CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #16

[BritsKate]

Do you have a link for that information, or are you a verified professional? That hasn't been the case in most of the cases I know personally, but I'm not even close to knowing MOST abusers. TIA

I'm not a professional either (just a DV survivor) but this is well known and understood among those who study family violence. Abuse doesn't always escalate - but it very often does - especially for psychological/emotional abuse. If an abuser was immediately overt far fewer would get away with it for so long. Ultimately an abuser's primary motivation is always control. However, since their sense of control is never stable they consistently seek further means to maintain it.

I've stated before abusers are adaptive and manipulative. They nearly have a sixth sense of how to control and intimidate their victims and very often simply modify their behavior if confronted to make the abuse as covert - and the victim as submissive - as possible. This usually includes escalation because abuse, by its nature, requires it.

Domestic violence statistics can be extremely variable for many different reasons. Due to this I'll simply link a couple of the better DV sites that explain how escalation occurs. HTH
http://www.abuseandrelationships.org/Content/Basics/escalation.html
http://www.saartjiebaartmancentre.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=18
http://www.newchoicesinc.org/educated/abuse/DV/def

 

[PaulR]

And Monday morning quarterbacking is much easier as well. Wonder how well any of us would "perform" under the pressure cooker of having a missing child & no experience dealing with media questions & scrutiny. What possible motive could Elaine have for lying on Nancy Grace? About anything, especially the polygraphs?

Monday morning quarterbacking has been the backbone of this thread - in this case, what people would do if their child was missing.

 

[catswhiskers]

Another thing that i wanted to address, is the notion that those of us who express our suspicions, concerning MR, should feel guilty if he is found totally innocent.

And I have thought about that a lot. Should I feel guilty for discussing my doubts about his story and my feeling of hinkiness. And I have to say that NO, I do not feel bad about doing so, even if I end up being wrong. And the reason is that he brought on much of this suspicion and doubt himself. It is not just the fact that he is the father and the last to see his kid.

I remember when Micki from La, went missing on her bicycle. And some of us were suspicious AT FIRST of her friend Brently. He was the last to see her before she went missing, and we had some doubts. But after looking at his background, and seeing no shadiness, and no temper issues or arrests, and after hearing his story stay consistent over time, our suspicions fell away.

I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning and speculating about possible suspects if there are valid concerns. So if I am wrong, then so be it. But I will not apologize for having my suspicions, because they are based upon valid concerns. They are not baseless because he has a solid history of volatility and domestic violence.JMO

This is what I was referring to earlier. Yes, we all tutted over those handwritten forms by both ER and MR applying for protective orders that were flashed momentarily onscreen during a news bulletin - but I am not seeing the solid history (BBM above) I agree even one instance of dv is one too many, (and still struggle with my own issues due to living with it as a child) - but where have we seen this solid history documented?

And I will apologise and feel very foolish if MR turns out to be a conniving monster who would make his own child "disappear".

:moo:

 

[StJohn]

Monday morning quarterbacking has been the backbone of this thread - in this case, what people would do if their child was missing.

I will ask again, what possible motive could Elaine have for lying on Nancy Grace? About anything, especially the polygraphs?

 

[SmoothOperator]

moo there is nothing whatsoever to feel "guilty"about.. I make zero apologies for my following what rules are set here to abide by in my having adult discussions about the possibilities in this case, just as I do in all cases..

I have no qualms about it now, nor will I when this case is brought to resolution regardless of who we learn to be responsible for Dylan's no longer being here...

I am extremely secure in what discussions that I put forth here and due to such have nothing to regret at this present time, nor at any point in the future.. I, alone am responsible for my words, thoughts, and discussions..just like I and I, alone am the judge of how I feel about my own words and opinions that are respectfully expressed here within TOS..

 

[katydid23]

To REVIEW:

He was not nice, he is a manipulator, a con artist and an abuser.
Mark is NOT a nice person. I'll go to court and defend that statement. There is not enough time or space for me to say what all he did to me and my children.
I would trust her[ Elaine] with my grandchildren any time, any day, any where. But I sure as heck would not Mark to even know they exist.
He abused me, check the records, he abused our children, check the records. I have no doubt that Mark did something IMO.

But what I can tell you is that I have children, (yes they are adults) and grandchildren, that know this man more than any of you will ever know him. They are scared for Dylan, they hurt for Dylan and they worry about Dylan.

As an FYI, Mark and I just got done with court in about 2003 or 2004 and we divorced in 1989.

He is a smooth operator and knows how to work people, just be careful.

AND, from his next wife:


“I don’t think Mark treats him very well… I would not put it past Mark to have done something to remove Dylan from the situation. You know, like ‘if I can’t have him, nobody will,’” Elaine Redwine told ABC News.

She said she fears Mark may not have reacted well if Dylan, 13, said something his father did not agree with.


=====================================================

Personally, I believe his ex-wives.

 

[asyousay]

To REVIEW:

He was not nice, he is a manipulator, a con artist and an abuser.
Mark is NOT a nice person. I'll go to court and defend that statement. There is not enough time or space for me to say what all he did to me and my children.
I would trust her[ Elaine] with my grandchildren any time, any day, any where. But I sure as heck would not Mark to even know they exist.
He abused me, check the records, he abused our children, check the records. I have no doubt that Mark did something IMO.

But what I can tell you is that I have children, (yes they are adults) and grandchildren, that know this man more than any of you will ever know him. They are scared for Dylan, they hurt for Dylan and they worry about Dylan.

As an FYI, Mark and I just got done with court in about 2003 or 2004 and we divorced in 1989.

