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

[jjenny]

There is discrepancy in the missing descriptions for Dylan as to what he was wearing.

I always find this conversation interesting because at one of the first interviews (on video) the reporter said there were some articles of clothing on the couch. I always wondered if Dylan changed shirts.... and we just don't know that. But... LE might know that, kwim? It also kind of plays into the discussion of "scent items."

There are so many of these little discrepancies in this case. I think it is why we keep coming back to them.

Salem

The item of clothing was described as sweat pants (not a t-shirt).
And then of course there was a report where it was claimed nothing of Dylan's was left at all.

 

[jjenny]

The NCMEC poster says that Dylan was last seen wearing a "black Nike shirt."

http://www.missingkids.com/missingk...NCMC&seqNum=1&caseLang=en_US&searchLang=en_US

Here is what he was wearing:


"A blue baseball cap with a white front panel with the words "Duke Blue Devils" in blue on the white panel.
A black, short-sleeved T-shirt with the large letters "DC" on the front within a thin light-colored square border around the DC logo.
A pair of black basketball shorts that went below the knee with light-colored (possibly light blue and white) stripes on the sides.
Black-colored "Jordan" shoes with a white tongue and white shoelace area."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...hick-folder-full-of-tips-on-missing-boys-case

 

[RANCH]

There is discrepancy in the missing descriptions for Dylan as to what he was wearing.

I always find this conversation interesting because at one of the first interviews (on video) the reporter said there were some articles of clothing on the couch. I always wondered if Dylan changed shirts.... and we just don't know that. But... LE might know that, kwim? It also kind of plays into the discussion of "scent items."

There are so many of these little discrepancies in this case. I think it is why we keep coming back to them.

Salem

I don't take the report of Dylan's clothes being left on the couch after LE had searched the home seriously. They would have scooped up all of his stuff that was left there in my opinion.

Dylan could have easily changed clothes after Mark left the house. Has Elaine ever given us an idea what clothes Dylan had with him when he left her home to visit Mark?

 

[RANCH]

Here is what he was wearing:


"A blue baseball cap with a white front panel with the words "Duke Blue Devils" in blue on the white panel.
A black, short-sleeved T-shirt with the large letters "DC" on the front within a thin light-colored square border around the DC logo.
A pair of black basketball shorts that went below the knee with light-colored (possibly light blue and white) stripes on the sides.
Black-colored "Jordan" shoes with a white tongue and white shoelace area."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...hick-folder-full-of-tips-on-missing-boys-case

How do we know that was what Dylan was wearing on Monday morning? He could have changed clothes after Mark left the house.

 

[jjenny]

How do we know that was what Dylan was wearing on Monday morning? He could have changed clothes after Mark left the house.

Well, if we are going with that, then what is the point of looking for a NIKE shirt?
NIKE shirt was erroneously reported. Nothing suggests that is what he was wearing when he went missing.
His mother said he would likely wear the same things he had on the prior day. So he would be wearing a DC shirt-assuming of course he was alive and well that morning.

 

[RANCH]

Well, if we are going with that, then what is the point of looking for a NIKE shirt?
NIKE shirt was erroneously reported. Nothing suggests that is what he was wearing when he went missing.
His mother said he would likely wear the same things he had on the prior day. So he would be wearing a DC shirt-assuming of course he was alive and well that morning.

Because I felt like bringing it up. I never said that the shirt seen in the airport/Walmart photo was a Nike shirt only that I can't tell what kind of shirt it is.

He could be wearing a Nike shirt or a DC shirt or who knows what kind of shirt. Whats wrong with speculating at this point?

