CANADA Canada - Michael Dunahee, 4, Victoria, BC, 24 March 1991

emma l

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
415
Reaction score
73
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/d/dunahee_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??
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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/d/dunahee_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".
 
EPeel said:
. . .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.

EPeel said:
. . .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.

EPeel said:
. . . 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.
 
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
 
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/servlet/story/LAC.20060324.DUNAHEE24/TPStory/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.
 
More theories:

http://eyespybc.tripod.com/darksideonlinetabloid/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. [font=Courier New,Courier][/font]
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...anweb.html+michael+dunahee&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4

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


[font=Courier New,Courier][/font]
 
I think the Canadian police operate very differently that their U.S. counterparts - not saying one is better than the other, just different.

In these kind of cases usually very little is released until the case is closed.
 
Well, I'm off to a great start here, aren't I? My third post and I'm already in trouble.

First, let me apologize for overreacting. I only intended to correct some facts, not to insult anyone or insinuate that blueclouds was being intentionally malicious or misleading. I've always found blueclouds' contributions to be fair and well thought out - maybe that was why I responded a bit heatedly to what I saw as an unecessarily harsh post, especially when much of the opinion given seemed to be based on things I know are incorrect. The expression of the opinion is valid - we all know that parents do terrible things to their children all the time - the words just made me wince. A simple "I think the parents were negligent and I don't believe their story at all" would not have provoked a reaction in me. I guess as someone who has seen the Dunahees on the news and out in the community campaigning for child safety and the use of Amber alerts every year, and trying to be normal for the sake of their daughter despite their obvious grief, it's hard to deny them compassion. The point of my post (including my inaccurate reference to the Walsh case - sorry about that, but you could just change my reference to his mother) was that without all the information, it would be easy to see the parents as negiligent villians in a lot of cases, even where we know that it isn't true. I was just hoping to add some information so that people could see another perspective.

Unfortunately, this is an old story and most local people know it well, so details are hard to find in online newspaper reports etc. You'll have to take my word for it that some things are accepted fact. You are all free to discount any or all of it. It was a huge news story as nothing like it had ever happened here, and thank God, not often since. At the time of the abduction, I can remember seeing television interviews with people who were also at the park that day, and it seems that they and their children saw and/or spoke to Michael. If I remember correctly, the time between the last sighting and his father realizing Michael was missing was just a few minutes, a fact that absolutely terrified local parents. Other children were around the playground, but didn't see anything. Much later it was revealed that there might have been a witness, but I never heard anything else about that.

I do have to respectfully disagree with blueclouds about the layout of park, as the description just does not match what I've seen there. I can't attach a picture of the park or I would to prove what I'm saying (I don't have the computer capacity to do that right now), but I'm looking at an aerial shot from Google Earth as I write and I drove past there twice in the last week. The playground no longer exists, as the school building and grounds were sold and now form part of a University, but the park is otherwise just as it was 15 years ago. The open field is 160 yards across and there are 130 yards between the school building and the main street that crosses in front of it to the north. The playground was directly in front of the school building right next to the field. The other two sides of the field are small streets/parking areas. Spectators at games usually stand or sit in chairs they bring themselves along one of those two sides or in front of the school by the playground. In all cases, the playground is less than 200 feet from the usual specator areas. The only trees are to the north on the far side of the field, some 110 yards from the playground area, and are spaced about every 20 feet across. Today, you can clearly see the school and entire field from the road as you drive by, and 15 years ago the trees were smaller. There are some low rocks which stick up out of the ground near the school, but these wouldn't obstruct the view significantly from any area.

The park is next to a somewhat notorious apartment complex (one of the few low income housing places in town and where there has been some drug and petty crime activity over the years), and many people think that someone from there snatched Michael and took him inside the complex. The complex was searched and background checks done on its residents, but nothing concrete was found. At the time, the school was in full use during the week, and the field was used regularly on weekends by adult and youth sports leagues. It is in a busy commercial/residential area. I don't think anyone would have thought of there being much danger to kids in the area except maybe from traffic on the busy street.

I've probably said far more than anyone wants to hear from me about this, but I did feel that I needed to explain myself. Again, my apologies if I upset anyone.
 
Does anyone know how many times that year that the boy had been left to play in that same place? And if more than once, was such play time always the same?

What was the approx temp that day at the time of disappearance? What attire was worn by the bystanders? Were really long coats "in" for that time? Did people carry blankets rolled up over the shoulder? Were large gymbags or large equipment bags in use?

Were large wheeled ice chests or insulated food chests in use?

Would anyone have been running around on a golf cart type vehicle or other small grounds cart type thing?

Was everyone who was there, or as many as can be located, asked about any camera pics they might have taken that day of those who were there.
 
