I think it's easy to use the "we're scaling back the search" to justify whatever you think of MR - that the police have evidence and don't have to search, or they found nothing.
IMHO - prosecution likes having a body, and if the police found any evidence on MR's property, they would be going full-bore into finding a body. Since they are not, I don't think they found anything and MR continues to not be a suspect, even unofficially.
Maybe they didn't do anything of those things ...??
Maybe they came home and MR put groceries up, went in to take a shower, came back out and DR had fallen asleep on the couch?
We just don't know.
Lord, let my words be sweet and tender,
for tomorrow I may have to eat them.
What could make LE convinced that Dylan did not set off on foot and then have some sort of accident? Just because he hasn't been found? We know that people often are not found after accidents for months, even if inside a large vehicle. So why/how can they rule that out?
Just my opinion, of course.
However, I think it's very unusual for someone in this age category. Usually at 13 even if you do runaway, the novelty wears off. You want to, at some point, connect to your old life. Your world is too small at 13 to really just start over.
Just my opinion
I'd also want to ask if anyone has searched his HOME computer? Like his email, facebook messages, etc. Does his mom have his passwords? Does computer usage (beyond the history) show any secret email accounts or message boards?
Online predators, or secret plans are unlikely at 13- but worth considering.
From the Daily Times article:
“We're left with kidnapping and foul play,” Bender said.
LE has been saying abduction, kidnapping, or foul play. I assumed they meant abduction as in taken by a predator while walking/hitchhiking towards his friends in Bayfield type of scenario, and kidnapping as in squirreled away by a relative/friend/acquaintance because of the contentiousness between the parents and custody issues (I'll just put it that way) type of scenario.
I realized, looking at the map of the area, with the one road in/out, that a random predator - or even a local predator - was unlikely to box themselves in with no way out the other end, but also kept in mind that sometimes their compulsion leads them to acting when opportunity arises, even if very risky.
I don't know. This is only one article, so I'll be looking to see if law enforcement includes abduction in their future statements.
Just my opinion.
Well it seems to me the message is that things are getting more defined, not cold. The options narrow....
Sleuthing....from the perch.
Sometimes the people who give all the details to media and talk ad nauseam about how much they loved their missing loved one and cry copious amounts tears on camera end up being the perps. You just never know.
"Something's not right with that girl" - Jose Baez during Opening Statement
My post may only be used on Websleuths. Thanks.
All post are my opinion and speculation only and are not meant as anything else.......so unless I'm quoting MSM, take it for what it's worth!!!
I think LE is being very strategic in what they say and how they say it. I think just about everything they've done and said have been with purpose. Not naming a POI or suspect gives the POI/suspect some security that they have not yet been named. Saying the investigation is being "scaled back" does the same thing.
I think they have someone under a microscope and are waiting for that person to slip up because they are feeling relaxed enough that maybe they feel they got away with this.
Maybe I'm giving LE too much credit, but I really do think this... MOO
If they think there is a chance he is in the lake, why couldn't it be accidental? That is my main question. Do they know, somehow, that he did not leave the house on foot? If so, how could they know that? I don't like it when LE rules things out that seem to be possibilities, I guess. They seem to put so much emphasis on the phone thing.
Just my opinion, of course.
My prayers are for the innocent.
I think it could go either way. Either they have evidence and a POI in mind or they have nothing.
What's a little baffling to me is how do they know it was not an accident? Even if the dogs hit on and around the lake how can they be so sure Dillon didn't go there on his own?
Sometimes they have a little evidence...but it's not quite enough.
If whomever this is has any compassion or conscience or cared at all about Dylan, hopefully those feelings will make the person do the right thing.
If it was someone more random, hopefully that person will feel the need to brag to someone or will try to do something like this again and will not be as lucky.
And it's quite possible that they've caught a subject in lies but don't have proof of any criminal act taking place.