.

The former Sheriff did say the parents were "less than truthful" during polygraph exams. But he also basically said that because the parent's didn't admit to an accident happening, that the logical conclusion was murder...

I don't know. Even if they failed polygraphs, I still feel like it was a case of neglect / drug use and he wandered away or fell in the creek. Every bit of info about specific lies or inconsistencies or whatever comes from Klein. Not law enforcement.

I think they stayed away at the creek a lot longer than they are admitting, doing no telling what.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I don't assume anything said in this case by the parents or the grandparent are necessarily truth. Who was where, when, etc. It might be, it might not be, parts may be and other parts may not be. One may have told the truth and another not. Or all could be lying.

This may have been negligence and it may have been an intentional and planned act. The entire trip may have been a plan.

That's the problem, there is no way to know any of these things.

I don't believe he was kidnapped nor taken by an animal and that leaves me with the people present. If in fact he even disappeared when stated. How many cases have we seen where that is the case. A TON.

Jmo and I may be fuzzy on some facts but think all of the above is wide open as to what is truth and what is not.

 

[Regina]

I don't know of any lies either. All I know is that two Private Investigators (Klein and the one before him) said that the parents lied to THEM. I don't know how they determined that. I do know that Klein, the investigator who is now back on the case, has been sued by more families that just Deorr's. Personally, I discount just about anything he says.

Yeah, I was already familiar enough with Klein to know he can't be trusted. Perhaps needless to say, I don't believe anything he says nor am I interested in even hearing anything he has to say.
Re the PI before him, I recall there was a falling-out of sorts with the parents- over whether there should be a reward or how to go about publicity- but before that, he'd spoke highly of the parents to Nate Eaton of East Idaho News.
Btw, he said "everything points to abduction". He ruled out the theory of animal involvement for the same reason as the former sheriff.

The former Sheriff did say the parents were "less than truthful" during polygraph exams. But he also basically said that because the parent's didn't admit to an accident happening, that the logical conclusion was murder...

Yeah, I remember him saying that and I'm still dumbfounded by his "logic".
Re "less than truthful" during polys, I interpret that to mean that there's no evidence that the parents lied.

Edit: The following comment has nothing to do with poly results.
An inconsistency is not a lie and I don't even know what's been characterized as inconsistent. I may learn and find that I don't agree it's inconsistent or that if so, it's insignificant!

I still feel like it was a case of neglect / drug use and he wandered away or fell in the creek.

It's still an accident, and although there are cases in which parents are accused of covering up an accident, I don't think that really happens.

 

[Regina]

I think they stayed away at the creek a lot longer than they are admitting, doing no telling what.

Yeah but certainly I think authorities have established to a reasonable degree an approximate window of time that Deorr could have been out of anyone's sight until he was discovered missing.

 

[Guess Who]

Yeah, I was already familiar enough with Klein to know he can't be trusted. Perhaps needless to say, I don't believe anything he says nor am I interested in even hearing anything he has to say.
Re the PI before him, I recall there was a falling-out of sorts with the parents- over whether there should be a reward or how to go about publicity- but before that, he'd spoke highly of the parents to Nate Eaton of East Idaho News.
Btw, he said "everything points to abduction". He ruled out the theory of animal involvement for the same reason as the former sheriff.


Yeah, I remember him saying that and I'm still dumbfounded by his "logic".
Re "less than truthful" during polys, I interpret that to mean that there's no evidence that the parents lied.

Edit: The following comment has nothing to do with poly results.
An inconsistency is not a lie and I don't even know what's been characterized as inconsistent. I may learn and find that I don't agree it's inconsistent or that if so, it's insignificant!


It's still an accident, and although there are cases in which parents are accused of covering up an accident, I don't think that really happens.

Which could also include them saying they went to the creek for a few minutes vs longer than that or what they were doing at the creek.

 

[GrandmaBear]

For me, a single thing anyone in this group camping said, and especially the parents, could be entirely untrue. It's hard because the stories come in many cases from the ones with something to hide, and it's hard to get out of one's head that it may all be false, but it very well could be. We start basing on a false story.

