CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #17

[scorekeeper]

I'm re-listening to the uncut interview

around 2:55 dad talks about the investigation being a "week" behind; he expected his house to be searched before it was....

the reason they were later in searching dad's house, I believe is because he talked to LE about Dylan possibly hitch-hiking, the fishing pole and kinda sent them on a wild goose chance....and that LE first thought Dylan had run away (even though they later said they thought within the first couple days it was a criminal investigation - I'm paraphrasing, okay)

I don't remember seeing dad along the lake shore during the searches (I know Cory was there).

JMO

 

[TxLady2]

I'm still checking in often; had to step back to keep the grief and trauma levels down. And there reached a point where there wasn't anything to be said that hadn't already been said. This is such a tragic case.

I do want to thank MR's ex and mother of his sons for stepping forward here to clarify things. THANK YOU SO MUCH!!

Now that we know MR refused to pay child support for his sons and then signed away his fatherhood when the courts forced his hand rather than pay the arrears he owed, I hope some peeps will at least consider the possibility that this may have factored into Dylan's disappearance.

This visit was the FIRST visit since ER had been given primary custody of her child.

And it is MY belief, based on what I have SEEN and what I have read, that MR is an alcoholic. JMO

Jumping off your post here.

I'm a little unclear on what she said about him giving up his rights. Did he wait until the boys were grown before he signed the papers or was that done at the time he was asked to sign them? She did mention that it rocked on for about 7 years and he never finalized it, so I'm not really sure that he DID give up his rights. But once those papers are signed, it's a done deal.

However... I may be mistaken but it is my understanding that he would still be obligated to pay the back child support up to the time he signed his rights away. Even if they were nearly grown, it would not eliminate his obligations up to that point. Colorado has no statute of limitations on back child support, they can file for it at any time and it can be deducted from their paycheck. It goes to the parent as reimbursement, though, not to the kids.

I tend to think maybe he never signed the papers until it was too late because she said their stepfather was unable to adopt them for that reason. Maybe that's what she meant when she said he never finalized it... meaning he did NOT sign away his rights, so the adoption process couldn't be finalized. If he had actually signed the papers, he wouldn't have any say in the adoption, one way or the other.

That's where I'm unclear. Sorry.

 

[Confusion]

You said that you wished that someone who was not on 'either side' would come forward and say what MR and DR were like when they were together. And I think her point was that nobody truly knows what goes on behind closed doors. In front of people he might look like as great dad.

Okay, I'll reword it so people will respond to what I'm saying rather than what they're perceiving my meaning to be. :blushing:

I would like to hear from someone who has seen MR and DR together for a period of time (MR's neighbors, waitresses where they ate out at times, etc.), and isn't a friend or relative of ER (his relationship with her would obviously affect the feelings of those people, whether it was conscious or not), and hear how they saw the relationship between the father and son.

Meaning, did they talk together? did they argue a lot? did they seem comfortable together? did one or both seem angry with the other often? Anything like that.

 

[cluciano63]

Someone (I think) brought up the killing of a child as a way to prevent having to pay support for x # of years, and I know it has happened with pregnant women being murdered. But it would not help if the child's body was never found.

I may be extra-suspicious, though, if Dylan is eventually found in the lake, if it is true that it was MR's idea to search there.

 

[nikb]

There's no need to be leery regarding AZGrandma, since she has been verified as being who she claims to be by Websleuths.

Um... trying to tread lightly because I know it's not allowed to talk about current/former members, and I for sure don't want to discourage AZgrandma from posting, but the woman I'm talking about was verified too (before she was removed and such). So while I do think that's a very, very good step I also worry it's not 100%. Maybe a mod can comment on what "verified" really means?

I can't believe how cynical and suspicious I've gotten. At times I hate it, but I've also gained many good things from reading here, more good than bad for sure. Caution, trust your gut (REALLY trust it), empathy, kindness of communities and even complete strangers, ability to love and care for someone you've never met and better yet HELP them in some way... like I said more good than bad.

 

[catswhiskers]

I think it was mainly "uncut" to show him smile at the beginning. The end was probably less damning, so it wasn't important for the purpose intended. MOO

It's funny how we can all look at the same thing and see something so very differently. That particular clip of MR is one reason I find it hard to link him to Dylan's disappearance - yet for others it is so damning and makes him look shifty and guilty.
His smile at the start means nothing to me - it's obvious it was in response to something the off camera interviewer said. If it was recorded by a proper news crew - it was pretty unprofessional of them to leave it intact and knowingly allow it to be aired - it could have been deleted. It's like airing a piece and showing someone adjusting their underwear or with a finger up their nose just before they expect the "recording" to begin. For all we know someone in the crew just said "Don't be nervous - just imagine us all in our underwear" MR was hardly guffawing - it was a smile, and the fact that he was able to drop it quickly may just show that his heart wasn't in whatever he had been smiling about.
:moo:

 

[BritsKate]

I'm sure she is here for exactly what she said were her reasons. I was leery of her in the beginning just because she never said who she was until people started seriously considering the possibility that MR wasn't involved. I have no way to know what actually happened between them, any more than she knows if the rest of us are telling the truth about our life experiences. Since she has been verified, I'll accept her word for it, but I still don't think it proves his guilt. What I'd really like to see is what someone who knows MR and DR, and has seen them together, but isn't a friend or relative of ER would say things were like. I'm not saying any of the people we have heard from is lying, but we all perceive things based on how our experiences have been in the past; at least to some degree.