 

[Redhead72]

I'm thinking that taking and passing a tv show polygraph would not clear MR or anyone else for that matter. Not in the eyes of LE (I would hope) and in this case I seriously doubt it would influence many members of the public, <modsnip>.
:moo:

It wasn't a "TV show" polygraph when you are using a licensed and qualified polygraph expert - especially when the one administering the test is someone with the following qualifications:

"For 21 years Mr. Trimarco served as a Special Agent for the F.B.I. including program manager for the F.B.I. Polygraph (lie detection) Unit at the Los Angeles Field Office from 1990 until his retirement in 1998. He also served as Inspector General for the United States Department of Energy Polygraph Program between 2000 and 2002. Following his training with the Department of Defense and the F.B.I. as a polygraph / lie detection expert he has conducted more than 2,500 polygraph tests throughout the world."
Here is a detailed biography - http://www.jacktrimarco.com/about.html

The LE would most definitely take the results of a polygraph administered by Mr. Trimarco as good because he is licensed and qualified. JT is not an "actor", nor was the polygraph going to be "fake".

MR was brought to Trimarco's office on the first day - an office where many people go at the behest of their lawyers, and the like to take independent polygraphs which can be supplied to LE agencies. An office not unlike many others across the nation where defendants and others can go to take polygraph examinations.

The only reason that on the second day MR was at the studio to take the polygraph is because MR requested that it be done at the studio and Mr. Trimarco, DP's producers, and DP agreed to acquiesce to him on that point to make him more comfortable.

As for a polygraph not clearing MR even if he passed - for LE that would depend on if there was any other evidence. Passing a polygraph would be one step towards clearing MR in regard to this case, that's for sure. It would definitely be something that he could put up in his defense instead of just his protestations of innocence at this point...

< SNIP - Self-Edited 2 paragraphs that were unnecessary and written under an apparently false assumption - Mea Culpa>

In regard to many statements I have made in this post, as well as in some recent past posts on this issue a good page to read would be the following FAQs page at JT's website. Note: Trimarco has his own business as an independent polygrapher. DP's show contacted him on behalf of MR, in order to give him a chance to have a polygraph with a well-known, highly respected, absolutely highly qualified expert examiner.

http://www.jacktrimarco.com/faq.html

Some of the above is MOO - except where I have cited references to statements I have made. If anything I have stated as fact is confusing, and people wish for me to cite anything specific, please let me know...

 

[RANCH]

All I can say is if Mr Trimarco is in the business of selling his product which is polygraphs, it makes good sense to partner with someone like Dr Phil so that he gets good exposure to the public.

 

[catswhiskers]

Here is what he was wearing:


"A blue baseball cap with a white front panel with the words "Duke Blue Devils" in blue on the white panel.
A black, short-sleeved T-shirt with the large letters "DC" on the front within a thin light-colored square border around the DC logo.
A pair of black basketball shorts that went below the knee with light-colored (possibly light blue and white) stripes on the sides.
Black-colored "Jordan" shoes with a white tongue and white shoelace area."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...hick-folder-full-of-tips-on-missing-boys-case

Yet the latest poster from Durango-La Plata Crimestoppers (and as promoted on the FMDR fb page) says different:

He may have been wearing a Duke Blue Devil's ball cap, a black nike t-shirt', black basketball shorts, and a black Hurley backpack.

I can understand why people question this, even though it seems a small detail in the scheme of things. I've wondered myself how anyone would know whatever Dylan was wearing, given he wasn't seen up and about by anyone at all on that Monday. It's either an educated guess (based on the knowledge that it was nothing new for Dylan to sleep in his clothes and wear the same again the next day) or maybe he had packed so lightly for the trip that the options were known to be very limited. Or he was seen by someone else that we haven't been made aware of?
:moo:

 

[nikb]

Here is what he was wearing:


"A blue baseball cap with a white front panel with the words "Duke Blue Devils" in blue on the white panel.
A black, short-sleeved T-shirt with the large letters "DC" on the front within a thin light-colored square border around the DC logo.
A pair of black basketball shorts that went below the knee with light-colored (possibly light blue and white) stripes on the sides.
Black-colored "Jordan" shoes with a white tongue and white shoelace area."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...hick-folder-full-of-tips-on-missing-boys-case

Thanks for finding that!

