CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #47

[Salem]

Allusonz did find the place where the info originated, but unfortunately it is not linkable - so for now, it is all considered rumor.

We will have to wait to see if any of it is confirmed in the future.

Salem

I know you've been away, but did you ever find these examples and links? I'm still curious.

Thank you.

 

[Lordeebee]

Regarding the search warrant - we know that LE needs to show the judge probable cause that a crime has been committed, we also know that LE needs to specifically state what items they are looking for and will seize during said search.

So LE had to have listed MR's trucks, computer, possibly the nerf ball, etc. Why would they specifically state these items in conjunction with probable cause, if they were conducting some sort of generic search to see if "someone" other than MR were involved only on the criteria of "a missing child". That logic just doesn't make sense to me.

When the judge deems a search warrant appropriate, they will validate the search of a specific place, at a certain time, for certain items. BBM

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/search-warrant.html

 

[The Cheese]

Interesting thoughts re: the 9:37 text. Would certainly help make a case against someone, wouldn't it?

I am fairly certain LE discussed, at some point, how all communication from Dylan stopped at a specific time but I'm having a devil of a time trying to find the link. Anyone else? I think this was early on and it was quoted by LE in an article....I'll keep looking.

Also interesting re: AM fishing (a better time to fish, right?) but how could they do this and still place Mark, alone, at the attorney's office in the AM? And why would Mark lie about this activity to LE?


ETA: “There’s a combination of factors,” Bender said. “There’s been the passage of time without any sightings; Dylan was not a visitor but had friends here; he has a history of staying in contact with his family and friends; and there’s been nothing on his cellphone record since he was reported missing.”
http://www.durangoherald.com/articl...612/Dylan-Redwine-did-not-run-away-police-say

Alas, this just references cell phone activity.

About the fishing, well, how could they leave the house together, say earlier than 7:30, and Mark appear alone at his appt? I can think of several scenarios. One would have Dylan taking that fishing pole and being in the lake. Another would have Dylan handed off to someone prior to the appt. Another would have Dylan, perhaps incapacitated, in the truck (the "somehow" and the extended timeline to 7pm in the press release).

It's all just some stuff I've been thinking about, and wondered what, if anything, others might think.

 

[rebeccaeee]

Okay, it's been a while and I'm probably wrong about this, but I thought the last text from Dillon at 9:37 was quoted somewhere as being a simple "OK". That always struck me as something that might not have come from Dillon, even though it came from Dillon's phone. Or was that the last text before the 9:37 text?

Last text that we know content of was near 8:01 "Will you gma care or be up?" in regards to heading to his friend's house the next AM. Content and recipient of 9:37 communication has not been verified anywhere.

 

[Salem]

About the fishing, well, how could they leave the house together, say earlier than 7:30, and Mark appear alone at his appt? I can think of several scenarios. One would have Dylan taking that fishing pole and being in the lake. Another would have Dylan handed off to someone prior to the appt. Another would have Dylan, perhaps incapacitated, in the truck (the "somehow" and the extended timeline to 7pm in the press release).

It's all just some stuff I've been thinking about, and wondered what, if anything, others might think.

I have always thought, once we learned about it, that the last text (at 9:37 p.m.) was some sort of SOS that Dylan sent out.

I don't think we know if Dylan (or anyone else) used the landline. We assume he did not because "all activity stopped." But... we know that may not be true, because it was thought that all activity stopped around 8:00 p.m. only to have LE turn around and tell us there was, in fact, another text. At this point, I tend to go with no landline activity, but I keep it in the back of my head that it is still an open possibility.

As for the fishing, anything is possible. I'm not sure the two of them had such a relationship that they would fish together much? It does seem to me that Dylan liked the outdoors, but I don't get that same read on MR, kwim? Has MR ever said they fished together, or that he (MR) liked to fish?

Salem

 

[mixologist74]

Last text that we know content of was near 8:01 "Will you gma care or be up?" in regards to heading to his friend's house the next AM. Content and recipient of 9:37 communication has not been verified anywhere.

It's entirely possible that the 9:37 text went to a burner phone. JMO.

 

[The Cheese]

I have always thought, once we learned about it, that the last text (at 9:37 p.m.) was some sort of SOS that Dylan sent out.

I don't think we know if Dylan (or anyone else) used the landline. We assume he did not because "all activity stopped." But... we know that may not be true, because it was thought that all activity stopped around 8:00 p.m. only to have LE turn around and tell us there was, in fact, another text. At this point, I tend to go with no landline activity, but I keep it in the back of my head that it is still an open possibility.

As for the fishing, anything is possible. I'm not sure the two of them had such a relationship that they would fish together much? It does seem to me that Dylan liked the outdoors, but I don't get that same read on MR, kwim? Has MR ever said they fished together, or that he (MR) liked to fish?