I totally agree but because of my experiences in the past I believe it extremely unlikely if Mark was abusive to Dylan, in any capacity, that outsiders would know.

More common for the abusive personality would be to appear as 'Super Dad' to those not in the household. People who are abusive are very wily characters. They are chameleons often capable of adapting their behaviors depending on whom is present.

My ex was socially charming, gregarious, and had a great sense of humor. Everyone who knew him adored him and when the truth came out no one could believe the things he'd done.

On the flip side of this, in my opinion, is that people close to either parent are going to have their own interpretation. While those close to Elaine may rally round her and support her assertions so too will those close to Mark. My ex's mother still insists her son is an incredible, loving father who deserves unfettered access to our children despite a child psychologist, a judge, and a guardian ad litem telling her something quite different. Her denial is wrapped up in her love for him.

I also agree even if he was abusive towards his spouses it isn't an indicator of either child abuse or murder. (There is a link between IPV and child abuse but statistically it is by no means a certainty.) However, I keep seeing these women's statements almost immediately discounted and probably because of my own experiences being discounted despite overwhelming evidence it is very frustrating. It is likely these women knew Mark, the real person, far better than friends or family he saw sporadically did but that's just my opinion.

Neither, from my understanding, have done anything near to accusing him of harming Dylan - expressed concerns based on history and experience - but not accusations. MOO

 

[Confusion]

I totally agree but because of my experiences in the past I believe it extremely unlikely if Mark was abusive to Dylan, in any capacity, that outsiders would know.

More common for the abusive personality would be to appear as 'Super Dad' to those not in the household. People who are abusive are very wily characters. They are chameleons often capable of adapting their behaviors depending on whom is present.

My ex was socially charming, gregarious, and had a great sense of humor. Everyone who knew him adored him and when the truth came out no one could believe the things he'd done.

On the flip side of this, in my opinion, is that people close to either parent are going to have their own interpretation. While those close to Elaine may rally round her and support her assertions so too will those close to Mark. My ex's mother still insists her son is an incredible, loving father who deserves unfettered access to our children despite a child psychologist, a judge, and a guardian ad litem telling her something quite different. Her denial is wrapped up in her love for him.

I also agree even if he was abusive towards his spouses it isn't an indicator of either child abuse or murder. (There is a link between IPV and child abuse but statistically it is by no means a certainty.) However, I keep seeing these women's statements almost immediately discounted and probably because of my own experiences being discounted despite overwhelming evidence it is very frustrating. It is likely these women knew Mark, the real person, far better than friends or family he saw sporadically did but that's just my opinion.

Neither, from my understanding, have done anything near to accusing him of harming Dylan - expressed concerns based on history and experience - but not accusations. MOO

I've known people like that too, but he doesn't strike me as one of them. I highly doubt that anyone would be nominating him for Father of the Year, he's been open in the past about his disdain for his ex-wife/wives, and doesn't seem to be saying that he and DR had such a close relationship that he'd never want to leave... just that there was nothing about it that was so bad that he'd run away from it. MOO

 

[scorekeeper]

Jumping off your post here.

I'm a little unclear on what she said about him giving up his rights. Did he wait until the boys were grown before he signed the papers or was that done at the time he was asked to sign them? She did mention that it rocked on for about 7 years and he never finalized it, so I'm not really sure that he DID give up his rights. But once those papers are signed, it's a done deal.

However... I may be mistaken but it is my understanding that he would still be obligated to pay the back child support up to the time he signed his rights away. Even if they were nearly grown, it would not eliminate his obligations up to that point. Colorado has no statute of limitations on back child support, they can file for it at any time and it can be deducted from their paycheck. It goes to the parent as reimbursement, though, not to the kids.

I tend to think maybe he never signed the papers until it was too late because she said their stepfather was unable to adopt them for that reason. Maybe that's what she meant when she said he never finalized it... meaning he did NOT sign away his rights, so the adoption process couldn't be finalized. If he had actually signed the papers, he wouldn't have any say in the adoption, one way or the other.

That's where I'm unclear. Sorry.

BBM

post # 730 in thread #16

azgrandma wrote:

As an FYI, Mark and I just got done with court in about 2003 or 2004 and we divorced in 1989. He finally gave up his parental rights to his children, as long as I forego the $40000 + in unpaid child support.

