CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #44

[The Cheese]

We've been seeing some cases of some pretty young sexual predators lately also.

I was surprised at the statistics on the age of non-family abductors. The second largest percentage are teenage abductors as young as 13.

Main perpetrator’s age (years)

Abductor age 13–19 - 25% < 2nd largest percentage

Abductor age 20–29 - 42% < 1st largest percentage

table 3 page 8
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics

 

[cluciano63]

Of course, it is also not confirmed that Dylan was even alive on Monday. In fact, almost nothing has been confirmed. So using the word in relation to this sighting is kind of meaningless.

 

[RANCH]

Of course, it is also not confirmed that Dylan was even alive on Monday. In fact, almost nothing has been confirmed. So using the word in relation to this sighting is kind of meaningless.

I agree. That's why I'm still on the fence in this case. I can't rule Mark out yet.

 

[Alicia_marie]

Hi everyone I was just wondering if anyone knew why ER was granted full custody? Is that information out there somewhere? TIA

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Hi everyone I was just wondering if anyone knew why ER was granted full custody? Is that information out there somewhere? TIA

I thought it was because they moved.

 

[catswhiskers]

It's Monday here and usually I'd have been at work, but stayed home feeling a bit off colour today. Have been dozing and reading/posting here on and off all day. I just wanted to say thanks to everyone posting for allowing the conversation to at least veer away from MR and all his failings even slightly for a few hours - great to be able to discuss and share without any hostility (at least none that I have been aware of)

:dance::clap:

 

[tresptip]

I agree. That's why I'm still on the fence in this case. I can't rule Mark out yet.

I think Mark pretty much nailed himself with that fishing pole.

 

[The Cheese]

Are there any steadfast rules that govern a "confirmed" sighting of a missing person vs an "unconfirmed" sighting?

I can understand a sighting being ruled out because the person who was sighted was found and they were not the person who was missing.

In my opinion, I would want LE to verify that the person that was sighted was someone other than the missing person before I disregard the reported sighting.

Has LE said that they have ruled out all reported sightings of Dylan, or have they said that they have no "confirmed" sightings? How does LE qualify what a "confirmed" sighting means?

I haven't seen LE say the postal worker sighting was ruled out.

As far as how they confirm a sighting, I don't have a link because I read it probably a year or so ago, but when they get a sighting, they try to corroborate it with another person who also saw the missing person, or store video or home security video of the missing person in the area of the sighting. They'll check nearby stores asking for someone with the same description who might have made a purchase. If they get something like one of those that reliably corroborates the initial sighting, then it becomes confirmed.

To rule it out, they look for something that would place the missing person in another place at that time, which of course they frequently don't get until the person is found. Or they look someone else at the same place and time wearing similar clothing to those described etc.

Again sorry I don't have the link, just take it FWIW. :twocents:

 

[ColdHands]

I agree. That's why I'm still on the fence in this case. I can't rule Mark out yet.

I agree. I'm still at 50/50.

This is probably like the Hispanic guy tip. Just a hole that might need to be addressed, even if it doesn't yield anything meaningful.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

It's Monday here and usually I'd have been at work, but stayed home feeling a bit off colour today. Have been dozing and reading/posting here on and off all day. I just wanted to say thanks to everyone posting for allowing the conversation to at least veer away from MR and all his failings even slightly for a few hours - great to be able to discuss and share without any hostility (at least none that I have been aware of)

:dance::clap:

I just don't have anything to add to the discussion of MR that hasn't already been said over and over. Until he is arrested (if that ends up happening) then why not talk about other possibilities? The GP is not the judge and jury so I don't see why everyone has to be convinced that MR is guilty and no other possibilities should be discussed. I thought that's how it works. To look at every angle until Dylan is found and justice is served.

 

[RANCH]

I think Mark pretty much nailed himself with that fishing pole.

Actually, that's the thing that I put at the very bottom of incriminating evidence.

The reason being is Mark has only said that he noticed it being missing after Dylan disappeared but he has no idea if Dylan actually took it with him. It could have been lost before Dylan even arrived that Sunday. MOO.

 

[RANCH]

I haven't seen LE say the postal worker sighting was ruled out.

As far as how they confirm a sighting, I don't have a link because I read it probably a year or so ago, but when they get a sighting, they try to corroborate it with another person who also saw the missing person, or store video or home security video of the missing person in the area of the sighting. They'll check nearby stores asking for someone with the same description who might have made a purchase. If they get something like one of those that reliably corroborates the initial sighting, then it becomes confirmed.

To rule it out, they look for something that would place the missing person in another place at that time, which of course they frequently don't get until the person is found. Or they look someone else at the same place and time wearing similar clothing to those described etc.

Again sorry I don't have the link, just take it FWIW. :twocents:

Having corroboration of a sighting before it's confirmed makes perfect sense to me. It seems to me that just because a sighting is not confirmed it doesn't mean that it's invalid. MOO.

 

[tresptip]

Actually, that's the thing that I put at the very bottom of incriminating evidence.

The reason being is Mark has only said that he noticed it being missing after Dylan disappeared but he has no idea if Dylan actually took it with him. It could have been lost before Dylan even arrived that Sunday. MOO.

How soon after Dylan disappeared ? If it was days later then that would make me less suspicious.But if it was the same day Dylan disappeared I would be suspicious.

IMO the typical sloppy man doesn't notice things missing until he goes to use them.A lot of men have there junk scattered everywhere and have a hard time finding things because they never put things back away in their place.

