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

[eucalyptuz]

I wonder if the police are trying to protect the witnesses and owners of the CCTV from the very active and emotional searches headed up by the family and community. For example, if the family was shown the above-mentioned footage, they would easily be able to identify the witness (also the last person to see Ariel alive?*) and the source of the footage (the residents of the house against the park...and potential abductors?!?*). What would then stop the family approaching the home-owners and witness? Other park visitors may be spotted on the footage and pursued as witnesses (and potential abductors!)*).
(*these comments are tongue in cheek but maybe illustrate where the thought processes of an anguished family member could go.)

I know that without a body, the possibility of abduction is still on the table, even if this possibility is remote. I know that as a parent, the slimmest hope that my child may be alive somewhere would propel me to continue the quest. I think the police know and acknowledge this but at the same time they have a duty of care to protect the identity and security of these witnesses.

 

[dotr]

The part about the ice makes sense, but still wondering who the Father thinks abducted Jeffrey and although having hope is very understandable, why does he thinks that person would keep Jeffrey alive?
speculation, imo.

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/premier...66067/ariel-kouakou-pere-montreal-disparition

Audio fil du mardi 3 avril 2018

https://translate.google.ca/transla...kouakou-pere-montreal-disparition&prev=search

The preferred track was drowning and no evidence [was found] in the water. There is nothing that showed that my son fell into the water. We have never favored [this thesis]. For us, it's an abduction. Kouadio Frederic Kouakou The research has yielded no results, Kouadio Frederic Kouakou always hopes to find his son alive.
"Why this thesis? It's based on videos that we saw. My son went to his friend's house. We went to the edge of the river, it is lined with trees and the branches are strong enough to hold back someone who loses their footing, "says Kouakou.

He also reports another detail that he describes as important. "If we needed an icebreaker to break the ice, it means that the thickness was enough to not fall like a mass in the water. In addition, Ariel wore soccer shoes. He was not dressed to go on the ice, "concludes the father.

rbbm

 

[dotr]

Unrelated, just noting.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?370082-Sherry-Nunes-15-Laval-Quebec-2-April-2018&p=14034348#post14034348
Sherry Nunes, 15, Laval, Quebec, 2 April 2018

 

[dotr]

LE searched the same river for this still missing young man, his mother at the time believed he was still alive.
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...anada-Antoine-Jarvis-19-Laval-QC-7-April-2016
Canada - Antoine Jarvis, 19, Laval, QC, 7 April 2016

http://globalnews.ca/news/2639264/th...ntoine-jarvis/

LAVAL – Antoine Jarvis, 19, has been missing since April 7.

Thursday, Laval police, along with firefighters and a Sûreté du Québec (SQ) helicopter searched the banks of the Rivière des Prairies, not far from the Viau Bridge.


snip

“Maybe the dam is the stop of the river for all things that go in the river,” said Grand’Maison.

“We hope that the body is here and found at this place.”

 

[Phei]

I wonder if the police are trying to protect the witnesses and owners of the CCTV from the very active and emotional searches headed up by the family and community. For example, if the family was shown the above-mentioned footage, they would easily be able to identify the witness (also the last person to see Ariel alive?*) and the source of the footage (the residents of the house against the park...and potential abductors?!?*). What would then stop the family approaching the home-owners and witness? Other park visitors may be spotted on the footage and pursued as witnesses (and potential abductors!)*).
(*these comments are tongue in cheek but maybe illustrate where the thought processes of an anguished family member could go.)

I know that without a body, the possibility of abduction is still on the table, even if this possibility is remote. I know that as a parent, the slimmest hope that my child may be alive somewhere would propel me to continue the quest. I think the police know and acknowledge this but at the same time they have a duty of care to protect the identity and security of these witnesses.

Makes sense. Imagine all the knocks at the door of that house demanding questions.

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...emaines-une-porte-despoir-pour-le-pere-dariel

Some footage of all the volunteers searching near the river. Also some footage of that brave dog going into the water.

 

[Hazel]

Possible MSM is listening in here? I would love to see an article that explains the reason for the family's focus on an abduction theory in the face of contradictory evidence.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

Exactly, that's what I was thinking because soom after I posted about the four park benches, a reporter in a video is seen talking about the benches, stating that volunteers had said those were covered in snow when they searched the park.
However, we know the snowfall happened the next day, Tuesday, and we don't know for sure if the benches were covered with snow on Monday, the day Ariel went missing.


A few days later, there is discussion here about the park encompasses a bigger area, not only the area where the benches are, but that the park extends up to the area where the train tracks are.

Yesterday's update seems like either MSM or LE decided to put that little piece of information out there, though it is vague.

