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

[Lordeebee]

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

 

[MissJ]

BBM
Jumping off your post,

In his home, still jumbled from a 12-hour search by investigators several days ago, Mark is having a harder time holding on to that hope.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_22110078/dad-its-wait-wonder

Jumping off your post. MR's home is not huge. Can you imagine just how thorough a search LE did? I'm thinking something WAS found.:twocents::moo:

 

[Bayou Mistress]

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

Are you saying that the link I posted was incorrect?

 

[mixologist74]

Isabel and Madeleine's cares are unsolved. Jessica was abducted by her neighbor. Elizabeth was abducted by someone who worked on her family's house. Polly was the only victim in your post, where a stranger was arrested for her abduction.

Can we think of some cases where boys around age 13 were kidnapped by strangers?

Yes. Shawn H and BenO. Both abducted by the same stranger and when BenO was abducted, H and O both found not long after. Ben O, I believe, was 13 when he was abducted, and Shawn was 11.

 

[Ghostwheel]

I've provided a link to the article about RN's texts with DR as well as one photo of the cell phone text from Monday a.m. (RN to DR).

See entire far left hand column.

There is a small photo of the cell phone text from Monday a.m. from RN to DR. If you keep scrolling beneath that photo, it lists the actual messages/times between RN/DR beginning Sunday when DR arrives at the airport.

Please note that the last text from RN to DR occurs at 9:27 p.m. and it does NOT display any response from DR at 9:37.

Ryan: (Time 9:27 p.m. Nov. 18) Call me when you get here too


http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121215/NEWS01/121219687/-1/news01&source=RSS

BlueBM:Yes, but also please note that it is NOT a screen shot, just a text listing of the conversation up to 9:27, and the Monday AM text IS a screen shot. Does this mean that the last electronic communication was to R? Not necessarily, but it does not rule out that possibility, either.

 

[MissJ]

In order to obtain the search warrant, they would have to already have the evidence, or probable cause, to show a judge.
They have evidence of some kind...one way or another. Probable cause isn't the standard used to convict in a criminal trial, but it isn't something that equates to "very little" either. They had/have "something".

Thanks for this. I grew up with a homicide detective and a prosecutor in the family. I then went on to be involved in the medical/legal field myself. Search warrants must have a basis. MOO:twocents::twocents:

 

[Ghostwheel]

I don't understand why everyone places so much importance on who received the last text from DR. LE hasn't said anything about who received any texts from him or what they said. ER did say at some point (maybe on DP) that it was to a friend, but I can understand completely why the friend wouldn't want to talk to the press about it (or the friend's parents wouldn't allow it.) My guess was that it was a female friend, and maybe a bit more personal than she wanted to share with the general public (not anything real intimate, but maybe embarrassing for someone at that age.) MOO

I cannot say everyone places so much importance on the last message, but I, personally, have to wonder why the text or the recipient has not been released by LE, not even a vague "The last electronic communication was at 9:37 to an unknown number" or "to another friend" or "was a response to R". LE specifically states that there is one more electronic communication (texting) after the 9:27 one that is in many articles, and that it took place at 9:37. Why mention this at all unless it is important? Why not just say, as LE has in other cases where they DON'T want anyone to know the exact time of a text "The last electronic communication was around 9:30."

 

[Redhead72]

How Police Obtain Search Warrants
Police officers obtain search warrants by convincing a judge or magistrate that they have "probable cause" to believe that criminal activity is occurring at the place to be searched or that evidence of a crime may be found there. Usually, the police provide the judge or magistrate with information in the form of written statements under oath, called "affidavits," which report either their own observations, or those of private citizens or police undercover informants. If the magistrate believes that the affidavit establishes probable cause to conduct a search, he or she will issue a warrant.

BBM
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-warrant-basics-29742.html

Without the affidavit(s), we can not surmise the intent of the search and Dylan being last seen there (as reported by MR) is enough in itself. Sorry I didn't rely on wiki.

Neither do I, as I also included a more in-depth link, and have done so in regard to search warrant information over the last few days/pages as well.

I don't know what you're trying to say in this post because it includes the phrase 'probable cause' as well.

 

[Emma Ems]

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

Using your link here:

(2) When the property or things to be seized were used as the means of committing a felony.

