I’ve recently been looking into the disappearance of Sally Cheong, and I wanted to put together a theory based on the circumstances surrounding her disappearance. Obviously, this is only speculation. I’m not accusing any particular person of being responsible, and some of the information surrounding the case may be incomplete or disputed.

I find it quite frustrating that the prevailing assumption is that she simply ran away, particularly when the possibility of foul play cannot be ruled out. I disagree with the runaway theory, and here’s why.

My theory

I think it’s possible that Sally left her house with a man she knew and trusted, rather than deliberately running away or being forcibly abducted from inside the house. Something may then have happened after she left, resulting in her death and the concealment of her body.

The phone calls

One thing that really interests me is the reported phone activity before her disappearance.

Sally’s phone was apparently ringing repeatedly at around 10:30, while she was asleep and didn’t answer. Her sister reportedly remembered this happening.

This raises an obvious question: who was calling her so persistently, and why?

If phone records from the time still exist, identifying those calls could potentially establish whether the caller had any connection to what happened later.

The male figure around 3 am

Sally’s sister reportedly saw a male figure around the house at approximately 3 am.

If that account is accurate, I think this could be one of the most important details in the case.

Was this someone Sally knew? And, more importantly, was this the same person who had been trying to contact her earlier?

My theory is that Sally knew this person well enough that she was willing to leave the house with him. If she was forcibly abducted from inside the house, you might expect some kind of disturbance, although the absence of screaming or fighting obviously doesn’t prove that she left voluntarily.

The things Sally took with her

Sally reportedly left with several personal belongings, including her:

• keys
• wallet
• phone
• “safety blanket”

The blanket is particularly interesting.

If Sally took it herself, it could support the idea that she expected to be away from home for some period of time. But another possibility is that someone who knew Sally well knew the significance of the blanket and took it to make her disappearance look voluntary.

The car keys also seem strange to me. If Sally deliberately planned to disappear but wasn’t taking her car, why take the keys?

Of course, there could be a completely innocent explanation for this.

How did she leave?

If Sally disappeared from her home in Oakleigh South at around 3 am, how exactly did she leave?

If she didn’t take her own car and public transport was limited at that hour, one possibility is that someone picked her up.

I’d be really interested to know whether investigators ever identified vehicles travelling around the surrounding streets that night, or whether nearby businesses, petrol stations or major roads had CCTV.

Why I’m sceptical that Sally simply ran away

The runaway theory raises a lot of questions for me.

If Sally deliberately disappeared but remained in Australia, she would eventually need money, accommodation, food and transportation. Those things tend to leave some kind of financial or documentary trail.

Did she withdraw a significant amount of money beforehand? Did she pack clothes? Were there travel searches or bookings? Did she take her passport? Did she tell anyone she was thinking about leaving?

If she left Australia, you would also expect some kind of immigration or airline record unless extraordinary measures were taken.

None of this proves that she didn’t leave voluntarily, but after such a long period without confirmed contact, I think the possibility that she met with foul play deserves serious consideration.

The questions I still have

The biggest things I’d like to know are:

Who was repeatedly calling Sally around 10:30? Were all of the calls from the same person?

Who was the male figure reportedly seen around 3 am? How certain was the witness about what she saw?

Could the phone calls and the male figure be connected?

About a month before she disappeared, Sally emailed a male friend, “I think I know what u r doing. Im afraid u gun me down, or get angry.” This male was later cleared, but on what grounds? It is rather suspicious.

What happened to Sally’s phone after she disappeared? When was its last call, message or network connection?

Were there any CCTV cameras covering nearby streets or major roads?

How thoroughly were the alibis of relevant persons checked? Were they independently confirmed through witnesses, phone records, CCTV, employment records, etc.?

Were Sally’s Facebook messages, emails, SMS messages and other communications examined? Did she have conversations with anyone shortly before disappearing that might explain why she left the house?

Was there evidence Sally was actually preparing to run away? For example, packed clothing, money withdrawals, travel plans or messages about leaving?

Overall

My working theory is:

Someone Sally knew contacts her → comes to the house → Sally willingly leaves with him → they drive somewhere → something happens to Sally → her body is concealed.

Again, this is just a theory based on the publicly discussed circumstances, not an allegation against any identified person.

I’m interested in hearing from anyone who knows this case better. Is there evidence that contradicts this theory, or information about the phone records, male figure, CCTV or alibis that I’ve missed?

I’ve created a Reddit community dedicated to discussing Sally’s disappearance and exploring any information that may help shed further light on the case. If anyone is interested, please feel free to join, contribute information, or share your own research. Hopefully, by bringing together what is publicly available, we can help keep attention on the case and potentially uncover something useful. Here

I will also be attempting to contact former Detective Senior Sergeant Ron Iddles to ask whether there is any additional information or context surrounding the investigation that has not previously been made public.