He is a smooth operator and knows how to work people, just be careful.

AND, from his next wife:


“I don’t think Mark treats him very well… I would not put it past Mark to have done something to remove Dylan from the situation. You know, like ‘if I can’t have him, nobody will,’” Elaine Redwine told ABC News.

She said she fears Mark may not have reacted well if Dylan, 13, said something his father did not agree with.


=====================================================

Personally, I believe his ex-wives.

I do too .

 

[Donjeta]

Nancy Grace has a way of making anybody trip and fall if she starts pulling a thread so I think it would be best to make an agreement with the producers before the show about questions that won't be asked if there is something you are not supposed to discuss.

The segment is confusing because it manages to give both the negative impression that MR refused to take a polygraph and the negative impression that he failed although in the end it comes out that he possibly did neither, she does not seem too sure.

But I really am of the opinion that if LE doesn't want anybody discussing polygraph results because it could endanger the investigation then what the heck are they doing revealing those results to civilians? How hard can it be to say, "We won't discuss the results of anyone's polygraphs at this time to protect the investigation, we hope you understand"

 

[FruitTingles]

Thanks. I'm glad I wasn't the only one shaking my head over that. If murder isn't an escalation of abuse then what is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry but I'm not following and it could be due to the pain I am in but do we have proof of a murder here? Is that what you're saying?

 

[aust amateur slueth]

we have been given permission by a verified insider (azgrandma) that we can check her personal records regarding the abuse against her and their children, IMO they may have relevance to the case and should be considered.

I do not feel guilty for having a suspicious mind, on the front page of each of these threads IIRC Salem has said that we are finding more and more that LE do not name a person as a suspect or POI until an arrest is imminent (or words to that effect)

 

[katydid23]

Sorry but I'm not following and it could be due to the pain I am but do we have proof of a murder here? Is that what you're saying?

NO, no proof of murder here.

If you go back to the post that VAmom was replying to, you will see the 'murder' she was speaking of. [it was not specifically this case]

 

[FruitTingles]

NO, no proof of murder here.

If you go back to the post that VAmom was replying to, you will see the 'murder' she was speaking of. [it was not specifically this case]

No worries, I've been reading but not being able to take everything in. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[catswhiskers]

Nancy Grace has a way of making anybody trip and fall if she starts pulling a thread so I think it would be best to make an agreement with the producers before the show about questions that won't be asked if there is something you are not supposed to discuss.

The segment is confusing because it manages to give both the negative impression that MR refused to take a polygraph and the negative impression that he failed although in the end it comes out that he possibly did neither, she does not seem too sure.

But I really am of the opinion that if LE doesn't want anybody discussing polygraph results because it could endanger the investigation then what the heck are they doing revealing those results to civilians? How hard can it be to say, "We won't discuss the results of anyone's polygraphs at this time to protect the investigation, we hope you understand"

I can see why victims of crime would appreciate a spot on her show for the publicity it would garner - but I can also see it would be a stressful experience! Thankfully she isn't such a well known tv identity in other parts of the world - IMO she is difficult to watch without cringing. I have only seen a few parts of her shows since joining WS, and that has been hard work. Way too aggressive and single minded for me

 

[catswhiskers]

No worries, I've been reading but not being able to take everything in. Thanks for clarifying.

Waaay off topic, but FruitTingles are you definitely in labour right now? As in, off to hospital or already there?

 

[Donjeta]

I can see why victims of crime would appreciate a spot on her show for the publicity it would garner - but I can also see it would be a stressful experience! Thankfully she isn't such a well known tv identity in other parts of the world - IMO she is difficult to watch without cringing. I have only seen a few parts of her shows since joining WS, and that has been hard work. Way too aggressive and single minded for me

Yeah... we used to have a NG frustrations thread in the members only area... I don't know if it still exists but it was created to keep all the hair pulling due to her show out of other threads :what:

 

[FruitTingles]

Waaay off topic, but FruitTingles are you definitely in labour right now? As in, off to hospital or already there?

I am at home at the moment, it's that frustrating on and off contractions and labour, waiting waiting waiting. :furious:

 

[katydid23]

I am at home at the moment, it's that frustrating on and off contractions and labour, waiting waiting waiting. :furious:

Sending prayers and good thoughts your way....hang in there. :baby: :baby:

 

[catswhiskers]

I am at home at the moment, it's that frustrating on and off contractions and labour, waiting waiting waiting. :furious:

:woohoo: I was going to suggest going for a walk around the block or something to speed things up - maybe you should rest while you can though!

 

[Confusion]

The press originally said what HE originally told them. Then he retells the story and it is much 'softer' and kinder.

Why didnt he originally tell them he left at 7:30, and when he returned at 11:30, TO GIVE DYLAN A RIDE, he was gone.

But in the original version, he left at 7:30 to do errands, and when he came back at 11:30, ' HE NOTICED' Dylan was gone.

Very different account, imo.

I believe that it was ER's friend who gave the press the original version, for the first couple of days they just said he refused to comment, or declined their something or another. I know it was discussed in the first thread, which probably means it's been discussed several times, but I don't have a link for it offhand.

 

[Confusion]

To REVIEW:
<SNIP>
“I don’t think Mark treats him very well… I would not put it past Mark to have done something to remove Dylan from the situation. You know, like ‘if I can’t have him, nobody will,’” Elaine Redwine told ABC News.

She said she fears Mark may not have reacted well if Dylan, 13, said something his father did not agree with.


=====================================================

Personally, I believe his ex-wives.

You forgot to include when she was asked if Mark had ever hurt him, and she replied with something like, "Well no, but I don't think he knows him very well."