CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #49

[Crosby87]

I could see the lawyer appointment being something he may have to make while in town. Since he is OTR truck driver, this might be the only week for a while he would have available to meet? The custody issue was still going on, right? Did they have any court dates set for any time in the future?

BBM

No. Dylan’s custody hearing was held on September 21, 2012 and afaik the judge ruled on primary parenting, visitations, and child support so only one hearing was required.

However, for the Judge's ruling to take effect a child must be present so MO is the Judge’s ruling on custody does not apply when a child is missing and Mark is not paying child support for Dylan.

When a child is missing, the law is broken and it has no power.

I think the Judge's Ruling has to be suspended. MOO

 

[song22]

I think in a sense, I do defend MR some here. I'm always defending people that are being attacked/bullied, must be the liberal in me. I think in the true sense of WS, he is a victim until named a POI/suspect or arrested, so if/when that day comes I will continue to view MR as a victim and a father of a missing child. JMO

So, I'm really curious about this. And I earnestly want to understand better where you are coming from--no snark at all in my reply.

Is it always an attack or bullying to suspect a person of a crime? My question may seem a bit hyperbolic--but when is it not an attack or bullying? Is it only when there is a certain threshold for "harder" evidence? And how do you make the determination?

If I'm hearing you right, you seem to be saying that it is very important to you to avoid any possibility of falsely accusing someone--and that this is of such importance that there should be a very high threshold for making such an accusation. Is this true for you in other cases as well? And then, what do you sleuth? I think it's possible to sleuth other things, but I'm just curious for you what is meaningful or useful for you.

I do want to say in my defense, respectfully (and I do mean respectfully- sometimes people say that in a snarky way!) that I don't believe I am attacking or bullying anyone. I am also a liberal. I just have through my own very thoughtful consideration come to a different standard. I don't always think that even-handedness in the pursuit of "fairness" is always just. Of course, you wouldn't either--I'm not trying to mis-state your position--But I'm truly interested in when you decide to make a judgment.

 

[The Cheese]

Mark’s and Dylan’s interactions and activities within the community on November 18th and 19th, as well as tips related to persons, locations and sightings remain under investigation.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Dylan Redwine *Media , Maps & Timelines*

BBM

Mark's behaviors, activities from the 18th and 19th are under investigation.

The latest press release says nothing about "cooperation".

Does anyone recall the last time time LE has said Mark is "cooperating"? I know we had this discussion awhile back.

JMO

BBM - I keep seeing this posted again and again, as if it has some significance. I've scrolled on by in hopes that one of those posting would sort of quantify it, give it substance, but no one has.

So finally, I have to ask, because it's the only way to know if it has significance, and what that significance may be - how many press releases have there been? Of those press releases, how many contained a statement regarding Mark's cooperation? All of them except this one? Most of them except this one? Half of them? Just a few of them?

Thanks.

 

[Money Girl]

Money Girl, TY for the link! From this link, we don't know that MR hired a criminal defense attorney, only contacted.

12/02/12 -

Snip - And he is trying to deal with the added weight of knowing that some people think he had something to do with his son's disappearance because he was the last one to see him. He has contacted a criminal-defense attorney to help him with that. And he said he is helping in the search in any way he can.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22108222/dad-its-wait-wonder

The following article that was previously mentioned on this site states "hired."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...g-two-weeks/UPI-85631354470782/#ixzz2Grx9a6pg

Of course, I don't personally know, as I do not know any members of the family.

 

[deoneta]

I'm with you somewhat. I believe MR is ' probably ' guilty. But probably doesn't cut it. He can't be proven guilty on what we know. Probably doesn't find the missing baby!!!! If they took this case right now, with what we know, to trial, no way could 12 level headed folks think guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is NO WAY. I'd hate to be on that jury if so. MR is his own worst enemy. If he is 100% innocent, then I feel pretty bad for him because he 's a weird, irrational, illogical fellow. I can see why his marriages fail and why his kids aren't too shiny on him. But none of that makes him a murderer.

Question to everyone... if we were to find out today MR is ' responsible' for Dylan's disappearance, would you rather find out it was a horrible accident and that MR used poor judgment after the fact than he outright killed his baby ? I sure would. I keep hoping if he's the one that knows for sure, that something horribly weird happened and it was not intentional/anger/physical but something more like ' i should call 911 but im afraid to ' .

I am suspicious of MR because of his statements and his behavior and because Dylan disappeared from his home. With only what is known publicly, I don't think there is enough evidence to bring MR to trial.