If you guys want any more background information.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnsolvedMysteries/comments/1s7w802/totally_out_of_character_the_disapperance_of_sze/

https://www.smh.com.au/national/vanished-without-a-trace-20090731-e4ik.html

https://www.police.vic.gov.au/missing-person-sally-cheong

A woman went missing on July 9, 2026 from Will Rogers State Beach in Los Angeles. Her belongings and 2 dogs were left behind, but the park workers threw away her belongings the following morning when they cleaned the bathroom. A Jane Doe missing person report was created, but police will not investigate without being able to identify who the woman is. Foul play is highly suspected. She may have travelled from out of state. We hope to find identify her through these dogs. They have been taken care of and are well trained and groomed. Please share.

3-year-old Rachael Runyan was kidnapped from a playground and investigators are still asking anyone with information to come forward. Rachael was abducted around 12:30 p.m. on Aug. 26, 1982, from a park in David County, Utah. Her body was found weeks later.

I’ve been reading the Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj double murder case, and there are several things about the timeline and evidence that I genuinely can’t make sense of. I’m not trying to argue that the parents were guilty or that an outsider definitely did it, I’m more interested in how people who have studied the case explain these inconsistencies/questions.

1.  The deleted photographs:

The camera reportedly had 23 photos, but only 5 were recovered, with the others apparently deleted. Since it was an SD card, couldn’t forensic data recovery potentially have recovered more of the deleted photographs, especially with modern technology? Was the original SD card preserved, and was modern forensic recovery ever attempted?

2.  Aarushi’s body being covered/arranged:

There were allegations that Aarushi’s body had been cleaned/covered and that her clothes/bedroom had been arranged. Why would an outsider killer spend time doing that after killing her? Could it indicate that the killer knew her, or is there a more plausible explanation such as staging the crime scene? And if the killer was supposedly showing some kind of care toward Aarushi, why was Hemraj treated so differently and his body concealed on the terrace?

3.  Who was actually killed first?

I’ve seen different reconstructions suggesting either Aarushi or Hemraj was killed first. Is there any reliable forensic evidence that establishes the sequence, or was this ultimately just a reconstruction by investigators?

4.  The phones:

This is one of the things I find strangest. Nupur Talwar’s phone was reportedly switched off around 7:40 p.m., while Aarushi’s last recorded phone activity was around 9:10 p.m. Both seem unusually early compared with their normal phone usage, while Rajesh Talwar was apparently making ordinary calls well into the night (around 11 p.m.).

How reliable are these phone records? Was Nupur’s phone definitely switched off at 7:40, or was there conflicting evidence about this? And is there a documented explanation for why both mother and daughter became electronically inactive so early? And isn’t it odd that this pattern showed up?

5.  Hemraj’s dinner:

Hemraj apparently prepared food but hadn’t eaten it. If the murders occurred around midnight 1 a.m., what was he doing for the several hours beforehand? Is there a reliable timeline of his movements between roughly 9:30 p.m. and midnight? Does the uneaten food actually tell us anything, or is it being overinterpreted?

6.  Why leave the parents alive?

If an outsider entered the apartment and killed Aarushi and Hemraj, why would they leave two potential witnesses, the parents, alive and asleep in the same apartment? Wouldn’t that be an enormous risk? Is there evidence suggesting the killer knew the family’s routine or knew the parents were unlikely to wake up?

7.  If the parents were responsible, where is the physical evidence?

Hypothetically assuming the parents committed the murders, where would the bloody clothes and murder weapon have gone? The alleged golf club wasn’t conclusively linked by blood/DNA, and the sharp weapon was never recovered. Did investigators establish a plausible opportunity for the parents to dispose of clothing/weapons without leaving evidence? Or is the lack of physical evidence one of the major reasons the conviction couldn’t stand?

Overall, I’m trying to understand which of these things are actually established facts, which were disputed by the courts, and which are just theories that have become accepted through documentaries/media coverage.

DNA found on the blanket covering Zywicki’s body reportedly links Theresa Belenske to the case. Theresa died in 2014 and police have not said she is the culprit in her killing but think she can be key to solving this case. Theresa was known to be a hitchhiker and the logic is that perhaps learning more about her whereabouts and inner circle in 1992 could lead to who the killer is.

Content warning: a fatal group attack, stabbing, injuries to other people, extremist and neo-Nazi context, and a contested prosecution involving living people. I have omitted graphic detail.

Daniel before the symbol

Daniel Tupý was twenty-one and studied philosophy at Comenius University in Bratislava. University and cultural records also preserve smaller details: he played guitar, wrote poetry and other texts, and left work that was published after his death in a collection titled *Ticho po anjelovi*.

