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

[Bayou Mistress]

I can't imagine that trained detectives, FBI, CBI can not see MR's deception when it is so completely obvious to so many in the general public.

I think Bayou's post above is probably irrelevant to this case since up until the most recent LE press release LE has claimed that MR has been cooperative and I would assume that would include while being questioned. So unlike us, they have been able to ask him questions and ask for clarity on his answers.

I do not think it's irrelevant. What it speaks to is how difficult it is for ANYONE, trained or not, to detect deception in a one way observation. I know it's difficult to think that we may not be able to tell, but I acknowledge this weakness in myself and it is why I rely on evidence.

 

[azgrandma]

Thank you azgrandma for coming forward, being honest in a way that I know isn't a Cakewalk..and by being respectful beyond what IMO is even deserved.. I know that your motives are pure, and your respect is given for the sake of Dylan, Elaine, Cory, and your sons.. IMO it makes you just all the more a genuine, caring soul<-- I believe this has been evident throughout these last hellishly long months..

Without a shadow of a doubt your entire reason and cause for even being here is for Dylan..to find and bring him home no matter the way in which that happens..yes, alive and able to heal and work through whatever he may have endured throughout this nightmare, is the way in which we all cling to hope in seeing happen..but just finding him and bringing him home is THE ONLY PRIORITY.

Thank you for allowing us to be here in any positive role that we can, if even as nothing more than a sounding board and a source of support from your friends around this entire globe that you now have in us.:hug:

thanks are not enough Smooth. :hug:

 

[azgrandma]

I do not think it's irrelevant. What it speaks to is how difficult it is for ANYONE, trained or not, to detect deception in a one way observation. I know it's difficult to think that we may not be able to tell, but I acknowledge this weakness in myself and it is why I rely on evidence.

evidence is not just the tangible

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I do not think it's irrelevant. What it speaks to is how difficult it is for ANYONE, trained or not, to detect deception in a one way observation. I know it's difficult to think that we may not be able to tell, but I acknowledge this weakness in myself and it is why I rely on evidence.

If we're talking specifically about LE and this case as it pertains to MR, I don't think we could call it one way observation since it is our understanding the LE has been able to question MR and therefore would not be basing any decisions about possible deception just on one way observation. I believe your reference was specific to LE not the general public.

 

[RANCH]

I do not think it's irrelevant. What it speaks to is how difficult it is for ANYONE, trained or not, to detect deception in a one way observation. I know it's difficult to think that we may not be able to tell, but I acknowledge this weakness in myself and it is why I rely on evidence.

I agree. I think that LE interrogations can sometimes tell if an individual is being deceptive but not 100% of the time. That's why even with tools like polygraphs and HRD dogs, LE still needs actual evidence before they can make an arrest or bring someone to trial. MOO.

 

[azgrandma]

I agree. I think that LE interrogations can sometimes tell if an individual is being deceptive but not 100% of the time. That's why even with tools like polygraphs and HRD dogs, LE still needs actual evidence before they can make an arrest or bring someone to trial. MOO.

Well one would hope that evidence is needed for an arrest and trial. I would really be concerned about our legal system if all it took was a dog and a hunch to arrest and convict. However, IMO the topic of the conversation was not arrest or evidence, it was detecting deception based on a one-way conversation in which the other party is unable to participate. IMO, that is not the case with MR, unless his cooperation with LE that has been touted is incorrect. MOO would be that "cooperation" would include two-way conversations with LE. Q & A. or Q & word salad, IMO

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

another good link Eileen



some might call that word salad :twocents:

Sometimes I think there should be another button named "LOL." Thanks for that. A little levity in the midst of such sadness, is a very good thing now and then.

 

[RANCH]

Well one would hope that evidence is needed for an arrest and trial. I would really be concerned about our legal system if all it took was a dog and a hunch to arrest and convict. However, IMO the topic of the conversation was not arrest or evidence, it was detecting deception based on a one-way conversation in which the other party is unable to participate. IMO, that is not the case with MR, unless his cooperation with LE that has been touted is incorrect. MOO would be that "cooperation" would include two-way conversations with LE. Q & A. or Q & word salad, IMO

Lets say Mark had a two way conversation with LE in this case, would that mean that LE would be able, with 100% accuracy, to say whether or not he was being deceptive?

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Lets say Mark had a two way conversation with LE in this case, would that mean that LE would be able, with 100% accuracy, to say whether or not he was being deceptive?

No offense but I think you're misunderstanding the point. Nobody has said a word about LE being 100% accurate on this.

When I made the comment about Bayou's post being irrelevant to this case, it was because the reference was to LE making decisions about deception based solely on observation of a person and not based on a two way conversation where they are able to question them. In this case LE WAS able to have a two way conversation with MR and question him, so it is irrelevant to this case IMO.

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

Lets say Mark had a two way conversation with LE in this case, would that mean that LE would be able, with 100% accuracy, to say whether or not he was being deceptive?

