Sunday, 6/9/2013 Radio Show

[TxJan1971]

QUOTE]

<Snipped for brevity>

Media Timeline Thread has the first three sections transcribed if that will make your life easier.

(Last pages) - Section 1, 2 and 3)

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191821"]Dylan Redwine *Media , Maps & Timelines* - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[TxJan1971]

Both parties took a polygraph early on in the investigation, Shupe said, but authorities cannot release results.

http://durangoherald.com/article/201...no-new-leads--

 

[Lordeebee]

Wow... too much to catch up on, especially since I haven't had a chance to listen to the show yet - although it's downloaded and I'm waiting till my girls are all sleeping before listening to it.

Have there been any major developments that MR talked about in the interview with Tricia yesterday? Any major shifts in opinions after this interview from anyone here on the thread, or is everyone still comfy where they've been opinion-wise up until now?
Anyone falling off their fences at all? :fence:

(Sorry I don't really have much to add right now. I'm frustrated because I want to hear the interview, and can't find my headphones... my daughters hate hearing MR talk, and hearing Dylan is still gone does make them sad, so I'm patiently waiting for their movie to be over right now. :waiting: )

I think I'll listen to the show before trying to engage in discussion on the thread, or even reading other's thoughts - just so I don't have a harder time listening to what MR said without looking or listening for things others have pointed out already here...

you can go to the Media Thread where TxJan has just transcribed a good portion of the radio show!

 

[azgrandma]

Please bring me up to speed to avoid wasting time. I transcribed the radio show but have to go back, relisten and make edits and make sure I have everything accurate.

Question 1: Has anybody already transcribed it? Do you all still want a full transcript?

Question 2: I am working on it as we speak and hope to have it completed soon but it is a slow process to make sure it is accurate, so my 2nd question is:

Do you want me to post it in here in pieces/sections (as I complete each section), or do you just want to wait until the entire transcript is available and I'll post that in the media/timeline and let everyone know? Your choice.

Please advise so I know if and how to proceed from this point forward.
Thanks to all.

You are amazing to say the least, I don't know if anyone responded, but I would very much appreciate anything you have to share. I'm always in awe by your skills and speed. Thank you!

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Incorrect. LE would NOT tell a person that they failed the poly if in fact they could not determine a baseline. Read the guidelines on polys which is available on the site for American Polygraph Association, they would have told him that he was disqualified. Disqualified is way different than failed. They would never say that a person that wasn't examined failed the poly. It's not a big conspiracy theory here, you take the test or you don't. If you take the test, you either pass or fail.

So, inconclusive is not a possible outcome according to you?

 

[TxJan1971]

you are amazing to say the least, i don't know if anyone responded, but i would very much appreciate anything you have to share. I'm always in awe by your skills and speed. Thank you!

Yes - folks were kind enough and helped me out so the first three sections are available in the media timeline thread - last pages.

Do you need the link?

:hug:

 

[Emma Ems]

Incorrect. LE would NOT tell a person that they failed the poly if in fact they could not determine a baseline. Read the guidelines on polys which is available on the site for American Polygraph Association, they would have told him that he was disqualified. Disqualified is way different than failed. They would never say that a person that wasn't examined failed the poly. It's not a big conspiracy theory here, you take the test or you don't. If you take the test, you either pass or fail.

So what is an inconclusive? I seem to recall that on every site. Also whatever was ER talking about being a good candidate to take the test? Does LE have to abide by those guidelines or is it the examiner themselves. I recall many discussions where LE does not have to be truthful about a person's polygraph results, especially during an interrogation.

If an innocent suspect fails the polygraph exam, police will use the results to persuade him or her that they must be guilty. In some cases, police will tell the suspect that they failed the exam even when they didn’t in an attempt to obtain a confession.

http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/02/23/the-polygraph-and-false-confessions/

And corruption exists in LE on regarding the use of Polygraphs, where they often fail to abide by standards.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...raph-unit-chicago-police-police-polygraphists

 

[katydid23]

Yes, that is probably what happened. Mark really passed the test, but the corrupt LE lied and told him he failed miserably.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Yes, that is probably what happened. Mark really passed the test, but the corrupt LE lied and told him he failed miserably.

I'm not willing to say LPCSO is corrupt. But misleading someone they are interviewing is a well-known law enforcement tactic that often works with the guilty.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not willing to say LPCSO is corrupt. But misleading someone they are interviewing is a well-known law enforcement tactic that often works with the guilty.

If he had passed that test with flying colors, then LE would have no reason to 'mislead' him and say he failed miserably. The reason they use that 'tool' is to help themselves decide if the person has involvement of some kind. If he had passed successfully, they would have probably moved on to other suspects, imo.