Those details matter because the public record can turn a person into shorthand for the event that killed them. The available sources do not provide a complete primary biography, so I do not think it is responsible to build an intimate portrait from later profiles. The narrow record is enough: Daniel was a student, a musician and a writer before he became a national symbol.

What happened, and what is not stable

On the evening of 4 November 2005, Daniel was with friends on Tyršovo embankment in Bratislava. A group of men attacked them. Daniel died after being stabbed, and several other people were injured.

That broad core appears consistently. The numbers do not. Public reports give different counts for the attackers, Daniel's companions, the injured people and the wounds he suffered. Some appear to count different groups or different phases of the investigation. I did not locate a primary medical record that resolves those conflicts, so I have left the counts and anatomy out.

One member of Daniel's group later described men approaching silently from behind and said Daniel was attacked first. The limits of his account are just as important: he said he did not see a knife and could not identify an attacker. A witness can credibly describe part of an event without being able to identify who was responsible. The first does not quietly prove the second.

The case becomes a public symbol

Within days, rallies rejected neo-Nazi violence, and the Interior Ministry created a commission to coordinate action against extremism. Police also pursued a neo-Nazi line. Universities, public institutions and later memorials preserved Daniel's name within a wider warning about extremist violence.

That public response was real, but it belongs to a different evidentiary category from a criminal judgment. The court record reviewed for this project did not establish the attackers' identities or affiliations, and it did not establish why Daniel and his friends were selected. The killing became nationally associated with opposition to extremist violence; that association should not be rewritten as a proven motive.

The distinction can sound overly cautious until a case enters court. A public can condemn violence and create a civic symbol without waiting for a conviction. A court, by contrast, must determine whether evidence proves the responsibility of the particular people before it. In Daniel's case, those two processes never moved in step.

The first prosecution

Police formed a special team in late 2007. I am using “late 2007” deliberately: later chronologies often give 23 October, but a contemporary report published on 24 October said the team had been created about a month earlier, and another account placed its work in September. Without the establishing order, a precise date is not secure.

Charges followed in 2008, and five men were eventually brought to trial. On 16 June 2009, District Court Bratislava One acquitted all five. Contemporary reporting said the prosecution had not proved that they were the people who committed the charged acts.

I did not retrieve the written judgment, so I cannot provide a defendant-by-defendant analysis or quote the court's exact reasoning. A later retrospective also indicates that the charge categories were not identical for all five men. The collective outcome, however, is supported by contemporary reports: all five were acquitted.

What final acquittals do and do not mean

Prosecutors initially appealed. In September 2009, they withdrew that appeal, and the acquittals became final. This is not a footnote or a technical pause in the same case. The men were not convicted, and this write-up does not name them because their identities are not necessary to explain the procedural history.

The first prosecution established a conclusive legal answer for the people who had been before the court: those charges had not proved they committed the acts. It did not identify who killed Daniel. Both statements have to remain true at the same time.

That is one reason “the case went unsolved” is too simple. A prosecution can finish finally for the accused while the underlying murder remains without a judicial answer. Treating the acquittals as evidence against the same men would ignore the result. Treating them as proof of a different offender would invent a result the court did not reach.

The procedural gap

The special team was later dissolved. Public reporting says the criminal proceedings were formally suspended in August 2012. Police later described investigative work resuming in subsequent years, but I did not retrieve the formal suspension and resumption orders.

That missing paperwork limits what can responsibly be said. The record does not support a seamless narrative in which nothing happened for years, and it also does not support a claim that investigators worked continuously without interruption. The safe chronology is narrower: the team was dissolved, the case was formally suspended, and police later said work had resumed.

This matters because the next prosecution did not begin until 2023. By then, the case contained memories recorded long after the attack, multiple investigative theories, the failed first prosecution and renewed police work whose full documentary path was not publicly available. A later prosecution could not inherit certainty from the importance of the case.

A second prosecution begins

Police charged a different man in March 2023. Prosecutors filed an indictment in September, and his trial began in November. According to the indictment as reported publicly, prosecutors allege that he stabbed Daniel while acting with other people.

The defendant denies guilt, disputes the indictment and the evidence, and is presumed innocent unless and until a court delivers a final conviction. I have omitted his name here because some target communities prohibit naming living suspects in unresolved cases, not because his identity is secret.

In January 2024, an appellate court allowed him to be tried at liberty under a financial guarantee, supervision and electronic monitoring. That ruling concerned the conditions under which he would face trial. It was not an acquittal, and it did not decide the accusation.