 

[Redhead72]

If a LE agency knows what their doing, they would only use a polygraph as a tool and not as a means to "clear" anyone of a crime. They should use evidence to "clear" someone.

I can see LE saying to a suspect "just take the test, if you pass your cleared" when in reality their not cleared whether they pass or not. MOO.

You're right that a passed polygraph would not be taken as something to alone clear someone who may be a suspect. It may however open up the investigation and point away from a suspect.

LE cannot tell someone that they cleared as a suspect because they passed a polygraph and then later come back to them and say, "oops, we lied, really you failed, and you're under arrest now". A defense attorney would have a heyday with actions of that nature.

I'm looking up the statutes as they relate to admissibility of polygraphs in the State of Colorado. In some states a polygraph can be introduced into evidence by the defense, and a judge can rule it admissible in a trial itself.

I will come back with links in regard to polygraph statutes in CO and post them in a separate comment.

 

[catswhiskers]

Despite JT's history, in the case of his paid work for DP he is not administering polygraphs on behalf of any LE agencies in those cases. I would be very surprised if any LE would want the public to have that impression either.
:moo:

 

[RANCH]

You're right that a passed polygraph would not be taken as something to alone clear someone who may be a suspect. It may however open up the investigation and point away from a suspect.

LE cannot tell someone that they cleared as a suspect because they passed a polygraph and then later come back to them and say, "oops, we lied, really you failed, and you're under arrest now". A defense attorney would have a heyday with actions of that nature.

I'm looking up the statutes as they relate to admissibility of polygraphs in the State of Colorado. In some states a polygraph can be introduced into evidence by the defense, and a judge can rule it admissible in a trial itself.

I will come back with links in regard to polygraph statutes in CO and post them in a separate comment.

Law enforcement can most certainly lie to suspects during an investigation. If Colorado allows polygraph results in trials I would be amazed. But I will await your findings. I've been surprised before. MOO.

 

[Redhead72]

Despite JT's history, in the case of his paid work for DP he is not administering polygraphs on behalf of any LE agencies in those cases. I would be very surprised if any LE would want the public to have that impression either.
:moo:

I wasn't suggesting that JT would be administering them on behalf of LE, but that he would be administering it on behalf of MR himself, in order to prove that he was indeed innocent, and that there was obviously something wrong with the Polygraph he had taken at the request of LE.

Independent polygraph examinations can, for example, be used by criminal defense attorneys in discussion with a DA in regard to feasibility of proceeding with a weak case, or in discussions of plea deals.

 

[Redhead72]

Law enforcement can most certainly lie to suspects during an investigation. If Colorado allows polygraph results in trials I would be amazed. But I will await your findings. I've been surprised before. MOO.

First, I agree that LE can lie to a suspect during an interrogation, however there are limits.

This article is a good reference in regard to what police can and cannot lie about during interrogation of a suspect...

Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go?
http://policelink.monster.com/train...g-to-a-suspect-how-far-can-an-investigator-go

Excerpts:

"However, courts give greater scrutiny to situations when an investigator knowingly lies to a suspect in an effort to obtain evidence. The courts recognized that deception by law enforcement is often required to solve crimes but also prohibits the police from making false statements to a suspect under certain circumstances."

"... Only rarely do we lie about having evidence that implicates the suspect in the crime. In our experience, an investigator who lies about having such evidence risks the suspect either calling the investigator’s bluff, e.g., “Let me see that crime lab report!” or frightening the suspect into asking for an attorney. Procedurally, making false statements to a suspect during an interrogation is a risky proposition and should be reserved as a last ditch effort to overcome weak, but persistent denials.

When the decision is made to lie to a suspect, the investigator must be aware of case law and avoid any lies that relate to legal issues or the criminal justice system, e.g. leniency, lesser charges, reduced sentence. Further, lies made to a suspect should be limited to false verbal assertions. This does not preclude the investigator from using visual props such as a thick evidence folder or a blank VHS tape. However, it is unacceptable for an investigator to manufacture fictitious evidence against a suspect."

