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

[Dee10]

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!

Yes, I think we are following that same horrible case & I immediately thought of Dylan too. In fact LE said basically the opposite in this case:

Phippen said all of the local registered sex offenders had been checked out and had alibis for the 48-hour period from when Dylan arrived at the airport to the time he was reported missing.

Phippen wanted to reassure residents that the Sheriff’s Office “does not believe there is a sex offender abducting children” from the area.

http://durangoherald.com/article/20...olunteers-search-for-Dylan&template=mobileart

 

[scorekeeper]

http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/candles.cfm?l=eng&gi=dnr

TIA

 

[Redhead72]

Not sure what you are saying. A child is missing, LE had determined at that point that running away was less of a theory. That child was last seen (as reported by MR and confirmed by LE) at MR's home. MR is not known to have revoked consent. A missing child from that location is probable cause by itself.

I'm not so sure that the missing child would be considered probable cause in and of itself at that point.

After all, MR gave permission for a consent search when LE asked to look in his home after DR was missing. After that, a judge would likely be very cautious about granting a warrant without more probable cause than what they had the first time.

As always, this is MOO! I obviously don't have a copy of the search warrant which would list the probable cause evidence considered by the judge in granting the warrant in the first place.

 

[Lordeebee]

Yes, I think we are following that same horrible case & I immediately thought of Dylan too. In fact LE said basically the opposite in this case:

http://durangoherald.com/article/20...olunteers-search-for-Dylan&template=mobileart

Which case is this?

 

[SCHMAE]

Yes, I think we are following that same horrible case & I immediately thought of Dylan too. In fact LE said basically the opposite in this case:

http://durangoherald.com/article/20...olunteers-search-for-Dylan&template=mobileart

Dee THANKS ! I forgot all about that statement. I wonder if LE stands by that same statement today. Like do you still not believe there is an SO in the area abducting children? Would be telling, no ?

 

[Redhead72]

We may just have to agree to disagree. But the standard for a judge to sign off on a search warrant is very little. Basically, LE believes a crime occurred there since a child is missing from that location. <snipped>
"The totality of the circumstances" is the test for judges/magistrates. I stand by a missing child from that location, with runaway as a less likely theory, is enough by itself.

I don't want to argue, as we have no idea on what basis this particular warrant was granted. However, I thought I would give a link and definition for probable cause specifically.

If anyone (Not specifically meaning you BayouM...) does wish to understand search warrants and probable cause, please read the following and visit the links...

A link, and a quote as it concerns "probable cause". This is a specific legal term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause#Definitions_in_the_United_States

A common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".[2] Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or supported by other evidence, according to the Aguilar–Spinelli test.

BBM

Probable cause for a search warrant cannot be a "fishing expedition" (no pun intended). There have to be particular reasons given for why a person would reasonably suspect that there would be evidence of an actual criminal act occurring in a place they want to search.

There are a great many more details, and information on this page which includes many case citations.

Law Enforcement Legal Update
by Robert Phillips
Ch. 6 - Searches with a Search Warrant
http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/366#cont369

 

[Redhead72]

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

I'm curious as to what, in your opinion, the use of a call to a "burner phone" would be? Keeping in mind, of course, that there are many reasons for using a pre-paid cell (the terminology I prefer as my pre-paid is not a burner phone for nefarious purposes). Why wouldn't LE simply say that we haven't been able to verify the owner of the phone number texted?

Since the contents were not disclosed either, then I have to think there is something more specific besides just not knowing who the text was sent.

I'm stuck wondering why R's last text to DR was at 9:27, and then the last text from DR's phone was 10 minutes later. It seems odd that he wouldn't have answered R's last text, but would have texted someone else...

As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:

 

[Lordeebee]

I don't want to argue, as we have no idea on what basis this particular warrant was granted. However, I thought I would give a link and definition for probable cause specifically.

If anyone (Not specifically meaning you BayouM...) does wish to understand search warrants and probable cause, please read the following and visit the links...

A link, and a quote as it concerns "probable cause". This is a specific legal term:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause#Definitions_in_the_United_States



BBM

Probable cause for a search warrant cannot be a "fishing expedition" (no pun intended). There have to be particular reasons given for why a person would reasonably suspect that there would be evidence of an actual criminal act occurring in a place they want to search.

There are a great many more details, and information on this page which includes many case citations.

Law Enforcement Legal Update
by Robert Phillips
Ch. 6 - Searches with a Search Warrant

And this is clear: BBM
First: The warrant itself, signed by a magistrate, directing a peace officer to search a "particular" person, place or vehicle, for a "particular" person, thing, or list of property.
http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/366#cont369

IMO, this again rules out that LE were looking for evidence of an unknown abductor.

 

[Redhead72]

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!

Yes, and this was in a high-population area as well. AND, the child was apparently abducted from her home in the middle of the night. Not only is stranger abduction rare even in a bigger area, but abduction by a stranger from a home is even more rare. I too thought of Dylan because of the comment in the last press release about DR "somehow" leaving the home. (To me that makes it seem as if they don't believe he left on his own.)

