CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #24

[vasportsmom]

I have a 12yo son and if I made plans with him to be at a certain place at a set time and he wasn't there I would get worried very quickly. I might send one text to locate him but if he didn't reply in short order I would call him instead of continuing to send unanswered texts for 4 hours.

 

[PaulR]

It's bothersome that if there is a random abductor LE isn't reaching out for help identifying this individual who could be roaming around amongst the community.

Unless the police already have a good idea on who the random abductor is, and are putting together the case.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I have a 12yo son and if I made plans with him to be at a certain place at a set time and he wasn't there I would get worried very quickly. I might send one text to locate him but if he didn't reply in short order I would call him instead of continuing to send unanswered texts for 4 hours.

Exactly! Thirty minutes late with no call or text I would KNOW something was terribly wrong and I'd be on the phone with 911.

The difference is, we know our children... Mark, not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vasportsmom]

Exactly! Thirty minutes late with no call or text I would KNOW something was terribly wrong and I'd be on the phone with 911.

The difference is, we know our children... Mark, not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. An unanswered text and call would result in an immediate message that I was about to start physically searching for him and if I found him before he contacted me he would be very unhappy. Then I would follow through with the search.

A twelve year old is still a child. Most don't have the ability to make decisions that are consistently appropriate enough for me to feel comfortable letting them go silent w/o knowledge of their location and activities for hours on end. Odds favored Dylan being safe but why chance it? Drive 20 minutes to where you expect he is and make sure. Better safe than sorry. MOO.

 

[jjenny]

Unless the police already have a good idea on who the random abductor is, and are putting together the case.

I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case.

 

[Confusion]

I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case.

I've really seen nothing to suggest that anything is the case. :banghead:

 

[Redhead72]

Correct, rebeccaeee. We can buy handguns, long guns, shotguns, with great abandon, at "gun shows" without background checks.

Rebeccaeee & Cattlekate:

FYI CORRECTION: The above statement in regard to CO's gun laws is absolutely false.

Colorado is one of 7 states that actually require Universal Background checks for all firearms purchases (handguns, and all long guns alike) at Gun Shows (not just handguns) The law was enacted in the State of Colorado over 11 years ago, all the way back in 2001.

(I'm surprised there are still people in CO who don't realize this - don't you remember Mr. Mauser? This law was his stated legacy to his son who died at Columbine.)

SOURCES:
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence - http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole
[Note: I do not personally agree with the political stands of CSGV, however it was the first site that would be well-recognized by "both sides". Theyerroneously cite only 6 states in their article though - there are 7.]

Gun Shows in the United States @ Wikipedia - [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States"]Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Not meaning to hijack the thread. I just think it's important to know the truth about these laws. As for the comment about not requiring registration, I'll leave that discussion for a different time.

 

[Seajay]

I have to ask. Sorry Seajay your post I am simply jumping off of. I hope that is ok.

Does MR have a girlfriend? Fiance? This is what 5 or 6 years after the divorce, surely he has not lived like a hermit.

For all I know maybe she might of accompanied MR to the airport, stayed in the home the night Dylan was there, or even gone with him to run his errands.

Sorry Allusonz, just saw this. That is a good question. I didn't sound like it, no one was mentioned in any way in all this and I imagine it would be and already have been torn to shreds if there was any info out there like that. JMO>

 

[Seajay]

I know it's been discussed umpteen times...

but ER said MR rarely exercised his visitation rights before they moved to Colorado Springs.

Wonder what changed or why MR decided he wanted to see Dylan more after?

Because he could no longer see him whenever he wanted when he was in town???

 

[BritsKate]

We need to get a verified lawyer over here but I mentioned above that the local JDR is married to a close friend. I've picked his brain over this case many times. He said that a minor child in a custody dispute is almost always appointed a GAL to protect their interests. He also said that it wouldn't be unusual for the attorneys involved and thus their clients to have access to any reports because they are entitled to rebutt them. We are in VA though.

I'm not an attorney but I would almost guarantee Dylan was appointed a guardian ad litem in a contested move away especially since there is the possibility for a reversal of custody in relocation cases.

(FWIW: I was pro se in Wisconsin during my relocation but ex and I were both afforded copies of the GAL reports and correspondence.)

 

[mmmagique]

I'm not an attorney but I would almost guarantee Dylan was appointed a guardian ad litem in a contested move away especially since there is the possibility for a reversal of custody in relocation cases.

(FWIW: I was pro se in Wisconsin during my relocation but ex and I were both afforded copies of the GAL reports and correspondence.)

It would really depend on the state, and then the most important element is the court itself. Does it generally use GALs for most child custody situations, or only in extreme cases? Remember it is a small town, so, they may do things quite differently there.

