The RMP was carrying out an investigation known as Operation Cestro and wanted to question Special Forces personnel about allegations arising from operations in Afghanistan.

Then the meeting was terminated.

On its own, that probably doesn't sound particularly mysterious. Meetings end, investigations run into difficulties and disagreements happen between different parts of government. But more than a decade later, an independent public inquiry has been trying to establish something surprisingly difficult: who actually ended that meeting, why they did it, and whether it was deliberately terminated to obstruct a Royal Military Police investigation.

That question leads into a much bigger story.

Operation Cestro was being conducted by the Royal Military Police's Special Investigation Branch. The RMP wanted to interview members of UK Special Forces, but there appears to have been disagreement over what investigators were actually allowed to ask them.

Evidence examined by the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan has raised questions about whether restrictions had been placed on the RMP's ability to question Special Forces personnel. The inquiry has specifically investigated whether there was some kind of agreement or understanding governing the questions investigators could ask, who imposed those conditions and what happened when the RMP attempted to go beyond them.

This is where the apparently mundane story of an aborted meeting starts becoming much stranger.

The inquiry has had to reconstruct events from documents and testimony produced years later. It has examined whether the meeting was stopped because investigators were asking questions that UK Special Forces personnel believed they were not permitted to ask. More importantly, it has examined whether terminating the meeting could amount to an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

One of the people connected to these events is publicly identified only as "Soldier C".

When Soldier C was later approached by the inquiry, something unusual happened. Rather than simply answering all of the questions about what had occurred, Soldier C relied on the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to substantive questions.

That doesn't prove wrongdoing. The privilege exists for an important reason and invoking it should not automatically be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

But it makes the original question considerably more interesting.

Why did a meeting between military police investigators and Special Forces personnel end abruptly enough that, more than ten years later, a public inquiry is examining who stopped it and whether doing so interfered with an investigation?

And Cestro isn't an isolated story.

Following these events came Operation Northmoor, another Royal Military Police investigation concerning allegations arising from British operations in Afghanistan. Northmoor became enormous. Hundreds of allegations were examined and investigators accumulated a substantial amount of material.

Eventually investigators became interested in an internal UK Special Forces computer system that has subsequently been referred to publicly by the cipher "ITS1".

In 2015 the RMP sought access to it.

What happened to that system opens another rabbit hole entirely.

Investigators wanted ITS1 preserved so that its contents could be examined forensically. But when access was eventually obtained, they discovered that a secure deletion process had been operating on the system.

This wasn't simply someone dragging files into a recycle bin. Secure deletion software is intended to make deleted information much harder, or potentially impossible, to recover.

The timing immediately created questions.

The RMP had been investigating extremely serious allegations. Investigators had sought access to a Special Forces computer system. Preservation of potential evidence had become an issue. Yet data on that system had been securely deleted.

Internal discussions subsequently disclosed to the inquiry show that investigators themselves were concerned about what had happened.

Again, that doesn't automatically mean somebody deliberately destroyed evidence. Computer systems are routinely maintained, information is deleted for legitimate reasons and highly classified military networks have their own security procedures.

But then the story becomes stranger.

For years, the deletion of material from ITS1 was understood to have made at least some of the data effectively irretrievable.

Much later, during the Independent Inquiry, it emerged that backup drives existed.

Those drives reportedly contained terabytes of ITS1 data and had been stored at separate Special Forces locations.

That creates another remarkably simple question: if backups existed, why weren't they recovered and examined during the original Royal Military Police investigation?

The inquiry has consequently had to investigate not only what was deleted but who knew about the backups, where they were kept, what information they contain and why the RMP apparently did not obtain them at the time.

Seen separately, each part of the story could potentially have an innocent explanation.

A meeting between investigators and Special Forces personnel was terminated.

There was confusion or disagreement about what questions military police investigators were permitted to ask.

A computer system underwent secure deletion.

Investigators struggled to obtain material.

Backups existed elsewhere.

But put together, they form a strange sequence stretching across several investigations and more than a decade.

It is also unusually difficult to dismiss as internet conspiracy material because most of the rabbit hole now exists in official records.

The Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan has published witness statements, hearing transcripts, Royal Military Police documents, emails and other evidence. Names are sometimes replaced with ciphers because of the sensitivity of Special Forces operations, but the underlying investigation is very real and is happening publicly.

That also means the story is still developing.

There are reasonable explanations for at least some of what happened, and the inquiry has not established that every suspicious-looking event was deliberate obstruction. It is important not to jump from unanswered questions to conclusions that the evidence doesn't support.

But the unanswered questions themselves are fascinating.

Who terminated the February 2014 Cestro meeting?

What exactly caused it to be stopped?

Were Royal Military Police investigators operating under restrictions when questioning UK Special Forces personnel, and if so, who imposed them?

Why did Soldier C later invoke the privilege against self-incrimination?

What information disappeared from ITS1?

Who authorised its deletion?

Who knew that backups of the system existed?

Why did the Royal Military Police apparently fail to obtain those backups during Operation Northmoor?

And perhaps the most interesting question of all: what is actually contained in the recovered ITS1 data?

The strange thing about Operation Cestro is that the rabbit hole doesn't begin with an anonymous internet post, a leaked recording or an elaborate conspiracy theory.

It begins with something much more ordinary.

