CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #42

[SuperMom1995]

Saying good night but wanted to comment on some MR statements after watching the Dr Phil shows again:

1)" I did not lose Dylan". A very direct and reliable statement that he is unable to say about kidnapping or killing him. He has yet to say I did not hide Dylan or I did not kill Dylan .

2). "he would try to reach out to his friend across the lake

3). "I've never not been willing to cooperate"

4). "I wouldn't hurt him". Not I didn't hurt him.

5) he has said a few times that Dylan "always slept on the couch" which reminds me of Billy Dunn speaking of Hailey

6). "Dylan didn't come home all night "as if an older person

He shows us he can make a direct stAtemenwhen it is true.

Deep thoughts by mark Redwine

 

[cluciano63]

I know I said this earlier, but considering the type of relationship, if you can call it that, between MR and ER, I am really surprised that if he is innocent, he did not pick up the phone to call ER at once, accusing her of having removed Dylan from his house. That would have been my instinct, if I were either of these parents, that the other had done it. Instead, he sends that weak little text, and when he first talks, he has Dylan liable to fall into lakes, take a ride with anyone, visit camps where SO's apparently live, etc.

 

[RANCH]

I guess I'm weird in another way, I learn more about myself every day here. I feel that it's more helpful to have an honest account of what a missing child is like than a glowing one. Nobody, child or adult, is perfect, and one of those small faults could somehow tie into the disappearance. MOO

I think that you may be saying that Dylan may have engaged in unsafe practices like hitchhiking but people like his friends may have downplayed that in order to protect both Dylan and their own reputations.

If I'm way off base let me know.

 

[Allusonz]

And you know, it isn't common or routine for a judge to speak to a child, privately, in chambers and then seal the record. It is usually an indication that there is something the child (or parent) has expressed concerns about. The judge may question the child to determine his/her feelings about the issue in an effort to decide if there might be any safety concerns.

No it is not common for the judge to speak with the child.

When ER was asked about it by MB ER stated she did not know.

Thus I must ask who brought the concerns to the attention of the Court.

 

[NC Analyzer]

I know I said this earlier, but considering the type of relationship, if you can call it that, between MR and ER, I am really surprised that if he is innocent, he did not pick up the phone to call ER at once, accusing her of having removed Dylan from his house. That would have been my instinct, if I were either of these parents, that the other had done it. Instead, he sends that weak little text, and when he first talks, he has Dylan liable to fall into lakes, take a ride with anyone, visit camps where SO's apparently live, etc.

Yes. and in the next breath, he claims he keeps a tight watch over Dylan (paraphrased). Now I ask...who does this? Deflect, Distract, Divert. :moo:

 

[NC Analyzer]

No it is not common for the judge to speak with the child.

When ER was asked about it by MB ER stated she did not know.

Thus I must ask who brought the concerns to the attention of the Court.

It could be complex or it could be simple. It could be anything from MR whining about ER upcoming marriage or it could be ER addressing things that Dylan knows about his father that made him uncomfortable. I guess that remains to be seen.

 

[cluciano63]

My belief is that his friends overstated any hitchhiking, rather than the opposite. For this age group, the idea of being abducted, especially if hitching, is drilled into their heads, and gruesome as it may be, is the most "exciting" theory. They would not be thinking about custodial interference, etc.

 

[Dee10]

I have so many things I want to say, but mostly, when I consider how well you have overcome so much adversity from your own childhood, it is an absolute delight to see what joy you have raising your children.

IMO, most parents who are close to their children have a fairly good idea what goes on in their head. In the world of MR, he "thinks" he knows, but I'm much more confident that Elaine knows much, much more than MR and can give a fairly accurate description of who her son is. Without disparaging him.

The day-to-day parent certainly knows what TV shows/channels they watch & texting (especially if they pay the bills.

I don't believe MR's story & I think he made a mistake on the NIC channel & if Dylan was up (as he said & able) Dylan would have kept texting after 9:37. I don't see at 10:30 Dylan would have been all that engrossed in NIC & forgot his friends that he wanted to see lol.

 

[Allusonz]

Gotcha. This, to me, meant without the parents, not without the lawyers. I worked for an attorney (way back when) that didn't allow children in a divorce custody case to be anywhere, even with a judge, without representation. He said both attorneys were always present. Perhaps that was his own code, so the other attorney followed suit.

ETA: Thank you very much. You too, Mrs PC!

The judge, if they are looking for the truth from the child, would appoint legal representation for the child, separate of both parents.

I was that child, and my deal with the judge was that no one, including lawyers and CPS would ever see what I said.

 

[deoneta]

No it is not common for the judge to speak with the child.

When ER was asked about it by MB ER stated she did not know.

Thus I must ask who brought the concerns to the attention of the Court.

I don't know how common it is, but it definitely happens. When my friends divorced, custody was revisited when one of the parents moved out of state. Because the child was thirteen at the time, his wishes were taken into consideration. He spoke privately with the judge. I know because I was at the court house waiting with both his parents when it happened.

ETA: There were no allegations of abuse or neglect involved in this case.

 

[RANCH]

My belief is that his friends overstated any hitchhiking, rather than the opposite. For this age group, the idea of being abducted, especially if hitching, is drilled into their heads, and gruesome as it may be, is the most "exciting" theory. They would not be thinking about custodial interference, etc.

