CANADA Canada - Ariel Jeffrey Kouakou, 10, Montreal, 12 March 2018

[otto]

This is all a speculation, but I think it's worth considering the possibility that Ariel may have tried to go to the friend's school. I know he wouldn't have known where the friend is when he couldn't find him at home, but could it be possible that he may have had prior knowledge (perhaps from previous visits with friend) that the friend sometimes attends daycare at the school. The school is within walking distance to the friend's house. I am just trying to put myself in a 10-year-old's shoes who really wants to play with his friend.

Just a possibility/hypothesis worth considering for Montreal LE.

True, but for whatever reason he decided to go to the park rather than home. Two hours later he was spotted at the park, he may have gone directly to the park after learning that his plans fell through.

Here's a link to ice on the Prairies River in Montreal on April 9, 2017. It would be very easy for a child to mistakenly believe that walking on the ice was safe and to then go under the surface. The only evidence would be cracked ice near the shore, which is normal regardless of someone going into the water.

Bodies that go into icy rivers in the Fall or Winter are found in the Spring.

https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-ph...ing-des-prairies-river-montreal-image90466834

 

[eucalyptuz]

Snipped for focus
I'm curious - if he is found near the water and there are no signs of foul play, I do wonder if the woman who provided the tip about the child being at the park next to the river will receive the "reward" money.

The woman who became a witness to Ariel in the park in the afternoon was identified before Day 2 of the search but I don’t think money was a motivating factor as the reward was not offered until a couple of days later.

 

[Wondergirl]

I had a difficult time finding this poor boy's thread, for some reason.

Going to catch up now. Are there any major theories? From what little I have read, I am wondering about him drowning.

WG

 

[otto]

The woman who became a witness to Ariel in the park in the afternoon was identified before Day 2 of the search but I don’t think money was a motivating factor as the reward was not offered until a couple of days later.

I'm not convinced that the timing matters. There's all sorts of money being offered for tips, and a tip has come in that the child was at the park next to the river. Without that tip, there would be no reason to suspect that he drowned. With that tip, it's very possible that he drowned. If that's the case, I think the person who brought the investigation to the river deserves all that money.

On the other hand, offering money for tips inevitably results in useless tips coming forward simply because of the money, which ultimately wastes police resources and time.

 

[eucalyptuz]

Speaking of rewards:

Champion boxer Adonis Stevenson donates $15K as search for missing Montreal boy continues
As police plan to widen the area being searched today in their effort to find Ariel Jeffrey Kouakou, a missing 10-year-old boy who was last seen Monday afternoon, a champion boxer has donated $15,000 to the cause.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ariel-jeffrey-kouakou-missing-montreal-1.4581648

 

[otto]

Speaking of rewards:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ariel-jeffrey-kouakou-missing-montreal-1.4581648

That's my point. First $10,000, now up to $25,000. That should be enough to bring out all sorts of people eager to get rich quick but who do nothing to advance the investigation into the location of the child.

 

[dotr]

I had a difficult time finding this poor boy's thread, for some reason.

Going to catch up now. Are there any major theories? From what little I have read, I am wondering about him drowning.

WG

Maybe it was difficult to find the thread because it was under Ariel as a first name, but since then he has mostly been referred to as Jeffrey, imo.
Glad you found it either way!

 

[eucalyptuz]

I guess I don’t really understand the suspicion about the witness in the park. If I recall correctly, she mentioned to acquaintances that she had seen and spoken to a lone child in the park on the day the child went missing. Police heard this as hearsay and when informed of this lead they searched to find the women who had made the comment. The woman came forward within hours of the press launching the appeal to find her and she (and perhaps other park-goers as far as we know) have been somehow credible enough for police to base their “last-seen” estimates on her statement. I also recall the mention of witnesses being pluralized in at least one news report. I guess my “hinky” meter is just not triggering.

 

[otto]

I guess I don’t really understand the suspicion about the witness in the park. If I recall correctly, she mentioned to acquaintances that she had seen and spoken to a lone child in the park on the day the child went missing. Police heard this as hearsay and when informed of this lead they searched to find the women who had made the comment. The woman came forward within hours of the press launching the appeal to find her and she (and perhaps other park-goers as far as we know) have been somehow credible enough for police to base their “last-seen” estimates on her statement. I also recall the mention of witnesses being pluralized in at least one news report. I guess my “hinky” meter is just not triggering.

Why would anyone be suspicious of a witness who saw the child at the park?

 

[eucalyptuz]

Why would anyone be suspicious of a witness who saw the child at the park?

I just think if the police thought she was anything other than legit or there was any kind of evidence contrary to her statement, well, I think police would not be basing the “last seen” on her testimony. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has turned up on the CCTVs as a person actually entering and leaving the park during the time indicated. As a person who always checks when they see a child sad and alone, I find it normal and I’m glad that her name and image is not in the media.

 

[True North]

Praying they find him soon. Hopefully find him soon. Praying for a miracle.