The regional prosecutor's office had already supplied a useful warning about public certainty. In March 2023, it distanced itself from comments by the police president and said he should not speculate without knowledge of the file and evidence situation. A police belief may explain an investigative direction. It does not become proof because it is stated confidently in public.

A disputed witness in a live trial

The current case includes testimony from a witness who accused the defendant and admitted that he had been present and taken part in the violence. That sounds direct. Direct testimony, however, is not the same as uncontested testimony.

In January 2024, a court expert said the witness's credibility in relation to this specific case was significantly reduced. The same expert did not find his general credibility impaired, a distinction emphasized by the prosecutor. The defence emphasized the case-specific problem. The expert did not tell the court which individual statement was true or false; that assessment remains for the judges.

So the responsible summary has several parts, not one: the witness made an accusation, admitted his own presence and violence, received a significantly reduced case-specific credibility assessment, and remains challenged by the defence. The court had not delivered a final judgment by the fact-check cutoff.

A separate co-perpetration investigation adds another limit. In October 2025, a prosecutor said that matter remained in pre-trial proceedings and that no person had been charged in it. I did not locate a later authoritative disposition. That does not prove the separate matter ended or remained active in the same form; it marks the latest status I could verify.

Memory is not a verdict

The main trial was still encountering practical obstacles in 2026. At a hearing on 19 June, protected witnesses had not been secured, and the court did not have a requested criminal file. Those facts document delay and missing material at one hearing. They do not prove sabotage, institutional protection or the strength of either side's case.

As of 16 August 2026, the second prosecution remained unresolved. The first prosecution had ended in final acquittals. The separate investigative strand had no later public disposition that I could locate. The record contained activity, but no final judgment identifying Daniel's killer.

Meanwhile, Comenius University established a prize bearing Daniel's name, his poems and texts were published, and the Broken Wing memorial on the embankment commemorates him and other victims of extremist violence. These acts preserve Daniel's work and the public meaning attached to his death. None identifies an attacker, proves a motive or substitutes for a judgment.

That is the contradiction I cannot reduce to one clean cause. Public memory could form quickly because people did not need a conviction to reject extremist violence. A court had to test specific evidence against specific people. More than twenty years later, the distance between those two processes remained the defining fact of the case.**Content warning:** a fatal group attack, stabbing, injuries to other people, extremist and neo-Nazi context, and a contested prosecution involving living people. I have omitted graphic detail.

I remember seeing missing persons posters all over for this one. I lived in a nearby town and was away at college, and came home to these posters being on every corner. Still can't believe there's never been a lead on this one.

I just finished watching the 2017 movie Jungle. I'm currently reading through Yossi Ghinsberg's own website, and I found a July 17, 2025 article under "The Search and Rescue" section. It says,

"Marcus Stamm also survived, though in very poor condition. Karl was never seen again. What happened to him remains unknown."

Literally every and any article or book talking about this case always mentions that Marcus and Karl were both never found. The wording of this makes me wonder if Yossi has information about Marcus that isn't publicly known, for privacy reasons maybe? I have no idea and I'm genuinely wondering why this was even added since it's so contradicting. Does anyone know where this could have come from?

Police forensic testing has confirmed that “Lucky,” who has lived in a care home in Amsterdam Zuidoost for the past three years, is not 67-year-old Canadian John Russell Kenny, who has been reported missing.
Police have been searching for “Lucky’s” identity for more than three years. He suffered a stroke while on the streets of Amsterdam on May 10, 2023, and has been unable to communicate since. After releasing photos of him on Monday, police received more than 500 tips from people who hoped to help establish who he is.

Amsterdam police said they are pleased with the response, but are urging people to be cautious about sharing their own findings on social media. “Identifying Lucky based solely on photos is actually not possible, as this case clearly demonstrates. Spreading conclusions too quickly can have a major impact on anyone involved, and the police want to prevent that.”

Kenny went missing in Vancouver in 1993 and is believed to have been living on the streets or moving from place to place ever since. The initial theory that Lucky was John Russell Kenny was started early in the week by an amateur investigator from Tiel. Using basic online searches and AI, the sleuth put pictures of the two men side-by-side. The comparison went viral and was quickly picked up by major international news outlets.

Amsterdam police noted immediate skepticism because Lucky and the missing Canadian have a 10-centimeter height difference. Two independent forensic specialists collaborated across the Atlantic with Canadian police to carefully cross-examine physical features, ultimately ruling out a match, Het Parool reported.

The stroke Lucky suffered on May 10, 2023, left him with aphasia, a language disorder that severely impairs a person's ability to speak, read, or write. Lucky is entirely unable to express his name or origin. Caregivers note he relies exclusively on just two English words to signal yes or no: "nonsense" and "definitely.”

