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

[Confusion]

I find it a bit odd that when they were searching the lake MR made it clear that he was unhappy with the timing and it should have been done earlier. Then they search his house and we hear again how he can't believe it took so long. For someone that says his wife has all the answers he sure knows a lot about what the police should be doing and when.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He made one statement about searching the lake, and never said that he had told them that they should. He said he was surprised they didn't do it sooner because he had told them he might have a fishing pole with him.
People here were saying the same thing about searching the house, so why is it so sinister when he does/

Dylan arrived at the airport in Durango just after 7 pm. His phone was disabled at 8 pm. I wish MR would talk about the phone and why Dylan didn't use it after 8 pm. That phone was his lifeline to his mom and friends. I wonder why the reporter didn't ask about that phone, would have been my first question.

The plane didn't land after 7:00, that was when he responded to his mother's text/texts asking if he was there and if dad picked him up yet.

 

[NC Analyzer]

I can only speak for myself, but of course I am open to MR being a suspect and a guilty one at that. Just like the RSO who lives down the road is a pretty darn likely suspect as well - but there hasn't been any evidence pointing in his direction either. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I feel like there have been a lot of angry posts aimed squarely at those of us who just express that we either want to keep an open mind or can see things from a different perspective. Some people by nature are just more moderate or cautious about pointing the finger and declaring someone is guilty without a heck of a lot more info (preferably from LE) than we have here. Others are simply more black and white in their outlook which is equally frustrating.

Anyhow - this is a discussion board after all, and we should be able to respectfully express our opinions in a reasonable way without fear of ridicule or worse.

My comment wasn't directed at anyone who is still open to MR being a suspect. It was more about those who simply refuse to look at anything that may point toward MR involvement. Keeping an open mind is one thing; having a closed mind to ALL possibilities is another thing. Just because it compounds this tragedy, IF MR is involved is no reason to discount the possibility that he MAY be.
I certainly hope you weren't implying that I was ridiculing anyone's opinion or that I was being disrespectful because that certainly wasn't my intention. I don't really see much in black and white. I apply critical analysis to all possibilities and draw a logical conclusion...no matter who it implicates.

 

[catswhiskers]

I was working on my collection of LE statements last night, and they've really been pretty quiet since the beginning. Most of the things said in the press that have been attributed to LE have been repeats and paraphrased versions of the same statements. I made it as far as 12/2 and have found very little - and even less that seems helpful.

IMO that's a huge part of the frustration being played out here.

I am still confused about the criteria for releasing an Amber Alert. I know people have said that they are only issued if there has been a witness or a description of a car (is that correct??). Yesterday this was being discussed on the FMDR fb page and a poster added a link for a recent Amber Alert which didn't fit that criteria at all. How is a child who has been missing without a trace not worthy of the same sort of nationwide, co-ordinated alert?

 

[Linda7NJ]

They both accused him. Azgrandma was unequivocal about it, saying:

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.

I am of the firm belief if it walks like a duck......

 

[SCHMAE]

I knew I saw her name before. Azgrandma actually has been posting since thread 14. She just 'revealed ' herself? at thread 16. If you go back and see her comments from thread 14 and 15 , while she was still anonymous, it might give a little more insight into her mind.

And a big thank you to AZGRANDMA for allowing us in !

Sorry I should not say more insight into her mind, as in a probe.
But it gives more insight into what questions have been bothering her
all along. They are some of the very sticking points that many of us
have been going over. So we're not crazy to wonder WTH!

 

[TxLady2]

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??

Thanks. I'm still unclear on whether he did or didn't actually sign his rights away. I was not aware that a parent could opt not to receive the back support, but if that was the condition, then maybe he did. So then why was the stepdad still not able to adopt them? There wouldn't be any reason to sign the papers if they were already grown by then. :waitasec:

 

[cluciano63]

Thanks. I'm still unclear on whether he did or didn't actually sign his rights away. I was not aware that a parent could opt not to receive the back support, but if that was the condition, then maybe he did. So then why was the stepdad still not able to adopt them? There wouldn't be any reason to sign the papers if they were already grown by then. :waitasec:

My guess, from what I read last night, MR accepted the proposal to sign in order not to have to pay, but then never actually signed (or paid) leaving them in a sort of limbo.

 

[catswhiskers]

My comment wasn't directed at anyone who is still open to MR being a suspect. It was more about those who simply refuse to look at anything that may point toward MR involvement. Keeping an open mind is one thing; having a closed mind to ALL possibilities is another thing. Just because it compounds this tragedy, IF MR is involved is no reason to discount the possibility that he MAY be.
I certainly hope you weren't implying that I was ridiculing anyone's opinion or that I was being disrespectful because that certainly wasn't my intention. I don't really see much in black and white. I apply critical analysis to all possibilities and draw a logical conclusion...no matter who it implicates.

No NC Analyzer - not aimed at you personally. IMO it's just a general tone I have observed (and probably been sensitive to) which has been building up over the threads - and I do acknowledge that this would also be out of sheer frustration over the lack of facts.

 

[Confusion]

Thanks. I'm still unclear on whether he did or didn't actually sign his rights away. I was not aware that a parent could opt not to receive the back support, but if that was the condition, then maybe he did. So then why was the stepdad still not able to adopt them? There wouldn't be any reason to sign the papers if they were already grown by then. :waitasec:

She said he never did sign the papers to make it final.

