CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #48

[rosesfromangels]

Thanks everyone for explaining about the dogs and their alerts. I did some research on dams, and they are very dangerous. If the worst outcome did occur, it is most likely that our angel is in or around that dam. Let's pray this is not the case, and there will be a miraculous outcome. As long as no remains are found, there remains a chance, however small.
My prayers and thought for this dear child continue......

 

[Dee10]

I agree and I think they have a pretty good picture of what might have happened!

http://www.gazette.com/articles/thaw-153174-redwine-dylan.html

Investigators say they have a wealth of evidence, but still no leads and no named suspect.

“We have gathered so many little pieces of evidence, it’s kind of like a jigsaw puzzle and now you’re just looking for that one piece to bring everything together,” Bender said.

 

[azgrandma]

Yes, I understand that is your thought and opinion, which I respect. I was merely trying to show, that without being able to ask additional questions, even experienced LE officers do not reliably detect deception.

I tried your link and kept getting an error msg. trying to get to the page you referenced. I'll try again later.
BBM - with MR's cooperation wouldn't LE be able to ask all the additional questions they wanted? IMO, deception, even on open ended questions such as "do you know where Dylan is" can be easily detected by even the least experienced of LE. We (people in general) have life experiences and can tell, usually, when someone is bs'ing us or not. LE is trained to use the same skills in a more indepth manner.

 

[azgrandma]

and yanno..LE peeps do having training in psych and such

one example
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/training/bsu

KateNY, thanks for the link. I know a ton of LE officers and they are always going to specialized training such as this. There are always conferences throughout CO that offer this information for LE. Amazing!

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

I realize that most don't have this book on hand, but here is a link to it and on page 150-152 some of which may be available online, the research states that deception is not likely to be identified correctly by experienced police officers at a level that surpasses chance, especially if the information they are evaluating doesn't give them the opportunity to ask more questions (like us, who are observers in this case).

BBM
-snipped for space-

That statement surprises me. I would have to read it in context. If it is saying that police might not recognize deception from one individual statement in the course of interviewing many, I think police have admitted that over and over. Bender made such a comment when he said we are going back over the information we have, one missed statement could be the key. (paraphrased) But if it is saying that police don't have any real basis to recognize deception, I'm not buying it. How could police not have pretty good hinky meters? More and more reliable over the course of their career. They have a wealth of experience to draw from. They have seen innocent people's behavior and guilty people's behavior. IMO behavior, tone of voice, content of speech that doesn't match the situation must send up red flags for police and detectives. I would hope they honor that "feeling" and follow up on it when it happens.
JMO.

 

[Eileen730]

This one is also interesting!

http://www.ehow.com/info_8218548_signs-lying-police-interrogation.htmlWhen police officers bring in a suspect for questioning, they are on the look out for signs that the person is lying to them. Some people train themselves to hide the fact that they are lying, but members of the police force are also trained to spot those signs. Some signs are more obvious than others

Read more: The Signs of Lying in a Police Interrogation | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8218548_signs-lying-police-interrogation.html#ixzz2Pi3rJaxg

 

[KateNY]

another good link Eileen

Someone who is lying may also use a longer answer than necessary, speak in a monotone voice, garble words or give an answer not directly related to the question and change the subject.

some might call that word salad :twocents:

 

[Eileen730]

Why did everyone else pass their poly and MR not? Id bet my last dollar the same polygrapher gave them the tests.


Just a question and JMO

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I tried your link and kept getting an error msg. trying to get to the page you referenced. I'll try again later.
BBM - with MR's cooperation wouldn't LE be able to ask all the additional questions they wanted? IMO, deception, even on open ended questions such as "do you know where Dylan is" can be easily detected by even the least experienced of LE. We (people in general) have life experiences and can tell, usually, when someone is bs'ing us or not. LE is trained to use the same skills in a more indepth manner.

I hope if the link doesn't work that you'll simply google the book by title. I'm not sure why it's not functioning. On Amazon and I think maybe on Google books, people can often see a great deal of the books available, but not the whole text.