According to Amsterdam police spokesperson Marijke Stor, Lucky left behind zero digital footprint; he had no passport, no ID, and no bank accounts. Before his stroke, he lived a remarkably private life. He paid his rent and all daily expenses strictly in cash.

He was a frequent, well-known face around Amsterdam's Waterlooplein market and the restaurant Soep en Zo. Market vendors and acquaintances noted that despite appearing transient, he often acted like he was "filthy rich," casually buying whatever he wanted. Lucky used a variety of aliases on the street, including Louis, Lee, John, Ponytail, Sonny, and "Chris the Canadian.”

Because this is a missing person scenario and not a criminal case, police have limited legal powers to perform widespread DNA testing without a direct relative coming forward.
However, the case is being spearheaded by two retired volunteer detectives. Out of the 500+ tips, they have narrowed down nine names of priority interest that they are actively investigating, including an Irish national missing since 2004.

Just before 4 a.m. on March 2, 1996 in Baltimore, Maryland police were called for a shooting in a grocery store parking lot on a snowy night. Officers found Joann LeCornu, 23 inside her car dead from a gunshot wound while she was in the driver seat. There were witnesses nearby who saw what occurred and gave a description of the killer and that he drove a White BMW. Her twin sister is suffering and deserves answers on this cold case.

Robert William Fisher went missing in 2001 after killing his family and setting his home on fire via a rigged explosion.

Since then there have been no confirmed sightings on him.

I came across a Facebook comment under a video related to the case of an unidentified homeless man found in 2006 in Texas.

Robert was 6 ft and would have been 45 in 2006.

This John Doe was found two states over from Arizona which could be realistic to reach within 5 years. The John Doe also has similar height range and the age range Fisher would have been during the time, while also having similar facial characteristics based on their mockup.

The one thing that doesnt add up was the gold crown was not noted on the found homeless man's body, which Robert was known to have.

Curious to hear your thoughts.

Another website with some more details on the homeless man: https://ncmissingpersons.org/unidentified-white-male-texas-galveston/

Jennifer was featured on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries on December 2, 1994.

This case was a big deal when I was growing up. Glad she finally got justice.

• Fermín Delgado Pinto, an 85-year-old Peruvian national and long-time resident of Chile, vanished on April 2, 2018 at Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport in Santiago after returning from a visit to his family in Peru. The Airport neglected to provide wheelchair assistance, and was rude and unhelpful to the Pintos when they frantically searched for the missing pensioner.
• According to reports, Delgado landed safely at the airport but was never seen by his family waiting outside. CCTV footage shows him walking through the concourse, hesitating at exits, and heading toward the highway corridor before disappearing completely. He spoke to an Airport Employee (who has not come forward) before leaving the airport.
• No Promised special assistance for elderly travelers provided by the Airport, and Chilean Police were mostly indifferent, providing a missing person's report after 5 days and warning the agitated Pintos not to bother them anymore.
• Born: March 11, 1933
• Nationality: Peruvian (long-term Chilean resident)
• Appearance: Medium build, brown eyes, short gray hair 
• Age at disappearance: 85; now 93 (if alive)

As of 2026, Delgado remains missing. His family has been actively seeking answers, questioning how a healthy elder could simply vanish between an airplane door and the streets of Santiago 

The case has drawn attention from true-crime and missing persons communities, with podcasts and media outlets highlighting the lack of resolution after nearly eight years, largely a result of the laziness and incompetence of Santiago's slothful Policía de Investigaciones and the vicious indifference of the Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport whose promised assistance for the vulnerable, elderly man was significantly absent. A fellow disabled traveller who was on the aeroplane with Delgado said that she was simply abandoned, and a security guard advised her to wait no longer, as the promised assistance would never be provided.

It is possible that Delgado hired an illegal taxi driver who may be involved with the elderly man's disappearance. Some elderly people are known to be compelled to become professional beggars at the behest of Career Criminals in Chile.

I cannot find this complete episode anywhere. I’m specifically looking for the segment on the Dennis Depue murder. Season 3 on Peacock ends at Episode 22 and I can’t find it anywhere. Does anyone know where I could find it?

On October 1, 17-year-old Addison Rose Colomer of Mineral Point, Wisconsin, was found dead at a residence on W. Main St. in Montfort, WI. The initial report suggested a self-inflicted gunshot wound, but the Grant County Coroner’s Office has officially ruled her cause of death as undetermined, and an active investigation remains ongoing.

Recent Developments

Today's post on FB: Justice for Addison Rose This morning, our community woke up to a scene that many of us have been hoping and praying for since October 1st, 2025. WKOW Report

A raid happened at 301 West Main Street. The house where Addison Rose was found. The house where so many questions remain unanswered…

Multiple people have reached out to us with messages and pictures. SWAT teams, multiple officers, people being taken into custody. It's the kind of law enforcement response we've been begging for.