Just my speculation, but it feels like for some reason LE is withholding the information of WHERE exactly the witness talked to Ariel. JMOO

Perhaps I'm reading too much into that. :crazy:

 

[juli99]

http://985fm.ca/nouvelles/politique/96520/jai-des-idees-a-defendre-vincent-marissal

Official LE spokesperson Ian Lafreniere interview with 98.5 FM. at about the 1:45 mark he says :

"L'endroit où il a ete rencontré par la dame c'est une maison qui est vraiment attenante a la rivière. C'est la dernière residence. Il est tout près de la rivière. Par la suite la dame elle quitte, on le voit pas sortir. "

"The place where he was met by the lady is in front of a house that is adjoining to the river.
It is the last residence. It is very close to the river. Afterwards the lady leaves,
but we do not see him come out."


So please can we stop inventing stories here and stating them as facts, thanks.

Interesting. So the lady is indeed on the video? That must be how they got the time of 11:25.

 

[Hazel]

http://985fm.ca/nouvelles/politique/96520/jai-des-idees-a-defendre-vincent-marissal

Official LE spokesperson Ian Lafreniere interview with 98.5 FM. at about the 1:45 mark he says :

"L'endroit où il a ete rencontré par la dame c'est une maison qui est vraiment attenante a la rivière. C'est la dernière residence. Il est tout près de la rivière. Par la suite la dame elle quitte, on le voit pas sortir. "

"The place where he was met by the lady is in front of a house that is adjoining to the river.
It is the last residence. It is very close to the river. Afterwards the lady leaves,
but we do not see him come out."


So please can we stop inventing stories here and stating them as facts, thanks.

Thank you Phei, should have read all posts before posting ^^

 

[juli99]

Exactly, that's what I was thinking because soom after I posted about the four park benches, a reporter in a video is seen talking about the benches, stating that volunteers had said those were covered in snow when they searched the park.
However, we know the snowfall happened the next day, Tuesday, and we don't know for sure if the benches were covered with snow on Monday, the day Ariel went missing.


A few days later, there is discussion here about the park encompasses a bigger area, not only the area where the benches are, but that the park extends up to the area where the train tracks are.

Yesterday's update seems like either MSM or LE decided to put that little piece of information out there, though it is vague.

Just my speculation, but it feels like for some reason LE is withholding the information of WHERE exactly the witness talked to Ariel. JMOO

Perhaps I'm reading too much into that. :crazy:

I guess there is not much new info on the case, so listening to us argue about details might be the next best thing for the reporters. I agree, LE is not releasing the location. For whatever reason.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

 

[rosesfromangels]

If I had my way, i’d ask homeowners near the place the boy was last seen to voluntarily allow sniffer dogs to do a walk through of their home/property.

 

[otto]

If I had my way, i’d ask homeowners near the place the boy was last seen to voluntarily allow sniffer dogs to do a walk through of their home/property.

Is that because you doubt that police have done a thorough job of investigating the circumstance surrounding Ariel's disappearance near the water front? Wouldn't that amount to some sort of vigilante activity, where untrained people and their volunteer friends start snooping around on private property and in private homes doing their own version of policing? Is that really a good idea?

 

[juli99]

Is that because you doubt that police have done a thorough job of investigating the circumstance surrounding Ariel's disappearance near the water front? Wouldn't that amount to some sort of vigilante activity, where untrained people and their volunteer friends start snooping around on private property and in private homes doing their own version of policing? Is that really a good idea?

I just had an image of a group of vigilante Websleuths with sniffer dogs roaming the neighborhood. That made me laugh. I assume the meaning was that one wishes the police would knock on doors with sniffer dogs.

 

[freudianslip]

In his last meeting with the press, the father mentions that, for the first time, investigators met with him before making a public announcement. So it seems he got most of the information about the investigation the same way we did, through the media.

About why he still believes his son was abducted:

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/premiere/emissions/gravel-le-matin/segments/entrevue/66067/ariel-kouakou-pere-montreal-disparition
- The absence of evidence after three weeks of intense search along the river
- The footage of Ariel going to his friend's house
- The many trees along the river bank, with branches solid enough for someone losing ground to hold onto. One can't just slide into the river, it isn't easy, he says
- The fact an icebreaker was needed, which means the ice was thick enough. Ariel couldn't have just fell into the water
- He was wearing soccer shoes, he was dressed to go to his friend's house, not to be out on ice.

Now that the search has been called off, he feels even more hopeful his son is still alive.

Meanwhile, this commentator believes the case is turning cold. He thinks LE will soon put the investigation on the backburner and will need to break the news to the parents:

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...emaines-une-porte-despoir-pour-le-pere-dariel

This is all terribly sad.
I'm thinking about the little sister. I hope she is well cared for and supported through it all.

