Sunday, 6/9/2013 Radio Show

[Bayou Mistress]

Hope for Dylan has a board of directors...decisions are not made unilaterally and funds are not controlled individually. Any good nonprofit should work that way so that finances are transparent and above board. If Mark were, say, uncomfortable with this arrangement then I would assume his goal isn't really about funding searches for Dylan. IMO.

I was thinking more about them even talking about linking up the two websites. There is hostility between Dylan's parents. And hey, you got me thinking, maybe they could add a member or two of Mark's family to the board of directors as a good will gesture.

 

[Tennlyn]

I was thinking more about them even talking about linking up the two websites. There is hostility between Dylan's parents. And hey, you got me thinking, maybe they could add a member or two of Mark's family to the board of directors as a good will gesture.

Isn't his son Cory already on the Board? I could be wrong...my memory isn't what it used to be. :moo:

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Isn't his son Cory already on the Board? I could be wrong...my memory isn't what it used to be. :moo:

Wow. I guess I should have been clear. Family that are not hostile to Mark.

 

[Salem]

We are not doing facebook or other web pages related to Dylans case in our threads.

There has been enough of the game playing behind the scenes. Websleuths is not a forum for perpetuating these activities.

The competition over the parents and the various websites is distracting and derailing. Consequently, it is no longer allowed in Dylan's case.

Hope that helps,

Salem

 

[Tricia]

There is no need for any sort of "stats tracker" for any website when discussing Dylan's case.

It doesn't matter !!!!

Remember no more Facebook discussion.

Can everyone please stick to the facts of the case?

Thank you.

Tricia

 

[Bayou Mistress]

We are not doing facebook or other web pages related to Dylans case in our threads.

There has been enough of the game playing behind the scenes. Websleuths is not a forum for perpetuating these activities.

The competition over the parents and the various websites is distracting and derailing. Consequently, it is no longer allowed in Dylan's case.

Hope that helps,

Salem

I mean no disrespect to you, however, does that mean discussions about what Mark and Elaine do to look for their missing son is off the table too?

 

[Salem]

If the posting is in general terms and is a discussion, like "MR said he was posting flyers at XY intersection on Tuesday" - it would be allowed.

If the posting is in specific terms and it has a lot of "MR did this" with responses like "ER did that 4 months ago" (or vice versa) and it goes back and forth and back and forth and back and forth - it will be removed.

Discussion about info from MSM, LE reports and the radio shows is allowed. Provide links when asked and be respectful to each other. This isn't about taking sides. It is about exploring information to FIND DYLAN.

This is about Dylan. The discussion should focus on Dylan.

Where is Dylan?

Salem

 

[Emma Ems]

We are not doing facebook or other web pages related to Dylans case in our threads.

There has been enough of the game playing behind the scenes. Websleuths is not a forum for perpetuating these activities.

The competition over the parents and the various websites is distracting and derailing. Consequently, it is no longer allowed in Dylan's case.

Hope that helps,

Salem

I too am very confused, but this is why:

I have read over and over and over again people citing Mark's lack of effort as an indicator of his guilt. Now, when Mark is stepping up, I feel like we are not allowed to discuss his efforts. I just really don't understand. I don't view it as a competition, but again, people say this is what proves he is guilty, that he isn't doing anything. All the things MR is doing now, publicly, seem to refute this line of reasoning.

 

[Emma Ems]

If the posting is in general terms and is a discussion, like "MR said he was posting flyers at XY intersection on Tuesday" - it would be allowed.

If the posting is in specific terms and it has a lot of "MR did this" with responses like "ER did that 4 months ago" (or vice versa) and it goes back and forth and back and forth and back and forth - it will be removed.

Discussion about info from MSM, LE reports and the radio shows is allowed. Provide links when asked and be respectful to each other. This isn't about taking sides. It is about exploring information to FIND DYLAN.

This is about Dylan. The discussion should focus on Dylan.

Where is Dylan?