 

[Emma Ems]

So, inconclusive is not a possible outcome according to you?

http://patc.com/weeklyarticles/polygraph.shtml

 

[Bayou Mistress]

If he had passed that test with flying colors, then LE would have no reason to 'mislead' him and say he failed miserably. The reason they use that 'tool' is to help themselves decide if the person has involvement of some kind. If he had passed successfully, they would have probably moved on to other suspects, imo.

Interesting rationale, but flawed, imo. Police can and do lie to get a person to confess. Dylan was at his father's house. No one else was there to our knowledge. I expect LE would be looking really hard at MR and attempting to get any information in any way they could. No way would LE "move on". They haven't "moved on" from anyone. No one is cleared, polygraph result or not.

 

[katydid23]

Interesting rationale, but flawed, imo. Police can and do lie to get a person to confess. Dylan was at his father's house. No one else was there to our knowledge. I expect LE would be looking really hard at MR and attempting to get any information in any way they could. No way would LE "move on". They haven't "moved on" from anyone. No one is cleared, polygraph result or not.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that no one has been cleared. I strongly believe that Elaine and Cory have been cleared. Le has indeed moved on from them. I am not sure why you think they would be suspects at this point.

ETA: But I DO agree with this part of your post:

Dylan was at his father's house. No one else was there to our knowledge. I expect LE would be looking really hard at MR and attempting to get any information in any way they could. No way would LE "move on"

 

[azgrandma]

MR said he didn't look for Dylan's backpack, but he looked for the fishing pole, because he "was more concerned about Dylan, and trying to figure out where he might have been".

BS. Dylan brought a backpack with him when he came to visit. If anything, checking to see if Dylan's backpack was still in the house would have given him more information than looking for a stupid fishing pole.

MR brought up the fishing pole from the very beginning. IMO, he used the fishing pole to try to steer the investigation. When that didn't work, he decided to criticize LE for not searching at the reservoir/dam right away.

Now, he's saying that he doesn't believe that Dylan is in the area, and is speculating that Dylan may be in Mexico, Germany, or Australia.

This speculation about Dylan being in another country is not at all logical, and I feel is MR's attempt to criticize LE for not looking for Dylan in these far-fetched places.

He claims that he wants the focus to be on finding Dylan, yet it seems that MR's energy is spent on attempting to deflect the focus away from himself: IOW, don't look at me! Look in Mexico! Look in Germany! Look in Australia!

Dylan is not in a foreign country. MR knows this. He needs to stop making such ridiculous statements, as it only makes him look like a fool, IMO.

Without a doubt, LE has followed all of his recent interviews, and have taken note of everything he's said.

BBM- there is no possible way IMO that a person can get a 14 y/o boy out of the country without being noticed, maybe Mexico, but come on Germany? Dylan does know how to speak for crying out loud, a drugged Dylan would be a dead give away. What is he thinking??? MOO

For crying out loud - MR "embraces" being at the top of LE's list.

This has got to be THE most ridiculous & disturbing thing I've EVER heard a parent of a missing child state.

NO ONE "embraces" being at the top of LE's list. It's not a badge of honor. It's not something to strive for. It's certainly not something to be proud of.

Yet, MR "embraces" it.

BBM - me too, who embraces being a suspect?

Yet, he says:



Wonder if he this agreement was with the LEO in the room??? Interesting that he hasn't been doing the once of week meeting or phone call as he has said previously he was doing that.

BBM - I wondered that as well, wasn't it MR that first mentioned the weekly "communications" with LE, it could have been EH, but IMO either way, if my child was missing I wouldn't wait 7 mths to start having a weekly call. MOO

Quote:
"One of the agreements we had in this Conflict Resolution Meeting to communicate once a week. So I made it...marked it on my calender that l day every week I am going to touch base with LE."



Amazing to me that he wasn't already contacting them. I'd be camped on their doorstep if my son was missing. And I wouldn't be criticizing them publicly every chance I got, either.

BBM - If my child were missing, I don't think I'd have to "mark it on the calendar" to contact LE for an update, I think that I'd be calling them so much that they would know what time it was by the phone ring. MOO

Did we already hear that Mark went to T's house twice?

Did he really go to T's house twice, or was this just damage control on his earlier statements (went to T's house and talked to T, and then went to T's house and no one was home)?

If he went to T's house twice, then why didn't he say this on the Dr. Phil show when AZGrandma called him on the two different versions?

