Yeah, my point was I realized that's what they said. But wondered if perhaps they were purposely misleading. I've been here since day 1. I know what's been said but thanks for the helpful post. :twocents:
What would be the reason for them to lie?
Yeah, my point was I realized that's what they said. But wondered if perhaps they were purposely misleading. I've been here since day 1. I know what's been said but thanks for the helpful post. :twocents:
What would be the reason for them to lie?
It's been suggested several times that if the phone had in fact died (rather than just having a flat battery as may have been suspected at first) Dylan may not have realised until after he arose and took it from the charger the next morning - after MR had left.
We've been discussing this in circles, but if phone died and MR was aware of it (and of nothing else), then he wouldn't be texting Dylan on Monday asking where he was.
So this theory just doesn't work.
No, the pole wasn't Dylan's. I believe they found its owner.
Did you read what I posted? It was a question on whether there was a possibility that the broken pole could have been Dylan's but for whatever reason they decided to hide the info like investigators have done in previous cases. It wasn't an accusation that investigators were lying. It was a simple question of if. That's what we do here, right?
Link for the above that they found the owner??????????
Only thing I have is this:
Investigators have determined that a fishing pole found on the Vallecito dam has no connection to Dylan.
Read more: Dylan Redwine, boy missing near Vallecito, did not run away - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22083134#ixzz2HGGH55dx
There is a number of coincidences in this case that I find questionable.
First, Dylan wanted to go to his friend on Sunday's evening-father told him no.
Then Dylan stopped using his phone sometimes after 8 pm on Sunday. Possibly the phone went dead. It doesn't appear to have been pinging anywhere since that time.
Then Dylan supposedly overslept and didn't get a ride from his father to visit his friend in the morning as he seemed very eager to do.
Then, some lucky kidnapper got him just when his phone wasn't working?
So, back to the fishing pole. Is there any possibility that perhaps the broken pole WAS the missing pole and they are hiding that for some reason? If I remember correctly in the Mickey Schunick (God rest her soul) case, the truck was ruled out or some such but ended up being the perps vehicle. I don't remember the details exactly. Anyway, I wonder if that is possible (the fishing pole being Dylan's) and what that would mean if so. If I'm not making sense forgive me, I learned the goodness of white merlot recently.
They didn't hide the info. It was reported that pole wasn't Dylan's and that the owner of the pole had been found.
Here:
"A few days ago, there was a part of a fishing pole found on the Vallecito dam and investigators have determined that it has no connection with Dylan. The owner of that broken fishing pole has been contacted and the fishing pole has been ruled out as a potential clue."
http://www.pinerivertimes.com/news.asp?artid=1095
Please note the use of if, possible, and ???.
Just to imagine a scenario where MR harmed Dylan on Sunday night; if i had done this and was inclined to cover it up for some reason, i would get all or most of Dylan's stuff out of sight, i.e. backpack, and maybe disappear a fishing pole for good measure and then the next afternoon I would start texting his phone to claim to be looking for him. I might even leave an item or two of his clothing behind in the house to show he had been there and put a cereal bowl on the counter, and the TV on Nick. And I would claim that he refused to get up, in order to explain why he did not take the ride to see the friend he had made plans to see.
Just a scenario.
There is a number of coincidences in this case that I find questionable.
First, Dylan wanted to go to his friend on Sunday's evening-father told him no.
Then Dylan stopped using his phone sometimes after 8 pm on Sunday. Possibly the phone went dead. It doesn't appear to have been pinging anywhere since that time.
Then Dylan supposedly overslept and didn't get a ride from his father to visit his friend in the morning as he seemed very eager to do.
Then, some lucky kidnapper got him just when his phone wasn't working?
...
EDIT I hope that the LE has checked for prints on the cereal box and bowl that Dylan left behind in the house and that they're just not giving out that information. It would clear up whether Dylan went missing before he went to the house.
DR friend R*** was in Pagosa Springs (over an 40 miles from Bayfield) at the time of the call at 6:43 pm.
Phones without GPS don't PING. DR phone did not have GPS.
Does anyone know for a FACT where R*** granny lives?
LE didn't search the house forensically for 10 days.
Why would anyone keep a dirty bowl for 10 days?
Phone without GPS still have to connect to the tower.
But why do you think LE would do this?How would be the investigation benefit by concealing Dylan's last know whereabouts? Proving that Dylan not only made it to Mark's but was alive after Mark is alainied would be change the entire focus for the majority.