 

[NC Analyzer]

IMO, this again rules out that LE were looking for evidence of an unknown abductor.

Yep. I've been trying to explain this repeatedly to no avail. LE has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't be able to obtain a search warrant. There is "something"...it might be simple or it might be complex, but in order to obtain a warrant and search the property (for several hours with a forensic evidence van, no less) they had something specific that they used to convince that judge.

 

[Ghostwheel]

I'm curious as to what, in your opinion, the use of a call to a "burner phone" would be? Keeping in mind, of course, that there are many reasons for using a pre-paid cell (the terminology I prefer as my pre-paid is not a burner phone for nefarious purposes). Why wouldn't LE simply say that we haven't been able to verify the owner of the phone number texted?

Since the contents were not disclosed either, then I have to think there is something more specific besides just not knowing who the text was sent.

I'm stuck wondering why R's last text to DR was at 9:27, and then the last text from DR's phone was 10 minutes later. It seems odd that he wouldn't have answered R's last text, but would have texted someone else...

As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:

I have always thought the 9:37 text from Dylan might still have been to R, and said something specific that they don't want any suspect they might have to know about. I don't believe it was to his mother, as she is on record from earlier news stories as saying the last electronic communication was around 8:00 (making me believe the last text could not have been to her, or she would know the time as being later).

IF the text had been to R, Dylan might have texted something like "I will, I have to get out of here." or "Have to stop texting, my dad is mad." or something that might point to something else.

This is purely conjecture on my part, because I cannot find anything where LE has released a statement that says the last known communication was NOT to R.

 

[Redhead72]

IMO, this again rules out that LE were looking for evidence of an unknown abductor.

Yep. I've been trying to explain this repeatedly to no avail. LE has some kind of evidence or they wouldn't be able to obtain a search warrant. There is "something"...it might be simple or it might be complex, but in order to obtain a warrant and search the property (for several hours with a forensic evidence van, no less) they had something specific that they used to convince that judge.

I agree... They already did a search based on the fact that DR was missing - the search that MR consented to. After that, they would have to have some other evidence to support probable cause.

Without something indicating a "fair probability" that a crime occurred in the house and/or that evidence of a crime occurred in the house, or vehicles would be found, or that other evidence from a crime would be found in the home or vehicles during the extensive search, then a judge would be very apprehensive about giving authority to search. If there isn't a good basis for the search it can be found to be "unreasonable" and all of the evidence - no matter how conclusive it may be - could be thrown out and a conviction would not be able to ever be carried out.

(See MoneyGirl's post from last night regarding the case that was won in the Supreme Court yesterday, or the day before - the link was posted on this thread last night). The search warrant was based upon something that should not have been considered probable cause as the reason the LEOs presented the judge with wasn't information found "in plain view". Therefore, the entire case is now thrown out because all the marijuana plants, and other evidence was gathered during an "unreasonable search" due to the search warrant not using the right evidence for a basis of probable cause.)

 

[Redhead72]

I have always thought the 9:37 text from Dylan might still have been to R, and said something specific that they don't want any suspect they might have to know about. I don't believe it was to his mother, as she is on record from earlier news stories as saying the last electronic communication was around 8:00 (making me believe the last text could not have been to her, or she would know the time as being later).

IF the text had been to R, Dylan might have texted something like "I will, I have to get out of here." or "Have to stop texting, my dad is mad." or something that might point to something else.

This is purely conjecture on my part, because I cannot find anything where LE has released a statement that says the last known communication was NOT to R.

I understand where you are coming from. The only reason I'm thinking that R wasn't the recipient is because he showed the text messages to the MSM, iirc. In fact, I think I recall him actually showing a reporter his phone with the messages on it - unless I'm mixing it up with something else.

I also don't think the text was to his Mom as she said the last thing she received was - like you said - the confirmation that MR had picked him up from the airport. (It breaks my heart that the last thing he texted his mom was a frowning emoticon...)

I do know that LE definitely has not said whom the 9:37 text was to, or what it contained. IIRC the first time they admitted there was a text at 9:37 specifically was after it was shown on the DP show as stated by ER.

As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:

 

[Ghostwheel]

Yes, and this was in a high-population area as well. AND, the child was apparently abducted from her home in the middle of the night. Not only is stranger abduction rare even in a bigger area, but abduction by a stranger from a home is even more rare. I too thought of Dylan because of the comment in the last press release about DR "somehow" leaving the home. (To me that makes it seem as if they don't believe he left on his own.)

The reason why people remember the stranger abductions is because they are usually well publicized, and because it scares the bejeebers out of any sane person to think that you and your family are not safe in your own home. Also, some abductions are not exactly "stranger" abductions. In some cases, the person is not well known to the family, but they could be a friend of a friend, a neighbor, a postman, a clerk in a store, etc if you get my drift. They aren't really a stranger (a person or thing that is unknown or with whom one is unacquainted), but they aren't a friend, either. (Elizabeth Smart comes to mind)

 

[rebeccaeee]

Which case is this?

