CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #22

[popsicle]

Im bringing this link over from the closed thread.

A poster was nice enough to put it up for me last night when I inquired about abduction still being on the table.

Phippen wanted to reassure residents that the Sheriff’s Office “does not believe there is a sex offender abducting children” from the area.

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121208/NEWS01/121209618/0/SEARCH/Volunteers-search-for-Dylan

I never find any comfort whatsoever when LE uses this terminology and they do quite regularly and it turns out not to be the case many times. Such phrases as 'it may have'..'it could have' or 'we do not believe' or 'we think' are evasive answers. All this really means is LE does not know and that is why it isnt an affirmative statement.

And as we all know sex offenders do not have to be RSOs. There are many who have never been caught so they wouldnt be in the system.....just like David Westerfield. Then there are those that can be absconded and havent registered like they are required to do .......like John Couey and Joesph Duncan.

And pedophiles can be anywhere at any given time. In a town close to mine a pedo was caught when he tried to pull a 9 year old boy into his van. The boy's mother was standing in the yard and got his tag number. He was not from this area or even this state. He had no reason to be cruising the streets. He didnt work and when they ran a background check on him he was wanted in three different states for sex offenses against children.

IMO

I wholly agree! While I am not a sleuther by nature and sometimes within these forums feel as tho I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, I take at face value statements by LE such as above. Especially when so little is known. They do in fact have there own agenda and game plan and goal in sight. jmo

 

[SCHMAE]

That's a lot of money -- all of which his children were certainly entitled to have as part of their care.

I can see, though, how 40K might seem like a daunting amount -- enough to surrender one's rights if it seemed impossible to pay. This is not a very good analogy, I know -- but kind of like when people choose to file bankruptcy because they feel they'll never be able to get caught up.

What kind of career does MR have? What kinds of cars does he drive and what kind of house does he live in? How does he spend his money? Were his priorities with regard to his financial obligations misaligned -- i.e. did he just have trouble keeping up with the payments or was he living large

With all respect to you , filing bankruptcy is not the same as saying take my kids, I'll be ok with never seeing them again if it relieves me of the 40k in debt. And the reason he was 40k in debt is because he did not PAY it monthly when due. Otherwise he would never have gotten so behind.

 

[mmmagique]

If you want to hurt someone, why not hurt them?
And going after a 13 year old boy is still going to leave evidence. In fact since MR would have been the last person to see DR alive under these circumstances, he would have been under more scrutiny than if he killed some random judge.

IMO, if he is responsible he did hurt someone; worse than any other thing he could have done.

It's going to leave evidence, but where? If you take someone down to a river and push them in, then go get rid of or wash your clothes, (shoes, etc) what kind of evidence will be in your home (or your truck if you carefully cleaned it)

A lot of crimes have not left evidence behind (that we've been able to find) it's one reason there are so many unsolved missing children (and adult) cases.

 

[azgrandma]

Just because LE is not calling MR a suspect does not mean they aren't intending to in the future. I think their careful phrasing is legal jargon. It's more than likely appropriate wording at this stage of the investigation.
Jmo

BBM - I agree with the careful phrasing. Not just in this case, but many cases. How many times do you hear, we're looking for xyz because they may have information on the _________.
I watched one show where the DA was told exactly what to say and how to say it, even though the evidence didn't pan out, they reported that it was strong evidence etc; all just to get the suspect to call in and give his "theory" on the evidence. It worked.

 

[mck16]

That's a lot of money -- all of which his children were certainly entitled to have as part of their care.

I can see, though, how 40K might seem like a daunting amount -- enough to surrender one's rights if it seemed impossible to pay. This is not a very good analogy, I know -- but kind of like when people choose to file bankruptcy because they feel they'll never be able to get caught up.

What kind of career does MR have? What kinds of cars does he drive and what kind of house does he live in? How does he spend his money? Were his priorities with regard to his financial obligations misaligned -- i.e. did he just have trouble keeping up with the payments or was he living large

All good points plus this was all quite a while ago. MR had to be in his 20's and I think he was paying CS on multiple kids. Any amount could add up quickly for a young man who probably was not feeling the responsibility like he should have been. But, there are countless men who are of that persuasion and do not resort to murder. jmo

 

[SCHMAE]

What does that have to do with Dylan though?

