CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #24

[jjenny]

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?

 

[mijamawi]

What would be the reason for them to lie?

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?

 

[jjenny]

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.

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?

 

[cluciano63]

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.

Unless he was "pretend" texting him, knowing full well Dylan was not only phoneless but also not okay.

 

[Ransom]

No, the pole wasn't Dylan's. I believe they found its owner.

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

 

[jjenny]

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?

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.

 

[jjenny]

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

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

 

[mijamawi]

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?

With the exception of the last one, those aren't coincidences. Those are every day occurances for lots of people.

 

[mijamawi]

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.

Please note the use of if, possible, and ???.

 

[cluciano63]

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.

 

[Veidt]

I find the theory that Dylan had a disagreement with his father (over not seeing his friends and possibly not wanting to be there to begin with) and decided to go away or at least crash at his friend's house for the rest of the visit, explaining why he took his belongings.

His mother said in an article (I didn't see it linked in a press links thread, is it cool if I link to it over there or should I do it here?) that her husband was prone to outbursts. That could mean that MR is future POI as people have said here but it may not - maybe there was just a verbal argument that prompted Dylan to leave the following morning as CatLady said.

I agree with people that said that we should take the opinions of those who know him in greater account. We're dealing with a teenager and teenagers can be difficult to predict but they're not one uniform mass of unlikely behavior. Their personality is ultimately the most important thing and while mothers can have the wrong idea about their children, if they're close she would know more than any of us do. Same goes for his friends' statements. It's fine to extrapolate and say that your kids or siblings do something but to me it makes no sense to assume that they're all the same so Dylan must have done this or that no matter what his close relatives and friends say.

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.

 

[Ransom]

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

Look at the dates of the two articles. Mine above and yours.
I disagree. Been there and done that.

 

[vasportsmom]

Please note the use of if, possible, and ???.

But why do you think LE would do this? How would 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 alibied would be change the entire focus for the majority.

ET correct a million errors.

 

[4Jayhawks]

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.

Clu, I think you hit the nail on the head. I would love nothing more than to be wrong, but the little bit of info we have seems to fit this scenario.

All I want is to find out where Dylan is and make sure he gets justice. This case haunts me

 

[Ransom]

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?

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?

 

[jjenny]

...

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.

LE didn't search the house forensically for 10 days.
Why would anyone keep a dirty bowl for 10 days?

 

[jjenny]

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?

Phone without GPS still have to connect to the tower.
"With the older style analog cellular phones and digital mobile phones that are not GPS capable the cellular network provider can determine where the phone is to within a hundred feet or so using “triangulation” because at any one time, the phone is usually able to communicate with more than one of the aerial arrays provided by the phone network. The cell towers are typically 6 to 12 miles apart (less in cities) and a phone is usually within range of at least three of them. By comparing the signal strength and time lag for the phone’s carrier signal to reach at each tower, the network provider can triangulate the phone’s approximate position."
http://pursuitmag.com/locating-mobile-phones-through-pinging-and-triangulation/

 

[cluciano63]

LE didn't search the house forensically for 10 days.
Why would anyone keep a dirty bowl for 10 days?

They may not have even noticed the cereal bowl, unless it was pointed out to them. They were not thinking so much of a crime scene initially.

 

[Confusion]

Phone without GPS still have to connect to the tower.

But the pings are only recorded if there is a call made. MOO

 

[mijamawi]

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.

Are we at the point where we just skim posts for whatever we want to comment on? I do NOT think LE did this. I was ASKING if it was a possibility. I was TRYING to throw something else out there. Cheese-O-pete.