CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #22

[rebeccaeee]

Is it a fact that Elaine drove drunk (w/or w/o the kids) or do we just have one statement from Mark claiming that? I don't recall seeing that info verified but I tend to miss a ton.

Statement from Mark on the protective order request on same day Elaine filed her request after the party on the lawn. Nothing else.

Sometimes I think I'm paying too much attention to this case, given that I can conjure up those details on a moment's notice. Would love to have the part of my brain back that is searching for Dylan. Would love to have him home in any sense of the word.

 

[aust amateur slueth]

Exactly. Which begs the question - Why are we allowed to accuse a father of killing his son when he is a bona fide victim unless or until LE says otherwise?

The explanation of why we are allowed to discuss it is at the front of each thread. to paraphrase it more and more we are finding that LE does not name a suspect or POI until an arrest is imminent.

MR is the last known person to have seen Dylan and Dylan was last seen or heard from on the sunday night, he was not reported missing until almost dark on the monday.

 

[nursebeeme]

If you're asking if she was every pulled over for drunk driving with the kids in the car? Not to my knowledge. To my knowledge it was charges/accusations made by MR. True or not?

they are accusations on both sides. I will shortly bump up our co owner's reminder about discussion on the family.

 

[absentia]

Discussed this previously. Seems that he may have misspoke about the ticket, menaing non stop, not one way. Discrepancy about non stop vs flight with stops. ER preferred non stop flights for Dylan so MR has made a big deal about this flight being like that. However, I do not think any of this has been proven with receipts or comments from LE or family.

I really wonder. saying "round trip" is a very different thing to say by accident than non-stop/one way. I can see him saying "DR came on a one way, no, I mean non-stop flight". But "round trip' is very different. Especially since DR came on a non-stop this time, too.
So MR says in Sept. DR came on a round trip flight. whether he meant non-stop or one way, it still appears to be different than how DR flew for Thanksgiving. So DR either had a connecting flight this time, or he only had a one-way ticket?
very confusing. but maybe meaningful.

 

[nursebeeme]

Folks, we have allowed the discussion of Dylan's father in this case because there are a lot of questions surrounding Dylan's disappearance and he was the last person known to see him prior to his disappeance.

We do not know what happened to Dylan or who is responsible. It is not a foregone conclusion that MR is responsible for the disappearance of his son.

We are web sleuths and as web sleuths, we'd like to see any and all possibilities as to what may have happened to Dylan discussed here. Any members chastising other members for putting forth alternative theories will be hit with hefty timeouts.

All reasonable theories and discussion of facts are welcome in this thread.

Please carry on and let's do what we do best.

Thank you.

please review the above


also: do not personalize posts and attack one another. If you have a problem with a post hit the alert button and do not respond.

 

[vasportsmom]

iirc there are court records that back up allegations of substance abuse and that can be discussed.

I understand that (though I'm not certain we do have records on ER). I worded that post wrong and I'm still struggling with the right wording. Something like:

Me: Mark had a history of drinking and anger issues. I think that could come into play.

Expected Response: Yes, but that was X years ago and since that time ...

Response that confuses me: Yes but Elaine did Y and that's worse.

Does that make any more sense? It is the act of throwing out Elaine's faults for the sole purpose of justifying Mark's that confuses me. They both may have failed Parenting 101 but Elaine being useless wouldn't change the fact that she had no access to Dylan Sunday/Monday. Idk I'm prob still going about this all wrong.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Wasn't Elaine ordered by a judge not to drive while intoxicated with the kids in the car? I sure would like to see that again because I'm going off my memory which isn't always the best. Well if that was what I saw, common sense tells me that if this woman did not drink at all the judge would not have ordered this he would have dropped the charges. So it's that which lead me to the conclusion that she drank also. Not that that's a sin... People do drink.

But the bottom line is do I think Elaine harmed Dylan? Absolutely not.
Do I think Mark may have? Absolutely

 

[azgrandma]

You are right! It may have nothing to do with Dylan. I would hope that he mellowed and got more fatherly as he aged. I have no clue if he did or not. I thought that in the MR/ER court proceedings, there many that were CS enforcement hearings. I do not know that for a fact and I do not know if we're even allowed to discuss it. But MR was the ' respondent' in most of those hearings, which means ER brought him to court , not vice versa. Several years after a divorce is final, one of the main reasons a woman petitions the court is to enforce CS. So that is speculation on my part. But given the history of MR and CS , I don't think it's beyond the possibility that its' the same scenario . IMHOJMOO

in Colorado and most states that I know of, the petitioner and respondent never change. It goes by the original filing, whomever filed for the divorce will always be the petitioner throughout the proceedings.

 

[Confusion]

Wasn't Elaine ordered by a judge not to drive while intoxicated with the kids in the car? I sure would like to see that again because I'm going off my memory which isn't always the best. Well if that was what I saw, common sense tells me that if this woman did not drink at all the judge would not have ordered this he would have dropped the charges. So it's that which lead me to the conclusion that she drank also. Not that that's a sin... People do drink.