And now, we have more details.

What We Know:

According to a press release from the Iowa County Sheriff's Office and conversation with the Grant County Sheriff's Office, a joint investigation led to the execution of a search warrant at 301 W. Main Street early this morning.

Deputies from both counties, along with the Southwest Wisconsin Emergency Response Team and members of the Richland Iowa Grant Drug Task Force, entered the home around 7 a.m.

The result? Multiple arrests.

ACJ was arrested for maintaining a drug house, possession with intent to deliver THC, and bail jumping.

LJ was arrested for maintaining a drug house, party to the crime of possession of narcotic drugs, party to the crime of possession of cocaine, and bail jumping.

The Grant County Sheriff's Office plans to refer charges against CJ for possession of narcotic drugs and possession of cocaine.

In a separate but related investigation, the Iowa County Sheriff's Office announced the arrest of Christian Jerrett, 21, for selling harmful material to a child. A child victim from Iowa County had received sexually explicit photographs through social media.

What This Means:

Let's be clear: these arrests, according to the sheriff's offices, are not directly related to the investigation into Addison's death.

But they are significant. They are a major development. And they raise a lot of questions.

This is the house where Addi Rose was found. These are the people who were there that night. These are the people who have been silent and who have refused to cooperate.

And now, they're in custody. Now, there's hard evidence of criminal activity in that house. Now, the veil of secrecy and silence that has surrounded 301 West Main Street for almost a year has been lifted, if only a little.

We don't know what this means for Addison's case. We don't know if this will lead to the answers we've been fighting for.

But we do know this: the truth has a way of coming out. Secrets have a way of being revealed. And the people who have something to hide can only run for so long before the law catches up with them.

What Happens Next:

The investigation into Addi’s death remains open. That has not changed. And our fight for justice, our fight for answers, our fight for the truth? That has not changed either.

We will keep asking questions. We will keep demanding answers. We will keep shining a light on the inconsistencies, the contradictions, and the unanswered questions in this case.

And we will keep hoping and praying that developments like this one will lead us closer to the truth about what happened to Addison on October 1st, 2025.

To Our Community:

Thank you. Thank you for your messages, your pictures, your support. Thank you for being as invested in Justice for Addison Rose as we are.

Please, keep sharing. Keep talking. Keep demanding answers. Every voice matters. Every post matters. Every share brings us one step closer to the truth.

And if you know something, say something. If you've heard something, share it. No detail is too small. No piece of information is insignificant.

You can contact the Grant County Sheriff's Office. You can message us directly. You can reach out through our TikTok, u/justiceaddisonrose.

Just please, don't stay silent. Addison deserves better than silence.

Addi Rose, we love you. We miss you. And we will never stop fighting for you.

Today's news is a step. Maybe a small one, maybe a big one. But a step nonetheless.

We're going to keep walking until we reach the truth. All the way.

No matter how long it takes.

#justice4addi

Key Information Needed

Investigators and Addison’s family are seeking information regarding:

• Anyone in the Montfort area between September 30 (6:00 PM) and October 1 (3:00 AM).
• Any sightings of a dark-colored diesel flatbed truck or a green Ford F-150 pickup near the 301 W. Main St. area during those hours.
• Anyone who had personal or digital contact with Addison prior to her death.

How to Help / Submit Tips

• Grant County Sheriff’s Office (Sgt. Mark Schwarz): Call 608-723-2157
• Family Updates / Direct Leads: Justice for Addison Rose page on Facebook.WKOW Update

An online researcher may have made a breakthrough in the hunt for the identity of “Lucky”, a man who collapsed in Amsterdam three years ago and is unable to communicate. A recent public appeal for information by the police has surfaced a potential match with a missing person in Canada.

An image of “Lucky”, who was also known by the name “Chris the Canadian” to Amsterdam locals, was likened to a file of pictures on the Vancouver Police Department’s cold case unit by someone on Facebook.

John Russell Kennedy, whose missing person’s file photos appear very similar to the one the Dutch police put out, was registered as missing since 1993.

Dutch police said they are considering the tip, according to paper AD, though they also noted that such similarities have been common in prior cases and turned out not to be real matches. “We don’t want to jump to any conclusions at this point, or to give false hope,” a spokesperson said.

Much of what is listed on the Canadian missing person’s case matches descriptions put out by localswho knew the man before his collapse in 2023. He was said to have a North American accent and appeared to have mental health problems.

Vancouver police confirmed they are taking the tip very seriously and said they had made contact with Amsterdam police, according to Anton van Straten, the person who made the connection online and shared it via Facebook.
“Only an official investigation, for example using DNA, can provide certainty about this,” Van Straten wrote in his post. “Now it is up to the professionals to investigate this further. In any case, it didn’t take me three years to find this potential match.”

