Flashback Friday: Daniel Naylor

This week’s FF case is Daniel A. Naylor, a fourteen-year-old who’s been missing from Fremont, California since October 5, 1982. (October 5 is my birthday, incidentally, though I wasn’t born till 1985.) He had an argument with his parents and stormed out, and was never seen again, so they say, although apparently he came back to the house a month later to take some money and his stuff.

Sounds like a runaway, right? Well, that’s what the cops thought at first, but 30+ years is a VERY long time for a kid to stay under the radar.

The case got some renewed attention early this year when the police announced they now considered Daniel’s disappearance “suspicious” and think he could have met with foul play. Then it promptly dropped back out of the news again and I don’t know what new info the investigation has turned up, if anything.


7 thoughts on “Flashback Friday: Daniel Naylor

    • Meaghan June 24, 2016 / 4:59 pm

      I think I added her a few days ago.

      • Mia June 24, 2016 / 5:55 pm

        You did. I just refreshed the updates. I believe her shirt said “Weed is my spirit animal.” There’s a picture of her wearing it floating around.

      • Meaghan June 24, 2016 / 6:20 pm

        Yeah, I saw the pic. Hence my description of the clothes. I’ll fix the lettering.

        I think, unless you’re in a state where weed is legal for recreational use (I believe the only ones are Washington, Colorado and Alaska), wearing a shirt like that or having a bumper sticker like that is asking for trouble; i.e. police attention. I mean, I doubt the shirt/sticker alone would constitute probable cause to search you, but it might make them start looking for probable cause.

        I rarely get stopped by the cops. I think the first time I was stopped, I was seventeen years old and the cop said I’d crossed a side line a few blocks back. Now, perhaps I did; I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure he was really stopping me because it was like 2:00 a.m. on Memorial Day weekend and he was looking for drunks. Fortunately I was stone cold sober.

  1. Mia June 24, 2016 / 9:15 pm

    Oh, definitely. You’re making yourself a target for police suspicion when you advertise your affinity for that sort of thing.

    Unfortunately, in Larissa’s case, I think her openness about her habits and her job as an exotic dancer made her less of a good news story than the average single-mom-who-disappears. There’s been basically nothing about her since the initial report and it’s very unfortunate. There is some interesting speculation on her Websleuths page about YouTube visits/comments she was receiving.

  2. Liz June 24, 2016 / 9:45 pm

    In the Naylor case they believed the family did it and searched the yard where the Aunt lives and found nothing. But, I read a lot of these types of things and I could be wrong.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s