Jul 20, 2018 06:37 AM
(This post was last modified: Jul 20, 2018 07:51 AM by C C.)
The Strange Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar (Creepy News video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUIMXqkT1U8
Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar (excerpt): Bobby Dunbar was an American boy whose disappearance at the age of four and apparent return was widely reported in newspapers across the United States in 1912 and 1913. After an eight-month nationwide search, investigators believed that they had found the child in Mississippi, in the hands of William Cantwell Walters of North Carolina.
Dunbar's parents claimed the boy as their missing son. However, both Walters and a woman named Julia Anderson insisted that the boy with him was Anderson's son. Julia Anderson could not afford a lawyer, and the court eventually found for the Dunbars. Percy and Lessie Dunbar retained custody of the child, who proceeded to live out the remainder of his life as Bobby Dunbar.
In 2004, DNA profiling established in retrospect that the boy found with Walters and "returned" to the Dunbars as Bobby had not been a blood relative of the Dunbar family. [...Historic True Crime...] No match. The child whom Percy and Lessie Dunbar had taken home and raised as Bobby Dunbar hadn’t been their biological son.
And with that discovery, new questions suddenly arose. How could such a misidentification have occurred, one that led to a child being raised by a family that, genetically, was not his own? Likely, several factors came into play, chief among them classism. Julia Anderson had little money and had born children out of wedlock. On the other hand, Lessie Dunbar was a married woman who enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle and social status in her community. With all the attention Americans had paid to the loss and eventual “discovery” of Bobby Dunbar, it came as no surprise that the public wanted a resolution that would give the sad story a happy ending: a lost child reunited with married parents who could give him the lifestyle and material comfort he wouldn’t have enjoyed with Julia Anderson.
How can one explain the fact that both sets of parents, despite initial uncertainty, insisted the child was theirs? In the Dunbars’ case, because the boy wasn’t, in fact, Bobby, the reason for such doubt is clear. Yet what led them to eventually identify the child as Bobby? Perhaps their shattered minds didn’t want to face the reality of what had likely happened to the “real” Bobby at Swayze Lake and therefore worked overtime to convince them that the child was, in fact, their lost son. Conversely, maybe they knew at heart that the child wasn’t Bobby, but sought a resolution that would restore their family and remove them from the limelight that had shone on them for the past several months.
For Julia Anderson’s part, it seems fair to say that 15 months is a significant amount of time to be separated from one’s child, especially when that child is four years old and growing rapidly. The boy who left her care in February 1912 may have looked much different when he was discovered nearly a year and a half later, thereby accounting for her initial uncertainty as to his identity.
Also perplexing was the fact that the child himself hadn’t initially identified either the Dunbars or Julia Anderson as his parent(s). Again, in the Dunbars’ case, this isn’t a surprise, as the boy truly didn’t know them. With respect to his inability to identify Anderson, it seems likely that Bruce—if, indeed, that’s who the child was—either didn’t recognize Julia Anderson as his mother or felt no familial connection to her. The suggestion has also been raised that Bruce was hesitant to give up the material comforts to which he had become accustomed during his brief time with the Dunbars; this, coupled with the fact that he was being told over and over that he was Bobby Dunbar, led his young and confused mind to seek the easiest resolution: life with the Dunbars at the expense of identifying Julia Anderson as his mother.
The next question: Was the boy found in Mississippi and raised as Bobby Dunbar actually Bruce Anderson? The DNA test that proved Bobby Dunbar wasn’t, in fact, Bobby Dunbar, relied on genetic material passed along through the father (in this case, Percy Dunbar, Bobby Dunbar, Sr., and Alonzo Dunbar). Therefore, the same test couldn’t be used to determine whether Bobby was Bruce Anderson, as it wouldn’t have revealed genetic links between Bobby Jr. and relatives of Julia Anderson. In order to establish Bobby Sr.’s maternity, his body would have had to be exhumed, a course of action that neither the Dunbars nor Julia’s family wanted to take. Still, it seems a likely conclusion that the Dunbars had actually raised Julia Anderson’s child—Bruce Anderson.
Perhaps the most shattering question of all is: What happened to the “real” Bobby Dunbar? Though, of course, his true fate has never been determined, it seems logical to assume that Bobby wandered off and fell victim to misfortune, perhaps by drowning or succumbing to an animal along the lake. Therein lies the true tragedy of the story, for although the boy who grew up as Bobby Dunbar lived most of his life separated from his biological relatives, his ultimate destiny was a happy adulthood, which was certainly better than the fate that likely befell his namesake on the shores of a Louisiana lake more than a century ago.