Anyway, I can't copy and paste the portions from the text, so I thought perhaps people would be interested in reading the actual text. The research cited does explain that it's referring to LE officers not being able to detect deception in a one-sided (unable to ask questions) situation. The same situation that we, as the public are in. We can't ask MR or anyone questions to help develop successful deception with any reliability. It does not say that LE don't have specialized skills and abilities when involved in an interview or interrogation.

 

[Tennlyn]

I realize that most don't have this book on hand, but here is a link to it and on page 150-152 some of which may be available online, the research states that deception is not likely to be identified correctly by experienced police officers at a level that surpasses chance, especially if the information they are evaluating doesn't give them the opportunity to ask more questions (like us, who are observers in this case).

Amazon.com: Research Methods in Forensic Psychology (9780470249826): Barry Rosenfeld, Steven D. Penrod: Books

Hmm...I can't access the pages you indicated, but from the TOC it appears to be written by Maria Hartwig. I did manage to find this Abstract in another paper that Dr. Hartwig co-authored.
"Research on deception detection in legal contexts has neglected the question of how the use of evidence can affect deception detection accuracy. In this study, police trainees (N=82) either were or were not trained in strategically using the evidence when interviewing lying or truth telling mock suspects (N=82). The trainees’ strategies as well as liars’ and truth tellers’ counter-strategies were analyzed. Trained interviewers applied different strategies than did untrained. As a consequence of this, liars interviewed by trained interviewers were more inconsistent with the evidence compared to liars interviewed by untrained interviewers. Trained interviewers created and utilized the statement-evidence consistency cue, and obtained a considerably higher deception detection accuracy rate (85.4%) than untrained interviewers (56.1%)."
ETA: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9

So an 85% accuracy rate in detecting deception when trained. Not bad! :moo:

I'm glad that the Task Force working Dylan's case includes the CBI & FBI. They surely have appropriate training in detecting deception! :moo:

 

[azgrandma]

I hope if the link doesn't work that you'll simply google the book by title. I'm not sure why it's not functioning. On Amazon and I think maybe on Google books, people can often see a great deal of the books available, but not the whole text.

Anyway, I can't copy and paste the portions from the text, so I thought perhaps people would be interested in reading the actual text. The research cited does explain that it's referring to LE officers not being able to detect deception in a one-sided (unable to ask questions) situation. The same situation that we, as the public are in. We can't ask MR or anyone questions to help develop successful deception with any reliability. It does not say that LE don't have specialized skills and abilities when involved in an interview or interrogation.

I agree that we are not able to question MR, I'm sure he would not like some of mine. However, we have seen two sided conversations, the interviews that have been done, although not necessarily the questions "we" would ask, have been helpful IMO.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I can't imagine that trained detectives, FBI, CBI can not see MR's deception when it is so completely obvious to so many in the general public.

I think Bayou's post above is probably irrelevant to this case since up until the most recent LE press release LE has claimed that MR has been cooperative and I would assume that would include while being questioned. So unlike us, they have been able to ask him questions and ask for clarity on his answers.

 

[azgrandma]

Hmm...I can't access the pages you indicated, but from the TOC it appears to be written by Maria Hartwig. I did manage to find this Abstract in another paper that Dr. Hartwig co-authored.
"Research on deception detection in legal contexts has neglected the question of how the use of evidence can affect deception detection accuracy. In this study, police trainees (N=82) either were or were not trained in strategically using the evidence when interviewing lying or truth telling mock suspects (N=82). The trainees’ strategies as well as liars’ and truth tellers’ counter-strategies were analyzed. Trained interviewers applied different strategies than did untrained. As a consequence of this, liars interviewed by trained interviewers were more inconsistent with the evidence compared to liars interviewed by untrained interviewers. Trained interviewers created and utilized the statement-evidence consistency cue, and obtained a considerably higher deception detection accuracy rate (85.4%) than untrained interviewers (56.1%)."
ETA: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9

So an 85% accuracy rate in detecting deception when trained. Not bad! :moo:

I'm glad that the Task Force working Dylan's case includes the CBI & FBI. They surely have appropriate training in detecting deception! :moo:

Great post! I am confident that CBI, FBI and some of the local LE has had training in interviewing techniques. JMHO
Wasn't there an earlier article that mentioned the CARD team being on the case? I would imagine with the custodial interference, parental abductions and variety of child abductions that these fine folks are highly qualified and skilled. I just can't see them NOT gathering valuable information based on basic Q & A sessions. IMO

 

[RANCH]

I must have missed the obviously deceptive statements made by Mark.