----

Perhaps back when azgrandma and mark got divorced it was acceptable through the courts to have the parent that was owed back child support to sign a statement of "being okay" with the back support not being paid.

I know the laws have changed now but this must have been okay then.

I previous asked where mark and E lived but I think everyone thought I meant Elaine and what I would like to know is where did mark and azgrandma live??

 

[NC Analyzer]

<snipped>
However, I keep seeing these women's statements almost immediately discounted and probably because of my own experiences being discounted despite overwhelming evidence it is very frustrating. It is likely these women knew Mark, the real person, far better than friends or family he saw sporadically did but that's just my opinion.

I snipped everything except your statement about MR's ex-wives because when I see some of these comments directed at those ladies I have to say it is amazing how some people simply will not even consider the possibility that this guy isn't what he appears to be, yet they can say they just doen't think he's guilty! What does "guilty" look like anyway? In order to deduct the totality of an argument, I would think that ALL factors should be taken into consideration. It appears that there is some "tunnel vision" going on here. Why?

 

[cluciano63]

I can't really see the point of enrolling in WS just to make up tales about an ex. I am sure that Azgrandma wants to know what happened to Dylan more than she wants to vent about her ex.

 

[catswhiskers]

Someone (I think) brought up the killing of a child as a way to prevent having to pay support for x # of years, and I know it has happened with pregnant women being murdered. But it would not help if the child's body was never found.

I may be extra-suspicious, though, if Dylan is eventually found in the lake, if it is true that it was MR's idea to search there.

bbm

If the missing fishing pole story is true though - wouldn't that be why MR suggested the nearest body of water - on the assumption that he must have gone fishing?
I asked here threads ago if anybody knew about whether or not the creek close to home was running at this time of the year - just wondering if it would be a likely fishing spot too?

 

[LotusPawprint]

It's been so quiet in the last several days from LE on the search and investigation for Dylan.

I know, I know... they have no obligation to share with us and we don't have a real reason to know (unless there's a predator somewhere out there, in which case we should know.. but that would mean LE would have to know something or know someone would have to be ruled in or out).

Their increasing silence remains deafening. I hope it means they're making huge leaps and strides towards answers and finding Dylan and isn't a sign it's headed cold. He needs to be home safe with people who love him and will protect him.

 

[Idon'tneedthesame]

It's been so quiet in the last several days from LE on the search and investigation for Dylan.

I know, I know... they have no obligation to share with us and we don't have a real reason to know (unless there's a predator somewhere out there, in which case we do know.. but that would mean LE would have to know something or know someone would have to be ruled in or out).

Their increasing silence remains deafening. I hope it means they're making huge leaps and strides towards answers and finding Dylan and isn't a sign it's headed cold. He needs to be home safe with people who love him and will protect him.

I keep hoping he is somewhere safe and dry.. I won't give up hoping...

 

[Chili Fries]

<snipped by me>

Neither, from my understanding, have done anything near to accusing him of harming Dylan - expressed concerns based on history and experience - but not accusations. MOO

They both accused him. Azgrandma was unequivocal about it, [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8640393&postcount=730"]saying[/ame]:

The guy is nuts! He abused me, check the records, he abused our children, check the records. I have no doubt that Mark did something IMO.

And Elaine said:

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.

 

[DylansMom34]

They accused him of "something."

They were married to him and probably know him better than anyone. Definitely better than any of us. What do they have to gain by lying or exaggerating?

Dylan's well being was squarely in MR's hands and "something" did happen on his watch.

 

[cluciano63]

The "something" they feel MR might have done could be hide him away from his mother; who on earth wants to think worse than that, anyway? Surely not his mother, and surely not AZGrandma. In fact, that was my first thought, until too much time had passed. Now I do not know what to think. I just do not believe he is being held, kept safe and warm and unharmed, although I wish he was.

 

[LotusPawprint]

<snipped>
I have to say it is amazing how some people simply will not even consider the possibility that this guy isn't what he appears to be, yet they can say they just doen't think he's guilty! What does "guilty" look like anyway? In order to deduct the totality of an argument, I would think that ALL factors should be taken into consideration. It appears that there is some "tunnel vision" going on here. Why?

Good point and an excellent question.

I think I've heard all of the answers over and over but it is IMO 'tunnel vision' but to each their own.

 

[Confusion]

They accused him of "something."

They were married to him and probably know him better than anyone. Definitely better than any of us. What do they have to gain by lying or exaggerating?

Dylan's well being was squarely in MR's hands and "something" did happen on his watch.

BBM

So, are you saying that the parents of any child who is abducted or murdered is responsible because they should have them within sight 24 hours a day? I find that rather hard to swallow.

 

[DylansMom34]

BBM

So, are you saying that the parents of any child who is abducted or murdered is responsible because they should have them within sight 24 hours a day? I find that rather hard to swallow.

24 hours a day? He had only been with dad less than a day when "something" happened. I find that hard to swallow.