Salem

The no activity was about Dylan's cell. I can't find anything stated by LE that would rule out Dylan having used the landline Sunday night or Monday morning. Not saying a LE statement doesn't exist - just that I've been looking for days and can't find one.

From NG

GRACE: OK. So his whereabouts are accounted for. Question. Sergeant, was there any activity on the home telephone or the computer while Dad was gone?

BENDER: Those are things that the investigators have looked into, and I don`t have that information.

snipped

BENDER: My understanding is -- and our investigators have checked his cell phone. Also, cell phones have GPS`s, so if they`re turned on, that gives a general location of the person. And we have been following up on those right along, and there`s been no activity on his phone whatsoever since Sunday evening sometime.

ETA - for the fishing, I wasn't thinking about it in terms of a friendly father/son activity, but more of a ruse. The "MR *said* 7:30" in the LE press release sent me off on a tangent, because I've always pretty much taken it for granted that MR left the house, without Dylan, at 7:30. I started "what if-ing" the time and taking Dylan with him, and the lake and the fishing pole snuck in there, and off I went. lol.

 

[rebeccaeee]

It's entirely possible that the 9:37 text went to a burner phone. JMO.

Also entirely possible that he was using his ipod to try and find his cell phone.

 

[Leader6518]

So, if I understand you correctly, if something/anything was found in the search that is considered probable cause, a person has then forfeited the right to withdraw consent?

And also, then, the person consenting can revoke consent if there isn't something of interest found or in plain view?

I'm a little behind so sorry if this has been addressed:

It is my understanding that if someone consents to a search and something is found, the person can rescend the consent, but now LE has probable cause for a search warrant because they did have consent when they found the item.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

Doing something behind the home would also be pretty brazen; if Dylan had died, surely cadaver dogs would have hit there too, and not just at the lake.

I remember when we researched this idea during the Baby Lisa Irwin case after a cadaver dog hit in the house. The question came up, how long does a person have to be deceased BEFORE a dog would hit on it. IIRC, the answers vary from 15 minutes to a couple of hours.

So imo, D could have been unconscious and carried to his disposal point. OR he could have died and been moved immediately. If so he could have not been picked up by the cadaver hounds.

 

[Emma Ems]

From NG

GRACE: OK. So his whereabouts are accounted for. Question. Sergeant, was there any activity on the home telephone or the computer while Dad was gone?

BENDER: Those are things that the investigators have looked into, and I don`t have that information.

snipped

Snipped by me to focus on that one thing specifically, notice, it's not a no. If it were simply a no you would think a no would suffice. It leads me to believe either they were still investigating into the records at the time, OR, there is something there they do not wish to discuss. MOO

 

[azgrandma]

I found the story of a missing child where it took LE 5 mths to search the home.
I think it was Ranch that was asking if there was ever a time LE waited so long.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/haynes_richard.html

Cody Haynes went missing 09/12/2004, search was conducted 02/2005

 

[dlc]

Allusonz did find the place where the info originated, but unfortunately it is not linkable - so for now, it is all considered rumor.

We will have to wait to see if any of it is confirmed in the future.

Salem

Hi Salem.

I'm confused - the post of mine which you *quoted* was actually directed to *Bayou Mistress*, who said she had some examples of LE intentionally misleading suspects.

I had asked *Allusonz*, who referred to the reverse 911 calls, and later stated that they were not from an unofficial FB page, to please provide a link to those, as I could not remember there being any MSM links.

I assume you are responding to my request to Allusonz, not Bayou Mistress, and that the information re the reverse 911 calls was indeed from an "unofficial source."

If so, if Bayou Mistress could please provide those links of hers in the meantime, which I would guess *are* from MSM, that would be great.

Whew!

Thank you.


P.S. - Thank you for responding for Allusonz (or at least I think it was for her).

 

[Emma Ems]

I found the story of a missing child where it took LE 5 mths to search the home.
I think it was Ranch that was asking if there was ever a time LE waited so long.
http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/haynes_richard.html

Cody Haynes went missing 09/12/2004, search was conducted 02/2005

I haven't read the article yet, but IMO, 5 months to search, that is some serious ball dropping. But I wanted to comment on Ranch's statement but I waited to see if anyone else mentioned this, but IIRC it took a week for them to begin the forensic processing of Ayla's house too, the hardcore processing anyways. Personally I would like to see a change in procedure for missing children where they do this from day one.

