Two locations and one anniversary

Many people sent this one in: Dana McPeek, a 33-year-old woman who’d been missing from Lompoc, California since 2001, has been located. At least, her jawbone has been. It turned up in northern Santa Barbara County, California, in the ever-popular “remote area.” No sign of the rest of the body, and obviously, no cause of death known at this time, though the assumption seems to be foul play. Her family issued a statement thanking the police for their work.

And, in Marin County, California, partial remains found last September have been identified as Michael Anton Kudsieh, a 25-year-old who had been missing from the area since 2002. I had had no details about his disappearance, but the article said he suffered from “intense mental illness” and left suicide notes saying he was going to jump off a cliff.

Today is the 20th anniversary of the disappearance of Michael Wayne Dunahee, a four-year-old who was abducted from a playground in British Columbia, Canada in 1991. He would be 24 years old today, if he is still alive. I had him profiled on Charley at one time after I heard about a possible sighting in the U.S., but then I found out the sighting had been discounted so I removed him. Anyway, Michael’s parents have issued a plea for help in solving his disappearance.

9 thoughts on “Two locations and one anniversary

  1. marycarney March 25, 2011 / 3:30 pm

    How’s the head? Dexamethasone still doing its job? Sure hope so!!

  2. Step May 21, 2012 / 6:40 am

    What possible sighting of Michael Dunahee in the US did you discount ? Just curious!

    • Meaghan May 21, 2012 / 3:33 pm

      Wasn’t me that discounted it, was the police.

      Some guy tried to kidnap a little girl, and failed, and she saw a boy resembling Michael sitting in the would-be abductor’s backseat.

  3. Step September 20, 2012 / 9:14 am

    Meaghan: Is this one of the NJ sightings or can’t you say?

    • Meaghan September 20, 2012 / 9:31 am

      Then NJ thing, yeah.

  4. Step September 20, 2012 / 5:31 pm

    Meaghan: So, you think it was discounted because it was not Michael?

    • Meaghan September 21, 2012 / 7:20 am

      I assume so; I don’t know for sure.

  5. Step September 21, 2012 / 8:53 am

    Meaghan: Can you elaborate a little on why you are not quite sure of this? Got to be something in the back of your head?

    • Meaghan September 21, 2012 / 8:55 am

      I simply don’t know very much about it. All I know is that there was a sighting, and then it got discounted. I don’t have any inner sources of information; I have to rely on the same sources everyone else does.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s