BBM

I have been able to find several things relating specifically to the State of Colorado as it regards polygraphs. I am going to go straight to the statutes in a moment as I want to see what the law itself says, vs. what is stated on various Colorado criminal defense attorney websites - even though there is a wealth of information regarding why someone who is innocent may want to take one, and how it can be of benefit to them.

 

[Confusion]

First, I agree that LE can lie to a suspect during an interrogation, however there are limits.

This article is a good reference in regard to what police can and cannot lie about during interrogation of a suspect...

Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go?
http://policelink.monster.com/train...g-to-a-suspect-how-far-can-an-investigator-go

Excerpts:

BBM

I have been able to find several things relating specifically to the State of Colorado as it regards polygraphs. I am going to go straight to the statutes in a moment as I want to see what the law itself says, vs. what is stated on various Colorado criminal defense attorney websites - even though there is a wealth of information regarding why someone who is innocent may want to take one, and how it can be of benefit to them.

It sometimes doesn't matter what they "can" do, what's more important in some cases is what they "will" do. I would hope that's not the case here, but if you're interested in learning more about it you should read the book The Bison King by Kenneth Miller. MOO

 

[RANCH]

First, I agree that LE can lie to a suspect during an interrogation, however there are limits.

This article is a good reference in regard to what police can and cannot lie about during interrogation of a suspect...

Lying to a Suspect: How Far Can an Investigator Go?
http://policelink.monster.com/train...g-to-a-suspect-how-far-can-an-investigator-go

Excerpts:


BBM

I have been able to find several things relating specifically to the State of Colorado as it regards polygraphs. I am going to go straight to the statutes in a moment as I want to see what the law itself says, vs. what is stated on various Colorado criminal defense attorney websites - even though there is a wealth of information regarding why someone who is innocent may want to take one, and how it can be of benefit to them.

Well thank you. Your quote reinforces my understanding that the ability of law enforcement to use polygraphs as a tool of deception when interrogating suspects is valid.

It's useful because polygraphs are not considered to be evidence of a persons guilt and they don't relate to legal issues.

So it's possible that a police interrogator could say that a suspect failed a polygraph when they really passed in order to see if the pressure of that revelation would produce a confession.

If that attempt failed then the interrogator could lessen the impact of that statement by saying that the test results, after further review, were "inconclusive" thus keeping the suspect from asking for a lawyer and ceasing communications with LE.

 

[Redhead72]

Law enforcement can most certainly lie to suspects during an investigation. If Colorado allows polygraph results in trials I would be amazed. But I will await your findings. I've been surprised before. MOO.

It's proving harder than I thought to answer the question definitively as it regards CO State Law on the Admissibility of Polygraphs. Since there is a large body of information on pre-employment polygraphs and labor law, I am attempting to perform various google searches to limit the results at this time.

I have found the appropriate section of criminal code, however, the amount of material is quite extensive. Also of note, there are different rules when it comes to Federal Court - if the test was administered as a part of the FBI involvement, and if charges could be filed on the federal level in this case, then admissibility could be different than that of within Colorado.

What I have found from criminal defense attorney websites are small statements. I have listed them below:

First, this website page includes information on polygraphs in Federal Court.
Polygraph Laws Regarding Admissibility
http://www.thepolygraphexaminer.com/polygraph_laws.htm

"The widely held opinion that polygraph is not admissible in court is a false one and at some point the rumor of inadmissibility festered into fact. We've provided a brief federal case history with explanations of how each case has effected the basic stance of the federal courts regarding polygraph."

< SNIP - case citations and notes on rulings>

"A few general conclusions can be made from the years of polygraph case law:

1. The court system is clearly at odds with itself over making any permanent, final decisions regarding the admissibility of polygraph.

2. Ultimately, it is up to the trial judge as to how he or she will handle any motion to admit polygraph evidence.

3. Polygraph is regularly admitted as evidence in trial.

4. Polygraph is regularly rejected as evidence in trial.

5. Polygraph is widely used and accepted daily in other venues of government, such as pre-employment testing, testing for security clearances and tests for espionage and sabotage. And these areas have been growing, not slowing."

Obviously the above is a very simple overview. The portion I clipped out of the excerpt details various findings of higher courts as it regards federal cases.

2.) Colorado Criminal Defense Law: The Use of Polygraph Examinations in the World of Criminal Law in Colorado – and in Colorado Sex Assaults Cases

http://www.colorado-sex-crimes-lawy...n-colorado-and-in-colorado-sex-assaults-cases

The use of privately retained polygraphs in plea bargaining – is common. A Colorado criminal defense lawyer will sometimes subject his client to a private polygraph – with successful results – to persuade a District Attorney to – either not file charges – to reach a favorable plea bargain – or even to achieve a dismissal of a case where charges have already been filed.

Under Colorado law, and as a general proposition, communications with a polygrapher hired by an attorney are protected by both the attorney-client and work product privileges, and perhaps even the Sixth Amendment. These protections are subject to waiver and must be guarded accordingly. Consequently, it is important for counsel and experts to obtain specific client consent before disclosure.

[italics mine]

There are a few more, but it's getting late here, so I will continue my research and citations tomorrow.

One other thing that I did find as it related to how a polygraph examination could be used against a defendant in court is that the polygraph examiner themselves can be called as a witness to testify. And, any statements made during a polygraph that conflict with statements gathered in questioning, etc... can be brought out as evidence in court.

The court has ruled that the word "polygraph" cannot be used during a trial by either side. Neither side can discuss whether a polygraph was administered, nor whether the result was a pass or fail in front of a jury.

Colorado is not listed among the states that completely rule-out use of polygraphs within a trial though. I believe it can be used as some sort of evidence if the defense and the prosecutor agree to do so, but even then it is up to the judge to rule on the motion to admit it as evidence. (I read this on another CO Springs Defense Att'y site, but the tab got closed so I will have to go back through my internet history tomorrow and find it again.)

I'm sorry I couldn't get all the facts in order tonight. My daughter and her boyfriend are coming over for Easter Dinner tomorrow evening, but I should have some time in the afternoon to come here and address this again.

In the meantime, I wish everyone here a VERY Happy Easter!

My thoughts and prayers go out to Dylan's family as they celebrate yet another holiday without answers...

 

[Redhead72]

I wasn't suggesting that JT would be administering them on behalf of LE, but that he would be administering it on behalf of MR himself, in order to prove that he was indeed innocent, and that there was obviously something wrong with the Polygraph he had taken at the request of LE.

Independent polygraph examinations can, for example, be used by criminal defense attorneys in discussion with a DA in regard to feasibility of proceeding with a weak case, or in discussions of plea deals.

One quick note as it regards my previous post quoted above: There are steps that an individual can take to file complaints in regard to incompetent polygraph examiners, or if the polygraph was administered in a way not in accordance to the rules. I would be interested to know if MR has indeed filed a grievance in regard to the polygraph that he believes was administered by an incompetent examiner.

When I continue my research tomorrow, I will try to again find the webpage where it spoke of what remedies are available in a matter such as this. I think it was on the same CO Springs criminal defense attorney's website that I mentioned needing to find again tomorrow...

And, with that, I'm going to try to get a little sleep.

Goodnight all! fftobed:

 

[RANCH]

One quick note as it regards my previous post quoted above: There are steps that an individual can take to file complaints in regard to incompetent polygraph examiners, or if the polygraph was administered in a way not in accordance to the rules. I would be interested to know if MR has indeed filed a grievance in regard to the polygraph that he believes was administered by an incompetent examiner.

When I continue my research tomorrow, I will try to again find the webpage where it spoke of what remedies are available in a matter such as this. I think it was on the same CO Springs criminal defense attorney's website that I mentioned needing to find again tomorrow...

And, with that, I'm going to try to get a little sleep.

Goodnight all! fftobed:

If someone files a complaint against a LE polygraph examiner what will happen? I would guess the answer is, nothing.