IF MR is responsible, I think it's possible MR tried to "discipline" Dylan and went too far. Nothing accidental about that. Unintended maybe, but not accidental, especially with a cover up following. I've read about parents who say their child fell sick and died unexpectedly or fell down the stairs, and those parents say they panicked and buried the child in the back yard because they felt they wouldn't be believed or because they didn't have money for a funeral. I've never believed those stories for a minute. Innocent parents call 911. All MOO

 

[Money Girl]

BBM - I keep seeing this posted again and again, as if it has some significance. I've scrolled on by in hopes that one of those posting would sort of quantify it, give it substance, but no one has.

So finally, I have to ask, because it's the only way to know if it has significance, and what that significance may be - how many press releases have there been? Of those press releases, how many contained a statement regarding Mark's cooperation? All of them except this one? Most of them except this one? Half of them? Just a few of them?

Thanks.

You might want to google the press releases.

Has anyone asked questions of D. Bender or LE concerning the last press release? It sure generated a lot of questions. If anyone has received any answers about the press release from LE, it would be great if you could share them with the rest of us.

 

[*Lash*]

The following article that was previously mentioned on this site states "hired."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012...g-two-weeks/UPI-85631354470782/#ixzz2Grx9a6pg

Of course, I don't personally know, as I do not know any members of the family.

Interesting, I wonder which MSM outfit is factual. Geez, sometimes these people in MSM really frustrate me.

Snip - VALLECITO, Colo., Dec. 2 (UPI) -- A Colorado man whose son has been missing for two weeks says he has hired an attorney, and that he suspects his son was hitchhiking when he disappeared.

http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-85631354470782/

 

[Money Girl]

Interesting, I wonder which MSM outfit is factual. Geez, sometimes these people in MSM really frustrate me.

Snip - VALLECITO, Colo., Dec. 2 (UPI) -- A Colorado man whose son has been missing for two weeks says he has hired an attorney, and that he suspects his son was hitchhiking when he disappeared.

http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-85631354470782/

It would be nice if we had a verified insider from MR's family; maybe we could get some answers to our many questions.

 

[The Cheese]

You might want to google the press releases.

Has anyone asked questions of D. Bender or LE concerning the last press release? It sure generated a lot of questions. If anyone has received any answers about the press release from LE, it would be great if you could share them with the rest of us.

BBM

No, I definitely don't want to google the press releases lol. I'm not one of the ones who indicated there was any significance to this press release not saying anything about Mark cooperating.

My understanding of how it works here is that whoever asserts something has to back it up. Not other people. If I'm wrong, I'm sure a mod will correct me.

 

[azgrandma]

BBM

No. Dylan’s custody hearing was held on September 21, 2012 and afaik the judge ruled on primary parenting, visitations, and child support so only one hearing was required.

However, for the Judge's ruling to take effect a child must be present so MO is the Judge’s ruling on custody does not apply when a child is missing and Mark is not paying child support for Dylan.

When a child is missing, the law is broken and it has no power.

I think the Judge's Ruling has to be suspended. MOO

I'm confused, why would the law have no power when a child is missing? Wouldn't that be the time that the law has the most power? MOO is that if the a child is missing that is the time that a custody order would have the most importance or do I need another cup of coffee (lol). Interesting thoughts though.

 

[aust amateur slueth]

BBM

No. Dylan’s custody hearing was held on September 21, 2012 and afaik the judge ruled on primary parenting, visitations, and child support so only one hearing was required.

However, for the Judge's ruling to take effect a child must be present so MO is the Judge’s ruling on custody does not apply when a child is missing and Mark is not paying child support for Dylan.

When a child is missing, the law is broken and it has no power.

I think the Judge's Ruling has to be suspended. MOO

I have to respectfully disagree. The judges ruling stands unless there are any new lodgements made and the court saw fit to change things, IMO a change probably wouldn't be granted in this situation unless there was some drastic new evidence that warranted a change.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

BBM

No. Dylan’s custody hearing was held on September 21, 2012 and afaik the judge ruled on primary parenting, visitations, and child support so only one hearing was required.

However, for the Judge's ruling to take effect a child must be present so MO is the Judge’s ruling on custody does not apply when a child is missing and Mark is not paying child support for Dylan.

When a child is missing, the law is broken and it has no power.

I think the Judge's Ruling has to be suspended. MOO

Do you have information that Mark is not paying child support for Dylan currently? This is something I've wondered about.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I'm confused, why would the law have no power when a child is missing? Wouldn't that be the time that the law has the most power? MOO is that if the a child is missing that is the time that a custody order would have the most importance or do I need another cup of coffee (lol). Interesting thoughts though.

Yes, I thought you (and others) did a good job of explaining why things like custody, child support would remain unaffected unless there was something filed to change it. There is no evidence that anyone has attempted to do so in this case.

 

[SCHMAE]

You know I hear this said a lot and I kind of agree, but also disagree. My guess from just reading your posts here is that you are a thoughtful, self-reflective person and I just bet comparing yourself and the small mistake that you remember making sometime in your life and MR's behavior probably just doesn't compare. Just the fact that you have this much empathy, to me, implies a different way of being in the world than what I have seen evidenced by MR.