Like the Grimes, Selby story. We had a story probably pushed and given by the very perp. News buys it too and that becomes the headline. Or like in Morphew, mother disappeared while riding a bike and there was NEVER any bike ride. And STILL, new headlines say that yet.

 

[Regina]

Which could also include them saying they went to the creek for a few minutes vs longer than that or what they were doing at the creek.

The thing is, I think they were as accurate as they could possibly be as to how long they were there... and as to what they were doing, there's no evidence that they were doing anything other than what they said they were doing.
I've heard Sheriff Penner give a window of 5-20 minutes and what I think he meant was from the time anyone had eyes on Deorr to when he was discovered missing.
It seems that Jessica described last seeing Deorr as she was walking away and he walking back to the grandpa but per Jessica's mother, the grandpa said he last saw Deorr playing on the ground and so it appears to me that the grandpa was actually the last one to see Deorr.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The thing is, I think they were as accurate as they could possibly be as to how long they were there... and as to what they were doing, there's no evidence that they were doing anything other than what they said they were doing.
I've heard Sheriff Penner give a window of 5-20 minutes and what I think he meant was from the time anyone had eyes on Deorr to when he was discovered missing.
It seems that Jessica described last seeing Deorr as she was walking away and he walking back to the grandpa but per Jessica's mother, the grandpa said he last saw Deorr playing on the ground and so it appears to me that the grandpa was actually the last one to see Deorr.

Well grandma is total hearsay for starters.

And yeah we can all think or not that they were telling the truth to the best of their ability IF you choose to believe one way over another or one result of how he died over another. There may be no evidence they were doing anything but what they said they were doing but there is no evidence they were either. None. Whether true or false, any of it, none of it would be able to be proven no matter what direction any of us would lean.

All info comes from this group. ALL of it. It's all odd to begin with, the entire trip. I agree with Mel on the younger guy being with grandpa. Never did make sense to me. I mean I guess you could just have friends of different ages but the two of them go camping with his kid, parents of one child along with, etc. I mean it just sounds like an odd group nor do I see any reason for it from the start. This wasn't a family camping trip with a bunch of children and cousins. It wasn't a family camping trip with even grandma and grandpa and grandson and both parents. Then this happens.

At best Deorr was just a child that had to be along while the adults wanted to go do their thing and no one cared to really watch him.

I'm sorry but I don't believe the parents and never have. And because it is stupid to, I have no reason to believe one adult on this trip. You may say there is no reason to doubt their story but I would say the opposite. They have a missing child. There is as much reason to doubt them in that case as believe them. More so actually. You are camping in the wilderness, that is when you are MORE attentive than you would be in your own home with doors and walls. He was a BABY.

 

[Regina]

At best Deorr was just a child that had to be along while the adults wanted to go do their thing and no one cared to really watch him.
You are camping in the wilderness, that is when you are MORE attentive than you would be in your own home with doors and walls. He was a BABY.

At worst, they were naive.
Indeed, naive, when I hear Vernal explain reasons he thought Deorr was in a safe place. (Interview with the parents, East Idaho News, on Day 3, I think it was.)

 

[GrandmaBear]

At worst, they were naive.
Indeed, naive, when I hear Vernal explain reasons he thought Deorr was in a safe place. (Interview with the parents, East Idaho News, on Day 3, I think it was.)

Maybe. But naive along with cover up through the years imo. It's like water cases, everyone even a young naive parent KNOWS you helicopter if water is in the area and you have young children. I was a very naive young parent but that one was a no brainer. So would be wilderness, camp fires, wild animals! And believe me, I was NAIVE. So were roads, highways, etc. Electrical outlets. Stove. So forth. They are NO BRAINERS. So even though naive, no, no one at that age is that naive.

I don't buy it. Never will.

 

[Regina]

It's like water cases, everyone even a young naive parent KNOWS you helicopter if water is in the area and you have young children. I was a very naive young parent but that one was a no brainer. So would be wilderness, camp fires, wild animals! And believe me, I was NAIVE. So were roads, highways, etc. Electrical outlets. Stove. So forth. They are NO BRAINERS. So even though naive, no, no one at that age is that naive.