So, if LE believed something happened to Dylan at the house, be it he was abducted or Mark harmed him.

(4) When the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony.

If it's a possible crime scene(abduction or homicide) to search for evidence to show a felony has been committed. Remember both kidnapping and murder are felonies.

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.

Particular person, or a particular place, or a particular vehicle FOR a particular person, or a particular thing, or a particular list of property.

To me it seems if it were possible that the home was a crime scene of any kind or could possibly contain any clues to what crime may have occurred to Dylan Redwine that is enough to get a search warrant for these things. So, to me what Bayou said about a child being missing is enough probable cause to issue a SW would be spot on.

 

[Emma Ems]

The search warrant could be as simple as this house was the last place Dylan was seen, therefore the probable cause statement could read.

The house(particular place) was the last place Dylan(particular person) was seen, we would like permission to search this house(particular place) to see if we can find any evidence that may lead us to discover what crime, if any, may have been committed regarding him, Dylan(particular person.) It does not, IMO, point to the fact they uncovered any evidence that Mark had somehow harmed Dylan. Just that they wanted to search deeper for clues to what possibly happened to Dylan.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Neither do I, as I also included a more in-depth link, and have done so in regard to search warrant information over the last few days/pages as well.

I don't know what you're trying to say in this post because it includes the phrase 'probable cause' as well.

Not wanting to insult anyone, I didn't copy the whole thing and I thought it would be read. Later in the article probable cause is defined. And it need not even reach a the 50-50 chance level to get signed by a judge. Probable in laymen's terms means, some evidence. Not proof, not a preponderance, just some cause for a search request to be granted. Like I've said, at least six times, and will not say again---a child who is missing was last seen at that home. That is ENOUGH for a judge to grant a search warrant. I'm done with this topic as it appears that some are intensely invested in making the FACT of a search warrant into PROOF or evidence of guilt.

 

[TxJan1971]

BlueBM:Yes, but also please note that it is NOT a screen shot, just a text listing of the conversation up to 9:27, and the Monday AM text IS a screen shot. Does this mean that the last electronic communication was to R? Not necessarily, but it does not rule out that possibility, either.

Totally agree the texts shown on the link/article is NOT a screen shot and that the article only lists the conversation up to 9:27.

Not sure if you noted this but also reported in the same article:

Ryan received his last text from Dylan just after 8 p.m. This doesn't coincide with RN receiving a text from DR at 9:37.

Does that mean that the last electronic communication was sent to R? Based on the above statement that R received his last text from D just after 8, I'm not 100% convinced. However, just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean that DR didn't in fact send his last 9:37 text to R and it just hasn't been confirmed in MSM yet.

Heck that last text could have been to the other friend, N, or possibly even to T in Vallecito! We just don't have any confirmation at this time.

JMO

 

[Confusion]

Totally agree the texts shown on the link/article is NOT a screen shot and that the article only lists the conversation up to 9:27.

Not sure if you noted this but also reported in the same article:

Ryan received his last text from Dylan just after 8 p.m. This doesn't coincide with RN receiving a text from DR at 9:37.

Does that mean that the last electronic communication was sent to R? Based on the above statement that R received his last text from D just after 8, I'm not 100% convinced. However, just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean that DR didn't in fact send his last 9:37 text to R and it just hasn't been confirmed in MSM yet.

Heck that last text could have been to the other friend, N, or possibly even to T in Vallecito! We just don't have any confirmation at this time.

JMO

The article says the messages are unedited and they end on Monday afternoon. That says (to me) that there were no other messages between DR and RN between 9:27 pm and 6:43 am. Unless, of course, he deleted that message for some reason before anyone could see it. I don't see any reason for that though because he's seemed genuinely concerned about him from the beginning. MOO

 

[The Cheese]

Reposting the NISMART document again on non-family abduction characteristics and statistics. Lots of good info in it, even if you just go through and look at the tables and charts.

There are 52,800 non-family abductions in the US every year. Only 37% of them are by strangers. Since non-family abductions are most often not by a stranger, and therefore more probable, and there are so many of them, I've always wanted to talk more in Dylan's threads about non-stranger non-family abductions than about stranger abductions.



http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

 

[The Cheese]

Totally agree the texts shown on the link/article is NOT a screen shot and that the article only lists the conversation up to 9:27.