 

[nikb]

So you think that it's possible that this Mail carrier woman has a personal relationship with Mark and that's why she went on the Dr Phil show and spoke about her sighting of Dylan.

It sounds like your saying that she has a reason to be biased about this case. Is that what your saying or am I wrong?

I do think it's possible she has a personal relationship with him beyond just being the mail carrier for his house/street. I'm not saying I think they're close friends or anything like that, although who knows - they could be. I think one or both of them probably would've mentioned that though. I just think they know each other better than, say, I know my own mail carrier.

I didn't mean to imply that she has a reason to be biased about the case. Thanks for asking so I could clarify.

I believe she's pretty sure she saw Dylan and that she would recognize him. I wish we knew more in terms of why, because it seems strange to me that she'd be able to recognize him, potentially from a distance, if she doesn't see him often. It would make a lot more sense IMO if she knows MR/Dylan outside of just her job, or if she knew Dylan before (i.e. if she has a child who went to school with Dylan). I don't feel like she's being dishonest about what she saw or thinks she saw, though.

I feel for her. If she is completely sure she saw Dylan, then at this point she's the last known person to see him, other than the boy he was walking with. She's also the only person other than MR who can back up MR's story that Dylan was alive that afternoon. Seems like a lot of pressure on her to be sure that she's right and could definitively recognize Dyaln, IMO. If that makes any sense.

 

[RANCH]

How soon after Dylan disappeared ? If it was days later then that would make me less suspicious.But if it was the same day Dylan disappeared I would be suspicious.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be suspicious about Mark's story at all. I'm just not sure that he's lying about the fishing pole being missing and his story behind it. MOO.

 

[The Cheese]

I just don't have anything to add to the discussion of MR that hasn't already been said over and over. Until he is arrested (if that ends up happening) then why not talk about other possibilities? The GP is not the judge and jury so I don't see why everyone has to be convinced that MR is guilty and no other possibilities should be discussed. I thought that's how it works. To look at every angle until Dylan is found and justice is served.

When I was looking through articles tonight I came across this quote from Bender in the early days of this case, and I found it comforting -

"We know some people are upset that we are even considering the possibility that Dylan may have run away. But, we are working for Dylan and we owe it to him and to his family to consider every possible scenario that could have caused him to drop out of sight for a week. To disregard any potential circumstance could cause us to overlook a possible clue that will lead us to Dylan," said Dan Bender, PIO for La Plata County Sheriff’s Office.

 

[tresptip]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be suspicious about Mark's story at all. I'm just not sure that he's lying about the fishing pole being missing and his story behind it. MOO.

Did he say how he came about discovering the fishing pole was missing?

 

[RANCH]

I do think it's possible she has a personal relationship with him beyond just being the mail carrier for his house/street. I'm not saying I think they're close friends or anything like that, although who knows - they could be. I think one or both of them probably would've mentioned that though. I just think they know each other better than, say, I know my own mail carrier.

I didn't mean to imply that she has a reason to be biased about the case. Thanks for asking so I could clarify.

I believe she's pretty sure she saw Dylan and that she would recognize him. I wish we knew more in terms of why, because it seems strange to me that she'd be able to recognize him, potentially from a distance, if she doesn't see him often. It would make a lot more sense IMO if she knows MR/Dylan outside of just her job, or if she knew Dylan before (i.e. if she has a child who went to school with Dylan). I don't feel like she's being dishonest about what she saw or thinks she saw, though.

I feel for her. If she is completely sure she saw Dylan, then at this point she's the last known person to see him, other than the boy he was walking with. She's also the only person other than MR who can back up MR's story that Dylan was alive that afternoon. Seems like a lot of pressure on her to be sure that she's right and could definitively recognize Dyaln, IMO. If that makes any sense.

Until I hear for a fact that this witness has a personal relationship with Mark that could affect her credibility, I will just take her statements for what they are. And that's her saying that she may have had a sighting of Dylan. MOO.

 

[TxJan1971]

How soon after Dylan disappeared ? If it was days later then that would make me less suspicious.But if it was the same day Dylan disappeared I would be suspicious.

When he got back at 11:30, his son's dirty cereal bowl was beside the sink. The television was on Nickelodeon. His son's fishing pole was gone. So was his black-and-gray backpack. A few articles of clothing were left behind on the couch."
www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22108222/dad-its-wait-wonder

AND

"I question why it has taken this long to start scouring the lake because from Day One they have known it is likely he had a fishing pole with him," Redwine, 52, said.
www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22063185/sunday-search-launched-missing-boy-laplata-county

BUT on Dr. Phil he states:

MR:
To respond to that, if I may, I attempted to go to T’s house to talk to him but he didn’t answer the door. I assumed that possibly him and Dylan were at the lake. You know the fishing pole has never been found…I assumed that maybe that was a possibility. Do I know for a fact that he had a fishing pole? Absolutely not…
Dr. Phil


My question is: Is/Was there a fishing pole missing when MR got home from his errands at 11:30 as reported in the first two links above? Also, since MR then stated on Dr. Phil that he doesn't know for a fact that DR had a fishing pole with him, then just who does MR think did take it? :waitasec:

 

[BeginnersLuck]

When I was looking through articles tonight I came across this quote from Bender in the early days of this case, and I found it comforting -

"We know some people are upset that we are even considering the possibility that Dylan may have run away. But, we are working for Dylan and we owe it to him and to his family to consider every possible scenario that could have caused him to drop out of sight for a week. To disregard any potential circumstance could cause us to overlook a possible clue that will lead us to Dylan," said Dan Bender, PIO for La Plata County Sheriff’s Office.

Thanks for sharing that with me!