 

[otto]

I just had an image of a group of vigilante Websleuths with sniffer dogs roaming the neighborhood. That made me laugh. I assume the meaning was that one wishes the police would knock on doors with sniffer dogs.

Police have already completed door to door searches, so no real need to do that again.

 

[rosesfromangels]

I just had an image of a group of vigilante Websleuths with sniffer dogs roaming the neighborhood. That made me laugh. I assume the meaning was that one wishes the police would knock on doors with sniffer dogs.

LOL! Yes, I was suggesting LE ask if people would mind if the dogs did a pass through.

 

[otto]

In his last meeting with the press, the father mentions that, for the first time, investigators met with him before making a public announcement. So it seems he got most of the information about the investigation the same way we did, through the media.

About why he still believes his son was abducted:

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/premiere/emissions/gravel-le-matin/segments/entrevue/66067/ariel-kouakou-pere-montreal-disparition
- The absence of evidence after three weeks of intense search along the river
- The footage of Ariel going to his friend's house
- The many trees along the river bank, with branches solid enough for someone losing ground to hold onto. One can't just slide into the river, it isn't easy, he says
- The fact an icebreaker was needed, which means the ice was thick enough. Ariel couldn't have just fell into the water
- He was wearing soccer shoes, he was dressed to go to his friend's house, not to be out on ice.

Now that the search has been called off, he feels even more hopeful his son is still alive.

Meanwhile, this commentator believes the case is turning cold. He thinks LE will soon put the investigation on the backburner and will need to break the news to the parents:

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...emaines-une-porte-despoir-pour-le-pere-dariel

This is all terribly sad.
I'm thinking about the little sister. I hope she is well cared for and supported through it all.

There's a 3 year old Toronto boy who went into the river before Ariel did, and he still hasn't been found. What is that saying ... absence of evidence is not proof/evidence of absence?

We all know that there is CCTV footage of Ariel going to the park after learning that his friend was not home, so footage prior to that second event is insignificant.

Anyone who has slipped down a hill knows that it's not as easy as it sounds to grab onto a twig to stop from hitting the bottom of the cliff/hill. Furthermore, who is to say that he was not standing on the ice when he went through the ice?

Who cares about icebreakers needed to break ice in the middle of the river. A volunteer fell through the ice in the area where Ariel disappeared. No icebreaker was needed to break the ice.

Ariel was wearing soccer shoes, and he should have been wearing boots. The soccer shoes did not stop him from going near the water front at the park. I have never seen a child avoid a puddle or snow because of their footwear.

 

[otto]

LOL! Yes, I was suggesting LE ask if people would mind if the dogs did a pass through.

I can't think of any good reason to let a bunch of strangers who are searching for someone traipse through a private yard and house. I doubt police would agree to that either. If there is evidence, the strangers will contaminate the scene.

 

[Hazel]

I learned something new today while watching these videos.
First step is not to panic, and wait until the "cold shock response" wears off, which lasts from 1 to 3 minutes.
Of course none of these will help if there is a strong current, and the person is submerged and swept away by the current, and unable to get back to the hole where they fell through.

[video=youtube;7PA-GzpcgIA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PA-GzpcgIA[/video]

[video=youtube;2qoittMUoaA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qoittMUoaA[/video]

[video=youtube;QKpAzvXSldA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKpAzvXSldA[/video]

 

[freudianslip]

There's a 3 year old Toronto boy who went into the river before Ariel did, and he still hasn't been found. What is that saying ... absence of evidence is not proof/evidence of absence?

We all know that there is CCTV footage of Ariel going to the park after learning that his friend was not home, so footage prior to that second event is insignificant.

Anyone who has slipped down a hill knows that it's not as easy as it sounds to grab onto a twig to stop from hitting the bottom of the cliff/hill. Furthermore, who is to say that he was not standing on the ice when he went through the ice?

Who cares about icebreakers needed to break ice in the middle of the river. A volunteer fell through the ice in the area where Ariel disappeared. No icebreaker was needed to break the ice.

Ariel was wearing soccer shoes, and he should have been wearing boots. The soccer shoes did not stop him from going near the water front at the park. I have never seen a child avoid a puddle or snow because of their footwear.

Understood.
All I'm saying is that this is what the father bases his speculation on.

 

[otto]

Understood.
All I'm saying is that this is what the father bases his speculation on.

For each of the father's claims, it's easy to see the flaw, yet people here have made the same comments - especially regarding ice breakers to break ice in the middle of the river with the implication that it is impossible to fall through the ice at the shore line. It seems to be a situation of looking for reasons to exclude the obvious.

I would like to hear his answer to the question of why the ice breakers matter when a volunteer fell through the ice while searching for Ariel on the shoreline.