1209 users online (205 members and 1004 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 182
  1. #1

    Canada - Michael Wayne Dunahee, 4, Victoria BC, 24 Mar 1991

    I just wanted to post this because its one of those cases that got under my skin again.

    Michael has been missing since 1991- thats 14 years without his family. I just feel that there is a slight glimmer of hope in this case- as Michael was seen some 3 months after his dissapearance in the US, alive with a man who was trying to abduct a little girl. Maybe Michael is somewhere now and doesnt know he was ever missing. Please look at his photo carefully..........


    Missing Since: March 24, 1991 from Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
    Classification: Non-Family Abduction
    Date Of Birth: April 12, 1986
    Age: 4 years old
    Height and Weight: 3'0, 45-51 pounds
    Distinguishing Characteristics: Sandy blond hair, blue eyes. Thick hair. He may have freckles; he was starting to show them when he disappeared. His body is hourglass-shaped and he is very articulate for his age. Some agencies may spell Dunahee's first name "Micheal."


    From Meggily Weggilys site
    http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/...e_michael.html

    Age progression- please look carefully

    Does anyone have any theories about this case? Its very unusual indeed- not nearly because people invariably commit these kind of crimes against someone of the same race. But also because if Michael was sighted in Berlin Borough, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware - someone took him across the border to the US and tried to abduct another child- but why??

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,751
    I cannot imagine looking for my child for 14 years and not finding him

    I'll keep this one in mind...and of course my prayers for the family
    When the children cry let them know we tried 'Cause when the the children sing then the new world begins



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    4,218
    The first thing I think of when I hear of this little boy being seen months after his abduction, is the case of Steven Stayner.
    I hope his family will gert the answers they so deserve.
    14 years is too long.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,600

    Michael Dunahee, missing since March 24 1991

    Victoria police hope a $100,000 reward will help solve a 15-year-old missing child case that sparked one of the biggest Canadian police investigations ever.

    Michael Dunahee disappeared from a Victoria park 15 years ago today. Just four years old at the time, Michael was playing in a city park, metres from where his parents were to begin a softball tournament. Despite the efforts of hundreds of searchers and the 11,000 tips reported to police, officers say they do not have a single solid lead in the case.

    Victoria police Chief Paul Battershill says the Dunahee file is very different from most cold cases. "On other cold cases, you might focus on evidence you had from a crime scene, or talk to witnesses that somehow related to a suspect. But in this case, there has been no clearly identified primary suspect, which often you will have on cold cases," he told CBC News on Thursday.

    http://www.cbc.ca/bc/story/dunaheereward-20060324.html

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    I have never ever ever felt remorse for this family at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    only the fact that Michael was kidnapped, most likely murdered as well.

    WHY?

    THESE PEOPLE (THE PARENTS OF MICHAEL) left their 6 yr old in charge of their 4 yr old at a park SEPARATED BETWEEN A HUGE WIDTH OF TREES BETWEEN A BALL FIELD AND A PLAYGROUND while BOTH PARENTS played baseball tournament.

    Sorry, THEY HAVE NEVER gotten my sympathy. Only hostility. THIS IS AN ABDUCTION THAT COULD CLEARLY HAVE BEEN AVOIDED ALL TOGETHER.

    So when you talk about meters?????????????? meters away???

    go to the actual park like I have. we're talking 600 feet PLUS width of SPRUCE AND PINE TREES that you cannot see through.

    WHO THE FRICK leaves their 6 yr old in charge of their 4 yrold?

    why were the parents never charged with clear neglect and abandoment?

    This has always burned my skin. Especially when I went to the same park.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,715

    good question

    Quote Originally Posted by blueclouds
    . . .WHO THE FRICK leaves their 6 yr old in charge of their 4 yrold?. . .
    How much of that story is confirmed? The links I read did not mentiopn the six year old. Can you elaborate? I am thinking that without more info this story reminds me of other cases where the parents claim they lost a child and later you find they told a story to cover up something else.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by docwho3
    How much of that story is confirmed? The links I read did not mentiopn the six year old. Can you elaborate? I am thinking that without more info this story reminds me of other cases where the parents claim they lost a child and later you find they told a story to cover up something else.