 

[TxLady2]

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?

I can't speak for everyone but I have no problem with accepting that they are speaking the truth as they know or believe it.
The only problem I have is that it does not prove he's a murderer. So what does that leave? Kidnapping? Runaway? He's hiding out somewhere?
IDK... I just need more evidence than I've seen so far.

 

[scorekeeper]

Thanks. I'm still unclear on whether he did or didn't actually sign his rights away. I was not aware that a parent could opt not to receive the back support, but if that was the condition, then maybe he did. So then why was the stepdad still not able to adopt them? There wouldn't be any reason to sign the papers if they were already grown by then. :waitasec:

IDK; guess mark got to keep his kids' $40,000....because that's what child support is - money to your kids

 

[Angelo]

Dylan loved to text...all the time. His last one was Sunday evening, shortly after he arrived at Dad's. We know that the plan was for him to go to a friend's. Dad said no. It was too late at 8pm.
That was it. Last we heard from Dylan. Something happened. No doubt about it in my mind.
Were the clothes left at Dad's a setup? How about the blanket pushed back on the sofa? How about Dad having an alibi all morning at various "errands?" We know he actually ran the errands. What a great opportunity for Dylan to go missing....
Its just strange. I could totally off-base. But doesn't it seem like a cover-up situation to anyone else?
Gosh. I guess I've been around here too long.

BBM~~~

Not off-base at all!

 

[Angelo]

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

I thank AZGrandma for having the courage to come here and post!

 

[TxLady2]

It would be very difficult, IMO, if you saw someone you knew on TV behaving in a way that seemingly came off as sincere, empathetic, etc. when your knowledge of that person, which was extensive, showed them to be just the opposite., instead manipulative and unkind, etc. (Probably the way I feel when I see most politicians on TV.) I think I might be tempted to come forward with a warning, at least, that all may not be as it seems. This is all too important to be basing anything on how anyone, MR or ER, comes off on TV.

That's a great point, and one I will definitely think about.

 

[catswhiskers]

I find it a bit odd that when they were searching the lake MR made it clear that he was unhappy with the timing and it should have been done earlier. Then they search his house and we hear again how he can't believe it took so long. For someone that says his wife has all the answers he sure knows a lot about what the police should be doing and when.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a good example then of people interpreting things differently. I have watched that video many times too, especially after others here have referenced it - I have wanted to see if I have missed what they have described.
I don't see those comments as necessarily being critical of LE - but rather that he had expected those searches would have taken place sooner. Why did it take a week or so for them to search his house? I understand that on the first day they could have still been entertaining the run away/off with friends idea - but surely a thorough search the following day would have been in order?
I personally hope that LE is just being very clever regarding this case and how they are managing the release of information, because the alternative is that they are scratching their heads like us.

 

[kkdj]

I am of the firm belief if it walks like a duck......

My daughters ex was an abuser. He also had an ex with his child. He relinquished his rights to get out of paying child support. Once my daughter divorced him, he stalked her for years until she let him out of paying child support.
He was dangerous. Thank goodnes he relinquished his rights with all of his children.
This is what I suspect led to this situation with MR and Dylan. He was sick and tired of paying. Jmo

 

[cluciano63]

My daughters ex was an abuser. He also had an ex with his child. He relinquished his rights to get out of paying child support. Once my daughter divorced him, he stalked her for years until she let him out of paying child support.
He was dangerous. Thank goodnes he relinquished his rights with all of his children.
This is what I suspect led to this situation with MR and Dylan. He was sick and tired of paying. Jmo

But if he does pay child support, or is supposed to, he will have to pay until Dylan is found anyway, I believe.

 

[vasportsmom]

But if he does pay child support, or is supposed to, he will have to pay until Dylan is found anyway, I believe.

Which could explain his attempt at directing the search to the lake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TxLady2]

My guess, from what I read last night, MR accepted the proposal to sign in order not to have to pay, but then never actually signed (or paid) leaving them in a sort of limbo.

Thank you! That explains things better. I think my brain is numb. Along with my butt from straddling this fence.

I hope and pray that Dylan is somewhere safe and warm. But if he's gone, and if it turns out that his dad had anything to do with it, I will be happy to eat crow. I hear that if you put enough barbecue sauce on it, it's not too bad.

But if it turns out that he had nothing to do with it.... I promise not to gloat. Much. :floorlaugh:

 

[SCHMAE]

The Amber Alert has been brought up many times. Here's a little info on it that might help .

http://www.amberalert.gov/guidelines.htm

Law Enforcement Confirms an Abduction
.....................................................

AMBER plans require law enforcement to confirm an abduction prior to issuing an alert. This is essential when determining the level of risk to the child.

Risk of Serious Bodily Injury or Death
..................................................
Plans require a child be at risk for serious bodily harm or death before an alert can be issued.

Sufficient Descriptive Information
..............................................

For an AMBER Alert to be effective in recovering a missing child, the law enforcement agency must have enough information to believe that an immediate broadcast to the public will enhance the efforts of law enforcement to locate the child and apprehend the suspect.

Age of Child
.....................
Every state adopt the “17 years of age or younger” standard;

NCIC Data Entry
..........................

Immediately enter AMBER Alert data into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system.


So for days and days they were unsure and still today may be UNSURE if an abduction took place. That is the reason I guess there was not one. Also they usually do have a description of the abductor or vehicle .