Yes, that makes sense but we still have to get the child close to the adult (standing within three feet) before he can be picked up and carted to the car or pulled by the hand to the car. And then you have to have this happen when no one else sees it. (I can think of many odd ways to obscure the pick up but I don't want to post them all here. No need to educate the bad guys who may read posts too.) Lets just say it is safer to obscure the pick up. But no matter how it is done the child must come close enough to be picked up at some point.PonderingThings said:There was a parking lot nearby. Although there were NO eyewitnesses its believed someone drove off with him.
Certainly possible but then you still may have someone remember seeing the child accompany her or him to the car. Yes it could certainly have been the way it was done but since traditional ways of looking at how he was taken have not borne fruit I thought it good to ask what other things were seen that might help, to look at other possible styles of abduction.PonderingThings said:When Michael disappeared there were lots of people milling about. Lots of people were using the park that day. No one saw a distressed child.
Although there could have been some kind of subterfuge the reality is probably the most simple. It could be as easy as someone saying "I left poochy in my truck/car guess I should go let her out" and Michael running over to the indicated truck/car to see pouchy.
Or a woman saying to Michael "I brought cake to the picnic, want to help me bring it from the car?" . . .
Another good reason to ask questions different than normal. No one wants to be guilty of asking wild questions in the beginning when it seems unnecessary but when a case has gone cold and so much time has gone by I think it is worth looking silly to ask questions and perhaps bring a fresh approach to the problem.PonderingThings said:. . .There is no information as to who abducted Michael. It could be a man, or a woman, an old person, or a teenager. Whoever it was they did not set off any "alarm bells" for the people that were in the area. . .
Was a picture of the child on the air that soon or just a written or spoken description?PonderingThings said:. . .Its my understanding that within 20 minutes of his disappearance the news station had already broadcasted an alert on TV. The word spread quickly. Still no Michael. . .
It's so great that the police are still working on this and new tips are coming in! Hopefully one tip will lead to Michael's recovering.On Monday police said the reward generated more than 80 tips from the public over the weekend. As of Monday morning, 25 of those had been discounted and dozens more were being investigated
"The fear on Friday was that we'd get a bunch of crank calls, but that hasn't happened," Battershill said. "Some of them were new and some related to previous information."
The tips, some of which came from "farther afield" than Vancouver Island, include information about children that suspiciously arrived in families at the age of four as well as accounts of dangerous pedophiles alleged to have been in the community at the time of Michael's disappearance.
More theories:
http://eyespybc.tripod.com/darksideonlinetabloid/id1.html
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]