During the show, he kept interrupting me, when I was finally able to ask the question and then he answered. I asked him how can it be that he went to T's house and talked to him, then the next version was that he went to T's house and nobody was there, how do you talk to someone that isn't there. THAT was when he said that he went to T's house and nobody was there, then he went to T's house after he reported Dylan missing. Version 3. Great job IMO of combining the two previous versions.

Oh, I don't know -- I've seen an awful lot of questioning (unwarranted, IMO) about who is helping with the official page. And on that one we at least know who the admin is, so the questions about FDF seem reasonable. IMO.

Considering who the admin of FDF is, questions about that page do seem reasonable IMO.

I don't recall Mark mentioning the planning of a search. I do recall Elaine mentioning a search, a massive search she termed it. It does not appear to be coordinated by either parent, but by the Dylan Redwine Taskforce (law enforcement).

He mentioned a search in mid June, EH also mentioned a search in mid June. My first impression was that they were talking about the same search. It does seem to be a LE search that they both were aware of. MOO.

Who is the administrator of the official page?

Katt Hawkins, while she is undergoing chemo, on days that she is not able to, she has people that assist her. Wonderful lady.

Dylan could very well be in a foreign country. Or anywherre in the U.S.

Please don't suggest that others should not look for Dylan across the U.S. and the world.

BBM - How? How would a person get a 14 y/o out of the country without anyone noticing??!! Unless they had some wild scheme to have him heavily sedated, long enough for a multi hour flight, Dylan does know how to speak, scream, shout, etc. If Dylan were taken out of the country by unknown kidnappers, or known kidnappers, he still has to go through airport security. The only option would be going through MX, in which, if you've ever been down there, it's hit & miss on whether or not your vehicle is searched. Federal PO in MX and also unsavory people in MX stop cars even after the border & search. So I find another country very unlikely. MOO.

I certainly understand every comment. Sounds exactly what you have to do to get boys Dylan's age awake when they have a day off...regardless of what they said the night before.

I can see shaking a child's shoulder to wake them, talking to them, etc trying to wake them up, but for crying out loud, how many versions do we get? I can't wait until the next interview for version #1478 of how he tried to wake Dylan and he did/didn't answer him. MOO.

Did Dylan bring his passport to Mark's?

Probably not, Durango doesn't require them. :floorlaugh:

I have no idea. If international kidnappers are involved, a passport for Dylan would be no trouble to get.

True, a passport would not be difficult to get, IMO a 14 y/o unwilling traveler would be another story. Might raise an eyebrow or two. MOO.

Does Dylan even have a passport?

If you think one can't be gotten illegally, you are mistaken.

Oops, I quoted you and MG, but please see my comment above for MG, still MOO.

Dylan being 14 makes it far less likely he was removed from the country, IMO. Would he be muzzled? Have a gag in his mouth? He is not a five-year old who could be convinced Mommy does not want him anymore, or that they will hurt his puppy if he does not cooperate and fly to Thailand with them.

Absolutely agree, IMO there is NO possible way to get a teenager that has been kidnapped through customs without someone noticing something.

If the guy comes on the show, he is guilty.

If the guy doesn't come on the show, he is guilty.

It's really kind of humorous. Confirmation something or other.

I think the phrase is confirmation bias, it works both way MOO. If the guy comes on the show, he's a hero, if he doesn't come on the show, why would he subject himself to the wrath of an angry ex, it is pretty humorous when it's realized that it can go both ways huh? MOO.

I recall MR talking about following the Dylan threads on WS. Maybe he could just join up here and contribute/answer questions/etc.?

I wish he would, I feel kind of exposed.

So, inconclusive is not a possible outcome according to you?

I didn't say anything in regards to inconclusive and that wasn't the quote that I was responding to.

 

[Emma Ems]

I don't understand why you keep insisting that no one has been cleared. I strongly believe that Elaine and Cory have been cleared. Le has indeed moved on from them. I am not sure why you think they would be suspects at this point.

ETA: But I DO agree with this part of your post:

Dylan was at his father's house. No one else was there to our knowledge. I expect LE would be looking really hard at MR and attempting to get any information in any way they could. No way would LE "move on"

I personally think that no one can be totally cleared until the case is entirely closed. They may move on from someone and onto another for a time, but then they may go back. It's probably because of thinking, in the past, that people had rock solid alibis so they couldn't have possibly committed the crime, only to find out the person who dunnit had someone punch their time card in for them, or someone lied for them, or any other various ways people have had alibis check out to later have them fall through, KWIM?

 

[Emma Ems]

BBM- there is no possible way IMO that a person can get a 14 y/o boy out of the country without being noticed, maybe Mexico, but come on Germany? Dylan does know how to speak for crying out loud, a drugged Dylan would be a dead give away. What is he thinking??? MOO


BBM - me too, who embraces being a suspect?


