CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #45

[rebeccaeee]

Well the love of your life is missing your son and your ex husband wont talk to you nor be honest with LE so I think Anger is justified. Hes lucky Im not his ex wife. I think Elaine has been pretty darn good about it way better then I would handle it!

He has done NOTHING to find his son!
Nada Zip!

His personality has nothing t do with it!
He saw some very gross horrible pics of his father.
Do you think he still respects this man? No way!
Id love to know when the last time he spoke to him since september!
If he did at all?

Per Elaine in some interview along the way, Dylan had not spoken to his father since September prior to the November visit. Not once.

 

[Eileen730]

Above snipped to focus on this statement alone...
It was MR himself who stated in his interview taped before the Dr. Phil show that MR said, and I quote from the transcript;


And during the aired portion of the show when DP was asking him about the Polygraph he took for LE he again stated, and I quote from the transcript;


PS - I seem to remember him mentioning the word failed and inconclusive in the clip portion as well, but I will need to go back and re-watch the clips of MR on Day 1 to be certain... The above quotations are taken from the transcripts of the episodes provided by TXJan1971, and are available for download on the media links thread for this case...

He did say he Failed then went on to the inconclusive and inept polygrapher.

 

[azgrandma]

How sad that if Dylan is found, everyone will know that his father had some fetishes that his other son thought important to share with the general public. Should he have shown/told LE, absolutely. Should he tell the world, I don't think so. Poor Dylan.

Are we (in general) looking for Dylan or protecting MR from himself? The point of my question is that this is a serious matter, it is a child's life that is what matters. Not whether or not "if Dylan is found everyone will know". IMO I find it interesting how the wording BBM turns it back to CR. IMO the emphasis should be on the fetish NOT the reporter of the fetish. In otherwords, don't kill the messenger.

If MY child were missing, and there was disturbing information about me and I felt it had nothing to with the child missing, I would still let LE know it so that they had all the facts. I find it almost humerous that MR has this odd fetish, statements have been made that this fetish could cause others to be involved, yet in the same breath CR should not have told the world.

IIRC MR stated on DP that ER hung with criminal types in an attempt IMO to get others within ER's life looked at closer. IMO it was a smoke screen.

Now ER has confirmed information that IMO is important and opens up a whole different world of options to Dylan's whereabouts and it's once again...........that mean ole CR should never have said anything publicly. IMO

:banghead:
:banghead:

 

[Eileen730]

Per Elaine in some interview along the way, Dylan had not spoken to his father since September prior to the November visit. Not once.

And I wonder if something happend last time!
Remember the comment by Elaine and cory that all he had to do was call and they would come get him. It made me think something happend at that time.

 

[SCHMAE]

Are we (in general) looking for Dylan or protecting MR from himself? The point of my question is that this is a serious matter, it is a child's life that is what matters. Not whether or not "if Dylan is found everyone will know". IMO I find it interesting how the wording BBM turns it back to CR. IMO the emphasis should be on the fetish NOT the reporter of the fetish. In otherwords, don't kill the messenger.

If MY child were missing, and there was disturbing information about me and I felt it had nothing to with the child missing, I would still let LE know it so that they had all the facts. I find it almost humerous that MR has this odd fetish, statements have been made that this fetish could cause others to be involved, yet in the same breath CR should not have told the world.

IIRC MR stated on DP that ER hung with criminal types in an attempt IMO to get others within ER's life looked at closer. IMO it was a smoke screen.

Now ER has confirmed information that IMO is important and opens up a whole different world of options to Dylan's whereabouts and it's once again...........that mean ole CR should never have said anything publicly. IMO

:banghead:
:banghead:

" Professional'' criminals ,,,,,,,,,lest we forget !

 

[Eileen730]

Per Elaine in some interview along the way, Dylan had not spoken to his father since September prior to the November visit. Not once.

I wonder what his excuse is for that one?

 

[ColdHands]

And I wonder if something happend last time!
Remember the comment by Elaine and cory that all he had to do was call and they would come get him. It made me think something happend at that time.

That would be much more useful information, IMO, than the details of the fetish."Dylan spoke to his father about pictures he found of some really sickening sexual poses and it caused a terrible argument. Dylan came home upset and told me all about it." This is a completely made up quote used for example purposes only.) THAT would be useful information to know. It seems as if CR has a very important story to tell, things that only brothers would know and talk about, that Dylan would have protected his mother from. I would love to hear CR talk fully about this relationship with their father and what he knew about Dylan and Mark. Elaine does a really good job of talking about her relationship with Dylan and what he talked to her about, I'd like to see CR follow her classy example.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I have been here through all 45 threads yet remained silent until fairly recently. Things had slowed down and I thought it might be time to explore other possibilities of what happened to Dylan. What this makes me wonder for those of you who have your mind made up, is why you keep repeating the same things and seem to want to detract from any alternative look at things. I mean, really, for 43 of these 45 threads, I said nothing. I didn't agree, but I didn't tell you over and over again why you were wrong.

