CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #25

[cluciano63]

I was getting ready to go out. I didn't have time to search for the link, but I thought I could at least be helpful enough to point you in the direction of the information you were looking for.

Here -

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #25

All I see is a non-quote saying that family members continue to cooperate. Nothing about MR, and it does not say all family members, nor does it state that this is something LE just told them again.

 

[Eileen730]

What does this mean and who are his relatives you are referring to? Are we sleuthing his family now? ty

I have seen no one sleuthed!

 

[mck16]

I have seen no one sleuthed!

I haven't either and that is why I asked the question.

 

[The Cheese]

All I see is a non-quote saying that family members continue to cooperate. Nothing about MR, and it does not say all family members, nor does it state that this is something LE just told them again.

That entire article is a direct quote from LE, specifically Bender. It's the press release he wrote himself last Saturday, Jan 5th.

He emailed me a copy of it, and as my post says, I searched and found that article, did a comparison, and it's the complete press release.

The press release Bender sent me is on the Sheriff's office letterhead. Here is a copy and paste of the heading -

News Release: Investigation Continues for Dylan Redwine
Date: Saturday 1-5-12 10:00 AM MST
Source: Dan Bender, LPCSO PIO

<modsnip>

 

[mijamawi]

There is an interesting post on the FMDR page from PK regarding Texas Equusearch and a response from a CC. This is in the 'posts by others' section and was posted 22 hours ago. I'm curious if CC is part of the core volunteers, as it seems she's answering for FMDR.

 

[TxJan1971]

What does this mean and who are his relatives you are referring to? Are we sleuthing his family now? ty

No you actually said 'relations'.

Because Mark (and/or his relations) won't ?

I asked you what relations you were referring to. I have not heard any mention of any relations speaking out or not. I wondered who you were referring to. ty

I'll explain.
The ORIGINAL POST/QUESTION was:
I'm curious: if Denise, Elaine, et all really believe MR killed Dylan, why are they so uber focused on keeping his name out there and raising money? I have never understood this.

MY RESPONSE was:
Because Mark (and/or his relations) won't ?

YOUR 1st RESPONSE to my reply referring you back to the original post:
What does this mean and who are his relatives you are referring to? Are we sleuthing his family now? ty

YOUR 2nd RESPONSE to my reply:
No you actually said 'relations'.
Because Mark (and/or his relations) won't ?I asked you what relations you were referring to. I have not heard any mention of any relations speaking out or not. I wondered who you were referring to. ty *****

Here's my explanation:
In the initial question to the room, the poster states "if “Denise, Elaine, et al” …

My response stated “because Mark (and/or his relations) won’t?

My use of the word “relations” is similar to the original poster’s use of “et al” in that it refers to a number of people, and I wasn’t even as specific with names as the original poster. Using the word "relations" after Mark is actually self explanatory.

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adv. 1. et al. - and others ('et al.' is used as an abbreviation of `et alii' (masculine plural) or `et aliae' (feminine plural) or `et alia' (neuter plural) when referring to a number of people); "the data reported by Smith et al."
et al, et alia, et aliae, et alii


After my reply to the original question, you questioned me if we were allowed to sleuth his family members, even though that was never stated or alluded to in my reply.

So my question to you now,

Is there a reason why you didn’t ask the original poster if we’re now allowed to sleuth Denise, Elaine, and “et al”? Just curious. TIA

(Since my use of “and/or relations” seems to be an issue, I will try to go back now and edit my post and change it to Mark “et al” and then it will be the same as the initial poster and shouldn’t be a problem any more).

 

[PaulR]

What is there to understand? Unless they find evidence that Dylan is dead, they are going to look for him.

If they think MR did it, and did it alone, then no amount of reward money is going to help.

I know we've speculated about motivating people to go walk through the woods to find him, which IMHO is a bad idea because people could get hurt and the last thing we need is another missing person. If hunters/hikers found the body, the money isn't going to motivate them because they've traditionally been very good about notifying police.

 

[absentia]

I'm curious: if Denise, Elaine, et all really believe MR killed Dylan, why are they so uber focused on keeping his name out there and raising money? I have never understood this.

pressure. pressure on who did it. whomever it is. they aren't just going to let it go. if LE has nothing, this is something they can do. it gives them hope, and keeps pressure on for someone to say something.

 

[absentia]

There is an interesting post on the FMDR page from PK regarding Texas Equusearch and a response from a CC. This is in the 'posts by others' section and was posted 22 hours ago. I'm curious if CC is part of the core volunteers, as it seems she's answering for FMDR.

it is so hard to navigate that FB page with all the pictures of so many missing children. How horrible. but I can't follow news relating to DR. can you PM me the link, or the info?

sorry - I found it. thanks. stupid move by LE IMO.