 

[mmmagique]

OT Panda cam!!! :great:

 

[Eileen730]

I know it's been discussed umpteen times...

but ER said MR rarely exercised his visitation rights before they moved to Colorado Springs.

Wonder what changed or why MR decided he wanted to see Dylan more after?

Because he could!

Take him away from family for the holidays it hurts them all everyone but him.

I wonder what he had planned for Christmas.

Another question!
I dont think Dylan was supposed to be there for Thanksgiving and MR decided he wanted him there and went to court.
Does anyone know when this happend? Im wondering how recent!

 

[BritsKate]

It would really depend on the state, and then the most important element is the court itself. Does it generally use GALs for most child custody situations, or only in extreme cases? Remember it is a small town, so, they may do things quite differently there.

True but if MR did contest the relocation I really would think a GAL would be appointed. In theory one should be.

Here's the relevant legislation (and fwiw, either party can also request a GAL appointment):
http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=3858#statute-top

 

[SCHMAE]

I have been more inclined to focus on MR since the word go in this. I've also looked at random abductor. A lot of things seem to keep ' not adding up ' for MR though and I still think he could likely be involved. But this morning I'm thinking the more time goes by the LESS likely it is MR is involved. The possible drunken, accidental physical confrontation theory....... that seemed like a good idea at the beginning , seems less and less plausible now. LE has focused on him heavily and talked with and searched all of his stuff. If there is nothing anywhere to indicate he did it, then he probably did not. In this amount of time, almost EIGHT weeks of heavy scrutiny, something would have come up right? So I'm thinking the further away from Dylan' disappearance , the more likely someone other than MR is involved.
Thoughts? Agree?
Disagree?

 

[Eileen730]

I have been more inclined to focus on MR since the word go in this. I've also looked at random abductor. A lot of things seem to keep ' not adding up ' for MR though and I still think he could likely be involved. But this morning I'm thinking the more time goes by the LESS likely it is MR is involved. The possible drunken, accidental physical confrontation theory....... that seemed like a good idea at the beginning , seems less and less plausible now. LE has focused on him heavily and talked with and searched all of his stuff. If there is nothing anywhere to indicate he did it, then he probably did not. In this amount of time, almost EIGHT weeks of heavy scrutiny, something would have come up right? So I'm thinking the further away from Dylan' disappearance , the more likely someone other than MR is involved.
Thoughts? Agree?
Disagree?

I still think there was a fight between the two. And I still believe it was over the texting and his friends. To Me the phone is the key in all this!
JMO

 

[Eileen730]

I can see Dylan being in a snit when dad says no to going to friends house.
I can see D giving him an attitude when dad says to put the phone away. (if he said this)
I can totally see dad being frustrated if D dosent want to be with him.

I just feel things esclated and went out of controll.

I do believe his phone was trashed! After that whatever happend happened!


All JMO

 

[NSS]

If a fight happened between Dylan and his dad at home, there would likely be some indication of such an occurrence.

If it happened at Wal Mart or McD's, someone would have noticed.

If it happened on the journey, then the driving would have been noticable.


Once I get to grips with how an 'event causing death' happened, I will have to work on how one disposes of a body of a fairly large child without getting 'death scent' on MR, the vehicle, or the house/garden.

A dead cell phone doesn't equal murder for me yet. (Though I was uber suspicious at the start)

 

[TxLady2]

Because he could!

Take him away from family for the holidays it hurts them all everyone but him.

I wonder what he had planned for Christmas.

Another question!
I dont think Dylan was supposed to be there for Thanksgiving and MR decided he wanted him there and went to court.
Does anyone know when this happend? Im wondering how recent!

Mark is Dylan's parent, too. The court considers that both parents should have equal time, but if that is not possible, depending on where one moves, then the court insists that the parents share holidays. Thanksgiving with Dad, Christmas at Mom's. Maybe next year that might have been reversed.
Why try to make a big conspiracy out of something that just clearly popped up out of the blue? You make it sound like Mark had no rights to see Dylan at all.

 

[SCHMAE]

I can see Dylan being in a snit when dad says no to going to friends house.
I can see D giving him an attitude when dad says to put the phone away. (if he said this)
I can totally see dad being frustrated if D dosent want to be with him.

I just feel things esclated and went out of controll.

I do believe his phone was trashed! After that whatever happend happened!


All JMO

But do you think in all this time if there was evidence of this happening, it would be found by now? No offense to MR but I do NOT believe he is so slick as to be able to keep a crime like this under wraps 100% for all this time. If they've found no hint of anything by now that leaves me with A ) MR is innocent or B) LE is grossly overmatched
He's right there down the street from LE. They have to be watching him at least loosely and he's not made a slip up.