Has it been said he did so with Dylan? Imo, he did not and he wanted to have a relationship with Dylan. Dylan was just there visiting during Labor Day. I honestly dont see the comparison. I am sure it would have been less expensive for him to just sign Dylan over to Elaine but he didnt do that so that convinces me that he may have mellowed as he aged and knows it is his responsibility to provide for his youngest son. Has Elaine said he didnt provide for Dylan?

I think what he did with Dylan is what matters not what he did many years ago.

You are right! It may have nothing to do with Dylan. I would hope that he mellowed and got more fatherly as he aged. I have no clue if he did or not. I thought that in the MR/ER court proceedings, there many that were CS enforcement hearings. I do not know that for a fact and I do not know if we're even allowed to discuss it. But MR was the ' respondent' in most of those hearings, which means ER brought him to court , not vice versa. Several years after a divorce is final, one of the main reasons a woman petitions the court is to enforce CS. So that is speculation on my part. But given the history of MR and CS , I don't think it's beyond the possibility that its' the same scenario . IMHOJMOO

 

[popsicle]

You don't always know when someone is texting these days. I have talk to text, which makes it look like I'm just having a conversation with someone (Siri) :twocents:

you have to at least have your phone out don't you?

 

[azgrandma]

Are records such as these ever unsealed? (i.e. would the Task Force have access to these records by now)

Most of the recent child custody records sealed including statements made by Dylan made during a family court hearing in September. All of the documents also from a hearing in November – last one before Dylan’s disappearance are also sealed at this point.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/303598/339/Missing-boys-family-had-violent-history

IMO they would be unsealed for a criminal investigation, but not for the general public.

 

[DylansMom34]

Some "if's" based on possible motives (if MR is the person responsible):

If the motive is child support, yes killing Dylan would possibly end child support, but I'm not sure how that really works if Dylan hasn't been found. Plus, MR has at least some history of simply not paying, I think he'd not pay rather than remove the child to free himself of the child support obligation. (So I'm not buying this particular motive)

If the motive is hurting ER, killing a judge doesn't hurt her even killing ER doesn't hurt her (in a long term way), killing Dylan would hurt ER forever. (So in my mind, this could be a motive)

I'm sure there are other motives that people are speculating about.

I personally am not so sure there was a motive or much premeditation involved. Although at the very least, I think MR may have at least had an idea of how to dispose of Dylan to cover up what happened.

All MOO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Are you saying it sounds like a little CYA language from LE to keep the public calm ?

I dont know why they do it honestly SCHMAE but I have seen them do it countless times. Maybe it is intended to keep the community calm but they never answer affirmatively because the truth is they really dont know who took Dylan.

They never warned the community a pedo was at large in the Jessica Lunsford case nor in the horrific kidnapping of the Greone children by Duncan.

Maybe they think the police presence is enough but it infuriates me when time and time again it was a stranger pedo and they warned no one.

Hell when the Husted parents were brutally murdered in front of their children LE had the gall to come out and say to the community they were targeted as if to suggest it was someone they knew. Yet when the real murderer was finally caught he was a total stranger to them and had been breaking into homes before and after the murders.:furious:

IMO

 

[mmmagique]

you have to at least have your phone out don't you?

Yes. I was responding to Paul saying he didn't see his niece text once. Just an observation.

 

[popsicle]

If I am remembering correctly it was some time before he even had a text after he landed and that was from his mother. And he responded with one word and an emoticon. So he wasn't prolifically texting at that point as you would think he would having had a lapse where he couldn't use his phone. jmo

I agree. And reading the texts between him and his friend that evening, it was like watching his friend pull teeth imo. I didn't get the feeling he was fully invested in the convo. Maybe he was tired from lack of sleep and all, I don't know.

 

[asyousay]

Has Elaine not come out and said that Dylan was a avid texter and said sometimes you could see smoke coming out the phone by the times Dylan was done ???

*paraphrasing as I can't remember exact quotes *


Smoke coming out of it is a expression IMO ( not real smoke )

 

[SCHMAE]

Hey Grandma's here ! Morning

 

[PaulR]

Yes. I was responding to Paul saying he didn't see his niece text once. Just an observation.

