CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #29

[mck16]

I totally get what you're saying, and I don't disagree.

But, I think if LE knew for sure that the 9:37 communication was from Dylan and came from MR's home then they would have included in the newest official timeline that "By 9:37pm Dylan arrives at MR's home." Or something like that to indicate it was confirmed he made it to the home that night.

MR has reported that his son was not home when he returned from running errands on Monday morning. That is the whole story from MR. If LE cannot find evidense of DR being in the home at all then that is an obvious lie and it would be ridiculous if LE had not already arrested MR. They can't be that incompetent. That would be a flagrant mistake and I don't think would be tolerated. jmo

 

[cluciano63]

MR has reported that his son was not home when he returned from running errands on Monday morning. That is the whole story from MR. If LE cannot find evidense of DR being in the home at all then that is an obvious lie and it would be ridiculous if LE had not already arrested MR. They can't be that incompetent. That would be a flagrant mistake and I don't think would be tolerated. jmo

But how could his presence be positively proven, if they only did basic look-around type searches until ten days later? And he had been there before?

 

[Dixie811]

MR has reported that his son was not home when he returned from running errands on Monday morning. That is the whole story from MR. If LE cannot find evidense of DR being in the home at all then that is an obvious lie and it would be ridiculous if LE had not already arrested MR. They can't be that incompetent. That would be a flagrant mistake and I don't think would be tolerated. jmo

I'm not sure how this ties in with what I posted. I think your point is that if there was no forensic evidence of Dylan ever being in that home MR would have been arrested?

I was just saying I'm not sure whether Dylan's last communication came from MR's home or not, but I would bet LE knows.

 

[TxJan1971]

Just because we haven't been told of any evidence that doesn't mean there is none. If DR's last electronic device communication was at 9:37, but ER says the last cell phone activity was shortly after 8:00, he must have used a different device for his last communication. If it was the ipod or MR's computer/laptop, it would mean they should be able to show that he was there since I believe that the ipod would need a wireless connection in order to be used. MOO

BBM
Good post! I totally agree with your thought process ... however, I must admit that when reading it, I got hung up on the word "he" - because what if DR wasn't the one that used the device? That's the unknown... at this time. I like your train of thought here...

 

[katydid23]

MR has reported that his son was not home when he returned from running errands on Monday morning. That is the whole story from MR. If LE cannot find evidense of DR being in the home at all then that is an obvious lie and it would be ridiculous if LE had not already arrested MR. They can't be that incompetent. That would be a flagrant mistake and I don't think would be tolerated. jmo

No, because they probably cannot prove D wasn't there that night either. The problem is that you cannot tell WHEN the fingerprints and hair and DNA was left there by Dylan. Was it from September or November?

 

[cluciano63]

Even if Dylan was there at 9:37 there is no way to know what happened from that point until whatever time MR was alibied in town.

 

[Dixie811]

Even if Dylan was there at 9:37 there is no way to know what happened from that point until whatever time MR was alibied in town.

True. But maybe if they knew where that communication came from they would have a better idea of where to look. Close to the home? Or somewhere along the route to the home (if he never made it to marks). Could give some pointers.

 

[Lordeebee]

BBM
Good post! I totally agree with your thought process ... however, I must admit that when reading it, I got hung up on the word "he" - because what if DR wasn't the one that used the device? That's the unknown... at this time. I like your train of thought here...

OR, is it possible that the 9:37 communication wasn't received by anyone? If MR's computer was taken and searched by LE, could there be an email or text that was "interrupted" and never got sent?

 

[Seajay]

Even without Dylan's phone or iPod pings or wireless internet, they would still be able to tell where at least Mark was by his pings. That's equally important. Even with Dylan's stopping that night, since he was suppose to be with Mark, Mark's pings are important. That could prove or disprove a lot.

We don't know if Dylan got to Mark's that night, we don't know if Dylan didn't get to Mark's that night. It makes a big difference as to what happened to Dylan.

Just because LE hasn't released that information, doesn't mean they don't have it, or that Dylan wasn't there that night. LE just hasn't told us and until they do something big, I don't think they have a reason to release that informtion yet if they ever do. It doesn't mean they don't have it. IMHO

 

[Dee10]

True. But maybe if they knew where that communication came from they would have a better idea of where to look. Close to the home? Or somewhere along the route to the home (if he never made it to marks). Could give some pointers.

Even if they ate in McDonalds (7:22) they should have been home by 9:37, so hopefully they can somehow pinpoint that communication, but we still don't know who sent it.

 

[mck16]

I'm not sure how this ties in with what I posted. I think your point is that if there was no forensic evidence of Dylan ever being in that home MR would have been arrested?

I was just saying I'm not sure whether Dylan's last communication came from MR's home or not, but I would bet LE knows.