What is the purpose of perceiving deception? IMO, it is not useful in a trial. Although prosecutors might bring it up. (Case in point, Anthony trial.) IMO, it is very useful in indicating the direction or focus that investigators might take. If they are right 85% of the time, that give real weight to whether they ought to delve more into an individuals involvement in a case. Ok, so 15% of the time they go off on a tangent and waste time, funds. Ignoring something they are right on 85% of the time, just because they could be wrong 15% of the time does not make sense. If police only followed completely solid, trial worthy leads, criminals would be very happy people.

______
JMO

 

[RANCH]

No offense but I think you're misunderstanding the point. Nobody has said a word about LE being 100% accurate on this.

When I made the comment about Bayou's post being irrelevant to this case, it was because the reference was to LE making decisions about deception based solely on observation of a person and not based on a two way conversation where they are able to question them. In this case LE WAS able to have a two way conversation with MR and question him, so it is irrelevant to this case IMO.

I made the 100% comment in order to expand the discussion. My posts discuss LE interrogations in general. If you think that Bayou's post is irrelevant that's fine with me.

 

[RANCH]

What is the purpose of perceiving deception? IMO, it is not useful in a trial. Although prosecutors might bring it up. (Case in point, Anthony trial.) IMO, it is very useful in indicating the direction or focus that investigators might take. If they are right 85% of the time, that give real weight to whether they ought to delve more into an individuals involvement in a case. Ok, so 15% of the time they go off on a tangent and waste time, funds. Ignoring something they are right on 85% of the time, just because they could be wrong 15% of the time does not make sense. If police only followed completely solid, trial worthy leads, criminals would be very happy people.

______
JMO

All I'm saying is that LE can sometimes get it wrong in deciding if someone is being deceptive using interrogation techniques or polygraphs.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't try. MOO.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

All I'm saying is that LE can sometimes get it wrong in deciding if someone is being deceptive using interrogation techniques or polygraphs.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't try. MOO.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Well one would hope that evidence is needed for an arrest and trial. I would really be concerned about our legal system if all it took was a dog and a hunch to arrest and convict. However, IMO the topic of the conversation was not arrest or evidence, it was detecting deception based on a one-way conversation in which the other party is unable to participate. IMO, that is not the case with MR, unless his cooperation with LE that has been touted is incorrect. MOO would be that "cooperation" would include two-way conversations with LE. Q & A. or Q & word salad, IMO

It is however the case with all of us. We have not had a two way conversation with MR about this case. LE has had two way interviews and LE has never said that MR was deceptive or uncooperative. Not even about the polygraph other than to state their examiner was qualified.

I don't get the word salad joke....can someone explain?

 

[AnotherSetOfEyes]

This is sort of off topic. And sort of not. I find these two articles (links below) by the same reporter an interesting comparison. IMO the reporters' take on the story seems to have morphed. We talk a lot about MB, but GW has followed this case right along. The latter article is almost an editorial IMO. Wondering if this is an example of initial deception followed by months of new fact finding. Maybe I am reading too much into the most recent article.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/thaw-153174-redwine-dylan.html
http://articles.pikespeakparent.com/articles/dylan-801-son-redwine.html

 

[mijamawi]

It is however the case with all of us. We have not had a two way conversation with MR about this case. LE has had two way interviews and LE has never said that MR was deceptive or uncooperative. Not even about the polygraph other than to state their examiner was qualified.

I don't get the word salad joke....can someone explain?

I think it's a song by The Wiggles. Word salad, yummy yummy. Something like that.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I think it's a song by The Wiggles. Word salad, yummy yummy. Something like that.

so, it's about literacy?

 

[cluciano63]

I thought the "word salad" reference was to how MR was asked a fairly simple question by a reporter and went into the History of the World, Part I...more than once.

 

[JustJeannie]

Word salad is a description for when you ask someone a direct question, and instead of a direct answer, you get a lengthy answer that doesn't really answer at all. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, a little bit of something else. Like a salad. You never get to the "main course" of the answer. At least that's how I have always heard it used.

Kind of how MR tends to answer questions. JMO

 

[SmoothOperator]

Word salad refers to the practice of stringing together words that have no apparent connection to one another--an extreme form of incomprehensible speech.

Jmo regarding use of the term *word salad* is that this is referencing a pattern that many of us have discussed over the course of the last several months concerning Mark Redwine's public statements, discussions, and IMO especially his answering questions.. Some opinions are that he continually dances around when answering the majority of questions..many times dancing completely off the proverbial dance floor and not ever answering the posed question at all.

IIRC long after many of us here had noted this pattern, Jack Trimarco, retired FBI Polygrapher, also referenced this issue in stating that Mark when asked direct questions would regularly never even get around to giving an an answer to the question posed.. instead he danced around and would give irrelevant answers to questions that were NOT even asked, referred to, or relevant..

it is exactly this pattern that IMO is being referred to when speaking of *word salad*.

HTH
<**ETA: lol...I now see many had already done a fabulous job of explaining Mark's "word salad"**>