A meeting was held between the Royal Military Police and British Special Forces in February 2014.

Someone ended it.

More than twelve years later, an independent public inquiry is still trying to establish exactly why.

Sources:

Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan — Operation Cestro:

https://www.iia.independent-inquiry.uk/operation-cestro/

Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan — ITS1 Server:

https://www.iia.independent-inquiry.uk/phases/its1-server/

Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan — Evidence archive:

https://www.iia.independent-inquiry.uk/documents/evidence/

Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan — Inquiry phases:

https://www.iia.independent-inquiry.uk/phases/

Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan — 4 December 2023 ITS1 hearing:

https://www.iia.independent-inquiry.uk/hearings/04-december-2023-open-hearings/

Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan — 5 December 2023 ITS1 hearing:

https://www.iia.independent-inquiry.uk/hearings/05-december-2023-open-hearing/

Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan — FAQ and terms of the Inquiry:

https://www.iia.independent-inquiry.uk/faq/

The Inquiry's evidence archive is particularly worth exploring. It contains original Royal Military Police material from Operation Northmoor, including policy files, data-recovery records, meeting minutes, witness statements, emails and the Operation Northmoor Executive Summary.

I've recently gone down a bit of a rabbit hole with this case and I'm surprised it doesn't seem to get talked about more often, especially considering there have been some pretty significant developments recently.

Kenneth George Jones was 18 when he disappeared from Glenrothes, Fife, in November 1998.

On the evening of 2 November, Kenneth was reportedly at his uncle's house, which was only a few doors away from his own home in Ancrum Court. He spent part of the evening playing computer games and apparently seemed completely normal.

At around 10:30pm he returned home.

By the following morning, he was gone.

As far as I can find, there has never been a confirmed sighting or contact from Kenneth since.

What initially interested me was how little there seems to be explaining why he disappeared. He apparently hadn't behaved as though he was preparing to leave permanently and his family initially thought he might have gone jogging.

There were possible sightings afterwards, but none seem to have led anywhere.

Someone resembling Kenneth was apparently seen sleeping rough near Ladybank. A former school friend believed they had seen him in a pool hall in Kirkcaldy. There was also a hitchhiker picked up near Falkland who was initially thought to possibly be Kenneth, but police eventually tracked the man down and established that it wasn't him.

His photograph was even put on milk cartons as part of the attempt to find him.

Nothing.

Then I found out about another strange coincidence.

On 3 November 2013, exactly 15 years after Kenneth was discovered missing, another young man from Glenrothes, 23-year-old Allan Bryant, disappeared.

Allan has never been found either.

As far as I'm aware, police have never established any connection between the two cases, so I don't want to imply there is one. It could simply be an extremely strange coincidence. But two young men disappearing from the same Scottish town exactly 15 years apart is obviously something that catches your attention.

What really sent me down the rabbit hole, though, is what has happened recently.

Police began reviewing Kenneth's case again and it was eventually passed to the Major Investigation Team. Apparently more than 1,000 inquiries have been carried out as part of the review.

Then, in February 2026, detectives returned to Kenneth's former home in Ancrum Court.

And in April they returned again and searched the garden.

According to reporting in The Courier, investigators had identified an anomaly underneath the patio and excavated it.

Think about how unusual that is.

A teenager disappears in 1998 without a confirmed trace, and almost 28 years later detectives are using modern technology and physically digging underneath the patio of the house where he lived.

There is another detail I hadn't heard about before either.

A woman may have seen Kenneth at a bus stop on Roxburgh Road, only a short distance from his home, on the morning he disappeared. Detectives reportedly interviewed this witness for more than two hours in late 2025.

I haven't been able to establish whether police now consider that sighting credible, but if it was genuinely Kenneth, it could obviously be important in establishing what happened after he left home.

I keep coming back to a few questions:

Why did Kenneth apparently leave without telling anyone?

Where was he actually going?

Was the bus-stop sighting really him?

Why has that particular sighting become relevant again after nearly three decades?

And perhaps most interestingly, what caused investigators to return to his former house and eventually excavate beneath the patio?

I want to be careful here because Kenneth's relatives and people who have lived at the property are real people, and none of this is evidence that any particular person was involved. I don't think internet speculation accusing people of crimes helps anyone.

But purely as an unsolved disappearance, I find this case fascinating.

There doesn't seem to be anywhere near the amount of discussion about Kenneth that you see with many other British missing-person cases, despite the fact that Police Scotland's Major Investigation Team is apparently still actively trying to work out what happened.

Kenneth would be 46 today.

Has anyone here researched this case in depth or come across contemporary newspaper coverage from 1998/99?

I'm particularly interested in whether there's more information about his movements that night, the possible Roxburgh Road sighting, or what originally led police to believe he may have left Glenrothes.

I feel like there is a much deeper rabbit hole here than what's currently available online.

For context, on August 30th, 2007, Kyle MacDonald was dropped off by his girlfriend at the Victoria Inner Harbour to board a charter flight to Vancouver – then was NEVER seen again. He was allegedly going to Vancouver to meet friends for a fishing trip, and it was confirmed he got on and off the plane but never made it to see friends.

There are allegations he was involved in marijuana grow-ops, but not enough traction online to verify this. Additionally, this page has emerged with more info and suggests that his case and Lindsay Buziak's could be somewhat connected.

Super curious about everyone's thoughts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?