Sorry for highjacking your post. jmo

 

[scorekeeper]

even without dylan's phone or ipod pings or wireless internet, they would still be able to tell where at least mark was by his pings. That's equally important. Even with dylan's stopping that night, since he was suppose to be with mark, mark's pings are important. That could prove or disprove a lot.

we don't know if dylan got to mark's that night, we don't know if dylan got to mark's that night. It makes a big difference as to what happened to dylan.

Just because le hasn't released that information, doesn't mean they don't have it, or that dylan wasn't there that night. Le just hasn't told us and until they do something big, i don't think they have a reason to release that informtion yet if they ever do. It doesn't mean they don't have it. Imho

bbm

????

 

[TxJan1971]

even without dylan's phone or ipod pings or wireless internet, they would still be able to tell where at least mark was by his pings. That's equally important. Even with dylan's stopping that night, since he was suppose to be with mark, mark's pings are important. That could prove or disprove a lot.

We don't know if dylan got to mark's that night, we don't know if dylan got to mark's that night. It makes a big difference as to what happened to dylan.

Just because le hasn't released that information, doesn't mean they don't have it, or that dylan wasn't there that night. Le just hasn't told us and until they do something big, i don't think they have a reason to release that informtion yet if they ever do. It doesn't mean they don't have it. Imho

exactly!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dixie811]

Sorry for highjacking your post. jmo

You're fine! I was just confused :blushing:

 

[TxJan1971]

Jumping off of mck's previous post:

Any legal minds on here that could answer a hypothetical?

If someone living in the state of Colorado lied to police during a criminal investigation,

1) What's the likelihood of that individual being arrested on a charge of lying to LE during a criminal investigation prior to having any evidence that a crime had been committed and/or evidence that supports said party's involvement;

b) If an arrest were made on a lying charge alone, what would the minimum sentencing guidelines be (even an approximate guess)

c) If evidence is found AFTER respective individual completes jail time that solidly implicates said party, can that individual be rearrested on different charges?

Just a "what if" thought that went thru my head after reading mck's prior post.

 

[Monroe12]

Two thoughts: you can prove Dylan was at his Dad's through forensic evidence, but you canNOT prove he WAS NOT there. This demonstrates the point that you cannot prove a negative.
The fact that Law Enforcement did not find evidence that Dylan truly arrived at his Dad's house (AND MAY I STRESS THAT THIS IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT) does not mean he didn't actually get there. That is why Mark Redwine CANT be arrested for this. That wouldn't even get a pass from a grand jury, let alone the DA's office. They simply wont waste their time and money on a case that has no evidentiary foundation. Saying that because someone lied, there 's your proof, wont fly. Heck, you couldn't even get the cops to arrest him. Sure wish we knew what the cops DO know!

 

[cluciano63]

Seems LE should have had all phone records and any pings for some time now, perhaps,leading them to the searches they revealed last week.

In my opinion, LE is following what little they have regarding MR and DR's trails and do not have anyone else to focus on at all. Unless a suspect drops into their laps, I am not sure what can be done. If they find Dylan's body, for instance, and no stranger DNA is found, what can they do? The only way I can see arrest coming is if someone in LE's line of sight leaves DNA behind AND perhaps has matching tower info from his phone.

 

[Seajay]

bbm

????

Suppose to read we don't know that he didn't get to Mark's that night. I'll go change it.

 

[TxJan1971]

Two thoughts: you can prove Dylan was at his Dad's through forensic evidence, but you canNOT prove he WAS NOT there. This demonstrates the point that you cannot prove a negative.
The fact that Law Enforcement did not find evidence that Dylan truly arrived at his Dad's house (AND MAY I STRESS THAT THIS IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED FACT) does not mean he didn't actually get there. That is why Mark Redwine CANT be arrested for this. That wouldn't even get a pass from a grand jury, let alone the DA's office. They simply wont waste their time and money on a case that has no evidentiary foundation. Saying that because someone lied, there 's your proof, wont fly. Heck, you couldn't even get the cops to arrest him. Sure wish we knew what the cops DO know!

Agree... that's why I posed the questions I did in my last post. Maybe it happens in CO but not where I'm from that I'm aware of. If I were an investigator/LE, I'm not sure I would even contemplate an arrest for just lying unless I had some compelling reason to do so - especially if I'm hoping to build my case with solid evidence, etc. and want the charges to stick.

 

[Confusion]

Agree... that's why I posed the questions I did in my last post. Maybe it happens in CO but not where I'm from that I'm aware of. If I were an investigator/LE, I'm not sure I would even contemplate an arrest for just lying unless I had some compelling reason to do so - especially if I'm hoping to build my case with solid evidence, etc. and want the charges to stick.

I don't think the punishment is really severe for lying to a police officer, but you can spend 5 years in prison for lying to a federal agent.

http://www.federalcriminallawyer.us...al-prosecutions-for-making-a-false-statement/