CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #47

[nikb]

I was thinking more along the lines of there being a possibility that the child was abducted or ran away or ran away and got abducted along the way. Just because a child is missing, doesn't mean they are dead. Jaycee Dugard, Ben Ownsby, Shawn Hornback, Steven Stayner. Not every child who disappears is murdered. So I would think there would have to be some sort of evidence of a death in order to arrest someone and try them for the crime. IMO.

Sometimes I think these possibilities scare me most of all. I wish we at least knew what happened/is happening to Dylan. If he's alive I want to know he's being cared for. If he's not alive (this is so hard to type!), I want to know he didn't suffer.

The kids that survived but lived in h*** for years... are they ultimately glad they survived? It's getting harder and harder to hold out hope that Dylan's both alive AND not suffering. Breaks my heart.

 

[deoneta]

Ranch...I think we all have that same same question about the 10 day delay

?? wonder what's the norm in other cases

I guess what everyone wonders is what was the probable cause for the search warrant. Part of the standard is the reasonable assumption that a crime has occurred. Maybe part of the probable cause was "the passage of time" which led LE to rule out runaway. If there is evidence of a struggle, a break in, blood or decomp evidence, confirmed sightings or eyewitness reports, we certainly haven't heard anything about it. Maybe the delay was unavoidable because "the passage of time" without any communication from DR was the primary factor in the probable cause argument. All uninformed speculation and MOO, and all I can think of at this point.

 

[RANCH]

looks like he was home...?.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22063185/sunday-search-launched-missing-boy-laplata-county

11/25/2012
Mark Redwine said Sunday that he hadn't been able to find the boy's fishing rod.
"I question why it has taken this long to start scouring the lake because from Day One they have known it is likely he had a fishing pole with him," Redwine, 52, said.


http://www.durangoherald.com/articl...-vigil-tonight-in-Bayfield-for-missing-teen--
November 27
When approached at his home in Vallecito, Mark Redwine answered the door clutching a pillow. He declined to be interviewed, saying he had been “bombarded” by media requests.
He said he didn’t have a lot of support at the moment and had family coming in to help him figure out how to respond to the situation. Mark Redwine said he expected his brother to arrive Tuesday night in Vallecito.

So the search warrant was served on November 29th and we have reports of Mark being at home before that date. Why did LE allow Mark to stay in the home before executing the search warrant?

If law enforcement had evidence that Mark was responsible for Dylan's disappearance from the get go, why did they allow him to stay at the possible crime scene for day after day before they got a search warrant?

MOO.

 

[RANCH]

There was also the part about conducting an immediate, thorough search of the child's home. LE did an initial search, with MR's consent, before the warrant. We just don't know how thorough LE was - we don't know if they saw the cereal bowl sitting by the sink (or in the drain rack if MR washed it), or if they saw any clothing on the couch (like the reporter said was there).

A bit frustrating for us.... What exactly does an "immediate, thorough search" mean?

Salem

I'm not sure how good of a search LE did initially. I remember posts saying that LE did a "cursory search" of Marks home. I've looked to see the source of that term and I get directed back here to WS.

ETA: I would say that an "immediate, thorough search" would be the same as "search as quickly as you can but try and get the best results."

 

[Confusion]

BBM

Do you mean the kid that was seen at the gas station? I'm not sure he was gone 4 months....do you have a link or remember his last name?

TIA

I think the confusion is because the boy's name wasn't Dillon, it was Daniel. MOO

 

[SuperMom1995]

enjoy your days with her. it is so bittersweet. best wishes for an peaceful and healing passing. they never are really no longer by our sides.
I'm marking the 6 year anniversary of one of my cat's death today (raised him from 4 weeks old with his brother who died 9 years ago). They are never really gone.

I am just reading this NC and ABSENTIA. I am so sorry NC I have had 2 dogs that meant the world to me: 1 a mixed beagle who was like my sister. I literally grew up with her and she passed while I was at college and the other a Bassett hound whom I had to find a home for after 7 years because I started working 16 hours a day. It killed me and I'm still not over it. It's so hard. My thoughts and prayers are with you!

 

[SuperMom1995]

Wanting so much for Dylan to come home.

I was re-reading the first couple of threads yesterday and even when they were searching the lake, I was hoping that it was a divorce issue and that Dylan was being hidden by someone.

Then Mark spoke and the weirdness began.

Prayers to Dylan, Cory and Elaine.

I have been following the Hailey Dunn case as we await the I'd of the remains found close to her home and you really start to see a pattern to these parents who you just know had involvement in their children's demise.

 

[SuperMom1995]

Holey smokes!

ETA - I notice the bottom portion is close to Mushroom Lane, but we don't know if Mindy's clue during the search amounted to anything & that search was later.

Do you mean Wendy or is this someone else?