    When this happened, that's what they stated on the news and I read it as well. Also at the time, I worked for Victims of Violence which was the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for missing children in Canada and we received all the info about the case. I'll go through the news archives to find more info.

    But essentially, yes, they left Michael in the care of his older brother who was 6 at the time.

    You may find my stance harsh, especially since I worked with Victims of Violence. But it is the ONE CASE I take so to heart that this was completely absolutely avoidable. You could NOT SEE THE ENTIRE PLAYGROUND at all from the baseball fields. You could see maybe 1/5th. And at such a distance, with the trees and all. For whatever reason, I cannot find sympathy in my heart for them. They've paid their price for it most definitely, but their little baby boy paid the ultimate and he did not have to if he had parents that had any brains about them.


    PS: YOU BRING UP AN INTERESTING POINT about something else happening to the child. I'm certain the police interviewed the brother on several occasions but maybe Michael never did even get to the playground and you can confuse a child enough to make them think they were there.....

    I'll ask around and see if it was absolutely coorborated by other ADULTS THAT Michael was in the playground at the time for certain.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,715

    Thanks

    Quote Originally Posted by blueclouds
    When this happened, that's what they stated on the news and I read it as well. Also at the time, I worked for Victims of Violence which was the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for missing children in Canada and we received all the info about the case. I'll go through the news archives to find more info.

    But essentially, yes, they left Michael in the care of his older brother who was 6 at the time.

    You may find my stance harsh, especially since I worked with Victims of Violence. But it is the ONE CASE I take so to heart that this was completely absolutely avoidable. You could NOT SEE THE ENTIRE PLAYGROUND at all from the baseball fields. You could see maybe 1/5th. And at such a distance, with the trees and all. For whatever reason, I cannot find sympathy in my heart for them. They've paid their price for it most definitely, but their little baby boy paid the ultimate and he did not have to if he had parents that had any brains about them.


    PS: YOU BRING UP AN INTERESTING POINT about something else happening to the child. I'm certain the police interviewed the brother on several occasions but maybe Michael never did even get to the playground and you can confuse a child enough to make them think they were there.....

    I'll ask around and see if it was absolutely coorborated by other ADULTS THAT Michael was in the playground at the time for certain.
    If you find more info from archives please share, and Thank You.

    Also I await news of the story being corroborated or not.

    As to your stance being harsh: I suppose it is harsh. Without passing judgement I note that at least you care enough to want to learn what happened to the child.

    At the moment, without straining, I can think of 2 possible ways the parents could have had soemthing to do with it and one of those ways actually would place the child at the playground or general area before disappearing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    7

    Misinformation

    I have to comment on this thread, as there are so many inaccuracies and I am really surprised at how cruel some of the comments are. Unusual for this forum. I wasn't there when Michael Dunahee disappeared, so I don't know what happened exactly - none of us do except the person who took him. However, I live just a few minutes from where this happened, have seen/read all the local coverage, know police officers that investigated and have seen the location first hand. I also know that his parents have spent 15 years looking for any information at all about their son, and that their manner and behaviour don't seem any different from other parents whose children have been taken.

    I don't even know where to start to correct all the misinformation. First, Michael is the Dunahee's oldest child. His only sibling, a sister, was an infant at the time of his disappearance. He was not left in the charge of an older child. His family was at the field attached to an elementary school, where his mother was playing in a women's football game. His father was watching from the sidelines. The playground, which is clearly visible from the field (there are no trees or other obstructions in between) is maybe 20 yards away from where his father was. Other children were playing there as well, so it may have been that the family figured that he would be OK seeing that he was in their sight and in the company of others. As so many children do, Michael disappeared in the blink of an eye.

