CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #26

[Confusion]

I already gave my opinion on what I think happened up to Monday morning, so I may as well attempt to come up with something somewhat feasible for that day too.

Some time after Mark left for Durango, Dylan woke up, ate breakfast and discovered that his phone was dead because he fell asleep Sunday night without putting it on the charger or turning it off. He plugs in the charger, starts charging the phone, and decides to walk down to the store at the intersection of 500 and 501 to grab something they forgot to get at Walmart (chocolate, drink, whatever) while waiting for it to charge.

Earlier, ****** drove to the area planning to call Dylan and have him meet him/her down the road a bit. S/he drives by the house and sees that Mark's truck is gone, and goes to the bar by the intersection to wait for Mark to drive by on the way home to be sure Dylan was at the house when he got the call (or to know it would be necessary to drive to Bayfield to meet up with him.) Because ******* doesn't want anyone to remember seeing him/her in the area, s/he stays in the car, but parks at the bar/store to look less conspicuous. While ****** is sitting there, Dylan shows up and they talk for a minute. Dylan gets into the car, they go back for his backpack, and phone, and they leave.

Even though I did leave the possibility of the person being female open, I don't see it being Elaine since it would have been fairly obvious if she wasn't near CS when she received word that he was gone, or when she called the sheriff.

 

[Seajay]

I don't think MR has pretty much been convicted here. I just think that based on what we know it's the only thing that might make sense. It's not just here. Apparently there are many people coming to this conclusion.
The problem is we don't know much. There could be much more that we aren't privy to which might drastically change people's thinking.
I've said before and I'll say it again..I don't think anyone here could possibly be 100% convinced that MR did anything to Dylan, based on what we know. It's just not enough.

Exactly! No one can say 100% anything about this case. If you look at the majority of the opinions here and the topic, it's MR and what he possibly did to Dylan. Not even Dylan so much as it is about MR.

I'm glad this is just a discussion and that other avenues are being looked at. We have been encouraged by the moderators to come up with alternative ideas for what could have happened in this case.

The one I am putting forth is the one I've stood on all this time. I've just been given an opportunity to discuss it instead of the usual.

 

[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.

bump
:nurse:

 

[NC Analyzer]

I don't think MR has pretty much been convicted here. I just think that based on what we know it's the only thing that might make sense. It's not just here. Apparently there are many people coming to this conclusion.
The problem is we don't know much. There could be much more that we aren't privy to which might drastically change people's thinking.
I've said before and I'll say it again..I don't think anyone here could possibly be 100% convinced that MR did anything to Dylan, based on what we know. It's just not enough.

Jumping off your post, I just wanted to add the definition for a couple of legal standards:

Beyond reasonable doubt -
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is proof of such a convincing character that, based on the evidence presented, you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. (It does not mean that no doubt exists)

In contrast to:

Non-legal standards -
Beyond the shadow of a doubt is the strictest standard of proof. It requires that there be no doubt as to the issue. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need (nor can) reach this level. This phrase, has, nonetheless, has come to be associated with the law in popular culture.

And I do believe part of the problem with our courts today can be found in the simple explanation above. JMO

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Yes many things mentioned above draw red flags. But there are lots of assumptions. MR very well could have searched the lake and that could explain where he was before going to Bayfield and the fact is HE MIGHT HAVE TOLD LE THIS. Just because WE don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm sure LE questioned MR about what he and Dylan did after arriving home that night. Just because WE don't know what he told them that doesn't mean he told them nothing or he ONLY told them they threw the football around and Dylan passed out. LE does not tell the public everything. The fact is we have very little info. We have bits and pieces.

 

[momrids6]

Totally OT: Saying a quick prayer for a smooth delivery of Miss F Tingles: I did notice we forgot to tell Mrs. FT to tell Mr. FT to post when the little miss arrives...

Wishing you the best FT!

 

[cluciano63]

Jumping off your post, I just wanted to add the definition for a couple of legal standards:

Beyond reasonable doubt -
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is proof of such a convincing character that, based on the evidence presented, you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. (It does not mean that no doubt exists)

In contrast to:

Non-legal standards -
Beyond the shadow of a doubt is the strictest standard of proof. It requires that there be no doubt as to the issue. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need (nor can) reach this level. This phrase, has, nonetheless, has come to be associated with the law in popular culture.

And I do believe part of the problem with our courts today can be found in the simple explanation above. JMO

To add to the above, with the advances of science, the standard for jurors has become greater, even if not legally so. People tend to want to "know" for sure, i.e. DNA in particular. But we still see purely circumstantial cases result in convictions, such as Scott Peterson. A lot, IMO, depends on the skills of the state in presenting the case.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I am sorry to hear that Elaine is having a difficult time getting attention for Dylan's case. Unfortunately, this case is two months old, and that was around the time that even more publicized cases (Kyron, Lisa) started to fade out of the national news.

