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

[oceanblueeyes]

<Mod Snip>just because LE publicly states someone isn't a person of interest that it actually means they aren't a suspect. LE doesn't always name a person of interest and LE doesn't always rule out people that aren't a person of interest. It means very little.

It means quite a bit to me based on the hundreds of cases or probably thousands of cases I have kept up with for over three decades.

I have never seen a case where LE came out publicly and specifically said someone is not considered a suspect and then later on they had to backtrack and said........oops we were wrong and they are.

Imo, they have no suspects whatsoever and that is why no one has been ruled out. It means anyone in that area could be possible suspects or POI.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

Under CO law Elaine got parental responsibility custody due to the fact that his father cant see him 95 days out of the year now, iirc. She had to go to court in order to get this since she moved away from Dylan's father. There is no such thing as sole custody in CO.

He however would still retain the rights to see his own child and the Judge usually will set up a schedule of when vistations will take place. It really seemed he was seeing him often lately. He took him to Fenway Park in August and had him flown in for the long Labor Day weekend in September and he returned for a Thanksgiving visit.

IMO

 

[NC Analyzer]

It means quite a bit to me based on the hundreds of cases I have kept up with for over three decades.

I have never seen a case where LE came out publicly and specifically said someone is not considered a suspect and then later on they had to backtrack and said........oops we were wrong and they are.

Imo, they have no suspects whatsoever and that is why no one has been ruled out. It means anyone in that area could be possible suspects or POI.

I don't understand how anyone can place any emphasis on this terminology. It is very unusual for LE to name a POI or a suspect. Even when they have one.
Granted, they don't usually name someone and then have to retract that statement, but fact of the matter is, they rarely name someone to begin with! Even when they have a suspect!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't understand how anyone can place any emphasis on this terminology. It is very unusual for LE to name a POI or a suspect. Even when they have one.
Granted, they don't usually name someone and then have to retract that statement, but fact of the matter is, they rarely name someone to begin with! Even when they have a suspect!

That is true but what is rare is they have publicly stated several times for two months now that Mark Redwine is not considered a suspect. That is specific termonolgy. One that LE does not usually do.

Usually they simply will rule no one in or out publicly and then an arrest will be made.

That has not happened in this case.

They seem to want the community to be very aware that he continues to cooperate and is not considered a suspect.

 

[Dee10]

It is times like this, that I like direct quotes. In doing a google search I could not find direct quotes on the use of the word "consider" and "considering" in regard to Mark being not a suspect. I did find this:

From Nov. 29th - "The Sheriff's Office is not calling Mark Redwine a suspect," Dan Bender, La Plata County Sheriff's Office Public Information Officer, said. "However, since that house was the last place Dylan was seen, it is only prudent to do a more thorough search of that house and property for any information that can help direct us to Dylan." http://www.9news.com/news/article/302104/339/Feds-search-missing-teens-dads-home

IMO they are not going to call him a suspect if he is co-operating & talking and maybe not even then. Once they call him a suspect, it is my understanding he is treated differently with regard to rights (but I am not sure how that applies). Considering & calling are two very different things IMO.

 

[NC Analyzer]

That is true but what is rare is they have publicly stated several times for two months now that Mark Redwine is not considered a suspect. That is specific termonolgy. One that LE does not usually do.

Usually they simply will rule no one in or out publicly and then an arrest will be made.

That has not happened in this case.

They seem to want the community to be very aware that he continues to cooperate and is not considered a suspect.

I've seen this happen countless times, but it's typically done to keep their "unnamed suspect" from getting antsy. Easier to conduct the investigation. LE typically thinks if their suspect doesn't know they are looking at him/her, they might make a mistake. It's an "old school" belief. Personally, I don't think it works very well, but it is what it is.
As far as the wording of this statement...we have seen MSM say MR isn't a suspect in several different ways. All mumbo/jumbo jargon. One source quoting another. Nothing that really indicates one way or another if they think he is a suspect or not. They just don't want the public to call him a suspect.

 

[Salem]

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?