I cannot answer all your questions. But one. They did an reenactment of the day and asked all who was there to return and park in the exact same spot they were on the day Micheal disappeared. all but one (apparently) was back for the reenactment. I don't think there were golf courses near by. Averaged temperature around March would be approx. 50 - 55 f. or 10 - 13 C. That's average. So at noon, it could have been as high as??? 18 - 20 c.

Ice chests most likely as baseball = beer. All very good questions. Pictures?? I'm certain LE would have asked everyone about that but I don't have the actual police file here. Having blankets at a game this time of year, also very possible.

Not known how many times they played ball at this particular location.
 
Thanks, blueclouds, for your understanding and comments. I'm a bit nervous about being here now, but I'm glad that you haven't written me off! It is hard to get started on this kind of forum, and while it doesn't seem to be the case here, newcomers opinions aren't always welcome. I thought I'd pretty much guaranteed that I wouldn't be wanted back!

About the park - if anyone has access to Google Earth, it might be really helpful to look at the area. Type in Victoria BC Blanshard and look for the Blanshard Community Centre, and then zoom in. The school and field are directly north of the community centre. The playground used to be directly north of the school near the parking area. Blueclouds - I can't say if you were taken to the wrong place or anything. All I know is that I went to see the park shortly after this all happened (morbid curiosity and I drive by it all the time) and it looked the same as it looks today - flat and open. I am absolutely sure that is the right park. It was also definitely a football game (no specific proof but most sources like Charley Project, local papers, interviews with the parents and RCMP reports also say that) - baseball/softball is not played at Blanshard park because there's nothing set up for it. It is possible that you were shown the field for SJ Willis High School on the other side of Hillside Avenue almost directly across the street from the field I'm talking about - there is a baseball field there and a lot more trees. Sight lines from the diamond to the playground there are definitely obstructed, and the distances are much greater. Football or baseball, though, there could well have been ice chests. Same goes for equipment bags, blankets and big coats. I don't know how many other games had been played in that location that year, but as Victoria has a very mild climate, they could have been playing there all winter. Soccer season here goes from September to April - it gets rainy and cool but rarely enough for sports minded people to stay inside. Having said that, a lot of these amateur adult leagues use whatever park they can book - they may not have ever been there before. There is no clubhouse or equipment shed,, only the main school building. There also wouldn't have been any golf or equipment carts around - maybe mowing equipment but not on a weekend when the field was booked. If you are able to look at Google Earth, you'll see that there is parking very close to the playground/school area though, so someone could easily have grabbed a child and put him in a trunk in a matter of minutes.

As I said, I don't know what happened. I don't know if the parents were involved or not, or if they were negligent. I do know that Michael's disappearance changed everything about what parents let their kids do in this city. It had a real small town feel before that, and after, we all had to admit that bad things can and do happen here.
 
EPeel said:
As I said, I don't know what happened. I don't know if the parents were involved or not, or if they were negligent. I do know that Michael's disappearance changed everything about what parents let their kids do in this city. It had a real small town feel before that, and after, we all had to admit that bad things can and do happen here.
Excellent post EPeel! Michael's abduction was felt RIGHT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. It was a turning point for a lot of parents.

Michaels parents were, and still are, very involved in helping other missing families to search for missing kids.

The Morgan Nick abduction, http://www.morgannick.com/morgans_story.html
4 years later, in Arkansas had many of the same circumstances. Morgan's mother became an advocate for families of the missing (and the family even had a house built for them by Extreme Makeover TV Show).

Sadly its from these cases where we the public have learned that strangers DO abduct children even if they are within sight.
 
EPeel said:
Thanks, blueclouds, for your understanding and comments. I'm a bit nervous about being here now, but I'm glad that you haven't written me off! It is hard to get started on this kind of forum, and while it doesn't seem to be the case here, newcomers opinions aren't always welcome. I thought I'd pretty much guaranteed that I wouldn't be wanted back!

Oh you are deffinilty wanted back and no need for apologizing as you did not do anything wrong!! All opinons are welcomed and valued here. Newcomers are especially welcome because they give a new perspective. Keep on posting and we can all work together and maybe come up with some fresh momentum for this case.

mjak
 
The reasons for my asking the questions is probably pretty transparent.

I wanted to know what mechanisms existed to use to transport a child in plain sight past a bunch of other adults and yet not have them realize either then or later that the missing child was the one they had seen being walked or carried away. Maybe if people were asked who they saw with a large bag or who they remember had an ice chest or who was carrying a large rolled up blanket over their shoulder or who carried a child cradled in their arms but also partially under their coat, etc they might remember more than if they are asked to remember seeing something that may not have happened, such as a man snatching up a child and dragging him off in plain sight.

Was there a public restroom nearby to where the boy played?
To be snatched we have to have a mechanism that places the boy near an adult for even a few seconds.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
2,387
Total visitors
2,447

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,963
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top