MORE: Historic True Crime: The Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar
- - -
DNA clears up 1914 case
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200...755-3134r/
~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUIMXqkT1U8
Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar (excerpt): Bobby Dunbar was an American boy whose disappearance at the age of four and apparent return was widely reported in newspapers across the United States in 1912 and 1913. After an eight-month nationwide search, investigators believed that they had found the child in Mississippi, in the hands of William Cantwell Walters of North Carolina.
Dunbar's parents claimed the boy as their missing son. However, both Walters and a woman named Julia Anderson insisted that the boy with him was Anderson's son. Julia Anderson could not afford a lawyer, and the court eventually found for the Dunbars. Percy and Lessie Dunbar retained custody of the child, who proceeded to live out the remainder of his life as Bobby Dunbar.
In 2004, DNA profiling established in retrospect that the boy found with Walters and "returned" to the Dunbars as Bobby had not been a blood relative of the Dunbar family. [...Historic True Crime...] No match. The child whom Percy and Lessie Dunbar had taken home and raised as Bobby Dunbar hadn’t been their biological son.
And with that discovery, new questions suddenly arose. How could such a misidentification have occurred, one that led to a child being raised by a family that, genetically, was not his own? Likely, several factors came into play, chief among them classism. Julia Anderson had little money and had born children out of wedlock. On the other hand, Lessie Dunbar was a married woman who enjoyed a comfortable lifestyle and social status in her community. With all the attention Americans had paid to the loss and eventual “discovery” of Bobby Dunbar, it came as no surprise that the public wanted a resolution that would give the sad story a happy ending: a lost child reunited with married parents who could give him the lifestyle and material comfort he wouldn’t have enjoyed with Julia Anderson.
How can one explain the fact that both sets of parents, despite initial uncertainty, insisted the child was theirs? In the Dunbars’ case, because the boy wasn’t, in fact, Bobby, the reason for such doubt is clear. Yet what led them to eventually identify the child as Bobby? Perhaps their shattered minds didn’t want to face the reality of what had likely happened to the “real” Bobby at Swayze Lake and therefore worked overtime to convince them that the child was, in fact, their lost son. Conversely, maybe they knew at heart that the child wasn’t Bobby, but sought a resolution that would restore their family and remove them from the limelight that had shone on them for the past several months.
For Julia Anderson’s part, it seems fair to say that 15 months is a significant amount of time to be separated from one’s child, especially when that child is four years old and growing rapidly. The boy who left her care in February 1912 may have looked much different when he was discovered nearly a year and a half later, thereby accounting for her initial uncertainty as to his identity.
Also perplexing was the fact that the child himself hadn’t initially identified either the Dunbars or Julia Anderson as his parent(s). Again, in the Dunbars’ case, this isn’t a surprise, as the boy truly didn’t know them. With respect to his inability to identify Anderson, it seems likely that Bruce—if, indeed, that’s who the child was—either didn’t recognize Julia Anderson as his mother or felt no familial connection to her. The suggestion has also been raised that Bruce was hesitant to give up the material comforts to which he had become accustomed during his brief time with the Dunbars; this, coupled with the fact that he was being told over and over that he was Bobby Dunbar, led his young and confused mind to seek the easiest resolution: life with the Dunbars at the expense of identifying Julia Anderson as his mother.
The next question: Was the boy found in Mississippi and raised as Bobby Dunbar actually Bruce Anderson? The DNA test that proved Bobby Dunbar wasn’t, in fact, Bobby Dunbar, relied on genetic material passed along through the father (in this case, Percy Dunbar, Bobby Dunbar, Sr., and Alonzo Dunbar). Therefore, the same test couldn’t be used to determine whether Bobby was Bruce Anderson, as it wouldn’t have revealed genetic links between Bobby Jr. and relatives of Julia Anderson. In order to establish Bobby Sr.’s maternity, his body would have had to be exhumed, a course of action that neither the Dunbars nor Julia’s family wanted to take. Still, it seems a likely conclusion that the Dunbars had actually raised Julia Anderson’s child—Bruce Anderson.
Perhaps the most shattering question of all is: What happened to the “real” Bobby Dunbar? Though, of course, his true fate has never been determined, it seems logical to assume that Bobby wandered off and fell victim to misfortune, perhaps by drowning or succumbing to an animal along the lake. Therein lies the true tragedy of the story, for although the boy who grew up as Bobby Dunbar lived most of his life separated from his biological relatives, his ultimate destiny was a happy adulthood, which was certainly better than the fate that likely befell his namesake on the shores of a Louisiana lake more than a century ago.
MORE: Historic True Crime: The Disappearance of Bobby Dunbar
- - -
DNA clears up 1914 case
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200...755-3134r/
~