This, to me, seems to be a bit of a contradiction given that ER and MR shared custody before the move AND the friend of the family has stated that there were no arguments about custody before the move.

So... I'm not taking this literally. I'm trying to factor is the info that MR also worked away from home alot, which would have made it difficult for him to have Dylan a full 50% of the time.

Just one of those things that leaves possibilities open, to me.

Salem

 

[PaulR]

I think we may be over-analyzing the statement from LE re: whether MR is a suspect or not. At the time LE made that statement, they didn't want people to think MR was a suspect just because they were searching his home. Context is important here.

 

[SCHMAE]

Here's what would ROCK.
If LE would come out and say one of two things......
1 . We have NO suspects .
2. Everyone is a suspect at this time.

Wouldn't that clear up everything ?

 

[nursebeeme]

Here's what would ROCK.
If LE would come out and say one of two things......
1 . We have NO suspects .
2. Everyone is a suspect at this time.

Wouldn't that clear up everything ?

it would be nice if they did a press conference

(they have never done one... ever.... iirc)

 

[PaulR]

I don't understand how anyone can place any emphasis on this terminology. It is very unusual for LE to name a POI or a suspect. Even when they have one.

That depends though. In the Lauren Spierer case, four POIs were named.

 

[asyousay]

When was the last time LE said anything official in this case ?

 

[nursebeeme]

When was the last time LE said anything official in this case ?

there has never been a LEO press conference.

They have given quotes to the media but that is it.

So basically there has really been nothing official other than the flier.

 

[NC Analyzer]

This, to me, seems to be a bit of a contradiction given that ER and MR shared custody before the move AND the friend of the family has stated that there were no arguments about custody before the move.

So... I'm not taking this literally. I'm trying to factor is the info that MR also worked away from home alot, which would have made it difficult for him to have Dylan a full 50% of the time.

Just one of those things that leaves possibilities open, to me.

Salem

The likely scenario is that MR and ER probably always shared joint custody with physical custody granted to ER. This doesn't mean MR was entitled to 50% of Dylan's time unless a visitation agreement originally specified it.
The parent with physical custody typically has more time with the child and weekends, one-two days weekly, every other holiday and time during summer vacation is typically spent with the non-(physical)custodial parent. This would be a Friend of the Court standard.
After ER moved, the court granted ER permission to continue physical custody in the new location, but the visitation schedule probably needed to be spelled out. Without documentation, MR would not have the authority to see Dylan whenever he wanted because even though there is a "typical" visitation schedule through FOC, without a court order, MR couldn't just demand a visit whenever he saw fit. In other words, MR had visitation rights, but they had to be spelled out to be enforceable.
The question was why MR didn't see Dylan when he lived in the same area and I think that was a good question. Now if ER didn't allow Dylan to see MR when they were living in Bayfield, MR would have needed to request court ordered visitation then as well. But obviously there was no problem and ER didn't force MR into court to enforce his rights back then so why did MR find it necessary after the move? To aggravate ER? Power and control issues? What exactly prompted him to request a formal visitation schedule at this time? It sounds to me like he could have seen Dylan any time over the years but ER said he didn't see him much. So why did he feel the need to go back to court just because she moved? Did he think she would refuse if he simply said he'd like to have Dylan for Thanksgiving? Nothing reported about her refusing visits previously. Maybe he knew Dylan didn't want to visit and ER wasn't going to force Dylan to see dad. Was it Dylan's reluctance that prompted MR to turn to the courts?

 

[rebeccaeee]

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 - Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The State of Colorado prohibits gun registration. CRS 29-11.7-102
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594549010

I said nothing about background checks, just registration.

 

[rebeccaeee]

BBM

he hasn't made a slip up that we are aware of at this point in time. He's been avoiding the media completely and staying well out of the limelight, I wonder if he has been staying out of the public eye mostly and do we know if he attended the dinner that was held to help raise reward money to find Dylan?

Per FMDR FB page, he was not there.