Not sure if you noted this but also reported in the same article:

Ryan received his last text from Dylan just after 8 p.m. This doesn't coincide with RN receiving a text from DR at 9:37.

Does that mean that the last electronic communication was sent to R? Based on the above statement that R received his last text from D just after 8, I'm not 100% convinced. However, just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean that DR didn't in fact send his last 9:37 text to R and it just hasn't been confirmed in MSM yet.

Heck that last text could have been to the other friend, N, or possibly even to T in Vallecito! We just don't have any confirmation at this time.

JMO

R also says himself the last text he received from Dylan was at 8 in that YouTube video where he and the other friend are interviewed informally by an adult female. The video where there's all the wind noise and music. I don't have the link handy, and I hope people know which video I mean. I'm not sure what to call it since it's not a news video.

 

[The Cheese]

There is a PI by the name of Charlie Parker. I saw him on the documentary "The Imposter" (Wow, that documentary was intense! An unbelieeeevable story. For those of you that haven't seen it, you HAVE to check it out. It's on netflix. It's about the disappearance of Nicholas Barclay). His work on Nicholas' case makes me think he could possibly be helpful in Dylan's case.

O/T

Margarita, I just wanted to thank you for posting about this documentary. I watched it this evening. I'd never heard of Nicholas' case. I'm still shaken up from it. I wasn't expecting the twists and turns, and it hit me hard. I rarely watch movies twice, but I'm going to watch it again tomorrow. Lots of good info in there for anyone who follows missing person cases. Thank you again.

 

[Seajay]

Isabel and Madeleine's cares are unsolved. Jessica was abducted by her neighbor. Elizabeth was abducted by someone who worked on her family's house. Polly was the only victim in your post, where a stranger was arrested for her abduction.

Can we think of some cases where boys around age 13 were kidnapped by strangers?

In addition to Ben & Shawn, there is also Steven Stayner.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Totally agree the texts shown on the link/article is NOT a screen shot and that the article only lists the conversation up to 9:27.

Not sure if you noted this but also reported in the same article:

Ryan received his last text from Dylan just after 8 p.m. This doesn't coincide with RN receiving a text from DR at 9:37.

Does that mean that the last electronic communication was sent to R? Based on the above statement that R received his last text from D just after 8, I'm not 100% convinced. However, just because I'm not convinced doesn't mean that DR didn't in fact send his last 9:37 text to R and it just hasn't been confirmed in MSM yet.

Heck that last text could have been to the other friend, N, or possibly even to T in Vallecito! We just don't have any confirmation at this time.

JMO

Thank you, I did note that. But that was an MSM statement, not an LE release so, like you, I take it with a grain of salt. I am not married to the theory that the last text went to R, just consider it to be one of many possibilities. One of the "Hmmms" I speak of.

 

[dlc]

Neither do I, as I also included a more in-depth link, and have done so in regard to search warrant information over the last few days/pages as well.

I don't know what you're trying to say in this post because it includes the phrase 'probable cause' as well.

Yes, you've certainly gone above and beyond in terms of trying to supply accurate information. Not sure where the swipe at Wiki was directed, although it was somewhat ironic, given the source linked by that poster is not exactly above reproach:

"Our History
Nolo, a wholly owned subsidiary of Internet Brands, is the integration of some of the Internet’s first legal sites, including Nolo.com, Divorcenet.com and AllLaw.com. These sites were combined with the ExpertHub technology platform in 2011 to form the Nolo Network."


JMO, etc., etc.

 

[dlc]

It doesn't seem to be all that rare. Polly Klaas was abducted from her room, Madeline McCann was abducted from her room, Isabel Celis was abducted from her room, Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her room, in Los Angeles a 10 year old was abducted from her room this week, Jessica Lundsford was abducted from her home. All of these abductions were by strangers. So it does happen. If it happened once, it will happen again. It can happen anywhere. Including Vallecito, CO.

Just want to add a couple of things, then I'm out of here.

<modsnip>.

The fact that people (not you in particular) have to go back 20 YEARS, and cite the case of Polly Klaas (10/1/1993) is indicative, IMO, of the relative scarcity of stranger abductions. Oops. I see that others have already pointed out the issues with some of the other citations, so I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.