Search of MR's house Aug. 14, 2013

[katydid23]

I hope we see justice for Dylan, and sometime soon. :rose:

 

[Darcyline]

Speculation here, but I would say they pretty much know what happened, but that most/all of the evidence is circumstantial. Very strong circumstantial, but still not the slam dunk I am sure they would want. I hope whatever they have is enough. Everything together paints a pretty clear picture to me and we may not even have all the evidence that LE does. However, sometimes juries want basically a videotape with corresponding forensic information and the murder weapon and a signed confession to convict
*Exaggerating, but I have been heartbroken by a few cases recently*

 

[MissJ]

Speculation here, but I would say they pretty much know what happened, but that most/all of the evidence is circumstantial. Very strong circumstantial, but still not the slam dunk I am sure they would want. I hope whatever they have is enough. Everything together paints a pretty clear picture to me and we may not even have all the evidence that LE does. However, sometimes juries want basically a videotape with corresponding forensic information and the murder weapon and a signed confession to convict
*Exaggerating, but I have been heartbroken by a few cases recently*

ITA. Me too.

 

[KateNY]

from that link
http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140627/NEWS01/140629577/Still-building-a-case-

snippets

'last weekend, investigators spent three days going back over the area where Dylan’s remains were found in search of more evidence'

'The Vallecito home of Mark Redwine, Dylan’s father, has been the scene of repeated searches.'

'the investigation is tying up loose ends'

'continue to process forensic evidence'

whenever LE may find/or seize new evidence..lab processing time re-extends

Let's hope this reaches a conclusion soon.


:twocents:

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

Speculation here, but I would say they pretty much know what happened, but that most/all of the evidence is circumstantial. Very strong circumstantial, but still not the slam dunk I am sure they would want. I hope whatever they have is enough. Everything together paints a pretty clear picture to me and we may not even have all the evidence that LE does. However, sometimes juries want basically a videotape with corresponding forensic information and the murder weapon and a signed confession to convict
*Exaggerating, but I have been heartbroken by a few cases recently*

It gives me heart that LaPlata County has a good conviction record. Helps me wait. Not a day goes by that I do not think of Dylan and hope for justice and peace of mind for those left behind that loved him dearly.

 

[SCHMAE]

Well there is obviously no ' rush to judgment' here. I'm hoping that the long time in between means they are dotting I's and crossing T's and they will not make an arrest until they are sure they've got what they need.

 

[RANCH]

I found this statement by the sheriff interesting.

Sheriff Duke Schirard suggested the investigation is tying up loose ends. Once the investigation concludes, the District Attorney’s Office would decide whether the case is strong enough to proceed with charges.

Whatever evidence they have doesn't appear to be overwhelming. If it were he would say that once the investigation is concluded an arrest and charges will be forthcoming. Instead, he put the burden on the DA about the outcome.

Is he expecting the DA to not file charges and is planning on deflecting any criticism away from his office and towards them? He is up for re-election this November so it makes me wonder.

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140627/NEWS01/140629577/Still-building-a-case-

http://durangoherald.com/article/20...ate-today-between-the-two-sheriff-candidates-

 

[SCHMAE]

I found this statement by the sheriff interesting.



Whatever evidence they have doesn't appear to be overwhelming. If it were he would say that once the investigation is concluded an arrest and charges will be forthcoming. Instead, he put the burden on the DA about the outcome.

Is he expecting the DA to not file charges and is planning on deflecting any criticism away from his office and towards them? He is up for re-election this November so it makes me wonder.

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140627/NEWS01/140629577/Still-building-a-case-

http://durangoherald.com/article/20...ate-today-between-the-two-sheriff-candidates-

Oh no! It's an election year. I hear what you're saying and I hate that its' an election year because right or wrong, you always have to wonder about motive in election years. lease: let TRUE justice be done !

ETA I am a bit concerned about this ' circumstantial ' case. I am one who watches the tv crime dramas and goes back and forth on the trial. Ten times more so if it's a circumstantial case only. I always think if the jury follows the law , then ANY circumstantial case can fail to meet the burden of proof and leave a reasonable doubt. An I'm thinking is there more circumstantial evidence than we already know ? Surely so because on what we all know already, some 50 odd threads have made it clear, We Don't Know ! So if that is all they have and to take to a jury,,, yikes.
And if the case is not strong enough, wouldn't the DA tell the SO they will not try the case? So , after all this time, I'm guessing it's gotta be a fairly good case they think they can win.

 

[MissJ]

This case reminds me so much of the Kyron Horman case. The motives are the same IMO.....REVENGE.