If he's innocent it wouldn't matter how well trained the LE officers are that interviewed him were. They wouldn't get anything of real value from him. If he's guilty I would hope that LE used their best interrogators and used all the techniques available to them including lying about evidence they may have or polygraph results. MOO.

 

[SmoothOperator]

BBM

I think that LE knows Mark's movements to a tee from his cell phone. Even if LE can't pinpoint an exact spot at a certain time for Mark's whereabouts, they will certainly be able to tell when and where he went on the days in question.

The only way that Mark could get around that would be for him to have left his cell phone at home while he traveled to pickup Dylan or in the morning when he left to run errands. Now that would be some big red flags wouldn't it? MOO.

In going with this theory above that LE knows Mark's movements to a tee via his cell phone..and then combine that particular thought with the fact that LE's wording in their press release indicates that Mark's activities during this very important, specific window of time are very much still under investigation .. IMO this does NOT AT ALL indicate that Mark is NOT involved in his son's "disappearance"..

In fact IMO in going with the belief LE knows his movements to a tee via cell phone, along with their statements press released.. IMO its indicative of the exact opposite..as in more likely of Mark's involvement in his son's "disappearance"..

jmo, tho.

 

[azgrandma]

In going with this theory above that LE knows Mark's movements to a tee via his cell phone..and then combine that particular thought with the fact that LE's wording in their press release indicates that Mark's activities during this very important, specific window of time are very much still under investigation .. IMO this does NOT AT ALL indicate that Mark is NOT involved in his son's "disappearance"..

In fact IMO in going with the belief LE knows his movements to a tee via cell phone, along with their statements press released.. IMO its indicative of the exact opposite..as in more likely of Mark's involvement in his son's "disappearance"..

jmo, tho.

IMO I'm betting that LE is using more than his cell phone, keep in mind they had BOTH of his vehicles and how long would it take for LE to get a warrant to put a tracking device on both of them. Not long at all IMO

 

[Seajay]

Thinking of Dylan. Praying for that miracle. I do not want Dylan to be in the lake. To me, that is the most important thing, that Dylan is alive. Find Dylan first, then worry about the who, what, when or why. IMO

 

[RANCH]

IMO I'm betting that LE is using more than his cell phone, keep in mind they had BOTH of his vehicles and how long would it take for LE to get a warrant to put a tracking device on both of them. Not long at all IMO

I guess your saying LE could have put tracking devices on Mark's vehicles to see if he went back to the crime scene or where he may have dumped evidence. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that LE did in fact do that.

 

[azgrandma]

To me finding Dylan is the only priority. As I've said many times, I'd make a deal with the devil himself if that meant Dylan would be safe in the arms of his loving mother. Able to enjoy the precious moments with his brothers and MH. Bringing Dylan home is my daily priority, it's my only priority. Giving Dylan the opportunity to spend precious time with his Oma before she passes. I can't wait for the moment that Dylan is back where he belongs, where he is loved by many and allowed to be the precious child he should be. all MOO

 

[SmoothOperator]

Thank you azgrandma for coming forward, being honest in a way that I know isn't a Cakewalk..and by being respectful beyond what IMO is even deserved.. I know that your motives are pure, and your respect is given for the sake of Dylan, Elaine, Cory, and your sons.. IMO it makes you just all the more a genuine, caring soul<-- I believe this has been evident throughout these last hellishly long months..

Without a shadow of a doubt your entire reason and cause for even being here is for Dylan..to find and bring him home no matter the way in which that happens..yes, alive and able to heal and work through whatever he may have endured throughout this nightmare, is the way in which we all cling to hope in seeing happen..but just finding him and bringing him home is THE ONLY PRIORITY.

Thank you for allowing us to be here in any positive role that we can, if even as nothing more than a sounding board and a source of support from your friends around this entire globe that you now have in us.:hug: