CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #48

[Redhead72]

IF for example IMO, MR in a fit of rage strangled Dylan in the livingroom and removed him from the house fairly quickly, there wouldn't be evidence of a crime scene, even though it would be the crime scene. What could be found in that case?

Not much I would assume. Especially not after 10 days passing and people going in and out of the home before the FBI did a thorough search. Anything not obviously out of place, or messed up when the LE did the consent search initially would not be found either.

I wonder if MR really took a nap, or if perhaps he straightened up the house? For instance, if there was some sort of a struggle and chairs were knocked over, or something was broken, could MR have cleaned/straightened up the house? Could he have placed items - like the cereal bowl strategically on the counter - in order to bolster the story he told police?

Obviously this is all speculation, and there is no way of knowing the above unless MR came out and actually admitted it all someday - IF he is responsible, and IF a crime occurred in his home...

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

 

[Redhead72]

I have always thought that IF Dylan was found in the lake, the perp expected him to be found right away. The perp may not have realized the cold would keep a body from surfacing right away. They wanted it to look like Dylan fell in and accidentally drowned. This would not really work if Dylan was already deceased, but would work if he were unconscious or thrown in and knocked unconscious or could not get back to the bank. This is a just a thought, not reality.

[And Psychic Sleuth ]

See my post a little bit above this...

Even if someone is already deceased they will still sink to the bottom just as a drowning victim would do. Also, their lungs will still passively fill with water once the body is submerged. This is why actually definitively stating that cause of death is drowning is difficult, except if all other possible causes are ruled out, or someone actually witnessed the drowning.

As for the perp not being intelligent I do agree with you there, but even if they are, it's rather specific knowledge to understand how a body reacts when drowned or placed in the water... Unless a perpetrator was knowledgeable about forensic medicine, a lot of wrong assumptions would be made.

It actually took me a couple hours of serious research and reading for me to find specific information about the effects of temperature on a body, if a person who is deceased will actually sink, etc... There is a lot of false information on the internet - specifically with regard to a deceased person floating when placed into the water after death.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Thanks for sharing all of this information with us Redhead!

 

[The Cheese]

I was searching around looking for something and came across this in the NG 11/28 transcript. It's Bender talking about the lake search. Nothing big. Just posting it because it's LE talking about the lake search and why it was called off.

GRACE: We are taking your calls. To Sgt. Dan Bender, spokesperson, La Plata County Sheriffs Office.

Sergeant, the search of the lake has been called off. Why?

BENDER: We`re still searching in the area, the Vallecito area. However, it`s a very large lake. It takes 12 miles to drive around the entire lake. And we were searching, the reason we brought up the divers and the sonar and such is because of the dog alerts in a very small area. Our search by the divers and sonar actually covered an area probably 20 times the (INAUDIBLE) where the dogs alerted and there was simply nothing found there.

 

[Ghostwheel]

IF for example IMO, MR in a fit of rage strangled Dylan in the livingroom and removed him from the house fairly quickly, there wouldn't be evidence of a crime scene, even though it would be the crime scene. What could be found in that case?

IF the above had happened and if it had been checked the first day, I think there might have been evidence of bowel evacuation, vomit, urine. There might or might not be anything left now.

 

[Redhead72]

I was searching around looking for something and came across this in the NG 11/28 transcript. It's Bender talking about the lake search. Nothing big. Just posting it because it's LE talking about the lake search and why it was called off.

GRACE: We are taking your calls. To Sgt. Dan Bender, spokesperson, La Plata County Sheriffs Office.

Sergeant, the search of the lake has been called off. Why?

BENDER: We`re still searching in the area, the Vallecito area. However, it`s a very large lake. It takes 12 miles to drive around the entire lake. And we were searching, the reason we brought up the divers and the sonar and such is because of the dog alerts in a very small area. Our search by the divers and sonar actually covered an area probably 20 times the (INAUDIBLE) where the dogs alerted and there was simply nothing found there.

Obviously he is correct that nothing was found there at that time. However, the divers were not able to stay down very long, and were not able to go all the way to the bottom of the lake, and their vision was extremely limited. These are all things that were stated in numerous articles around the time of the search itself.

I do not know exactly which type of sonar they were using, nor the scope of the specific sonar. It's not like the dogs will hit directly above where a body is due to water current and such.

Also, with the lake, at depth being filled with tree stumps it is likely extremely hard to differentiate on sonar what could be a body vs. what would be an old tree and brush.

In saying the above, I'm not contradicting what Bender said. I am only saying that his statement was a very short summary of the reasons why. He didn't even include the information about the depth, length of time, etc... It sounds like at this point he was in the mode of trying to appease the public and calm people down who thought they should continue with the very dangerous lake search at that time.

Some of the above is MOO - especially in reference to what Bender's answer sounds like to me, personally. Some of what I mentioned can be verified by information in the articles linked on the media pages, as well as research various people have done and posted about (like what is at the bottom of the lake, how deep it is, etc...).

 

[Ghostwheel]

[And Psychic Sleuth ]

See my post a little bit above this...

Even if someone is already deceased they will still sink to the bottom just as a drowning victim would do. Also, their lungs will still passively fill with water once the body is submerged. This is why actually definitively stating that cause of death is drowning is difficult, except if all other possible causes are ruled out, or someone actually witnessed the drowning.

As for the perp not being intelligent I do agree with you there, but even if they are, it's rather specific knowledge to understand how a body reacts when drowned or placed in the water... Unless a perpetrator was knowledgeable about forensic medicine, a lot of wrong assumptions would be made.

It actually took me a couple hours of serious research and reading for me to find specific information about the effects of temperature on a body, if a person who is deceased will actually sink, etc... There is a lot of false information on the internet - specifically with regard to a deceased person floating when placed into the water after death.

This is what I had always gone by with a drowning, and although it may not be too helpful now, it would have been if the body was in the lake and had been found early on:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Drowning+investigations.-a0143342211

A drowning victim's eyes provide a ready, easily accessible, and useful source of information relating to the cause and time of death. As this evidence also is transient in nature, investigators need to note it immediately after recovery.

"If death occurred on land, a noticeable horizontal line should exist on the eyeball if, as is common, the eyelids remained partially open, thereby allowing exposure to air and its drying effects. The line, or border, between the clear and cloudy cornea--the raised, usually clear area of the eyeball covering the pupil and iris--and the white and discolored sclera--the opaque, normally white portion--will occur only in these instances.

Conversely, if the victim drowned and is submerged in water at the time of death, then the eyes will retain a lifelike, glistening appearance. No lines will be present. (14) "

It originally came out of a book by Robert Teather called Underwater Investigations in 1994. It might not be valid anymore, but I remember it well.

 

[Redhead72]

IF the above had happened and if it had been checked the first day, I think there might have been evidence of bowel evacuation, vomit, urine. There might or might not be anything left now.

I agree there might have been evidence of that nature. I would think that anything of that nature may have been uncovered by the FBI search with only 10 days elapsing, but I'm not extremely well-versed in the detection and identification methods of bodily fluids of this sort.

I do know that contrary to popular belief the bowels do not always automatically release. How soon that happens depends upon a lot of factors like last time the person ate, if they recently had a bowel movement, etc... etc... (You can google what happens immediately after death and get a generalized timeline of events, but many of these things don't necessarily happen in order - especially dependent upon the cause of death...)

There are also other factors that may inhibit detection of some of these things, like cleaning an area with an enzyme cleaning product (like you use to clean up cat urine stains). There are other issues involved that may inhibit detection of some of these types of things as well, but we can't talk about those.

My question is - even if those things were present, would they definitively be able to tell who the fluids belonged to? I know they can DNA test blood and semen for example, but can they test and identify the other fluids you mentioned?

 

[Redhead72]

This is what I had always gone by with a drowning, and although it may not be too helpful now, it would have been if the body was in the lake and had been found early on:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Drowning+investigations.-a0143342211

A drowning victim's eyes provide a ready, easily accessible, and useful source of information relating to the cause and time of death. As this evidence also is transient in nature, investigators need to note it immediately after recovery.

"If death occurred on land, a noticeable horizontal line should exist on the eyeball if, as is common, the eyelids remained partially open, thereby allowing exposure to air and its drying effects. The line, or border, between the clear and cloudy cornea--the raised, usually clear area of the eyeball covering the pupil and iris--and the white and discolored sclera--the opaque, normally white portion--will occur only in these instances.

Conversely, if the victim drowned and is submerged in water at the time of death, then the eyes will retain a lifelike, glistening appearance. No lines will be present. (14) "

It originally came out of a book by Robert Teather called Underwater Investigations in 1994. It might not be valid anymore, but I remember it well.

I understand what you are saying, but the line will only appear if the eye is exposed to the air. If a body is disposed of within the water, and before air has a chance to affect the eye (or if the eyelids were closed), then this marker would not be there even if the person died above water.

It's not that the information isn't valid any longer, but rather that it cannot be ruled as definitive if a line is not there that the person drowned. The research papers I read definitely did bring up the line as a marker, so the information is still valid...

Also, as you stated, this would only be an effective marker if the body were recovered rather quickly, and it was noticed immediately before air had a chance to reach the eye again after bringing a body up. Ditto for a body that has remain submerged for a period of time in which the eyes may no longer be intact.

Sorry if this started to get a little graphic. It's so hard to discuss the specifics like this in a way that is sensitive to people's feelings... that's for sure.

I hope this came across correctly, I'm not disagreeing with the information at all, just adding to it a bit...

 

[Tennlyn]

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

I'm feeling a little overwhelmed with reality right now. Going to go light another candle and reflect.

 

[Redhead72]

Thanks for sharing all of this information with us Redhead!

You're most welcome. I greatly enjoy research and learning new things - especially in relation to medicine or the law, so it's really no problem! I'm very happy to be of some kind of help.

PS - And slightly O/T...
Speaking of learning about these subjects, I think I've finally decided for sure what subject-area I want to go back to school and finish my degree for! As soon as I'm able I will be going back for Pre-Law, or at the very least a 2-year Paralegal degree through the technical college here (all the courses at the tech college will transfer to the state univ. campus here in town if I wish to pursue the bachelor's degree).

After 22 years it's about time, huh? I wish I hadn't shrugged off my father's suggestions when I was in HS and when I started college years ago, but him being the one to tell me what I should do with my life considering he was my abuser wasn't exactly helpful! LOL

 

[rebeccaeee]

I agree there might have been evidence of that nature. I would think that anything of that nature may have been uncovered by the FBI search with only 10 days elapsing, but I'm not extremely well-versed in the detection and identification methods of bodily fluids of this sort.

I do know that contrary to popular belief the bowels do not always automatically release. How soon that happens depends upon a lot of factors like last time the person ate, if they recently had a bowel movement, etc... etc... (You can google what happens immediately after death and get a generalized timeline of events, but many of these things don't necessarily happen in order - especially dependent upon the cause of death...)

There are also other factors that may inhibit detection of some of these things, like cleaning an area with an enzyme cleaning product (like you use to clean up cat urine stains). There are other issues involved that may inhibit detection of some of these types of things as well, but we can't talk about those.

My question is - even if those things were present, would they definitively be able to tell who the fluids belonged to? I know they can DNA test blood and semen for example, but can they test and identify the other fluids you mentioned?

I would think 10 days out they could still identify some of these fluids and origins....FWIW. Not enough evidence for an arrest, obviously, just more pieces of the puzzle. I hold onto the fact that we have no idea wht LE did or did not find and identify in that search of MR's house.

 

[ColdHands]

I understand that drowning is difficult to diagnose. The research posted earlier taught me a lot, especially changing my understanding of the presence of water in the lungs.

I did some more reading based on a dim memory I had of a tv show and found this article. Very interesting forensic testing ability using algae to prove drowning and also to help identify in what water the drowning occured.


http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/bph/Res2007/Horton Forensic.pdf

 

[Tulessa]

You know, I understand why people are looking at MR. I also understand that this is a victim-friendly forum. At this point, it is unclear whether MR is a victim or a perpetrator. If for a moment, you view him as possibly a victim, I think it is grossly unfair to say waaa waa waaa he's a man cowboy up and find your son.

Does the man have allies with media experience or fund-raising experience in his corner? The answer appears NO, he doesn't. No one questions what Dylan's mother does....she's got a support system that does things on her behalf. It "seems" like she is doing things to find her son. I'm not questioning her behavior in the aftermath of Dylan's disappearance, but I am offering an alternative possible explanation for MR's behavior since Dylan has been missing.

I find it impossible to place "guilt" onto his actions or lack of actions since Dylan disappeared. I would feel differently if I learned he applied for a passport, put his home up for sale, attempted to cash a life insurance policy or any other activity that points to him running away or benefiting in some way from Dylan's disappearance. He may be guilty, I really don't know, but this post crisis behavior is not alarming or circumstantial by itself.

BBM. With all due respect, and I sincerely mean that, he could contact Tim Miller and several other organizations out there to help find his son. I'm catching up, so if he has done this, disregard this post. I just don't get a man being inactive in the search for his missing child. All MOO of course. I enjoy reading the different opinions. Please don't throw tomatoes at me. :blushing:

 

[The Cheese]

I can't find what I'm looking for, but I sure am finding other stuff lol. Someone had asked a few days ago whether the clothes Elaine had sent were ever used to search. This LE press release from Nov 28 indicates they were.

Three La Plata County Search and Rescue air-scent canines have returned to the Vallecito area to do ground searches. Articles with Dylan’s scent on them have been provided by Dylan’s mother (brought from Colorado Springs) and these articles allow the handlers to have his scent on reference in order for the canines to conduct their search.

https://www.facebook.com/ReporterKevinTorres/posts/10151249960678954

 

[Seajay]

I asked this a few days ago and if it got lost in the threads I didn't see an answer so I'll ask again. What ever became of the PI that Elaine hired??? Has anyone heard anything about anything he's found or hasn't found??? TIA.

 

[Tulessa]

If he was choked, suffocated, hit in the head (closed head injury) and many other possibilities there would be no evidence at the crime scene unfortunately.

Other than bruising, hematomas and the small bone in the throat being broken....

 

[The Cheese]

I asked this a few days ago and if it got lost in the threads I didn't see an answer so I'll ask again. What ever became of the PI that Elaine hired??? Has anyone heard anything about anything he's found or hasn't found??? TIA.

According to his facebook, his father died in mid February. I don't see any more posts about Dylan besides his initial couple of posts.

https://www.facebook.com/bobby.brown.9674?fref=ts

 

[Ghostwheel]

I agree there might have been evidence of that nature. I would think that anything of that nature may have been uncovered by the FBI search with only 10 days elapsing, but I'm not extremely well-versed in the detection and identification methods of bodily fluids of this sort.

I do know that contrary to popular belief the bowels do not always automatically release. How soon that happens depends upon a lot of factors like last time the person ate, if they recently had a bowel movement, etc... etc... (You can google what happens immediately after death and get a generalized timeline of events, but many of these things don't necessarily happen in order - especially dependent upon the cause of death...)

There are also other factors that may inhibit detection of some of these things, like cleaning an area with an enzyme cleaning product (like you use to clean up cat urine stains). There are other issues involved that may inhibit detection of some of these types of things as well, but we can't talk about those.

My question is - even if those things were present, would they definitively be able to tell who the fluids belonged to? I know they can DNA test blood and semen for example, but can they test and identify the other fluids you mentioned?

All of my suggestions was a "might" because it isn't a given that any would happen during a death, just possible. As to DNA:
Vomit, yes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-06-21/vomit-gave-police-dna-match-court-told/76840

Urine, not usually.
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/problem_sets/dna_forensics_2/06t.html

Feces, yes. http://www.hartnell.edu/faculty/jhughey/Files/dnaextractionfeces.pdf

 

[Ghostwheel]

If he was choked, suffocated, hit in the head (closed head injury) and many other possibilities there would be no evidence at the crime scene unfortunately.

I should think there could still be some kind of evidence. Just possibly, if someone fought back while being choked, they could scratch the assailant and bits of the perp's DNA might be at the crime scene. Or a broken fingernail. Or hair. Or earwax (not a joke, really) or mucus (snot) or spit(saliva). Or any of the standard pieces of fabric, etc. Unfortunately, any of those might be normal IF it happened in the house. (but maybe not, depending on what it is). If it were outside the house, though, something might still be found.