The 10 year old girl in Northridge CA. Recovered safely about 12 hours after being reported missing. Assaulted but dropped off in public and recognized by a bystander. The differences are huge. Instant and large LE and FBI presence, huge media splash and hyper aware public. Granted, Southern California is not Southern Colorado. The circumstances in Northridge may yet be extraordinary. But can you imagine if the FBI had shown up on Monday night to look for Dylan????

 

[Ghostwheel]

I understand where you are coming from. The only reason I'm thinking that R wasn't the recipient is because he showed the text messages to the MSM, iirc. In fact, I think I recall him actually showing a reporter his phone with the messages on it - unless I'm mixing it up with something else.

I also don't think the text was to his Mom as she said the last thing she received was - like you said - the confirmation that MR had picked him up from the airport. (It breaks my heart that the last thing he texted his mom was a frowning emoticon...)

I do know that LE definitely has not said whom the 9:37 text was to, or what it contained. IIRC the first time they admitted there was a text at 9:37 specifically was after it was shown on the DP show as stated by ER.
As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:

BBM: You could be right. I did, at one time, see a text chain picture, but that disappeared early on and now there is just quotes of the texting available that I can find. Now I can only find pictures of the texts from AFTER Dylan went missing ("Come to Nando's", etc) When something that was originally available becomes unavailable, it makes you go "Hmmm".

 

[scorekeeper]

I agree... They already did a search based on the fact that DR was missing - the search that MR consented to. After that, they would have to have some other evidence to support probable cause.

Without something indicating a "fair probability" that a crime occurred in the house and/or that evidence of a crime occurred in the house, or vehicles would be found, or that other evidence from a crime would be found in the home or vehicles during the extensive search, then a judge would be very apprehensive about giving authority to search. If there isn't a good basis for the search it can be found to be "unreasonable" and all of the evidence - no matter how conclusive it may be - could be thrown out and a conviction would not be able to ever be carried out.

(See MoneyGirl's post from last night regarding the case that was won in the Supreme Court yesterday, or the day before - the link was posted on this thread last night). The search warrant was based upon something that should not have been considered probable cause as the reason the LEOs presented the judge with wasn't information found "in plain view". Therefore, the entire case is now thrown out because all the marijuana plants, and other evidence was gathered during an "unreasonable search" due to the search warrant not using the right evidence for a basis of probable cause.)

BBM

Thanks for all your information regarding search warrants!

So by the above BBM, LE not only had "fair probability" for the house

BUT also the two vehicles....hmmmmm

I wonder if Mark drove the same vehicle on Monday than he drove Sunday night?

 

[NC Analyzer]

The 10 year old girl in Northridge CA. Recovered safely about 12 hours after being reported missing. Assaulted but dropped off in public and recognized by a bystander. The differences are huge. Instant and large LE and FBI presence, huge media splash and hyper aware public. Granted, Southern California is not Southern Colorado. The circumstances in Northridge may yet be extraordinary. But can you imagine if the FBI had shown up on Monday night to look for Dylan????

I actually think they knew "what" they were dealing with pretty much right away. If I recall correctly, it is protocol to bring in the FBI and enter the child's description into the Missing Children database within 48 hrs. I know we heard they were on scene within a very short time. There were no press releases, no media splash and no public awareness warnings because they already had a good idea about what was going on. Don't discredit CO. They've had some pretty high profile cases there...one recently (Jessica) and considering the bad press for the past 18 or so years over JonBenet', I don't see any LE in CO taking any unnecessary chances. That alone tells me a lot about this case.

 

[rebeccaeee]

I actually think they knew "what" they were dealing with pretty much right away. If I recall correctly, it is protocol to bring in the FBI and enter the child's description into the Missing Children database within 48 hrs. I know we heard they were on scene within a very short time. There were no press releases, no media splash and no public awareness warnings because they already had a good idea about what was going on. Don't discredit CO. They've had some pretty high profile cases there...one recently (Jessica) and considering the bad press for the past 18 or so years over JonBenet', I don't see any LE in CO taking any unnecessary chances. That alone tells me a lot about this case.

I didn't mean to discredit LE in CO with the comparison- more the media machine of southern California vs a rural town. I am sure i will be glad one day when everything LE has holds up in court because it was properly obtained and not revealed unduly. Until then, it is an exercise in frustration!

 

[Ghostwheel]

The 10 year old girl in Northridge CA. Recovered safely about 12 hours after being reported missing. Assaulted but dropped off in public and recognized by a bystander. The differences are huge. Instant and large LE and FBI presence, huge media splash and hyper aware public. Granted, Southern California is not Southern Colorado. The circumstances in Northridge may yet be extraordinary. But can you imagine if the FBI had shown up on Monday night to look for Dylan????

Yes, major difference all the way around. In that case, the mother had seen her daughter 2-3 hours previous, something woke her, and she went to see her daughter missing. When someone goes missing in the middle of the night, it's a lot different than them being reported missing in a not too concerned way during the day, 9 hours after the last time they were seen. (I say not too concerned because Mark had stated that he had gone to the Marshall's to ask if they had seen Dylan, not to report him missing.)After all, some people don't think anything of their kids being gone all day because that is just how life is where they live. But they would think something of it if their child disappeared from their bedroom at night.