I also "hope" that it's the national media that isn't returning Elaine's calls, not the local media. I haven't watched HLN in a while, but I feel like they must be all over the Jodi Arias trial. :/

 

[Seajay]

Yes many things mentioned above draw red flags. But there are lots of assumptions. MR very well could have searched the lake and that could explain where he was before going to Bayfield and the fact is HE MIGHT HAVE TOLD LE THIS. Just because WE don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm sure LE questioned MR about what he and Dylan did after arriving home that night. Just because WE don't know what he told them that doesn't mean he told them nothing or he ONLY told them they threw the football around and Dylan passed out. LE does not tell the public everything. The fact is we have very little info. We have bits and pieces.

IA. We only have a tip of the iceberg. We do not know all that MR told LE in the days and weeks following Dylan's disappearance. For all we know, he may have covered every minute of the time they were together.

For whatever reason, right now, they have no called MR a suspect. They obviously know a lot more than we do. There have been a lot of assumptions as to what this could be, but we really don't know. And we don't know what has been verified of everything that's been said either. We just have to wait and see what LE is going to do with it.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Jumping off your post, I just wanted to add the definition for a couple of legal standards:

Beyond reasonable doubt -
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is proof of such a convincing character that, based on the evidence presented, you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty. (It does not mean that no doubt exists)

In contrast to:

Non-legal standards -
Beyond the shadow of a doubt is the strictest standard of proof. It requires that there be no doubt as to the issue. Widely considered an impossible standard, a situation stemming from the nature of knowledge itself, it is valuable to mention only as a comment on the fact that evidence in a court never need (nor can) reach this level. This phrase, has, nonetheless, has come to be associated with the law in popular culture.

And I do believe part of the problem with our courts today can be found in the simple explanation above. JMO

Well based on what I know on this case at this point, there is no way I could convict MR using your standards. No way, not enough. I've been leaning all along based on what seems logical to me with what I know, but still nowhere near enough for an arrest even for me.

Again, I'm stating this BASED ON WHAT I KNOW ON THIS CASE.

 

[cluciano63]

Not calling someone a suspect is meaningless, IMO. LE has never pronounced Terri Horman an official suspect. Or Ayla Reynold's father, as far as I know, but they clearly are.

I think it is horrible, personally, if MR has been cleared and LE won't say so. But I doubt they have been able to clear him. How could they? He has nothing but his statements and an alibi for some of the hours in the morning, but we don't know if Dylan was okay that morning before he left.

 

[NC Analyzer]

To add to the above, with the advances of science, the standard for jurors has become greater, even if not legally so. People tend to want to "know" for sure, i.e. DNA in particular. But we still see purely circumstantial cases result in convictions, such as Scott Peterson. A lot, IMO, depends on the skills of the state in presenting the case.

I guess we are supposed to keep things going here no matter what, so with that in mind, I definitely agree with your thoughts!
Funny, but circumstantial evidence is even harder to explain to people. The majority of folks aren't even aware that DNA, fingerprints, photos, computer analysis, medical records, etc. etc. are all circumstantial evidence. As a matter of fact, pretty much everything except eyewitnesses, co-conspirators and a few other exceptions are all circumstantial evidence. Try getting people to understand that! :banghead:

All just my opinion....which means relatively nothing apparently!

 

[Confusion]

At least we're talking about it. MR has pretty much been convicted here without really any proof. Glad the judicial system doesn't work the same way.

Yes, THEY will go to jail if caught. That's why I'm saying I don't think it was thought all the way out. And it coincides with the comment about this going too far. I think it went on too long and went too far. I think it was intended to be short term but this case took on a life of it's own. I didn't say we were dealing with rocket scientists here. LOL JMO

I think the person/people may have just assumed that MR wouldn't do much about it, mainly assuming he was visiting a friend or some friends. Once "they" realized that ER was being brought into it early and both parents were taking it seriously the first day, it was too late to back out. MOO

I don't think MR has pretty much been convicted here. I just think that based on what we know it's the only thing that might make sense. It's not just here. Apparently there are many people coming to this conclusion.
The problem is we don't know much. There could be much more that we aren't privy to which might drastically change people's thinking.
I've said before and I'll say it again..I don't think anyone here could possibly be 100% convinced that MR did anything to Dylan, based on what we know. It's just not enough.