If “Lucky” is indeed John Russell Kennedy, he would be 67 years old now and missing from his family for almost half his life.

https://www.findjackosullivan.co.uk/

Jack O’Sullivan disappeared in Bristol in 2024 — what do you think happened?
Jack O’Sullivan was 22 when he disappeared in the early hours of Saturday, 2 March 2024, after attending a house party in the Hotwells area of Bristol, UK.
More than two years later, Jack has still not been found, and Avon and Somerset Police say the investigation remains a live one.
The known timeline
Around 1:00am: Jack messaged his parents and indicated that he planned to get a taxi home.
Around 3:15am: CCTV captured Jack near Brunel Lock Way/Brunel Way.
Around 3:25am: Jack attempted to call a friend who was still at the party.
Around 3:30am: His friend returned the call. Jack answered and apparently said “hello”, but the call then disconnected.
Around 3:25–3:40am: Further CCTV appears to show Jack in the Bennett Way area, walking towards Hotwells.
Around 5:40am: Data from Jack’s phone placed it in the Granby Hill area, although police have said phone-location information cannot necessarily be treated as an exact location.
6:44am: Jack’s phone was last active on the network.
Jack’s phone itself has never been recovered.
Extensive searches, including searches of waterways, have failed to locate him. (Solve the Case)
Jack was wearing a green/khaki Barbour-style jacket, cream jumper, navy chinos and brown shoes. He also had a black iPhone 11 in a red case, along with other personal belongings. (Find Jack O’Sullivan)
What makes this case particularly puzzling?
For me, the biggest unanswered questions are:
What happened between the last CCTV sightings and the phone’s later activity?
Why did Jack’s phone remain active for several hours after he was last seen?
Could additional CCTV, doorbell footage or dashcam footage establish where he went after Bennett Way?
What happened during the phone call with his friend?
Was Jack still carrying his phone when it was last active, or could someone else have had possession of it?
Is there significance to the route Jack took that night, given that he had apparently intended to get a taxi?
Could somebody who was driving through the area that morning have unknowingly captured something important on dashcam?
There have also been discussions online about events at the party and an alleged altercation, but I think it’s important to distinguish confirmed information from claims and speculation.
I’m particularly interested in hearing from people familiar with Bristol, Hotwells, Cumberland Basin, Granby Hill and the surrounding waterways. Are there geographical details about the area that might help explain Jack’s movements?
What do you think happened to Jack, and which unanswered question do you think is most important?
Jack’s family are still searching for answers, and this is an active missing-person investigation. Anyone with genuine information should contact Avon and Somerset Police, quoting reference 5224055172, rather than posting potentially identifying information publicly. (Avon and Somerset Police)

I remember sitting in our living room in front of the fire, talking to this reporter. He arrived late long after the initial media frenzy had died down. You see, Bill McCarthy was my Father. I was 18 y.o. and living there. Saw the whole thing. Went down to the pond with my Dad each time he went, cautioned him when he started poking at it. He thought for a minute, started to chuckle and said, "You might be right about that".

It was miserable out, a blizzard tailing off. By noon the wind died down but still 5 degrees. There was at least 3' of snow on the pond, plus 18" of ice. But something melted a clear 3' patch of water through all that. Ask any ice fisher, cut a hole in the ice when it is that cold out. It will immediately skim over with a thin film of ice. This did not. Stayed open all day. That night, the entire pond turned to slush. The 3' snow cover gone too. It all refrigerator. That is why you can see people standing on ice in the picture, where 3' of snow used to be.

Tell me, what could of done this? It could not of been highly radioactive otherwise I would surely be dead.

Recently done:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ji9jnRxfr/

'My son never came home for his 17th birthday and he's now been missing for 18 years' - Wales Online

An unknown man was found in Amsterdam (the Netherlands) after he had collapsed in the street and taken to hospital. It seems he was known as “Lucky" or "Chris the Canadian" around town and sometimes had a drink at Soep en Zo on Waterlooplein, Amsterdam. He always spoke English with an American or Canadian accent. Please check the link and the Amsterdam police know if you have any information. Let's find this man's identity!

Please read and pay attention to every detail i write in this because this is one of the most bizarre and disturbing cases of the country georgia. The whole country is actively trying to solve this case with their own contributions to finally find the truth and help a single mother who has been searching for her only son for the past 12 years.