Well I'm sure I was older and still naive about animal danger in wilderness areas and hearing Vernal say he thought Deorr was safe tells me that he was, too.

 

[Guess Who]

Well I'm sure I was older and still naive about animal danger in wilderness areas and hearing Vernal say he thought Deorr was safe tells me that he was, too.

Looking back, there are definitely things we did, not out of neglect, but out of just being nieve to some things.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well I'm sure I was older and still naive about animal danger in wilderness areas and hearing Vernal say he thought Deorr was safe tells me that he was, too.

It doesn't mean just about animal danger in wilderness, are you telling me you were not worried about children wandering in areas where there was water, they could get lost and never found, etc.? Get bitten to "death' by mosquitoes, into poison ivy, etc. That is not naivete, that is beyond belief that one wouldn't know of any danger in that or not watching a child of this age. It isn't like they were parents of a newborn. By the time they are walking and talking you darned well do know and learn daily you can't leave them alone for a minute.

Sorry, not buying it. I was naive but not THAT naive. And that's not naivete, that's neglect and worse.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Looking back, there are definitely things we did, not out of neglect, but out of just being nieve to some things.

Yeah, some things. But not others.

 

[Regina]

Looking back, there are definitely things we did, not out of neglect, but out of just being nieve to some things.

Sure, I think it's only natural.
And as it pertains to this particular circumstance, I'd like to add that the parents believed that the grandpa would keep an eye on Deorr, and that since the camp itself was within open area, "there was nowhere he could go that he couldn't be seen", which I think are Vernal's precise words. But the grandpa was distracted...
Jessica's mother said he told her that Deorr was playing in the dirt and he was watching the mountains and the eagles; the former sheriff said it this way: "Grandpa's watching the child, he tells me he looks away momentarily and when he looks back, he's gone".

 

[GrandmaBear]

Sure, I think it's only natural.
And as it pertains to this particular circumstance, I'd like to add that the parents believed that the grandpa would keep an eye on Deorr, and that since the camp itself was within open area, "there was nowhere he could go that he couldn't be seen", which I think are Vernal's precise words. But the grandpa was distracted...
Jessica's mother said he told her that Deorr was playing in the dirt and he was watching the mountains and the eagles; the former sheriff said it this way: "Grandpa's watching the child, he tells me he looks away momentarily and when he looks back, he's gone".

I disagree. This child was TWO. In that time you know when walking for at least a year and even while crawling they can be gone in an instant and into anything. GRANDPA already knew that having raised kid(s) although maybe in his day and age like many of ours it was not unusual to let a kid just go play outside etc. BUT NOT A TWO YEAR OLD even then.

And while a group doing such can come in any shape or form, I agree with @Mel70 that it seems unusual grandpa was with a far younger friend. Now in a case where nothing happened that wouldn't even be wondered about but something did happen here. What was the reason for that, does anyone recall? Where was grandma? Home?

And I forget, has it ever been known just how much "partying" was going on?

Can someone point me to proof this child was even on this trip? I seem to recall but unsure that that is not even certain and we sure see cases like that nowadays, a LOT. Claims of such like with the West boys and many more, well after the time they went missing.

Maybe I am wrong, it's just too many cases through the years and this is an old and stale one sadly. But it rings a bell that that too has been questioned by people.

 

[Regina]

It doesn't mean just about animal danger in wilderness, are you telling me you were not worried about children wandering in areas where there was water, they could get lost and never found, etc.? Get bitten to "death' by mosquitoes, into poison ivy, etc. That is not naivete, that is beyond belief that one wouldn't know of any danger in that or not watching a child of this age. It isn't like they were parents of a newborn. By the time they are walking and talking you darned well do know and learn daily you can't leave them alone for a minute.

No, I think they were naive about a lot of things, mainly the idea that nothing bad could happen.

 

[GrandmaBear]

No, I think they were naive about a lot of things, mainly the idea that nothing bad could happen.

And I don't. And we can differ on that. They aren't too naive to cover their arses. Funny how that instinct always kicks in.

Sorry but I'm not. Some cases just don't gel. This is one.