We ALL want Dylan found and the person responsible brought to justice. Time to look at other therories or ways of seeing this, IMO. Well controlled snark is still snark.

 

[Redhead72]

Elaine stated on NG that she believed his results were inconclusive. You know in thinking of that response I was wondering how Elaine would come to know that. I wouldn't think LE would have told her. I will admit that I also noted that there were issues there where NG was kinda interrogating her on the issue of the LDT. That's why I stated as it is that when we get down to it, there seems to be no clear answer as to what the results of that test were. Of course that was after it was stated as fact that he failed the poly. It's not something truly known therefore it can't be a fact.

I'm unsure as to why LE would not tell ER if the results were inconclusive. And, when she was told might have made a difference in regard to what they told her. They definitely could have told her the results were inconclusive if she was asking them what they were doing in regard to following up on her suspicions.

As for it not being something truly known, then why would MR say the following:

"Dr. Phil:
Did you take a polygraph in this matter. Did the police ask you to take a polygraph?

MR:
I did. They did ask me...

Dr. Phil:
And what were the results?

MR:
Well,… there’s been some conflict as to what the actual reaser… (Stumbles on word) results are.

Dr. Phil:
Well, what did they tell you?

MR:
Well…they told me that I failed it. Then they told me it was inconclusive… and there was some question about the person giving the polygraph as to whether or not they were capable of performing that… polygraph test…"

Why would MR make up that he took it, and that the LE agency that administered the test told him he "failed it", and then changed their answer to it was "inconclusive" as MR states above. Clearly, at the least he took a test, it was confirmed by (at least) 1 person as hearsay from LE, and by the subject of the test himself that police told him first that he had failed, then the word inconclusive was mentioned.

I don't see how that is not fact - unless we are supposed to disbelieve everything MR has said in relation to the polygraph that he himself took, and what he was told by LE directly.

Please understand, I am not trying to attack you personally by stating this. I believe we do know for a fact that:
1) MR did take at least one LDT/Polygraph when asked to by Law Enforcement
2) The results of that test as spoken of by MR himself is that it was inconclusive at best, and that he failed the test at worst.

Therefore, I think we can take it as fact that MR took a polygraph and it was at best inconclusive. That he may have indeed failed the test, but definitely did not pass it.

BBM and italics mine
As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:

 

[song22]

Did I miss something? Has Mark been indicted? Is he on trial? I don't see how explaining another point of view or attempting to see other sides as defending. I see everyone else explaining Elaine's side but very few even trying to attempt to understand or see Mark's at all. If you refuse to look at everything in a whole and consider things you haven't yet thought of then you will miss the whole picture. If you believe everything one person tells you, you will also miss the whole picture. MOO. MOO. MOO.

I personally have no problem with this position and often I see folks who play Devil's advocate and see how it serves a purpose. I also respect the position some people have of never accusing a family member or never making an accusation without a certain threshhold of evidence. But I will still vigorously argue my own position. That's what we do. It might feel hostile sometimes when there are so many in agreement, but I don't think it's meant to be personal. I think when there are times that it veers into disrespect for Er and CR, or when there's a dismissive attitude about domestic violence (in general--not saying you personally or anything) that's when I am offended. I hope to express to anyone that simply arguing about MR's guilt is appropriate and reasonable. But I will argue back my own point of view!

But I also kind of wonder about this idea of the necessity of looking at the whole picture--if what you mean by the "whole picture" is every possibility. To me I could see this really becoming a huge waste of time, KWIM? I absolutely hate it when I hear about LE tracking down leads from psychics, for instance. And when there is a lot of information pointing in one direction, I think it makes sense to put resources there, while at the same time keeping an open mind to other possibilities. I really do believe that MR is responsible. But I would not be surprised at all if it was a stranger abduction, either. It's just that there are no leads whatsover that we know of indicating anything about the latter. So going on what I know now, if I was LE, I'd have MR under surveillance, I'd be researching his online fetish connections, and talking to people all up and own his trucking routes. It just makes sense to me.JMO

 

[Redhead72]

I have been here through all 45 threads yet remained silent until fairly recently. Things had slowed down and I thought it might be time to explore other possibilities of what happened to Dylan. What this makes me wonder for those of you who have your mind made up, is why you keep repeating the same things and seem to want to detract from any alternative look at things. I mean, really, for 43 of these 45 threads, I said nothing. I didn't agree, but I didn't tell you over and over again why you were wrong.

We ALL want Dylan found and the person responsible brought to justice. Time to look at other therories or ways of seeing this, IMO. Well controlled snark is still snark.