Why would Dylan's friends overstate being involved in dangerous activities to their parents? I think that they may have understated things to avoid sanctions from them.

 

[jennapuppy]

This is just my .02 cents. My cousin's husband was the nicest, most easy-going man that you could ever imagine. He was the kind of husband that could make another woman jealous--flowers, trips to exotic places, you name it. He apparently doted on his three children. Well, when he was brought to trial for murdering his entire family, he told a "story" basically that blamed his dead wife and mother of his children for their murders. It is truly amazing how convincing and charming this guy can be. It was only a year or so ago that he finally admitted to murdering his entire family and not just his wife. He is currently on death row in Oregon. Note, that the man had absolutely no prior history of violence--just theft charges that had escalated. I guess that my point is that we never know quite what an individual is capable of. I do recall in MR's case that he does have a history of domestic violence though. That doesn't make him a murderer by any means, but I do believe that he is capable of losing his temper and snapping if he is pushed to the extreme. MOO.

I'm sorry that your family had to endure this. That was a horrific crime.

 

[NC Analyzer]

The judge, if they are looking for the truth from the child, would appoint legal representation for the child, separate of both parents.

I was that child, and my deal with the judge was that no one, including lawyers and CPS would ever see what I said.

<modsnip>, but if you were in any danger, the judge would have no choice but to make a CPS report. He is an officer of the court, thus a mandatory reporter. Of course, all states are different, but I know for a fact that this is the law in NC. CPS actually has more authority in many cases here than LE. The one thing that comes to mind first is we do not need a search warrant to enter any premises if we believe a child may be at risk. Of course we have a checks and balances system so there is less chance of abusing that authority, but we have the authority none-the-less.

 

[Ghostwheel]

They are now invited to go back alone with the judge back into the judges chambers to say any concerns totally confidential, thus the sealing of the records.

I should think that could cause all kinds of trouble. There would surely have to be another person present, wouldn't there?

 

[Ghostwheel]

Why would Dylan's friends overstate being involved in dangerous activities to their parents? I think that they may have understated things to avoid sanctions from their them.

I can only speak from experience with the 13 year olds I deal with at my son's school. You get everything from the kids who downplay what they do, to the kids who lie and say they didn't do what they did do, to the kids who make a big deal about what they do, to the ones who lie to look cool by saying they do things they don't do. I don't know Dylan's friends, so they could fit into any category.

 

[Dee10]

Why would Dylan's friends overstate being involved in dangerous activities to their parents? I think that they may have understated things to avoid sanctions from them.

Did they state that to their parents or did they answer a reporter's question?

 

[NC Analyzer]

I should think that could cause all kinds of trouble. There would surely have to be another person present, wouldn't there?

"Alone" would usually include a court reporter (confidentiality agreement, officer of the court). Here, our children are appointed a GAL to represent the child and that person would usually accompany the child into chambers.
In chambers conference with the child usually means excluding the parents and parents attorney's. There are always exceptions, and I do know of cases when the child refused to speak to anyone except the judge...alone. In those cases, the parents are pretty much aware of what's going on. They just cannot be present.

 

[Allusonz]

<modsnip>, but if you were in any danger, the judge would have no choice but to make a CPS report. He is an officer of the court, thus a mandatory reporter. Of course, all states are different, but I know for a fact that this is the law in NC. CPS actually has more authority in many cases here than LE. The one thing that comes to mind first is we do not need a search warrant to enter any premises if we believe a child may be at risk. Of course we have a checks and balances system so there is less chance of abusing that authority, but we have the authority none-the-less.

Maybe the child was not the focus of the abuse.

ETA Maybe the byproduct of what was going on and caught in the middle.

 

[RANCH]

Did they state that to their parents or did they answer a reporter's question?

I would imagine that the kids could figure out that talking to the reporter was not in confidence. But maybe the reporter tricked them into thinking that. Do you think that's what happened? I don't.

 

[Confusion]

I think that you may be saying that Dylan may have engaged in unsafe practices like hitchhiking but people like his friends may have downplayed that in order to protect both Dylan and their own reputations.

If I'm way off base let me know.

You're not off base, but that's only part of it. Often, the two types of parent are basically saying the same thing, but I just feel that one way is more helpful than the other. For instance:

Glowing parent says, "My child is always smiling and friendly to all." Which tends to make people think - this child is unlikely to upset someone to the point of causing harm.

Realistic parent says, "My child doesn't know the meaning of the word stranger, everybody is a friend." Which tends to make people think - this is a child who might go with a stranger and not even consider the danger.

Glowing parent says, "My child never misbehaves, I seldom even have to say something twice!" Which tends to make people think - this child is unlikely to get into trouble and be hurt for a childish prank or other action.

Realistic parent says, "My child is a follower and never seems to think for him/herself." Which tends to make people think - this is a child who might get into trouble/danger by doing something he/she isn't prepared for due to peer pressure.

The list goes on. I'm sure there is a happy medium somewhere between the two, but I feel that the "glowing" talk should be saved for when the child is found, and the realistic talk should have come long before the child disappeared. MOO