Salem

BBM. Ok this makes more sense to me. I would hope no one would post like that. I do have one more question, if we speak in general(do not say where-since MR stated where he would keep people up to date on what he is doing and it's not allowed to be linked) about what he says he is doing and someone asks us for a link knowing we can't provide that since it's general, what should we do? Ignore or alert?

 

[Salem]

BBM. Ok this makes more sense to me. I would hope no one would post like that. I do have one more question, if we speak in general(do not say where-since MR stated where he would keep people up to date on what he is doing and it's not allowed to be linked) about what he says he is doing and someone asks us for a link knowing we can't provide that since it's general, what should we do? Ignore or alert?

Websleuths relies on MSM and/or LE information. In this case, the radio shows also are linkable and discussable. If the information doesn't come from one of these sources, it is considered rumor and is not discussable. If and when MR says something to the media or goes back on the radio show to discuss his efforts, they can be discussed here. Information posted on websites cannot be discussed here.

We will just have to wait for MR to let others know about his efforts.

Salem

 

[Emma Ems]

Websleuths relies on MSM and/or LE information. In this case, the radio shows also are linkable and discussable. If the information doesn't come from one of these sources, it is considered rumor and is not discussable. If and when MR says something to the media or goes back on the radio show to discuss his efforts, they can be discussed here. Information posted on websites cannot be discussed here.

We will just have to wait for MR to let others know about his efforts.

Salem

...and hope they report about them.

 

[Redhead72]

There is no need for any sort of "stats tracker" for any website when discussing Dylan's case.

It doesn't matter !!!!

Remember no more Facebook discussion.

Can everyone please stick to the facts of the case?

Thank you.

Tricia

Sorry Tricia... I agree that it doesn't matter one bit.
(I'm guessing this post was made in reference to the question I asked.)

I think I'll take another break from posting as it's getting way too hard to figure out what is allowed, and isn't allowed to be discussed - especially if someone misses a day or two on the threads...

ETA: I'm really confused about people talking about playing games and the Facebook/websites stuff. I guess I'm way more out of the loop than I thought. I don't want to lose privileges on other threads so perhaps it's best that I bow out of these threads like a couple other people have today? Just didn't want to disappear without saying anything... Whatever is going on it's quite depressing. Dylan and his family will remain in my prayers, always...

 

[TxLady2]

BBM:I respect that people will have their own beliefs on whether or not LE would lie to Mark about his polygraph. What I am curious about, is why would LE lie to someone unless they thought that someone had information they were not telling or had something to do with the crime? If Mark actually did "fail miserably" and he had nothing to do with Dylan being missing, what reasons could there have been for him to fail, especially if he went in with a clear conscience thinking he'd pass with no problem? (Stressed, tired, feeling guilty about some part of the situation, angry about something?) But if LE lied and Mark really did answer conclusively that he had nothing to do with Dylan's disappearance (hereafter referred to by me as "passed"), why would they want him to think he did not unless they suspected him of something? Is there another reason why they would want Mark to think he did not pass when he did?

Sometimes there is intense pressure on LE to solve a case, and to find the missing person. They get pressured by their superiors, the DA and the public. So they put pressure on the last known person to have seen the missing person. Cops do have good instincts, basically, but sometimes they're wrong. I can name two cases where they targeted the father and ended up being wrong... Jessica Lundsford, for one, and Riley Fox, for another. I believe Riley's father was bullied into actually confessing and it was not until DNA proved that he was not the perpetrator that he was cleared. In Jessica's case, they tried to implicate the grandfather as well as the father. I don't have links but it is pretty common knowledge regarding those two cases.

So, yes, it's possible that they could have lied to him about failing the polygraph, just to put pressure on him. It may or may not be true, but since they have not confirmed the results to the public, I personally can't say one way or the other if they did or did not lie to him. Just saying that it is possible.