    As far as I know (and this case has been featured in the local media frequently over the last 15 years), the parents were never serious suspects. Of course, they were thoroughly investigated, but my LE friends say that no one ever really thought they were guilty of anything except the naiviety of thinking their child would be safe a few feet away. Victoria has a very low serious crime rate, and prior to this incident, I don't think there had ever been a child abduction of this type. After Michael's disappearance, many parents (like myself) had sleepless moments remembering times just like this, when we assumed that nothing bad could happen here and let our children play a few feet further away than maybe we should have.

    I love this forum, and I think that many of the participants are really great people who truly want to find out the truth about what happened to these victims. However, I've also noticed that some big assumptions get made based on some very flawed information. None of us can be sure about what happened to Michael until by some miracle the case is closed, but we do all owe it to the family (and common sense) to get more facts before making the kind of statements I've read here. I also don't understand why these parents should be singled out as villains. I don't know the Dunahees, but as someone who has seen this case unfold since the beginning, attacking them makes as much sense as attacking John Walsh - how could he have let his young son out of his sight in a department store? How do we know he ever took him there? If that case was less well documented and known, you could say the same kind of outrageous things. Docwho3, I appreciate your caution in asking for confirmation that the statements are true - that's more like what I expect from forum members here.

    It's not exactly easy to become a welcomed member of any board, and I don't imagine my little rant about comments made by a regular is going to help my case much here, but I just couldn't let this go.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,750
    EPeel thank you for that version of the events. Its what I recall from the case. Also, I recall that the ferries were shut down and searched so LE was pretty confident he didn't leave the island that way (of course there are always boats).

    That's why, to me, its so odd to read about the possible sightings of Michael in the U.S.. Law enforcement took those sightings seriously enough to list Michael on more than just the NCMEC site - unfortunately none have been substantiated.

    http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/...e_michael.html

    I have been to Vancouver Island, but I've never been to the park. I agree with you about the low crime rate. Seems it lulled people into feeling "safe".


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,715

    need info

    Quote Originally Posted by EPeel
    . . .I don't even know where to start to correct all the misinformation. First, Michael is the Dunahee's oldest child. His only sibling, a sister, was an infant at the time of his disappearance. He was not left in the charge of an older child. His family was at the field attached to an elementary school, where his mother was playing in a women's football game. His father was watching from the sidelines. The playground, which is clearly visible from the field (there are no trees or other obstructions in between) is maybe 20 yards away from where his father was. Other children were playing there as well, so it may have been that the family figured that he would be OK seeing that he was in their sight and in the company of others. As so many children do, Michael disappeared in the blink of an eye.. . .
    What parts of the story were substantiated by eye witnesses other than family? It helps when we have substantiated facts to work with.

    Quote Originally Posted by EPeel
    . . .As far as I know (and this case has been featured in the local media frequently over the last 15 years), the parents were never serious suspects. Of course, they were thoroughly investigated, but my LE friends say that no one ever really thought they were guilty of anything except the naiviety of thinking their child would be safe a few feet away. . .
    Maybe L.E. is right and maybe not. With so little info to begin with and some of it wrong, according to you (and which I acknowledge could very well be so as I also saw mention of football game in a report), I can't have much chance of knowing and that leaves only speculation until I have more real info to go on.

    Quote Originally Posted by EPeel
    . . . If that case was less well documented and known, you could say the same kind of outrageous things. Docwho3, I appreciate your caution in asking for confirmation that the statements are true - that's more like what I expect from forum members here.. . .
    It wasn't too long ago we all heard about a woman at a Walmart who claimed she left her two children in her car and walked over to a shopping cart corral and came in seconds back to find one of her children missing. It turns out she actually had killed him elsewhere and used the walmart story to cover up what happened. That sort of thing makes me ask if stories have been confirmed.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,500
    One of the things that I find most wonderful about websleuths is that it provides us with a place where we can express our ideas and knowledge in a constuctive enviorment aimed at helping or contributing to solving a case. I do not expect to agree or disagree with all that is posted. In fact I welcome information I do not agree with in so that I can learn and have my thoughts challenged to come up with new ideas. I always follow a rule that I challenge the words not the author. I am not familiar with this case so I have no idea which information is the correct portrayl of events or not. I do know that blueclouds has always posted with good inention in the past so have no reason to believe there is anything deffirent about this post. However, good intention does not mean what is posted is correct. Epeel, your information may very well be correct. Either way I welcome both versions and thank both posters for the information. I do not believe bluecoulds intended anything malicious in her post. She was only stating an opinion which i appreciated. I percieved in Epeel post a believe that blueclouds was intentionaly spreading malicious missinformation which I do not believe is the case. I am sure we have all posted inaccuracies at one time or another. Its part of exploring these cases and learning. In fact epeel in your post your wrote about John Walsh taking his son to the store. His wife took him to the store, mr. Walsh was not even with them. I thank you for sharing your version of events and welcome to websleuths. Lets keep challenging the words, so we can learn and respect the authors for all that they contrubute. For it is thru effort that we learn and sometimes that good effort is mared.