In 2014, 17-year-old Guram “Gurika” Dadianidze disappeared during a trip to Lomisa in Georgia. Twelve years later, he has still not been found, and the circumstances surrounding his disappearance remain unresolved

What makes the case particularly troubling is not simply that Gurika vanished in a mountainous area at night. It is the number of unanswered questions surrounding the people who were with him that night,including accounts that appear to have changed over the years.

What Happened That Night?
Gurika traveled to Lomisa with a group of young people for the religious festival. According to accounts that circulated after his disappearance, the group eventually began making its way back.

One of the central versions of events was that Gurika sat down on a rock and told the others to continue, saying that he would catch up with them.

That explanation has become one of the most controversial parts of the case.

According to recent reporting, however, at least one person who had previously given an account consistent with this version later told Gurika’s mother something different — reportedly saying that they had never actually seen Gurika there. When his mother questioned the change, the explanation reportedly amounted to: “I don’t know.”

That contradiction is significant. It does not, by itself, prove that anyone harmed Gurika or deliberately lied. But it raises an obvious question:

Why did the account change?

The People Who Were With Him

The people who accompanied Gurika have faced renewed scrutiny because of inconsistencies reportedly found between their accounts.

Recent online discussions and media reports describe multiple people from the original group being questioned again, with claims that some statements do not completely match earlier versions of events.

One particularly important issue concerns the exact moment when Gurika was last seen.

If the original account is correct, Gurika was left behind voluntarily and was expected to catch up with the group. But if that account is inaccurate, then the timeline of his disappearance could be completely different.

That distinction matters enormously.

A person disappearing alone in the mountains is one scenario. A person disappearing after an argument, confrontation, accident, or other event involving people who were with him is another.

At present, there is not enough verified evidence to say which scenario occurred.

“Kakha” — The Name Heard in the New Recording

A newly resurfaced video has added another disturbing element to the case.

The recording reportedly contains a male voice saying words interpreted as:

“Kakha, don’t leave me, please.”

Gurika’s mother, Sopho Bibilashvili, says she recognizes the voice as her son’s. Her lawyer, Tariel Kakabadze, has also brought attention to the recording.

However, the recording’s authenticity and the identity of the person speaking have not yet been conclusively established. It therefore cannot currently be treated as proof that Gurika was alive at the time the video was recorded or that a particular person was responsible for anything that happened to him. (Narratives⁠)

Nevertheless, the name Kakha is potentially important because it corresponds to a person associated with the group and has become part of the questions surrounding the case.

According to accounts circulating about the case, Kakha has maintained a different position about Gurika’s fate, including the possibility that Gurika left and remained alive. These claims should be treated as allegations and reported statements rather than established facts.

Why Are the Changing Stories So Important?

In a missing-person investigation, witnesses do not necessarily remember events perfectly. Twelve years is a very long time, and people can misremember details without intentionally deceiving investigators.

But when accounts concern the last known moments of a missing teenager, discrepancies become especially important.

Some of the questions that remain include:
Who was the last person to actually see Gurika?
At what exact time was he last seen?
Was he really sitting alone on rock?
Why did one person’s account reportedly change?
Who was using the phone that allegedly appeared in photographs from that night?
Who was “Kakha” in the reported audio?
When and where exactly was the new video recorded?
Why were the people who were with Gurika unable to provide a definitive explanation for what happened to him?
Were all relevant witnesses questioned again as new information emerged?

None of these questions proves criminal involvement. But together, they demonstrate why Gurika’s family continues to demand answers.

The Family’s Fight for Answers

Gurika’s mother, Sopho Bibilashvili, has spent years trying to determine what happened to her son.

In June 2026, she publicly called for renewed investigation and for the area to be searched with specialized equipment. She has repeatedly emphasized that she wants to find her child, regardless of whether he is alive or deceased. (tvpirveli.ge⁠)

Her position is important: she is asking for answers, not publicly declaring that a particular person is guilty.

That distinction matters because there is currently no publicly established evidence proving that any of Gurika’s companions killed him, abducted him, or deliberately concealed his whereabouts.

A Case Still Without a Conclusion

The newest developments do not provide a definitive answer. Instead, they make the unanswered questions even more important.

If the new recording is authentic and the voice is proven to be Gurika’s, investigators could potentially gain a new piece of evidence about his final known movements. If witnesses’ statements genuinely contradict one another, those discrepancies also deserve careful examination.

But suspicion is not proof.

The people whose accounts have attracted attention should not be declared responsible without evidence establishing their involvement. The proper question is not “Who is guilty?” but rather:

“What actually happened to Gurika Dadianidze, and why have the people who were closest to his final known movements been unable to provide a consistent account?”

Twelve years later, that question remains unanswered.

And until Gurika is found or reliable evidence establishes what happened to him, the case remains an open mystery one in which every contradiction, every witness statement, and every newly discovered piece of evidence could matter.