 

[mijamawi]

So my question to you now,

Is there a reason why you didn’t ask the original poster if we’re now allowed to sleuth Denise, Elaine, and “et al”? Just curious. TIA

RSBM

I am not sleuthing them at all. I just asked a question out of curiosity. I've received several responses that make sense. What I was mostly getting at is perhaps they don't believe MR is involved and thus they are doing a full on press in finding out who is involved. JMO

 

[PaulR]

By the way, those of you who are considering donating to the reward fund for Dylan may also consider donating to NCMEC. They are a wonderful organization - I know people who work with them on a regular basis.

NCMEC does a lot more than you probably think they do.

 

[rebeccaeee]

pressure. pressure on who did it. whomever it is. they aren't just going to let it go. if LE has nothing, this is something they can do. it gives them hope, and keeps pressure on for someone to say something.

Absolutely. There's the chance that MR is not responsible, albeit slight. There's the chance that Dylan has been passed off to someone, so keeping his name/face out there is important. There's the chance that MR is responsible and someone besides MR and Dylan know that. And there's the deep need to find him, alive or not and bring him home one way or the other. Silence doesn't accomplish any of these things.

FMDR has said they have been interviewing private investigators. Besides reward money, I imagine they might want to finance a PI down the road or more searches in the spring. As a mom, I'd want, no, NEED to have my son found, alive or not.

 

[PaulR]

Question for everyone:

Of all the evidence that we know - meaning things we know are true and not rumors - and MR was charged with this crime, which evidence would be "good enough" to be used at a trial?

You can speak from the DA's perspective ("this will help the jury/judge find the guy guilty") or a jury perspective ("this will help me think that the guy is guilty") - just say which.

And don't consider sentencing which is an entirely different matter. Just guilt or innocence.

EDIT: Let me add that there is no right or wrong answer. I'm not going to debate any responses to my question, and I encourage everyone here to do the same.

 

[DylansMom34]

IMO, the evidence so far probably may be probable cause enough to charge but not enough to convict, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think it is more likely than not that MR did something to Dylan but, at least in my mind, I'm not convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. So I think maybe the DA has told LE to get more evidence and, so far anyway, there doesn't seem to be any more. Maybe in the Spring if they are able to find Dylan's body and additional evidence, or if in the meantime some other evidence turns up...

 

[Dee10]

Question for everyone:

Of all the evidence that we know - meaning things we know are true and not rumors - and MR was charged with this crime, which evidence would be "good enough" to be used at a trial?

You can speak from the DA's perspective ("this will help the jury/judge find the guy guilty") or a jury perspective ("this will help me think that the guy is guilty") - just say which.

And don't consider sentencing which is an entirely different matter. Just guilt or innocence.

I don't see that there is enough to form an opinion either way guilty or innocent based on what is available at this point. I do have suspicions though.

 

[cluciano63]

I was getting ready to go out. I didn't have time to search for the link, but I thought I could at least be helpful enough to point you in the direction of the information you were looking for.

Here -

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #25

Question for everyone:

Of all the evidence that we know - meaning things we know are true and not rumors - and MR was charged with this crime, which evidence would be "good enough" to be used at a trial?

You can speak from the DA's perspective ("this will help the jury/judge find the guy guilty") or a jury perspective ("this will help me think that the guy is guilty") - just say which.

And don't consider sentencing which is an entirely different matter. Just guilt or innocence.

We don't know any evidence at all. Not sure what you consider to be evidence from the almost nothing we know so far.

Right now, I have suspicions of MR. But from what we have seen or been told I do not see a case at all.

 

[asyousay]

what we know would be Circumstantial i would of thought , no ?!

 

[Angelonline]

Question for everyone:

Of all the evidence that we know - meaning things we know are true and not rumors - and MR was charged with this crime, which evidence would be "good enough" to be used at a trial?

You can speak from the DA's perspective ("this will help the jury/judge find the guy guilty") or a jury perspective ("this will help me think that the guy is guilty") - just say which.

And don't consider sentencing which is an entirely different matter. Just guilt or innocence.

Ill let you know when LE tells us what they got, in other words probably never. ...

Or if he is charged and we see a probable cause statement and docs released I will give you my view as a cyber juror.

 

[PaulR]

what we know would be Circumstantial i would of thought , no ?!

If it's circumstantial but you would bring it up in court if you were the prosecutor, or it would influence your "guilty/not guilty" vote, then it's fair game for my question.

 

[Confusion]

What is there to understand? Unless they find evidence that Dylan is dead, they are going to look for him.

The Admin on the FB page posted that the account they had been using was being closed, and the new one was being opened, with money not already used for searches or promised for the reward being transferred to it. The money in there, and future money collected would be used for a foundation (?) to help other missing kids. It sounded like there wouldn't be any more searches. It's been a while since I read it, so I might be off somewhat, but that's what I remember reading. MOO

what we know would be Circumstantial i would of thought , no ?!

I think what has been shown so far is entirely rumor and supposition. I have seen nothing in MSM or on the FB page that I would even consider circumstantial evidence. MOO