    mjak

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,750
    Docwho the Michael Dunahee case is extremely well known in Canada. The case sent shock waves from west to east.

    From a current news article:
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/National


    But 15 years and about 13,000 tips later they are still looking.

    "You never give up hope," Victoria police Constable Rick Anthony said yesterday as he announced a new $100,000 reward in the case that has haunted the city since March 24, 1991.

    "It still sits as a very open sore in this community," Constable Anthony said. "Unless we find some resolution, we will never forget it."


    The boy was playing near swings and slides at Blanshard Elementary School while his parents were at a nearby field enjoying a softball game when he vanished. There was no commotion, no call for help. When they looked up, the child was gone.

    "This is a case that has troubled me and everyone who's worked on it," Constable Anthony said. "We are still looking for that one good tip that will lead us to a solution. . . . Somebody knows something, somewhere."

    He said that over the years "a very large filing cabinet" has been filled with reports generated by all the tips that have come in.

    "People have contacted us from around the world on this case," he said. "And every tip has been checked. . . . Sometimes you think, 'Oh, this has got to be it,' but then it just doesn't pan out."
    Although I couldn't find any reference I believe it was substantiated that Michael was there, at the park. There were other families around and the children mingled when they first arrived. Only someone with access to a news story archive can provide this "proof".

    Isn't the fact that the police force is still actively pursueing tips proof? Do you really think they would waste their time doing so, and getting the cooperation from international law enforcement agencies if they though this was an "inside job"?

    Although it is my firm belief that ANYONE can do ANYTHING, I do not believe the parents were suspected in this case.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,750
    More theories:

    http://eyespybc.tripod.com/darksideo...bloid/id1.html

    Was Michael Dunahee Abducted By A Satanic Cult?

    When asked, R.C.M.P. downplay the possibilty of any connection to the boy's disappearance and the fact that he vanished on Palm Sunday, seven days before Easter, and seven streets away from Easter street, in the city known to be the satanic cult capital of the world, second only to Geneve Switzerland.
    I have heard these rumors for years. Also I very much doubt that the city is the "satanic cult capital of the world".

    This person presents some "evidence" that backs up the theory. Unfortunately the website is down and only the cached copy is available (for now)

    http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...n&ct=clnk&cd=4

    Neither one of these websites are "proof" of anything, except perhaps unsubstantiated speculation.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,521
    Quote Originally Posted by EPeel
    I have to comment on this thread, as there are so many inaccuracies and I am really surprised at how cruel some of the comments are. Unusual for this forum. I wasn't there when Michael Dunahee disappeared, so I don't know what happened exactly - none of us do except the person who took him. However, I live just a few minutes from where this happened, have seen/read all the local coverage, know police officers that investigated and have seen the location first hand. I also know that his parents have spent 15 years looking for any information at all about their son, and that their manner and behaviour don't seem any different from other parents whose children have been taken.

    I don't even know where to start to correct all the misinformation. First, Michael is the Dunahee's oldest child. His only sibling, a sister, was an infant at the time of his disappearance. He was not left in the charge of an older child. His family was at the field attached to an elementary school, where his mother was playing in a women's football game. His father was watching from the sidelines. The playground, which is clearly visible from the field (there are no trees or other obstructions in between) is maybe 20 yards away from where his father was. Other children were playing there as well, so it may have been that the family figured that he would be OK seeing that he was in their sight and in the company of others. As so many children do, Michael disappeared in the blink of an eye.