<SNIP>

That depends on your interpretation too. Some of us read it as the judge saying that she wasn't allowed to drive with the kids in the car, and she wasn't allowed to drink around the kids; others understood it the way you did. It didn't make any sense that a judge would make a special order not to do something illegal and then dismiss it a few months later. Why would anyone need a court order saying not to drive with kids in the car when they had been drinking, when it's illegal to drive after drinking even if you're by yourself? MOO

 

[Darcyline]

I am sort of confused about the line between accusation and speculation too. Like, the mod post and individual posters say MR has not been accused of anything or shouldn't be, but then we have posts detailing how he dragged Dylan out of the truck and killed him. Is that not an accusation? Or if we put IMO or "this could have happened" that makes it just speculation and not accusation?

 

[mck16]

Wasn't Elaine ordered by a judge not to drive while intoxicated with the kids in the car? I sure would like to see that again because I'm going off my memory which isn't always the best. Well if that was what I saw, common sense tells me that if this woman did not drink at all the judge would not have ordered this he would have dropped the charges. So it's that which lead me to the conclusion that she drank also. Not that that's a sin... People do drink.

But the bottom line is do I think Elaine harmed Dylan? Absolutely not.
Do I think Mark may have? Absolutely

Here you go. One article at least. http://www.9news.com/news/article/30...iolent-history

 

[aust amateur slueth]

Wasn't Elaine ordered by a judge not to drive while intoxicated with the kids in the car? I sure would like to see that again because I'm going off my memory which isn't always the best. Well if that was what I saw, common sense tells me that if this woman did not drink at all the judge would not have ordered this he would have dropped the charges. So it's that which lead me to the conclusion that she drank also. Not that that's a sin... People do drink.

But the bottom line is do I think Elaine harmed Dylan? Absolutely not.
Do I think Mark may have? Absolutely

yes ER was ordered not to drive while intoxicated with the kids in the car, that was based on MRs accusation, there is no burden of proof required and for all we know she may have agreed to that condition because she had no intention of driving while intoxicated with or without the children in the car

 

[mck16]

are you quite sure about that being accurate?

IIRC that accusation was thrown supposedly two years later.

but something I noticed was that it said two years ago when they lived in Denver.

When did they move from Denver and would Dylan have been at school then?

I guess the judge believed it.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/30...iolent-history

 

[katydid23]

I have seen nothing that shows those are lies.

In fact I havent seen LE come out once saying MR has been untruthful about anything. If they thought he was lying then they wouldnt stress all the times they have spoken out that he has been fully cooperative, imo.

imo

I am not sure about that. I think they would keep publicly saying he was very cooperative because they would want him to keep talking, both to them and to the press. JM O

 

[nursebeeme]

I understand that (though I'm not certain we do have records on ER). I worded that post wrong and I'm still struggling with the right wording. Something like:

Me: Mark had a history of drinking and anger issues. I think that could come into play.

Expected Response: Yes, but that was X years ago and since that time ...

Response that confuses me: Yes but Elaine did Y and that's worse.

Does that make any more sense? It is the act of throwing out Elaine's faults for the sole purpose of justifying Mark's that confuses me. They both may have failed Parenting 101 but Elaine being useless wouldn't change the fact that she had no access to Dylan Sunday/Monday. Idk I'm prob still going about this all wrong.

what is out there can be discussed. I just bumped up Sue's warning for more clarification as to the attacking of posters that has been going on in this thread.

I hope that helps.

If anyone has any questions please personal message a moderator.

 

[Eileen730]

Is there anything in my post that says or implies she was pulled over? And I think being beat by his son is disgusting as well. What was he on? I don't know how many times MR drove under the influence with his kids, that was not my point. I wish people would stop being so on the defense and realize some people are only commenting on the facts that have been presented. There may be more facts out there that have not even been posted here because we can't sleuth anyone but MR. jmo

Well I can only say if LE pulled her over it would have been offical.
what was who on? I think his son was protecting his mother and younger brother. but that my opinion on that entire fiasco.

LOL IM not being defensive and yes there are alot more facts we dont know.

I think all of this crapola in this family has led us here to where we are today!

JMO

 

[momrids6]

Well his ex wife called him a 'daily drinker'. I believe her.

Does it really matter what type of sex he was having? Seriously??

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8671462#post8671462"]CO CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #20 - Page 18 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


"I can safely say that at that time he would have been considered a regular drinker."

BBM

 

[Tonto]

Oh lordy! If my child went missing while in my care I would expect everyone to bring up everything about me and my past. AND I would welcome it if it would help find my child. Honestly I wouldn't care what people said about me as my only concern would be in finding my child. That is the honest to God truth!

Except as we've seen from countless other missing persons situations, tunnel vision towards the wrong person can make a case go cold quicker than anything. We're now at 22 threads and going on 2 months with exactly zilch. <modsnip>

 

[mck16]

Except as we've seen from countless other missing persons situations, tunnel vision towards the wrong person can make a case go cold quicker than anything. We're now at 22 threads and going on 2 months with exactly zilch. Do the math.

It is amazing to me too that when going back in the threads for research I see id's of posters who in the beginning were heavily posting and now not so much if at all. jmo

 

[aust amateur slueth]

I am sort of confused about the line between accusation and speculation too. Like, the mod post and individual posters say MR has not been accused of anything or shouldn't be, but then we have posts detailing how he dragged Dylan out of the truck and killed him. Is that not an accusation? Or if we put IMO or "this could have happened" that makes it just speculation and not accusation?

those sort of posts are purely speculation, by using its possible, is it possible, may have, maybe, IMO, MOO they are the posters theories about what may have occured.

an accusation would be 'I know he did it' or 'he killed him' etc

if I've got that wrong in any way mods please correct it and let me know