 

[Allusonz]

Reverse 911 IIRC was on the UNOFFICIAL facebook page. It's rumor unless there is a press release, if you have it, it would be interesting to see. TIA

Ummmm no it was not from an unofficial facebook page.

I do need to ask a mod for some clarification though.

 

[Allusonz]

There was also the part about conducting an immediate, thorough search of the child's home. LE did an initial search, with MR's consent, before the warrant. We just don't know how thorough LE was - we don't know if they saw the cereal bowl sitting by the sink (or in the drain rack if MR washed it), or if they saw any clothing on the couch (like the reporter said was there).

A bit frustrating for us.... What exactly does an "immediate, thorough search" mean?

Salem

In the Lisa Irwin case, they separated all the parties, including the children, spoke with them, and then looked through the house. They as well dusted for fingerprints et al in Lisa's room, but not do any forensics throughout the entire home. For the entire home, bringing in x-ray machines etc., remaining forensics, they obtained a SW.

HTH

 

[MissJ]

*Being the parent with whom the child is in the full custody/care of at the time the child "disappears", does not indicate his involvement in his son, Dylan's "disappearance".

*Being that there is a definite and sudden halt to any/all communication with Dylan permanently within mere hours of having been picked up into his father's custody, does not indicate his involvement...

*Being a controlling individual does not indicate his involvement...

*Having a criminal history involving domestic abuse and violence, does not indicate his involvement...

*Displaying actions/behaviors that are not consistent with his youngest son's having literally "vanished" from the face of this earth, does not indicate his involvement...

*Having FAILED a LE administered polygraph does not indicate his involvement...

*Being the last person with the victim, does not indicate his involvement...

* MAKING DISPARAGING COMMENTS ABOUT HIS EX WIFE/SON'S TIRELESS EFFORTS OF CONTINUING THE NON-STOP SEARCH FOR FINDING DYLAN, does not indicate his involvement...

*Making inconsistent and even often contradictory statements regarding his account of hours leading up to, and after the "disappearance" of his son, does not indicate his involvement...

*Agreeing to a scheduled polygraph administered by retired FBI polygrapher and then knowingly indulging in hard liquor within mere hours of that scheduled LDT, does not indicate his involvement...

*Choosing to lay down for an afternoon snooze after returning home to find his son(who was expected to be there), nor his belongings anywhere in sight, does not indicate his involvement...

*There being a completely separate account that backs up/supports the abuse, control, and history of being non compliant in returning the minor children to their mother[AZG] , does not indicate his involvement...

*All of his adult son's being disconnected from his life, does not indicate his involvement..

*One of his grown adult son's publicly stating that Mark had more than once hidden he and Dylan from their mother, does not indicate his involvement..

*A grown adult son publicly stating that he believes his father is responsible for the "disappearance" of Dylan, does not indicate his involvement..

*Having the extremely recent and drastic court ordered change regarding custody/support decided in ER's favor allowing her to move Dylan more than 5hours away, not only terminating his receiving a monthly check due to ER being the breadwinner btwn the two, but the courts actually ruling that he was to now pay ER monthly child support payments, does not indicate his involvement...
----------------------------------------------------
While some of the ^above^ numerous factors are concerning and/or disturbing EVEN when looking at them each, separate from one another.. however each alone and by themselves do not necessarily indicate his involvement in his son, Dylan's "disappearance". This is repeated time after time after time amongst the discussions about the multitude of factors WRT Mark Redwine..

When viewing this multitude of factors TOGETHER as a whole..because that's reality, that it is the sum total of all the factors, NOT JUST EACH INDIVIDUAL FACTOR STANDING ALONE..

These factors do NOT stand alone.. and there is not just one, or two, or three of these concerning/disturbing factors that one can realistically excuse and explain their existence.. There is an entire multitude of these concerning factors AND its IMO unrealistic that its necessary to assign excuses and explanations for all of them.. IMO once into factors six, seven, or eight the necessity for explanations becomes no longer realistic.. yet they continue to mount well into the double digits ... eleven, twelve, thirteen??...nope, it doesn't even stop there as it literally continues to mount higher and higher nearing twenty in my just listing the ones that IMMEDIATELY come to mind..

When looking at all of the factors concerning Mark Redwine IMO I come to what IMO is a logical conclusion..
With the possibility threshold surpassed IMO, and the plausibility threshold having been surpassed, IMO brings about the probability of Mark Redwine's involvement in his son, Dylan's "disappearance". NOTE that this is MOO!!

There is a reason why Mark Redwine is on so many radars and that reason has nothing to do with a bandwagon, a lynch mob mentatility, or anything to do with confirmation bias, nor does it have a thing to do with the court of public opinion convicting, judging, and sentencing this man..