 

[catswhiskers]

I know some where discussing the reasons why Dylan was even considered a runaway initially, and just wanted to add my two cents worth on that subject. IMO it's because there could have been emphasis placed on the assumption that Dylan hadn't wanted to go on the visit in the first place, or that if he did it was only because he wanted to catch up with friends. Once the frowny face in the first text to ER had been mentioned, that was oft cited as proof that Dylan was none too happy about seeing his dad. I have no doubt that was reinforced with LE initially also, in addition to the fact that MR hadn't dropped Dylan off with his friends as soon as he arrived.
:moo:

 

[Dee10]

I know some where discussing the reasons why Dylan was even considered a runaway initially, and just wanted to add my two cents worth on that subject. IMO it's because there could have been emphasis placed on the assumption that Dylan hadn't wanted to go on the visit in the first place, or that if he did it was only because he wanted to catch up with friends. Once the frowny face in the first text to ER had been mentioned, that was oft cited as proof that Dylan was none too happy about seeing his dad. I have no doubt that was reinforced with LE initially also, in addition to the fact that MR hadn't dropped Dylan off with his friends as soon as he arrived.
:moo:

Although I tend to agree with you, the truth had to be told & why should any of the above be suppressed? By suppressing that information, how would that have helped Dylan? We have no idea what either ER nor MR said to LE, although I believe most of us could make an educated guess on what ER said and I wouldn't necessarily equate that with Dylan running away. MR may have said, have you seen him, bang him on the head, tell him he needs to communicate, hitch-hiking, fishing pole is missing...hmmm.

You got to hand it to LE they started searching that very night...runaway or not & they never let up!

 

[Redhead72]

Let's say someone consents to a search of their home. At any point, could the person not revoke consent? LE are not known for housekeeping nor for clean up after a search, so is it possible that warrants are sought and granted even when there is consent just to preserve access lest the person change his/her mind?

Apologies if this was already addressed with reference links.

Here is the main page regarding Consent Searches. The link below details what a consent search is.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_search"]Consent search - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

As for revoking consent of a search here is the portion on Wikipedia:

Revoking consent and exceptions

Consent can be revoked at almost any time during a consent-based search. If consent is revoked, the officer or officers performing the search are required to immediately stop searching. However, the right to revoke consent is not recognized in two cases: airport passenger screening and prison visitation.

Revoking consent

Once consent to search is given, an individual may withdraw consent with an “unequivocal act or statement of withdrawal.” Consent may be withdrawn by statements, actions, or a combination of statements and actions. In United States v. Bily, the court found that Bily's statement to the agents of “That’s enough, I want you to stop,” was a revocation of consent. And in United States v. Ho, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Ho's attempts to retrieve his portfolio from the officer during a search constituted a revocation of his earlier consent to search. In this decision the court recognized his acts constituted a valid revocation of consent.

However, the revocation of consent must clearly be a statement revoking consent: an expression of impatience or dislike is not sufficient to terminate consent. For example, in United States v. Gray, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that Gray did not revoke consent with the statements “[t]his is ridiculous,” and “how long [is] the search going to take.” The district court found that while Gray and his passenger had made “protests to leave,” “there was no specific request to leave, and under the circumstance,... [the officer] was reasonable in continuing the search.”

Exceptions to revoking consent

< snip >

During the course of a search an officer may develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause; once this has been developed the individual loses the right to revoke consent. However, in United States v. Fuentes, the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”

Hope this helps if anyone had any further questions regarding Consent searches...

 

[SCHMAE]

Slightly OT but not really.
While following another case this week that I'm sure you all know of, I was struck by LE's statement of how ' very rare stranger abduction is'. In that case it was apparently a stranger abduction from inside the home. Also LE said for parents to stay alert until these perps are caught. Whether or not you want to read anything about that language into this case is up to you . But the second I heard it I thought of Dylan and how rare it would be if he were abducted by a stranger and how LE , if they believe they have a kidnapper near, might or should say for parents to ' stay alert' . FWIW IMHO MOO ATJ!

 

[Redhead72]

I'm pretty sure Mixologist ceded that point last night. More interesting to me is the question of whether or not consent can be revoked in the middle of a search as a reason for LE to seek a warrant in the first place. In other words, LE may have a warrant to prevent revocation of consent...??

The courts have ruled that revocation of consent in a search (w/o a warrant) cannot be used as supporting probably cause for a search warrant to be issued. There must be some other evidence for the probable cause besides revocation of consent to grant the search warrant.
[see United States v. Fuentes, in which the court found the “[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause.”]

I'm not sure about your statement about "LE may have a warrant to prevent revocation". If the search is being carried out under a search warrant, then there is no "consent" necessary from the owner, and that person cannot revoke anything.

Hope this helps...

 

[Redhead72]

Yes, you can withdraw your consent at any time and then LE will need a warrant.

Smart LE always gets a warrant because it is easy to argue that LE exceeded consent during a consent search. So if LE really thinks there is evidence they need, they will get the warrant. To get the warrant, they need probable cause and sometimes that's not as easy as it sounds.

Salem

BBM

There are a few exceptions in regard to withdrawal of consent. I posted details and a link a few posts above where this one will fall. Just FYI.

ETA: The above referenced comment is post #718, and here is the link: [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9133205&postcount=718"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #47[/ame]