939 users online (120 members and 819 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 138
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    88

    strange case

    This disappearance reminds me of several other disappearances of married couples...Leonard Lake and his partner Charles Ng would answer ads in the paper for various items....law mowers, stereos etc. They would go to the home ostensibly to look at and possibly buy ..instead, Lake and Ng would kidnap the couple and take them to a secluded mountain cabin, abuse and kill them. Lake was apprehended but committed suicide not long after his arrest. Another case involved a family of 3...husband, wife and daughter (elementary school age I think) This couple and their child were abducted from their home ....they just seemingly disappeared inTO thin air....I believe the childs body was discovered but her parents are still missing ....no clues, no motives ...nothing has ever been ascertained. Sounds similar to what has possibly happened to this couple.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    132
    I've often wondered if this case was listed here. This couple disappeared from my home county, I remember when it happened. It was just like they disappeared. If I remember correctly, the children were on one or two of the talk shows talking about their missing parents. It's amazing to me that this case remains unsolved.

    There are currently 3 missing persons cases from Trumbull County, Ohio that I can remember:

    Christine Brock
    Charlotte Nagi-Pollis
    John and Shelley Markley

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,157
    Bumping them up

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,284

    OK - Problem with cases 419umok & 332ufok- PLEASE READ!

    According to an archived DoeNet page from November 29th, 2001- these two were identified- but not at a disclosed time. Keep this in mind, on the 2001 archived page- their case numbers were 116umok and 135ufok (I'll put links to the old pages). What's even more confusing is why are their cases currently back on DoeNet listed as Unidentified with new case numbers when they were listed as Identified 7 years prior, if not earlier than 7 years? Did DoeNet make a mistake and list the wrong Jane and John Does on the Identified page or do they have trouble with consistency? Did the investigator(s) make errors themselves? If anyone notices the current DoeNet page for identifications, you'll notice that both cases have been removed. I'll email DoeNet about this and see what they can tell me what's behind this, when I get a response from them- I'll post it here

    116umok (currently 419umok): http://web.archive.org/web/200112070...doe/index.html
    135ufok (cannot currently get a link for her- will try)
    The 2001 "Identified" page listing both: http://web.archive.org/web/200112070...doe/index.html
    The DoeNet archived page from November 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/200112070...doe/index.html

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    854
    I hope this can be cleared up. Good eye.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,284
    I noticed this while going through the sites archives and noticing the reconstructions and case facts were the same. I noticed that this isn't the 1st time that this has happened. They put a case on their "Identified" page and then took the case from the page a long time after. I don't remember if they put the case back in the Unidentified Victims page- I'll check...

    I forgot that the link for 116umok is archived and does not directly lead to the actual page itself- in the Unidentified Victims section, the case is on page 8, it has the word IDENTIFIED above the photo in red

  7. #22
    This was an error. They sometimes do that.

  8. #23
    iNTERESTEDWOMAN's Avatar
    iNTERESTEDWOMAN is offline I'll trade you a bushel of corn for a barrel of oil.
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    A Nebraska Farm
    Posts
    1,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Meyahna View Post
    This was an error. They sometimes do that.
    An error that they where listed as identified, or an error they where re-posted as UID??

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    854
    This error is unacceptable due to if they were id'd, then people's time and effort is being wasted trying to make pm's for them. LE's time is also wasted trying to locate the case file that has long been put in the solved file.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,284
    Quote Originally Posted by Debbie Miller View Post
    This error is unacceptable due to if they were id'd, then people's time and effort is being wasted trying to make pm's for them. LE's time is also wasted trying to locate the case file that has long been put in the solved file.
    On one thread about these two, people were already looking at PMs. You read my mind about this because this was the basis for me sending the email

    Here's my email to them:

    I noticed that while archiving your website that on a November 29th, 2001 page from archive.org that Doe Network already had these cases listed as "Identified" under their original case file numbers of 116umok and 135ufok. I noticed that these cases are currently back in the Unidentified Victims section under the case file numbers 419umok and 332ufok- 7 years after Doe Network classified them as identified. I am curious as to whether these people have been positively identified and the relisting is a mistake or some other mistake happened. Could you please fill me in on this if you have a chance to reply?
    If you want me to send you the archived page, I will gladly do that for you

    Thank you for your time,
    From An Avid Doe Network Visitor


  11. #26
    An error that they were listed as identified.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,284
    I got an email back from Elizabeth Sinor concerning the confusion:

    Hi Alana,

    I have been told by co-Administrators that these two cases remain unidentified. However I do not know the circumstances under which they were originally documented as identified.

    Thank you for asking though!

    ~Elizabeth
    Doe Network Admin
    doe.admin@gmail.com

    That clears things up!

  13. #28
    I didn't invent what I said I was in that org. at that time and I know that's what happened. I'm one of the very little persons who ever paid attention to whatever happened there and to what people there said so you can trust me on that.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7

    Exclamation john and shelly markley

    I am very interested in this case because I live in the same area and looked at the house to purchase about 5 yrs ago.
    Does anyone remember the year/month that this case was viewed on the Montell Williams show with Sylvia Brown?
    Does anyone have a recording of either show? (their were two).

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,645
    Wasn't there a case awhile back, where the UID was listed as found before the person was reported missing? That has happened more than once I think. So I would not rule anyone out based on that fact alone.
    Happy New Years

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. CA CA - Ludlow, WhtFem UP2517, 17-22, buried w/ WhtMale UP2578, Nov'80
    By CarlK90245 in forum The Unidentified
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 09-24-2017, 01:38 PM
  2. TX TX - Houston, WhtFem UP701 & WhtMale UP703, 18-30, in woods, Jan'81
    By PonderingThings in forum The Unidentified
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-06-2017, 10:23 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-02-2015, 12:51 PM
  4. CA Rakesh Pal Gopi (18) - Pittsburg CA, 1991
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum Missing Children in America - A Profile
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-03-2010, 06:15 PM

Tags for this Thread