No one here has rushed to judgement and no one here is discussing terms of guilt and innocence as are set forth by our courts of law... Websleuths is NOT a court of law and tho, WS standards are IMO rightfully high in what/who is allowed for discussion, therefor IMO all the more reinforcing the fact that THERE is good reason Mark Redwine is under the microscope of so many, there is good reason why WS has allowed for Mark Redwine to be sleuthed and discussed WRT to his possible involvement, and one need not look any farther than the long list of legitimate reasons listed above to begin to understand EXACTLY WHAT AND WHY MARK REDWINE IS PRIME SUSPECT NUMBER 1 IN MANY PEOPLE'S VIEW/OPINION..

MOO is that Mark Redwine is also LE prime suspect, number one as well.. as is stated in the OPs of each of Dylan's threads it is a known fact that LE very rarely PUBLICLY name their prime suspects and POIs and there are extremely relevant and accurate reasons for why they do not that has been discussed at great lengths throughout Dylan's threads..

IMO its OK if you<**disclaimer** YOU in GENERAL, not PERSONAL**> do not think or want to believe that this father could have hurt, harmed, or killed his son..I understand that, respect that, and its your<**disclaimer** YOUR in GENERAL, not PERSONAL**> prerogative to be of that mindset and opinion.. But there are very legitimate, rational, relevant issues that IMO demand for Mark Redwine to be looked at extremely hard as the prime suspect at this time...

Jmo regarding Mark Redwine's being under the microscope for legitimate cause/reason that is BACKED UP AND SUPPORTED by an entire plethora of relevant, rational factors.

Well organized and accurate post! Thanks was not enough.:seeya::rocker:

 

[MissJ]

Custodial interference or murder IMO would be charges, there are two very good cases for each right here in AZ. One in which the mother is now in prison for custodial interference, they haven't found the boy and aren't sure if he is alive or dead. The other, the mother is going to trial for murder, no body, no evidence, just a statement from one of the kids that they last saw their sister in the closet & that mom used bleach to clean the house. A friend said she drove the mom to throw a suitcase in a dumpster 30 miles away.
IMO, an arrest will come when there is enough evidence to convict. Why start the clock ticking with an arrest when right now LE has the luxury of time?

Jumping off your post.:twocents:
The father of the Skelton boys who disappeared on a court ordered Thanksgiving visit is in jail for "custodial interference" IIRC. No trace of the three darling little boys has ever been found. The father gave conflicting stories.
:moo:

 

[MissJ]

JMO but wish I could think of a scenario where DR could be out there somewhere alive and ok but I just cannot. My heart goes out to ER. I want DR to come home alive.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I keep seeing references to MR's criminal history of domestic abuse and violence. Search as I might, I can't find that criminal history. Please, help me out, I'd like to review the links showing this history. I apologize in advance if they are here somewhere and I missed them. Thank you.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Let's say someone consents to a search of their home. At any point, could the person not revoke consent? LE are not known for housekeeping nor for clean up after a search, so is it possible that warrants are sought and granted even when there is consent just to preserve access lest the person change his/her mind?

 

[masootz]

Let's say someone consents to a search of their home. At any point, could the person not revoke consent? LE are not known for housekeeping nor for clean up after a search, so is it possible that warrants are sought and granted even when there is consent just to preserve access lest the person change his/her mind?

yeah you can tell them to leave but you're probably not going to have much luck. if while they are searching they find ANYTHING that could be considered probable cause for further searching then you're out of luck in asking them to leave.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

yeah you can tell them to leave but you're probably not going to have much luck. if while they are searching they find ANYTHING that could be considered probable cause for further searching then you're out of luck in asking them to leave.

So, if I understand you correctly, if something/anything was found in the search that is considered probable cause, a person has then forfeited the right to withdraw consent?

And also, then, the person consenting can revoke consent if there isn't something of interest found or in plain view?

 

[aust amateur slueth]

I keep seeing references to MR's criminal history of domestic abuse and violence. Search as I might, I can't find that criminal history. Please, help me out, I'd like to review the links showing this history. I apologize in advance if they are here somewhere and I missed them. Thank you.

protective orders were shown in a news video, it will be in the media links, IIRC it was a KOAT news report and our verified insider has documentation which she was advised by mods she did not need to show.

 

[TxLady2]

yeah you can tell them to leave but you're probably not going to have much luck. if while they are searching they find ANYTHING that could be considered probable cause for further searching then you're out of luck in asking them to leave.

And that's why they need written consent instead of verbal when they conduct a search on private property. I don't care if 20 people all got up in court and testified that they heard the owner give his/her consent, a defense lawyer will do everything they can to have it thrown out. If the evidence points to the owner, the owner themselves can say they did not give permission to search or asked them to leave. If it's in writing and he/she signed it, there is no way the owner can dispute it.

 

[Carolyn H.]

Just to be clear about the search and consent thing:

Say I am innocent of something LE thinks I might know something about. Because I know I didn't do anything, I consent to a search. But LE comes in and totally starts to mess up my place and that makes me, shall we say, unhappy. At that point, can I revoke my consent and kick them out?