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

[scorekeeper]

Again, any links to support these claims above that LE said anything about the phone and 8pm?

I thought the 8 pm came from FB.

LE says "no activity" Sunday evening (see post above).

Why stuck on 8 pm? :waitasec:

TIA

 

[The Cheese]

I thought the 8 pm came from FB.

LE says "no activity" Sunday evening (see post above).

Why stuck on 8 pm? :waitasec:

TIA

I'm well aware that LE said no activity after some time Sunday evening.

I don't know why so many people are stuck on saying LE stated something about the phone and 8pm, when LE never has. You would have to ask them.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Again, any links to support these claims above that LE said anything about the phone and 8pm?

I apologize for using the 8:00 PM time in my post. I see now that LE never gave an exact time for when the phone "activity" stopped.

 

[ThePhantom]

I was thinking -- maybe Dylan and his father were driving home from Walmart, got into a disagreement, and MR might have pulled over and said, "you can get out and walk back yourself." The potential outcomes of such a scenario are also not good. I'm sorry -- this scenario has probably been hashed out dozens of times earlier in these threads.

 

[Seajay]

I'm well aware that LE said no activity after some time Sunday evening.

I don't know why so many people are stuck on saying LE stated something about the phone and 8pm, when LE never has. You would have to ask them.

Not that I saw. 8 pm came from other sources. Mostly I think ppl got stuck on that because 8:01 pm was the last text Dylan sent out. There is always the possibility that he was calling and/or texting several people at once.

 

[TxLady2]

I watched a show on Investigation ID (I think that was it - my guilty pleasure)
A 16 yo girl was found murdered in the bathroom of her mom's apt. The girl had just recently moved in with mom because of stress with dad & his wife. The dad took a poly and failed. He said that LE asked him to do a second and he was allowed to tell them what questions bothered him and asked that they ask it in a different way. He passed.
Turned out that a neighbor boy killed her and he was arrested a couple years later. Really interesting story because LE was sent in the wrong direction to begin with because the girl wrote about a boyfriend in her diary and they determined that the boyfriend was just her imagination.

I do know that in polys if there is deception, the examiner will let you know and allow you to discuss it. At least when it's for a job, not sure how it is with an investigation.
I was told that most women show deception when it comes to answering questions about intimate relations because they are more sensitive about sharing that info vs men.

Interesting. I would not think that the examiner would discuss the results with the person taking a polygraph during an investigation, unless they already figure that the person they're testing is not involved. I'm also told that a lot depends on the examiner. Most small town agencies don't employ their own, they use one from another bigger county or the state LE, or the FBI. Good ones are very expensive, and every hour they spend testing a subject costs the agency money. I don't think they would waste money on retesting someone in hopes they 'get it right.' I know those are my words, not yours, but I'm trying to justify the suggestion that the examiner would adjust the questions to accommodate the person taking the test, in a criminal investigation. I really don't see why they would, if they're trying to get to the truth.

One thing to remember, they do not ask open-ended questions, they are all yes or no questions. There's not much you can do to qualify a yes or no answer. "Yes, but.... " The answer is still yes, all you're doing is giving a reason. They don't care about the reason right then, only your answer.
(You, meant generally, not personally.)

I was required to take one for a job in a supermarket years ago. Scared me half to death. I was never told the results, but was allowed to keep the job, (I had already been hired and was in training) so I figured I must have passed.

 

[Seajay]

That's just it, LDT are only used as an LE tool since they are not admissible in courts. It's to help LE to know what direction to go in. Yet at the same time, it's not conclusive all the time, and there are varying factors involved. I read a case where because of a medication a suspect was taking, he could not take a poly.

And to my knowledge, LE doesn't usually go around blabbing what the outcome of each poly is to anyone who will listen. The only time I've heard of them giving results is when they are lying to someone to try to trap then into revealing something. For instance, someone who passed or was marginal, they may tell they didn't pass to get them to open up.

But since it's mostly used as a tool to help out LE, I can't see what advantage it would ever be to tell others involved in the case the outcome of someone else's poly. That doesn't even make sense.

And since people aren't really sure if a poly was even taken in this case, how can they say someone failed, or it was inconclusive or if asked to take a second one of if the subject even did take a second one. Maybe he did and it's just not public knowledge. IDK.

 

[TxLady2]

It is my understanding that MOST phones have gps nowadays. Even if they aren't smart phones. It's possible that MR's doesn't have gps but more likely that it does IMO.

I have a flip phone. Not a smart phone, but it has GPS. But I would have to subscribe to it, $2.95 a month through AT&T. I don't get out all that much, so I see no need to pay for something I may never use.
But the point is, even though most phones may have it, it may not be in service.