It is often said that you can't judge what you would do or what other parents do in these extreme situations. I agree to an extent--but I don't think that means that we can't take notice of things that are odd and I don't think it means that on a crime-sleuthing forum we can't ever assess those reactions and have those inform our opinion.

I was following a case where a mother of an abducted child, later found murdered, was out partying, shopping, doing shots, giggling on camera, etc etc. I do not think she was involved in her daughter's murder at all. She had been a meth ad dict and remained a meth addict. But I can certainly judge that behavior as wrong. It was not appropriate behavior and I know I would never act that way or any where near that way. A person can make those judgments, IMO. And it did make me suspicious of her for sure. That is the consequence of her choices. If you act weird, people will consider that in their judgments.

Many of us feel that MR is behaving strangely and that is our opinion.

You (general) can get into endless philosophical debates about there being no one truth or many truths (I know Derrida and the post-modern skepticism of truth) but even in light of those questions about absolute truth, we all still just do our best to come to some kind of approximation of truth with the information we have. I think that even in extreme situations there are still "wrong" ways to behave. Those behaviors could be explained by other things beside guilt (drug use, mental illness, non-adaptive behavior, trauma etc). some things are easily forgiven--others less so. JMO I do not think it is immoral or unethical to assess the reactions of parents when their child goes missing. JMO

I agree with all of this post ! ( except I may not be as reflective as i appear lol) I DO think MR's behavior is odd. I think he's a weird, even creepy , fellow . I just don't know that weird and creepy equate to guilty. I also wanted to clear up that in my own story of last year my OVERALL reactions I do not regret. I think I 'handled' it the best way I could. I am just regretful of some of the statements / language I made during that time. But my actual actions I'd do again if I had to. So when MR makes a statement like '' it was the trip of a lifetime and no one can take that away "" ( i personally find this very odd language and have tried to figure out what he means by it ) I just wonder if he's just rambling or wishes he had phrased it in a different way. Does it mean anything if dissected or is it just babble?
I appreciate your post !

 

[Money Girl]

BBM

No, I definitely don't want to google the press releases lol. I'm not one of the ones who indicated there was any significance to this press release not saying anything about Mark cooperating.

My understanding of how it works here is that whoever asserts something has to back it up. Not other people. If I'm wrong, I'm sure a mod will correct me.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your posting. I thought you wanted exact counts and data from press releases.

sorry.

 

[azgrandma]

:seeya:

Me again!


Now, grab a cup of coffee, Klingon Raktajino, or whatever you prefer, and continue on. Most of all, be kind and gracious.

:tyou:

snipped by me, Kimster as an O/T I think I need several cups of coffee, I thought your avatar was a blow dryer at first. :floorlaugh:

 

[Emma Ems]

I thought someone in previous threads said Mark was an OTR truck driver, my bad. Regardless if Mark is out of town a lot(only in town one or a few days out of the month) then it would seem logical, to me, that if he needed to meet with an attorney for something he would do it while he was in town.

Blue Sky, I was referring to the day Dylan went missing, not the after Dylan went missing. This was in regards to the attorney appointment Mark had the day of Dylan's disappearance. I am only inferring that if the last court issues they were having were over custody issues, then wouldn't it be logical to think the lawyer meeting could be something in reference to custody. My question was pretty much an in general, is it possible that when he met with the lawyer that day that Mark was still "fighting" about custody issues or planning to contest something in regards to the last custody hearing?

 

[Tennlyn]

I think in a sense, I do defend MR some here. I'm always defending people that are being attacked/bullied, must be the liberal in me. I think in the true sense of WS, he is a victim until named a POI/suspect or arrested, so if/when that day comes I will continue to view MR as a victim and a father of a missing child. JMO

I guess I'm a complete bully then. Casey Anthony was acquitted by a jury and I'm still convinced she's guilty as sin, and anything but a victim. :moo:

I'm here to investigate information and decide who I think might be involved. Yep, I want to play detective. As long as LE appears to be investigating and suspicious of MR, I will be too! :moo::moo::moo:

 

[The Cheese]

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your posting. I thought you wanted exact counts and data from press releases.

sorry.

If there's another way people can back up their assertion, I would certainly accept it. It was the only way I've been able to think of.

 

[song22]

If there's another way people can back up their assertion, I would certainly accept it. It was the only way I've been able to think of.

But wasn't the assertion just that in the last press release it was not stated that MR is cooperating? She linked that.

If you went back through to count how many press releases there were in total and how many stated MR is cooperating, that would not be relevant to her assertion I don't think. She just found it significant that such a statement was omitted from the last release, I believe. I could be wrong. I happen to think it's significant, but it's just an opinion.

I think that was the assertion followed by a link? JMO