 

[Veidt]

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)

These are very good points. However, they lived in a rural area so I doubt there would be a lot of traffic to begin with. I can also see a fight between two people going down where the driver pulls over and the physical confrontation happens outside the vehicle. JMO of course. I have two questions, no scent was found in MR's car, correct? Was all the area between MR's home and the town searched with cadaver dogs (I assume so)? And a third question, how long does a person have to be dead for the dog to pick up a cadaver scent and not that of a living person?

It would be a stretch to think that MR had a fight with Dylan after pulling over and getting out of the car. If no scent was picked up in the vehicle he would have had to have dragged the body on foot unless the place he stopped at just so happened to be the kind of place where a body could be hidden. Plus IMO it would have to be a very specific place and he would need to have some kind of digging tool in his car. It's all very unlikely IMO.

I honestly don't know what to think anymore. We have all argued our points of view over and over.

I am a bit surprised at the silence from everybody. Mom, Dad and LE.

Sad to say I think Dylan is no longer with us.

By whose hand I just don't know.

I don't think it's that weird if LE wants to keep things under wraps, if giving away new things would ruin their case they're not going to say anything for a while yet. ER and MR, ER especially, have been reasonably active in giving interviews and such but unless new outlets picked up on the story or on landmark dates the sad truth is that places they've spoken in would not talk to them two, three, four times just to hear everything they have said all over again. LE may have asked them to keep quiet too or they may not be sharing their info with anyone.

 

[mmmagique]

This, to me, seems to be a bit of a contradiction given that ER and MR shared custody before the move AND the friend of the family has stated that there were no arguments about custody before the move.

So... I'm not taking this literally. I'm trying to factor is the info that MR also worked away from home alot, which would have made it difficult for him to have Dylan a full 50% of the time.

Just one of those things that leaves possibilities open, to me.

Salem

Shared custody doesn't mean that they had equal time. It means that they are supposed to work together on school, medical, religious, and other important issues. Elaine has stated that he rarely exercised his visitation when they lived nearby, so I don't think Dylan and MR spent much time together.

 

[nursebeeme]

The likely scenario is that MR and ER probably always shared joint custody with physical custody granted to ER. This doesn't mean MR was entitled to 50% of Dylan's time unless a visitation agreement originally specified it.
The parent with physical custody typically has more time with the child and weekends, one-two days weekly, every other holiday and time during summer vacation is typically spent with the non-(physical)custodial parent. This would be a Friend of the Court standard.
After ER moved, the court granted ER permission to continue physical custody in the new location, but the visitation schedule probably needed to be spelled out. Without documentation, MR would not have the authority to see Dylan whenever he wanted because even though there is a "typical" visitation schedule through FOC, without a court order, MR couldn't just demand a visit whenever he saw fit. In other words, MR had visitation rights, but they had to be spelled out to be enforceable.
The question was why MR didn't see Dylan when he lived in the same area and I think that was a good question. Now if ER didn't allow Dylan to see MR when they were living in Bayfield, MR would have needed to request court ordered visitation then as well. But obviously there was no problem and ER didn't force MR into court to enforce his rights back then so why did MR find it necessary after the move? To aggravate ER? Power and control issues? What exactly prompted him to request a formal visitation schedule at this time? It sounds to me like he could have seen Dylan any time over the years but ER said he didn't see him much. So why did he feel the need to go back to court just because she moved? Did he think she would refuse if he simply said he'd like to have Dylan for Thanksgiving? Nothing reported about her refusing visits previously. Maybe he knew Dylan didn't want to visit and ER wasn't going to force Dylan to see dad. Was it Dylan's reluctance that prompted MR to turn to the courts?

BBM:

he works out of town and is away for long periods of time

 

[Dee10]

It hasn't been specified that I am aware of regarding time off when he works away. We have heard in the oil or gas (can't remember which) industry and drives a truck. Many people that work in those fields may work long hours for a specified period an examples would be two weeks on, one week off or three weeks on two weeks off. If he was on scheduled like this, there may have been problems with seeing Dylan consistently. If this were the case, it would not explain why he wouldn't see him on days off. There is just too much missing information for me to form an opinion on if he had a pattern of behavior or bonding so to speak (not sure of the right word).