I believe this particular case was also about having to write that first child support check.:moo:

 

[RANCH]

Oh no! It's an election year. I hear what you're saying and I hate that its' an election year because right or wrong, you always have to wonder about motive in election years. lease: let TRUE justice be done !

ETA I am a bit concerned about this ' circumstantial ' case. I am one who watches the tv crime dramas and goes back and forth on the trial. Ten times more so if it's a circumstantial case only. I always think if the jury follows the law , then ANY circumstantial case can fail to meet the burden of proof and leave a reasonable doubt. An I'm thinking is there more circumstantial evidence than we already know ? Surely so because on what we all know already, some 50 odd threads have made it clear, We Don't Know ! So if that is all they have and to take to a jury,,, yikes.
And if the case is not strong enough, wouldn't the DA tell the SO they will not try the case? So , after all this time, I'm guessing it's gotta be a fairly good case they think they can win.

Circumstantial cases are the norm and I find them more convincing than a direct evidence case with an eye witness. People misidentify suspects all of the time. So it's not as reliable to me. Circumstantial cases with solid forensic evidence is the best IMO.

I have a feeling that the DA has told the Sheriff that they will not prosecute with what they have right now. Otherwise we would have seen an arrest by now.

JMO.

 

[SCHMAE]

Circumstantial cases are the norm and I find them more convincing than a direct evidence case with an eye witness. People misidentify suspects all of the time. So it's not as reliable to me. Circumstantial cases with solid forensic evidence is the best IMO.

I have a feeling that the DA has told the Sheriff that they will not prosecute with what they have right now. Otherwise we would have seen an arrest by now.

JMO.

But doesn't that depend on the ' circumstances'? We know of a lot of stuff in this case and although I'm pretty convinced of what happened, with only what we know now, I'm nowhere near ' beyond a reasonable doubt'. See? Some circumstances are more persuasive than others. I , myself, went back and forth at least 20 or more times on this case. So , unless there are other bits of evidence that we havent' heard about yet ( and surely there are ), I'd be hard pressed to bring this case to trial as it stands.

For example, didn't they take some plumbing pipes from MR's house? And here's a guy living in the mountains with 2 rambunctious boys ( ) . So if there was something, say blood , in any of those pipes, I would think there are loads of innocent reasons that could be the case in a house with 3 males who like a rough and tumble lifestyle. This particular thing keeps going through my mind,, the pipes. And although it would look damning, I couldn't bring myself to make 100% claim that blood was not there for an innocent reason. I'd be a horrible juror on any case. I second guess and re evaluate and beat a dead horse with it. But these things bother me. After all of this , if an innocent person were convicted in this case, because of something circumstantial, it would be the icing on the cake for a horrible, tragedy.

Note: I am no longer on the fence and haven't been in awhile but if the charges/ trial are not pretty airtight, I will always wonder what if .

 

[Ghostwheel]

I found this statement by the sheriff interesting.



Whatever evidence they have doesn't appear to be overwhelming. If it were he would say that once the investigation is concluded an arrest and charges will be forthcoming. Instead, he put the burden on the DA about the outcome.

Is he expecting the DA to not file charges and is planning on deflecting any criticism away from his office and towards them? He is up for re-election this November so it makes me wonder.

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20140627/NEWS01/140629577/Still-building-a-case-

http://durangoherald.com/article/20...ate-today-between-the-two-sheriff-candidates-

I believe there is plenty of evidence, but other circumstances are present that could derail where the evidence points (I will not post here because I don't want to give any perps ideas on how to subvert anything). The Sheriff's dept is looking for something specific to keep everything on track, IMO. I think they want more than beyond a reasonable doubt. I think they WANT beyond any doubt, which is why they are taking so long. JMO.

 

[RANCH]

I believe there is plenty of evidence, but other circumstances are present that could derail where the evidence points (I will not post here because I don't want to give any perps ideas on how to subvert anything). The Sheriff's dept is looking for something specific to keep everything on track, IMO. I think they want more than beyond a reasonable doubt. I think they WANT beyond any doubt, which is why they are taking so long. JMO.

This is a pretty cryptic post. I'm not sure I understand it at all.

Why would the Sheriff's dept want to wait until they can prove this case beyond any doubt? What makes this case different than any other that needs only evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[rosesfromangels]

This is a pretty cryptic post. I'm not sure I understand it at all.

Why would the Sheriff's dept want to wait until they can prove this case beyond any doubt? What makes this case different than any other that needs only evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

IMO, it has to do with how he disposed of the earthly remains, and that is all I will say too. Because, yes, we don't want to give Perp's any tips on how to make their case more difficult to prosecute.

Speaking of which, I am very, very interested in hearing what his female friend from the Dr. Phil show has to say on the stand.
JMO, of course.