 

[NC Analyzer]

I have a flip phone. Not a smart phone, but it has GPS. But I would have to subscribe to it, $2.95 a month through AT&T. I don't get out all that much, so I see no need to pay for something I may never use.
But the point is, even though most phones may have it, it may not be in service.

The GPS that you would subscribe to isn't the same thing. That would be an app.
All phones made today have built in GPS...whether the owner uses the GPS services or not is irrelevant.

 

[JustJeannie]

Interesting. I would not think that the examiner would discuss the results with the person taking a polygraph during an investigation, unless they already figure that the person they're testing is not involved. I'm also told that a lot depends on the examiner. Most small town agencies don't employ their own, they use one from another bigger county or the state LE, or the FBI. Good ones are very expensive, and every hour they spend testing a subject costs the agency money. I don't think they would waste money on retesting someone in hopes they 'get it right.' I know those are my words, not yours, but I'm trying to justify the suggestion that the examiner would adjust the questions to accommodate the person taking the test, in a criminal investigation. I really don't see why they would, if they're trying to get to the truth.

One thing to remember, they do not ask open-ended questions, they are all yes or no questions. There's not much you can do to qualify a yes or no answer. "Yes, but.... " The answer is still yes, all you're doing is giving a reason. They don't care about the reason right then, only your answer.
(You, meant generally, not personally.)

I was required to take one for a job in a supermarket years ago. Scared me half to death. I was never told the results, but was allowed to keep the job, (I had already been hired and was in training) so I figured I must have passed.

BBM

Sometimes they do. For example, if they could ask a hypothetical parent the question, "Are you responsible for your child's disappearance?" The parent (who is innocent) could answer "No." and get an inconclusive or lying response. They might - either in the same session, or later after discussing things with the parent - ask "Did you harm your child?" "Did you hide your child away?" and get truthful "No" answers to those, along with "Do you feel responsibility for your child's disappearance?" and get a truthful answer "Yes" answer to that. At that point, they could conclude that the parent feels some guilt (for not being there to protect their child) but that the parent had nothing to do with the child's disappearance.

Because they are yes and no questions, and people may interpret them in different ways, it is sometimes necessary to get some background, then re-ask the question in a different way.

JMO of course, but I have read of cases where this has been described, and it makes sense.

I also had to take one for work once, and I agree that it's scary. But I was told by my employer that I had passed the test.

eta: When I took my test, I was read the ten questions that they were going to ask me before the test began but in a different order than they were asked. They told me that after they gave me the test, I would have the opportunity to discuss the questions with them, but not before. When the test was done, they did not even ask me if I had anything I wanted to talk about... I would assume that was because I had passed conclusively.

 

[azgrandma]

BBM

Sometimes they do. For example, if they could ask a hypothetical parent the question, "Are you responsible for your child's disappearance?" The parent (who is innocent) could answer "No." and get an inconclusive or lying response. They might - either in the same session, or later after discussing things with the parent - ask "Did you harm your child?" "Did you hide your child away?" and get truthful "No" answers to those, along with "Do you feel responsibility for your child's disappearance?" and get a truthful answer "Yes" answer to that. At that point, they could conclude that the parent feels some guilt (for not being there to protect their child) but that the parent had nothing to do with the child's disappearance.

Because they are yes and no questions, and people may interpret them in different ways, it is sometimes necessary to get some background, then re-ask the question in a different way.

JMO of course, but I have read of cases where this has been described, and it makes sense.

I also had to take one for work once, and I agree that it's scary. But I was told by my employer that I had passed the test.

eta: When I took my test, I was read the ten questions that they were going to ask me before the test began but in a different order than they were asked. They told me that after they gave me the test, I would have the opportunity to discuss the questions with them, but not before. When the test was done, they did not even ask me if I had anything I wanted to talk about... I would assume that was because I had passed conclusively.

BBM - that was exactly what happened to me. Mine was for employment so I am assuming that it is more relaxed. I know that I showed reaction on one question and when I told the examiner he almost busted a gut laughing. I used an address on the application and truly felt deceitful because I hadn't actually moved yet, I was still in process. Yup, I confessed to the whole dang thing about "did you falsify any information on the application"
They asked me the question again and I passed. He said something like "other than what we have discussed, did you falsify any information on the application"


As a side note, LDT are used for so many reasons, sometimes it's not even the test itself, it's how the person reacts to being asked to take it. They show reactions to questions and nothing more.

 

[TxLady2]

BBM

Sometimes they do. For example, if they could ask a hypothetical parent the question, "Are you responsible for your child's disappearance?" The parent (who is innocent) could answer "No." and get an inconclusive or lying response. They might - either in the same session, or later after discussing things with the parent - ask "Did you harm your child?" "Did you hide your child away?" and get truthful "No" answers to those, along with "Do you feel responsibility for your child's disappearance?" and get a truthful answer "Yes" answer to that. At that point, they could conclude that the parent feels some guilt (for not being there to protect their child) but that the parent had nothing to do with the child's disappearance.