The problem is that we really know next to nothing. If it wasn't for the phone and the accusations, maybe more people would have been looking at other options all along. I just have a hard time with almost everything we "know" coming from people who were not there, have given conflicting stories, and have every reason to want MR to be guilty. I'm not saying it's false information, but I do wonder about how objective the views are. I haven't seen/heard anything that MR has retracted or changed after saying it on video, being directly quoted by the press, or having it stated by LE. That doesn't mean he has to be telling the truth, but it makes me more prone to believe him... meaning more prone to believe rather than disbelieve him, not necessarily more prone to believe him than to believe someone else. MOO

 

[NC Analyzer]

Well based on what I know on this case at this point, there is no way I could convict MR using your standards. No way, not enough. I've been leaning all along based on what seems logical to me with what I know, but still nowhere near enough for an arrest even for me.

Again, I'm stating this BASED ON WHAT I KNOW ON THIS CASE.

These are not "my" standards. They are applicable in a court of law. It is what it is. My point was to clarify the difference between beyond a reasonable doubt and having no doubt. There is a difference.

MOO

 

[SailorMoon]

If you're talking about someone doing this purposely and trying to make it look like MR did something that seems far fetched. LE does not arrest someone without evidence. Of course what is far fetched to me may not be far fetched to someone else. If that's the case whomever did it is not real bright when it comes to the law.

Oh I know, it just fit in with the "this wasn't supposed to go on this long" thought. All we know is he's gone. And if that scenario were true, indeed, what the heck would Dylan say when he reappeared?? It is possible though, but anything is.

 

[azgrandma]

I already gave my opinion on what I think happened up to Monday morning, so I may as well attempt to come up with something somewhat feasible for that day too.

Some time after Mark left for Durango, Dylan woke up, ate breakfast and discovered that his phone was dead because he fell asleep Sunday night without putting it on the charger or turning it off. He plugs in the charger, starts charging the phone, and decides to walk down to the store at the intersection of 500 and 501 to grab something they forgot to get at Walmart (chocolate, drink, whatever) while waiting for it to charge.

Earlier, ****** drove to the area planning to call Dylan and have him meet him/her down the road a bit. S/he drives by the house and sees that Mark's truck is gone, and goes to the bar by the intersection to wait for Mark to drive by on the way home to be sure Dylan was at the house when he got the call (or to know it would be necessary to drive to Bayfield to meet up with him.) Because ******* doesn't want anyone to remember seeing him/her in the area, s/he stays in the car, but parks at the bar/store to look less conspicuous. While ****** is sitting there, Dylan shows up and they talk for a minute. Dylan gets into the car, they go back for his backpack, and phone, and they leave.
Even though I did leave the possibility of the person being female open, I don't see it being Elaine since it would have been fairly obvious if she wasn't near CS when she received word that he was gone, or when she called the sheriff.

BBM - does that mean that the mystery person waited outside the bar/store from around 8 pm Sunday evening (when MR & CR were arriving home) until after 7:30 am Monday morning when MR left for his appt?

Mark's truck is gone, and goes to the bar by the intersection to wait for Mark to drive by on the way home to be sure Dylan was at the house when he got the call
BBM that would have been Sunday evening.

While ****** is sitting there, Dylan shows up and they talk for a minute. Dylan gets into the car, they go back for his backpack, and phone, and they leave
BBM - That would have been Monday morning

I guess I'm confused because someone sitting in a car in November in Colo outside a bar/store for about 12 hours isn't really being inconspicuous.

 

[Confusion]

BBM - does that mean that the mystery person waited outside the bar/store from around 8 pm Sunday evening (when MR & CR were arriving home) until after 7:30 am Monday morning when MR left for his appt?

Mark's truck is gone, and goes to the bar by the intersection to wait for Mark to drive by on the way home to be sure Dylan was at the house when he got the call
BBM that would have been Sunday evening.

While ****** is sitting there, Dylan shows up and they talk for a minute. Dylan gets into the car, they go back for his backpack, and phone, and they leave
BBM - That would have been Monday morning

I guess I'm confused because someone sitting in a car in November in Colo outside a bar/store for about 12 hours isn't really being inconspicuous.

I never said that, so I can see why you'd be confused.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

We do know next to nothing and this drives me crazy! But I guarantee you LE knows more than we do. Obviously they do not have enough for an arrest. We just have to trust that they know what they're doing based on what THEY know. I want to know what they know! LOL

 

[TxLady2]

To me, there are only two scenarios regarding LE in this case; they are seeking enough info to make an arrest of a specific person, or they are clueless. Hate to think it is the second.

Why can't it be somewhere in between the two? They could be getting good leads, gaining new information but not ready to tie it all up in a nice package with a neat little bow. I don't believe they're clueless, but knowing something and proving it are two different things.

 

[cluciano63]

Why can't it be somewhere in between the two? They could be getting good leads, gaining new information but not ready to tie it all up in a nice package with a neat little bow. I don't believe they're clueless, but knowing something and proving it are two different things.

It is just my opinion.