BBM - I wondered that as well, wasn't it MR that first mentioned the weekly "communications" with LE, it could have been EH, but IMO either way, if my child was missing I wouldn't wait 7 mths to start having a weekly call. MOO


BBM - If my child were missing, I don't think I'd have to "mark it on the calendar" to contact LE for an update, I think that I'd be calling them so much that they would know what time it was by the phone ring. MOO


During the show, he kept interrupting me, when I was finally able to ask the question and then he answered. I asked him how can it be that he went to T's house and talked to him, then the next version was that he went to T's house and nobody was there, how do you talk to someone that isn't there. THAT was when he said that he went to T's house and nobody was there, then he went to T's house after he reported Dylan missing. Version 3. Great job IMO of combining the two previous versions.


Considering who the admin of FDF is, questions about that page do seem reasonable IMO.


He mentioned a search in mid June, EH also mentioned a search in mid June. My first impression was that they were talking about the same search. It does seem to be a LE search that they both were aware of. MOO.


Katt Hawkins, while she is undergoing chemo, on days that she is not able to, she has people that assist her. Wonderful lady.


BBM - How? How would a person get a 14 y/o out of the country without anyone noticing??!! Unless they had some wild scheme to have him heavily sedated, long enough for a multi hour flight, Dylan does know how to speak, scream, shout, etc. If Dylan were taken out of the country by unknown kidnappers, or known kidnappers, he still has to go through airport security. The only option would be going through MX, in which, if you've ever been down there, it's hit & miss on whether or not your vehicle is searched. Federal PO in MX and also unsavory people in MX stop cars even after the border & search. So I find another country very unlikely. MOO.


I can see shaking a child's shoulder to wake them, talking to them, etc trying to wake them up, but for crying out loud, how many versions do we get? I can't wait until the next interview for version #1478 of how he tried to wake Dylan and he did/didn't answer him. MOO.


Probably not, Durango doesn't require them. :floorlaugh:


True, a passport would not be difficult to get, IMO a 14 y/o unwilling traveler would be another story. Might raise an eyebrow or two. MOO.



Oops, I quoted you and MG, but please see my comment above for MG, still MOO.


Absolutely agree, IMO there is NO possible way to get a teenager that has been kidnapped through customs without someone noticing something.


I think the phrase is confirmation bias, it works both way MOO. If the guy comes on the show, he's a hero, if he doesn't come on the show, why would he subject himself to the wrath of an angry ex, it is pretty humorous when it's realized that it can go both ways huh? MOO.


I wish he would, I feel kind of exposed.


I didn't say anything in regards to inconclusive and that wasn't the quote that I was responding to.

Holy Schmoly! That's killing a bunch of birds with one stone. You're rocking that multi-quoting.

 

[azgrandma]

I'm not willing to say LPCSO is corrupt. But misleading someone they are interviewing is a well-known law enforcement tactic that often works with the guilty.

LE is allowed by law to lie to suspects, not sure where you would even come up with corrupt, kind of odd IMO to start the sentence with the BBM when it has nothing IMO to do with the second part of the comment. I do agree with the second part of the comment.

 

[katydid23]

AZGrandmother:

During the show, he kept interrupting me, when I was finally able to ask the question and then he answered. I asked him how can it be that he went to T's house and talked to him, then the next version was that he went to T's house and nobody was there, how do you talk to someone that isn't there. THAT was when he said that he went to T's house and nobody was there, then he went to T's house after he reported Dylan missing. Version 3. Great job IMO of combining the two previous versions.

But his new combined version CONFLICTS with his original, because initially he said that he talked to T, who said he hadnt heard from D, SO THEN HE WAS ALARMED, and went to Bayfield.

So this new combined version does not work with that initial version.

 

[katydid23]

I personally think that no one can be totally cleared until the case is entirely closed. They may move on from someone and onto another for a time, but then they may go back. It's probably because of thinking, in the past, that people had rock solid alibis so they couldn't have possibly committed the crime, only to find out the person who dunnit had someone punch their time card in for them, or someone lied for them, or any other various ways people have had alibis check out to later have them fall through, KWIM?

I think there are some people who are at the very BOTTOM of their suspect list. I think ER and CR are down there. Others are at the tippy top. I think Mark shares with tippy-top with unknown roving RSO's for now. JMO

 

[azgrandma]

Holy Schmoly! That's killing a bunch of birds with one stone. You're rocking that multi-quoting.

lol, I had about 7-8 pages to catch up on, it was easier to multi quote than to quote one at a time & try to find my place again.