Because they are yes and no questions, and people may interpret them in different ways, it is sometimes necessary to get some background, then re-ask the question in a different way.

JMO of course, but I have read of cases where this has been described, and it makes sense.

I also had to take one for work once, and I agree that it's scary. But I was told by my employer that I had passed the test.

eta: When I took my test, I was read the ten questions that they were going to ask me before the test began but in a different order than they were asked. They told me that after they gave me the test, I would have the opportunity to discuss the questions with them, but not before. When the test was done, they did not even ask me if I had anything I wanted to talk about... I would assume that was because I had passed conclusively.

Yes, they will ask the same question in a dozen different ways in the same test, then compare answers. I know they ask a series of control questions before the actual test, and this is explained to the person. They are instructed to first answer with a lie, and then answer another set of questions with the truth. Like, "Is your name __________?" "Do you live at such-and-such address?" This way they can get a feel for how this person's body reacts when they're lying and when they're telling the truth.

It also depends on who they are testing I would think. If it's a family member they're pretty sure is not involved, then they may discuss results with them. If it's a suspect, then no, the examiner probably would not tell that person anything, they leave that up to LE. LE can tell them or not, it's their choice.

I would not be surprised if they did discuss Elaine's results with her. But I am pretty certain they would not have talked to her about Mark's results. There would be no reason for her to know what they were at that point. And it sounds very much to me like she was guessing and/or Nancy was trying to pin her down and it made her uncomfortable.

 

[JustJeannie]

BBM - that was exactly what happened to me. Mine was for employment so I am assuming that it is more relaxed. I know that I showed reaction on one question and when I told the examiner he almost busted a gut laughing. I used an address on the application and truly felt deceitful because I hadn't actually moved yet, I was still in process. Yup, I confessed to the whole dang thing about "did you falsify any information on the application"
They asked me the question again and I passed. He said something like "other than what we have discussed, did you falsify any information on the application"


As a side note, LDT are used for so many reasons, sometimes it's not even the test itself, it's how the person reacts to being asked to take it. They show reactions to questions and nothing more.

I was terrified that I was going to fail the question, "Is your name [RL name omitted]?" I had gotten married about 3 weeks before, and I truly wasn't used to my new last name. I kept thinking that if I couldn't pass the question about my name, I was never going to get the job. I guess I got it right though. LOL

 

[Cardinal47]

Just reading over on the FB page for Dylan and the moderator said ER and MR had shared custody of Dylan. For some reason I always thought ER had full custody and MR had visitation.

So with that said does anybody know what the consequences would be if one of the custodial parents did not return the minor child as agreed?

Interesting to think about.

 

[Dee10]

I don't believe Elaine was guessing. It could be MR was told his results & he shared that info. with someone who passed it on to ER. It also happened in the Horman case, Kaine's older son overheard Terrie on the phone telling someone she failed IIRC. My point is we don't know how or where she received this information, but I believe her as well as what Corey said. ETA - Since they have been vocal publicly about this, I would think they totally trust their information is correct.

 

[raine1212]

O/T has anyone heard from FruitTingles, I guess we have a new baby now.

 

[Seajay]

O/T has anyone heard from FruitTingles, I guess we have a new baby now.

I haven't. Maybe she'll send someone smoke signals because she knows we are all anxiously awaiting the news.

 

[scorekeeper]

Just reading over on the FB page for Dylan and the moderator said ER and MR had shared custody of Dylan. For some reason I always thought ER had full custody and MR had visitation.

So with that said does anybody know what the consequences would be if one of the custodial parents did not return the minor child as agreed?

Interesting to think about.

possible violation of the parental order? if they have shared custody and Elaine is the primary/residential parent, then perhaps Mark could be in violation? And I don't know what the "punishment" would be for violation. But I don't see how, unless he had something to do with Dylan's disappearance?

 

[Dee10]

From the NG Show:

JOSTAD: Yes, he did have a cell phone, according to his mom, Elaine Redwine. And she said, too, just the fact that -- according to cell records she`s seen, the fact that there was no activity on Dylan`s cell phone after 8:00 PM is very unusual. She says this is a tech-savvy kid who is always texting. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/28/ng.01.html

 

[Dee10]

Also from NG Show - Nov. 28th

BENDER: We`re still searching in the area, the Vallecito area. However, it`s a very large lake. It takes 12 miles to drive around the entire lake. And we were searching, the reason we brought up the divers and the sonar and such is because of the dog alerts in a very small area. Our search by the divers and sonar actually covered an area probably 20 times the (INAUDIBLE) where the dogs alerted and there was simply nothing found there.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1211/28/ng.01.html