    As far as I know (and this case has been featured in the local media frequently over the last 15 years), the parents were never serious suspects. Of course, they were thoroughly investigated, but my LE friends say that no one ever really thought they were guilty of anything except the naiviety of thinking their child would be safe a few feet away. Victoria has a very low serious crime rate, and prior to this incident, I don't think there had ever been a child abduction of this type. After Michael's disappearance, many parents (like myself) had sleepless moments remembering times just like this, when we assumed that nothing bad could happen here and let our children play a few feet further away than maybe we should have.

    I love this forum, and I think that many of the participants are really great people who truly want to find out the truth about what happened to these victims. However, I've also noticed that some big assumptions get made based on some very flawed information. None of us can be sure about what happened to Michael until by some miracle the case is closed, but we do all owe it to the family (and common sense) to get more facts before making the kind of statements I've read here. I also don't understand why these parents should be singled out as villains. I don't know the Dunahees, but as someone who has seen this case unfold since the beginning, attacking them makes as much sense as attacking John Walsh - how could he have let his young son out of his sight in a department store? How do we know he ever took him there? If that case was less well documented and known, you could say the same kind of outrageous things. Docwho3, I appreciate your caution in asking for confirmation that the statements are true - that's more like what I expect from forum members here.

    It's not exactly easy to become a welcomed member of any board, and I don't imagine my little rant about comments made by a regular is going to help my case much here, but I just couldn't let this go.


    I have pulled my old files from VoV and right in front of me is a variety of information. ONE: I stand corrected regarding the brother. It was another child 6 yrs old with another family that was watching him. that I will stand by - a child was 'IN CHARGE' of him.

    I also have an old detective contact and could see if he could fill in more gaps. I'll see if he's still around.

    IT STATES CLEARLY ... THERE WAS ONE ADULT walking back and forth between the park and the the field. There were no other adults watching any of the children. Including his parents. SHOULD THEY BE VILIFIED? HELL YES. I'm not going to stand back and take the old excuse "low crime rate". well crime happens everywhere. THIS WAS CLEARLY AN AVOIDABLE KIDNAPPING. I never considered the parents being guilty as enough people seem to have seen him - referring to my report in front of me. SO THE ONE THING I'M MISTAKEN ON IS THE "BROTHER" THING......

    otherwise - He was playing with a 6yr old when he vanished. You could not see the entire park at all.

    Anyother misinformation? Not according to what I have in front of me. I've been to the place. It's not in "sight". It may be far different 15 years later, but I visited it not 1 year after the fact. So regarding the playground and trees - where I was taken and shown the entire area - there were a large amount of trees. And whether the father was playing ball or not - they were not watching him. CLEARLY there were trees in the way. Maybe not now, but what I saw then - there were absolutely!!!!!!!



    BY THE WAY - WELCOME TO WS. YOUR OPINIONS AND STANCES ARE ALWAYS WELCOME HERE! NO MATTER IF WE ALL DISAGREE OR AGREE.

    YOU'LL FIND I'M VERY OUTSPOKEN. You're more than welcome to add all you like. Even if you find me obnoxious. Just give me the slap smiley

Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Australia Australia - Karmein Chan, 13, Templestowe, Victoria, 13 April 1991
    By Pettibon Junction in forum Cold Cases
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-08-2016, 05:21 AM
  2. NOTGUILTY PA - Laura Ronning, 24, raped & murdered, Wayne County, 27 July 1991
    By Sleuthster in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-21-2015, 12:04 PM
  3. GUILTY TX - April Ann Repka, 19, Victoria, 17 June 1991
    By PonderingThings in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-02-2015, 02:39 PM
  4. Submitted Canada - Michael Hammond, 16, Richmond, BC, 24 Nov 1991
    By Earthbound Misfit I in forum 1990's Missing
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-13-2014, 03:33 PM

Tags for this Thread