This story is frustratingly light on details. What happened to the woman who took him? How did he end up with his adoptive parents (did they legally adopt him from that woman or did they adopt him after she abandoned him)? Did he know he was adopted?
Did he know he was adopted?
I wonder how he wouldn't have. The story says he was six when he was abducted. I learned how to read when I was five and knew my own address at six.
How did he never like, just say "I'm not from here, please take me home"? I know America is big, but...
I imagine being kidnapped is a pretty traumatic event, and it's pretty easy to gaslight a child even if they haven't been traumatized. If every adult in your life keeps telling you you imagined something or dreamed it, it probably sticks after a few years.
You might be right. I find it dubious, but I think you might be.
I would agree, but I've known a couple of people who swear that they don't remember early childhood at all, like nothing before the age of eight or nine, or only the vaguest of images here and there. I was skeptical at first because my earliest memory is from the age of two, and it's fairly clear. It blows my mind that it's even possible to forget everything without a head injury or something, but I didn't have any reason to believe they were lying.
Edit to add: I'm always a little thrown off when I see your username. Just for a second.
Yeah memory is a funny thing I guess. But like, it seems that there would've needed to be at least a few years of someone actively blocking the kid from going home if he knew were home was, until he could be gaslighted into believing the new one.
Edit to add: I'm always a little thrown off when I see your username. Just for a second.
Took me a while. I was looking at mine, thinking what's wrong, why would you be thrown, but then I saw yours and I totally got it.
Oakland police acknowledged that Alequin’s efforts “played an integral role in finding her uncle” and that “the outcome of this story is what we strive for”.
That's a really weird statement. Oaklands police strives for no leads and a cold case for 70 years, leaving the mother in uncertainty until her death and then the family finding the missing person themselves?
I mean its great, that he was found well and alive, but if that is what your police strives for... the bar is like underground.
On the plus side, the cops didn't murder anyone this time.
I guess we can be sure the family doesn't own a dog.
it probably helps that it's the albino family.
Aren't police clearance rates for missing persons and murder cases like, in the low single digits? Cops aren't good at this.
It's like 1-2% for pretty much any crime. They're basically there because you need a police report to make an insurance claim.
Yeah, I've heard about the same. Roughly 2% even for violent crime. And yet revisiting their budgets is apparently fucking communism.
Cops aren’t good at this.
They're not magically omniscient, if that's what you mean. You've set a really high bar for American cops, who are continually accused of being violent and stupid.
The bar isn't really that high if you look at how cases that are solved actually got solved (deductive reasoning, forensic analysis, trust from the community including the marginalized, and focused manpower from people who give a fuck).
It's just that the people who want to be cops are more interested in wearing a fancy uniform, using weapons, harassing poor people, and beating their spouses than actually doing real work that involves brain power. Not to mention office politics.
Magic omniscience would probably help though. They should work on that after solving the "violent and stupid" issue. ;)
It's not all that weird when you remember that ACAB.
keep in mind this case was only solved because the neice did a DNA ancestry test and found a nearest match. If police wanted this data, they either would have needed to ask said family to turn in DNA (which id imagine back then, wasnt a service at this scale) or to give them 100% access to DNA data of every citizen, which I doubt anyone wants.
I'm not criticising that police couldn't find him themselves. My issue is with the statement, that this is an outcome they "strive" for as if finding him after 70 years (SEVENTY) was an ideal outcome in a child abduction case. As if this was the most they aim for.
The article was a bit frustrating because it said nothing about what the man's thoughts were after being abducted and now. Does he even remember being abducted? Did he realize he wasn't living with his birth parents?
Everything I could find online says he did not want an interview and that it's not confirmed if the person who raised him was the same who kidnapped him. It only mentions that the adults in his life did not answer any questions he had about it. We likely won't know unless he decides to do an interview or the FBI's investigation turns up something.
Did he ultimately get the candy or not?
That’s disgusting, I hope that woman lived a short, painful and miserable life.
And I hope the couple who adopted him gave him love. (It doesn't say whether they knew he'd been stolen, they lived on the opposite coast so it wouldn't have been in their newspaper.) Glad he and his brother were able to reconnect, after all the lost decades
its only assumed yeah that the parents were financially well off because it was a common thing back then (and is still prevelent today) where couples would adopt children, not knowing that they were victims of child trafficking.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.