 

[Ghostwheel]

This is a pretty cryptic post. I'm not sure I understand it at all.

Why would the Sheriff's dept want to wait until they can prove this case beyond any doubt? What makes this case different than any other that needs only evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Your reasonable doubt and my reasonable doubt will not be the same. People are different, so when there are 12 people on a jury, LE has to try and cover what they think will be reasonable doubt for all 12 people. Some cases make it harder to do that than others. This is one of them, due to the circumstances. (A 14 year old going to a non-custodial parent's house when he may or may not have wanted to; who wanted to visit his friends that night, but the non-custodial parent said not that night but would take him the next morning; that next morning the 14 year old suddenly didn't care enough about going to his friend's house to get up even though they previous night he'd texted said friend that he WAS going to be there and would even wake said friend up; the non-custodial parent being gone for 4 hours when it was so important for his son not to go to his friend's house the night before; the son being missing when the parent came home, yet the parent didn't look for him, try to text him, wonder where he was until 5 hours later; everything that the young man brought with him being gone).

There are dozens of scenarios, some of them completely bizarre, yet possible, that fit what I wrote above. Most of those scenarios gets marked off when you add other evidence. What I accept as valid evidence of beyond a reasonable doubt and what someone else accepts as valid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt will vary. IMO, LE is working to put together a set of evidence, including something specific that everyone who is on a jury will agree points to whomever they charge with the murder, without question or doubt. I can't explain it any better than that, since it is JMO.

ETA: And this, IMO, is because LE all think someone did this horrible thing, and don't want to take any chances on not getting a conviction on the off chance that 2 years from now, some wilderness camper runs across Dylan's backpack and it has all the proof that is needed in it.

 

[RANCH]

IMO, it has to do with how he disposed of the earthly remains, and that is all I will say too. Because, yes, we don't want to give Perp's any tips on how to make their case more difficult to prosecute.

Speaking of which, I am very, very interested in hearing what his female friend from the Dr. Phil show has to say on the stand.
JMO, of course.

I have no idea what your talking about. I didn't know that there's evidence that anyone disposed of Dylan's remains in a particular way. What would the female friend testify to?

If you all can't post what you really mean can you just keep it to yourselves?

 

[RANCH]

Your reasonable doubt and my reasonable doubt will not be the same. People are different, so when there are 12 people on a jury, LE has to try and cover what they think will be reasonable doubt for all 12 people. Some cases make it harder to do that than others. This is one of them, due to the circumstances. (A 14 year old going to a non-custodial parent's house when he may or may not have wanted to; who wanted to visit his friends that night, but the non-custodial parent said not that night but would take him the next morning; that next morning the 14 year old suddenly didn't care enough about going to his friend's house to get up even though they previous night he'd texted said friend that he WAS going to be there and would even wake said friend up; the non-custodial parent being gone for 4 hours when it was so important for his son not to go to his friend's house the night before; the son being missing when the parent came home, yet the parent didn't look for him, try to text him, wonder where he was until 5 hours later; everything that the young man brought with him being gone).

There are dozens of scenarios, some of them completely bizarre, yet possible, that fit what I wrote above. Each of those scenarios gets marked off when you add other evidence. What I accept as valid evidence of beyond a reasonable doubt and what someone else accepts as valid evidence beyond a reasonable doubt will vary. IMO, LE is working to put together a set of evidence, including something specific that everyone who is on a jury will agree points to whomever they charge with the murder, without question or doubt. I can't explain it any better than that, since it is JMO.

ETA: And this, IMO, is because LE all think someone did this horrible thing, and don't want to take any chances on not getting a conviction on the off chance that 2 years from now, some wilderness camper runs across Dylan's backpack and it has all the proof that is needed in it.

Now I'm even more confused. Thanks for the reply.

 

[rosesfromangels]

I want to see his friend cross-examined on the witness stand it is my belief that she knows a lot more than she is telling

 

[MissJ]

I have no idea what your talking about. I didn't know that there's evidence that anyone disposed of Dylan's remains in a particular way. What would the female friend testify to?

If you all can't post what you really mean can you just keep it to yourselves?

Why? Most of us know what this poster means.:moo:

 

[Dr. Know?]

I believe there is plenty of evidence, but other circumstances are present that could derail where the evidence points (I will not post here because I don't want to give any perps ideas on how to subvert anything). The Sheriff's dept is looking for something specific to keep everything on track, IMO. I think they want more than beyond a reasonable doubt. I think they WANT beyond any doubt, which is why they are taking so long. JMO.

This gave me the chills. Josh Powell type chills. They took too long, imo.

Present it, don't be chicken. I've seen less proven with a guilty verdict.