 

[otto]

I just think if the police thought she was anything other than legit or there was any kind of evidence contrary to her statement, well, I think police would not be basing the “last seen” on her testimony. I wouldn’t be surprised if she has turned up on the CCTVs as a person actually entering and leaving the park during the time indicated. As a person who always checks when they see a child sad and alone, I find it normal and I’m glad that her name and image is not in the media.

Exactly. Who is suggesting that she is suspicious?

 

[eucalyptuz]

Exactly. Who is suggesting that she is suspicious?

Sorry otto, I was reading sarcasm that apparently wasn’t intended in your comment...but if you read back a few pages here there is quite a lot of suspicious thoughts on the woman and in the comments following postings on the Montreal Police FB page here:
https://www.facebook.com/SPVMpolice
(mostly in French)

 

[juli99]

Exactly. Who is suggesting that she is suspicious?

I don't think suspicious is the right word. Some people were questioning how reliable witnesses are in general. Could it have been a different boy, a different day, a made up story, etc. I am inclined to think it is reliable. The only odd thing to me is the timing, was he in the area for three hours and nobody else saw him?

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[Phei]

I just find it odd that a child would be speaking to a stranger in the first place when they are told to never speak to strangers. Has she come forth and met with the family? I would think the family would want to meet the person who last saw him no? I know I would. I would have a million questions to ask this person, what was he doing, was he sitting or standing, was he looking at the water, why did he seem sad to you, did you speak first or did the kid speak first, did you ever see him in the area before? He's been here for 6 years, have you ever spoken to him before, how did you leave him? what was your exact discussion? did you leave him first or did he walk away, how did the meeting end? What exact location in the park were you? Did he have a soccer ball with him?

If I knew I was the last person to have seen the kid I would have gone straight to the parents to introduce myself and tell them everything I know.

Why did you tell a 3rd party about him and not inform the police yourself as soon as you saw the amber alert? why did the police have to seek you.

They could have met, I mean I'm sure there's a lot the public doesn't know. But the whole way the witness came forth seems very odd to me.

 

[otto]

Sorry otto, I was reading sarcasm that apparently wasn’t intended in your comment...but if you read back a few pages here there is quite a lot of suspicious thoughts on the woman and in the comments following postings on the Montreal Police FB page here:
https://www.facebook.com/SPVMpolice
(mostly in French)

Really!?? Poor woman happened to be at the park, police want information about a child, she shares information, and suddenly she's a suspect? That strikes me as a bit nutty.

The 10 year old child was unattended, unsupervised, wandering around Montreal without proper oversight, and he ended up at a park next to a river. That's a problem, but it should never be a problem for people who provide information about the location of the child.

I understand that the parents prefer to believe that their child was abducted (per media statements) rather than he had an accident, but they should remain open minded. I doubt that this will end with a living child - it's been too long. Even if he was abducted, he would have been killed due to the media attention.

 

[otto]

I just find it odd that a child would be speaking to a stranger in the first place when they are told to never speak to strangers. Has she come forth and met with the family? I would think the family would want to meet the person who last saw him no? I know I would. I would have a million questions to ask this person, what was he doing, was he sitting or standing, was he looking at the water, why did he seem sad to you, did you speak first or did the kid speak first, did you ever see him in the area before? He's been here for 6 years, have you ever spoken to him before, how did you leave him? what was your exact discussion? did you leave him first or did he walk away, how did the meeting end? What exact location in the park were you? Did he have a soccer ball with him?

Why did you tell a 3rd party about him and not inform the police yourself as soon as you saw the amber alert? why did the police have to seek you.

They could have met, I mean I'm sure there's a lot the public doesn't know. But the whole way the witness came forth seems very odd to me.

I don't think it's odd that someone speaks to a child who is alone at the park. I say hello to people of all ages when I'm walking park paths that are not wall to wall people - just seems like the normal thing to do.

 

[Phei]

A charismatic stranger can talk their way past a child's defenses and lead to trouble. A child doesn't have developed judgement skills. An adult stranger seeking out conversation with a child is not the norm. A child should avoid any "stranger" adult interaction beyond "hello" unless there is a trusted adult nearby.

Why do I have to explain this? I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[otto]

A charismatic stranger can talk their way past a child's defenses and lead to trouble. A child doesn't have developed judgement skills. An adult stranger seeking out conversation with a child is not the norm. A child should avoid any "stranger" adult interaction beyond "hello" unless there is a trusted adult nearby.

Why do I have to explain this? I thought this was common knowledge.

Confused. Explain?

"Hello" is probably the extent of the conversation the woman at the park had with the child. The child would have stood out because of his yellow shoes, and that's quite possibly the only reason she recalled him. What difference does it really make? Police have released information that the child was at the park at 2PM. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter who provided the information.

 

[eucalyptuz]

A charismatic stranger can talk their way past a child's defenses and lead to trouble. A child doesn't have developed judgement skills. An adult stranger seeking out conversation with a child is not the norm. A child should avoid any "stranger" adult interaction beyond "hello" unless there is a trusted adult nearby.

Why do I have to explain this? I thought this was common knowledge.

So if you saw a sad child alone in the park you would not check? And you would discourage your own child from reaching out to anyone...even if they (the child) were in need?