For the record, I wouldn't have cared if she texted. I'm a cool uncle, we played video games together.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I do think Dylan was an avid texter, but I don't think that necessarily means he would be texting while walking through a busy airport or a busy Walmart. Heck I'm attached to my phone and an avid texter but I don't do it while I'm walking.
To me Dylan seemed irritated while he was texting Ryan and I think that's why the conversation and answers were short. I think he was mad at his Father for not taking him to the friends that night. And this is where I believe the issues started. I have never felt it was premeditated. I think Dylan probably got a little mouthy with his Dad and that set him off and an argument ensued. And God only knows what happened after that. ALL JUST MY OPINION.

 

[mmmagique]

For the record, I wouldn't have cared if she texted. I'm a cool uncle, we played video games together.

I cast(ed?!!) no aspersions. Just making conversation. :seeya:

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Lets say hypothetically speaking that MR did indeed do something to Dylan and he's lying and trying to cover his tracks. Why would he say a fishing pole was missing (if that's a lie). To me IF this is the case, he said this to cover his *advertiser censored* if Dylan is found in water. The kid took off fishing by himself the next morning and must have fallen in. The problem I have with this is WHY on earth would Dylan take his backpack and most of his clothes and belongings to go fishing and why would he walk 4 miles (which would take a while) knowing that his Dad was coming back to get him to take him to his friends. Along with the fact that Mom says he wasn't really an outdoorsy kind of kid. Makes ZERO sense!
Then another thing we know that MR said was they threw the football around. Did he say where? Now IF he's lying about that then why? Again it would be to cover his tracks and I would assume it would be in case he or his truck were seen somewhere that it shouldn't have been. Now I'm sure he told LE where they were throwing the football around, but we Joe Public don't know. I sure would like to know though!
IF MR did something to Dylan around 8pm Sunday night he had many hours to dispose of him and cover his tracks. Where ever he went he has to be worried that someone might have seen him or his truck though.

 

[asyousay]

Lets say hypothetically speaking that MR did indeed do something to Dylan and he's lying and trying to cover his tracks. Why would he say a fishing pole was missing (if that's a lie). To me IF this is the case, he said this to cover his *advertiser censored* if Dylan is found in water. The kid took off fishing by himself the next morning and must have fallen in. The problem I have with this is WHY on earth would Dylan take his backpack and most of his clothes and belongings to go fishing and why would he walk 4 miles (which would take a while) knowing that his Dad was coming back to get him to take him to his friends. Along with the fact that Mom says he wasn't really an outdoorsy kind of kid. Makes ZERO sense!
Then another thing we know that MR said was they threw the football around. Did he say where? Now IF he's lying about that then why? Again it would be to cover his tracks and I would assume it would be in case he or his truck were seen somewhere that it shouldn't have been. Now I'm sure he told LE where they were throwing the football around, but we Joe Public don't know. I sure would like to know though!
IF MR did something to Dylan around 8pm Sunday night he had many hours to dispose of him and cover his tracks. Where ever he went he has to be worried that someone might have seen him or his truck though.

The thing with throwing around the football is it came up later on . Originally i think he said that Dylan had been up till 4am the night before and crashed when they got home .

Then we heard that they throw around a football for awhile which was not what was said originally .


I also think MR said they had not had much time to talk , so then was the football game a non talking game ?!

ETA Anybody is free to help me out if i am wrong

 

[i8mypaint]

Lets say hypothetically speaking that MR did indeed do something to Dylan and he's lying and trying to cover his tracks. Why would he say a fishing pole was missing (if that's a lie). To me IF this is the case, he said this to cover his *advertiser censored* if Dylan is found in water. The kid took off fishing by himself the next morning and must have fallen in. The problem I have with this is WHY on earth would Dylan take his backpack and most of his clothes and belongings to go fishing and why would he walk 4 miles (which would take a while) knowing that his Dad was coming back to get him to take him to his friends. Along with the fact that Mom says he wasn't really an outdoorsy kind of kid. Makes ZERO sense!
Then another thing we know that MR said was they threw the football around. Did he say where? Now IF he's lying about that then why? Again it would be to cover his tracks and I would assume it would be in case he or his truck were seen somewhere that it shouldn't have been. Now I'm sure he told LE where they were throwing the football around, but we Joe Public don't know. I sure would like to know though!
IF MR did something to Dylan around 8pm Sunday night he had many hours to dispose of him and cover his tracks. Where ever he went he has to be worried that someone might have seen him or his truck though.

I've thought the football thing was hinky... It was already dark when they arrived home. Unless it was inside?