MOO only but, I don't think it does much good to think at alternate theories at this point until the lake itself is thoroughly searched, and "cleared". I will say though that on the thread that is supposed to be focused primarily on "the search" itself (the new thread opened before the discussion came back) I have given ideas "outside the box", and some other theories.

MOO again, but IMO, I am responding and trying to understand why other people are seeing this differently than I am, and positing my reasoning behind my own opinions, and the questions themselves. I'm not trying to be snarky, that's for sure - even though I guess it may seem that way to some. I'm not one to beat around the bush, so to speak. Sometimes - especially when on a thread talking about a missing child - I know people might think I'm being too "technical" and "unfeeling". I'm trying to keep in mind that this is a beloved little boy that means a lot to many people, but also need to keep my emotions in check when it comes to identifying too closely with any of those involved. That is for my own mental health.

----------
As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow: I can only speak for myself, and my motivations and feelings.

 

[NC Analyzer]

I personally have no problem with this position and often I see folks who play Devil's advocate and see how it serves a purpose. I also respect the position some people have of never accusing a family member or never making an accusation without a certain threshhold of evidence. But I will still vigorously argue my own position. That's what we do. It might feel hostile sometimes when there are so many in agreement, but I don't think it's meant to be personal. I think when there are times that it veers into disrespect for Er and CR, or when there's a dismissive attitude about domestic violence (in general--not saying you personally or anything) that's when I am offended. I hope to express to anyone that simply arguing about MR's guilt is appropriate and reasonable. But I will argue back my own point of view!

But I also kind of wonder about this idea of the necessity of looking at the whole picture--if what you mean by the "whole picture" is every possibility. To me I could see this really becoming a huge waste of time, KWIM? I absolutely hate it when I hear about LE tracking down leads from psychics, for instance. And when there is a lot of information pointing in one direction, I think it makes sense to put resources there, while at the same time keeping an open mind to other possibilities. I really do believe that MR is responsible. But I would not be surprised at all if it was a stranger abduction, either. It's just that there are no leads whatsover that we know of indicating anything about the latter. So going on what I know now, if I was LE, I'd have MR under surveillance, I'd be researching his online fetish connections, and talking to people all up and own his trucking routes. It just makes sense to me.JMO

Thanks! Your post just reminded me of what LE has said a couple of different times; we are checking "out of state leads"! I have to wonder if those references to the out of state leads are directly related to Mark Redwine's trucking route!
:what:

 

[TxJan1971]

Bumping this previous post by Salem: - Thread 27

<snipped top portion for brevity>

"Even with no news, old stuff can be rehashed again. And then rehashed again, and then rehased again. You never know when something will click for someone and a new idea will spring from it. For those that don't like rehashing, they can just read, or visit other threads and wait for new news, or what ever they wish to do. Its all good.This is about Dylan. It appears it is going to take persistence, patience, and a lot of prayer to bring him home. There is no stopping now."

Salem
"If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." George S. Patton, Jr.



[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8748335&postcount=375"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #27[/ame]

 

[rebeccaeee]

http://www.durangoherald.com/articl.../0/NEWS03/Blood-drive-to-benefit-Redwine-fund

Some nice news for a change.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

What we know is very little. What I see conjectured without supporting evidence is much. I would like to interview these people myself.

 

[TxJan1971]

FYI only - Pensfan just posted a comment/response about the <unusual hobby> in the thread created last night - Radio Show. Anyone with questions should scurry on over. Thanks.

 

[Kamille]

JM's got him now. No lying if he ever wants to work again.

 

[raine1212]

JM's got him now. No lying if he ever wants to work again.

Who is him?

 

[raine1212]

JM's got him now. No lying if he ever wants to work again.

Kamille are you talking about MR or are u talking about the JA trial.. I get my threads mixed up to :floorlaugh:

 

[Money Girl]

LE has stated he has been cooperative. If he has not been cooperative would they say he has been? Also, how do we know what he is doing? We know he isn't doing anything with Elaine to help find Dylan but not that he isn't doing anything on his own.

Also, how much of this anger has prevented Mark from being out in the public eye helping in the search for Dylan? Many people have said that Mark isn't doing anything, but I have seen interviews, I have seen where he has talked to reporters, maybe not for an exclusive interview but to answer their questions.

And a reminder too is she is not the only parent missing a child. Mark may very well be missing his child very much too. I won't presume to know what either of them are really feeling deep down. I will at least consider and give the benefit of the doubt they are both missing Dylan very much and they both want him home.

I am a mother, but I would never presume to believe that a mother's love is ever deeper than a father's love or vice versa. Both mothers and fathers love their children.

Thank you for posting this. Several of us have tried to explain this here time and time again.