 

[azgrandma]

Just catching up, sounds like a lot of changes and it's so confusing to keep track of the rules, MOO.
I remember way back in December, I contacted several media stations in the four corners area, I was so very tired of hearing how Lindsey Lohan was arrested again and going to rehab again. It seemed to me that the news had changed from actually giving news to being a tabloid or Entertainment show. Sort of like TMZ. I had mentioned that it would be really nice if they featured, however brief, a missing child in their news rather than a drug addicted actor/actress/musician/athlete whatever.
I still wish to this day that every single day the local news would do a brief recap of a missing child from their state. MOO is that it would refresh memories, renew hope, keep the children in the public eye and possibly help locate someone's child. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[*Lash*]

I too am very confused, but this is why:

I have read over and over and over again people citing Mark's lack of effort as an indicator of his guilt. Now, when Mark is stepping up, I feel like we are not allowed to discuss his efforts. I just really don't understand. I don't view it as a competition, but again, people say this is what proves he is guilty, that he isn't doing anything. All the things MR is doing now, publicly, seem to refute this line of reasoning.

I think it is great Mark is stepping up. It shows action on his part. I agree some have considered Mark's lack of effort an indicator of guilt. However, I personally don't believe Mark's "lack of effort" is the only piece of info used in speculating Mark's guilt or innocence. In my opinion, most Websleuther's gather as much information as possible when forming their opinion. I believe opinions of innocence or guilt are formed by a compilation of information. I also have not seen anyone at WS state they can prove Mark is guilty, but rather certain actions or non actions of Mark appear suspicious or guilty.

 

[*Lash*]

BBM. You and I have differing opinions on this, unfortunately.

As far as DP. Who was that LDT for? It wasn't for LE. It wasn't for Dylan, imo. It was for ER, CR, the rest of the general population. I think his agreement to take it was made under duress. I can't speak to MR's feelings, but IMO even if he had passed it, it wouldn't have made a difference to any of the people who it would have been for. Obviously telling them all, "I don't know" ten million times is being ignored too.

BBM - If my goal was to put my son first and put the focus on him, I would take the LDT for my missing son. If I was innocent, I would do everything to take the focus off me so people would look in the right direction. In my opinion, the LDT was for Dylan.

Saying "I don't know" ten millions times doesn't make it true. The only proven fact in that statement would be that it has been said it 10,000,000 times.

 

[Dee10]

BBM - If my goal was to put my son first and put the focus on him, I would take the LDT for my missing son. If I was innocent, I would do everything to take the focus off me so people would look in the right direction. In my opinion, the LDT was for Dylan.

Saying "I don't know" ten millions times doesn't make it true. The only proven fact in that statement would be that it has been said it 10,000,000 times.

ITA & JMO even if you happened to fail a 2nd poly it is better than refusing to take a 2nd poly if asked. There would also be that small % that the poly was wrong. Who wouldn't take a poly when their child is missing, according to Jack T. no one he has ever interviewed. Refusing to take a 2nd has really is very near the top of my list why I am suspicious of MR.

ETA - It seems arrogant to just causally say "that ship as sailed".

 

[Lordeebee]

I would hate to build a house without a hammer!

Maybe one of the questions on the LDT was "do you know where Dylan is?"

 

[aust amateur slueth]

ITA & JMO even if you happened to fail a 2nd poly it is better than refusing to take a 2nd poly if asked. There would also be that small % that the poly was wrong. Who wouldn't take a poly when their child is missing, according to Jack T. no one he has ever interviewed. Refusing to take a 2nd has really is very near the top of my list why I am suspicious of MR.

ETA - It seems arrogant to just causally say "that ship as sailed".

it's arrogant but true, that ship has sailed. He had the opportunity to take a polygraph test 3 times on the Dr Phil show, that he made excuses rather than take the test isn't a good sign IMO. If he had taken one without hesitation and failed it still would have looked better than it does now.

IMO interviewers need to ask him blunt to the point questions that only require a simple yes or no answer.

 

[Dee10]

it's arrogant but true, that ship has sailed. He had the opportunity to take a polygraph test 3 times on the Dr Phil show, that he made excuses rather than take the test isn't a good sign IMO. If he had taken one without hesitation and failed it still would have looked better than it does now.

IMO interviewers need to ask him blunt to the point questions that only require a simple yes or no answer.

BBM - But it is the details that trip guilty people up in interviews.