CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #31

[mck16]

That's why I want to know what was he talking about in general when he made this statement. If he was talking about the events of the night before we (and he) knows that Dylan and RN were indeed talking (if that was Dylan responding) or if he was talking about the next morning...well that is very interesting indeed.

Is there a link to that uncut interview? Or maybe if you know the date so I can go and look for it. Can anyone help out with this? tia

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

The way he fumbles with words is so disturbing to me. It reminds me of someone I know very well that is a pathological liar. When he's lying he goes way overboard in giving an answer. He goes into extreme detail that really isn't necessary. And he talks in circles to a point that you have no idea what the answer to the question is and become confused yourself in what the original question that you asked was.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Is there a link to that uncut interview? Or maybe if you know the date so I can go and look for it. Can anyone help out with this? tia

I'm not sure where it came from?

 

[Tennlyn]

Is there a link to that uncut interview? Or maybe if you know the date so I can go and look for it. Can anyone help out with this? tia

http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico...nce/-/9153728/17616906/-/129kycz/-/index.html

Also a transcript posted in the media thread at
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8596261&postcount=31"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO CO - Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 Nov 2012 *Media , Maps & Timelines*[/ame]

 

[NC Analyzer]

Ok, but there is no confusion in my mind about it, I have no doubt that both parents took polygraphs. LE is just not going to talk about results to the public, that's what both officials were trying to get across.
I don't see it as conflicting information. One said they both took them, the other said he won't comment on it. That doesn't imply that one or the other did not take a poly, IMO, it's just saying he cannot discuss it.
We can agree to disagree, ok?

I am so very sorry that you didn't understand what I was attempting to convey in my post. In no way was I disagreeing with your comment. As I previously stated, I was trying to be helpful to other posters with additional information as there was some confusion on this thread regarding the conflicting news reports about the parents taking a poly. I found two separate LE officials who addressed this issue and was attempting to clear things up for anyone who was questioning the official word on whether or not a poly had been administered to the parents. I wasn't involved in any commentary about the results. There is no agreement or disagreement so perhaps it is me who is confused about your comment? In either case, I will be sure to make my comments clearer in the future to avoid all possible misunderstandings.

JMO

 

[asyousay]

The fact of the matter is :cow: a innocent man does not keep changing his story!

And he keeps adding tiny little bits or changing the story which points to him hiding something.

 

[ChiTownLass]

Not if they had a search warrant as they did when they went back to MR's house. But that was like 14 days later? I don't know if cadaver dogs could have picked up a scent of a body having been there at one time this late. They can pick up the scent of bodies for a very long time. I know they can pick up the scent of a body that had been in a house or car at one time (and moved), but I don't know for how long.

I know they had a search warrant for that 2nd search nearly 2 weeks later....but even search warrants have to be specific. When presented in front of a judge to get the warrant LE have to state certain things they are looking for (IIRC)
Would then the judge be able to grant the permission for the dogs as part of that search? (in my research of the cadaver dogs, it does state they need permission from the owners to do the search)

I am just trying to figure out why we have not heard why or if these types of dogs were used at MR's house and cars. I do remember reading they were at the lake, and had some hits.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I know they had a search warrant for that 2nd search nearly 2 weeks later....but even search warrants have to be specific. When presented in front of a judge to get the warrant LE have to state certain things they are looking for (IIRC)
Would then the judge be able to grant the permission for the dogs as part of that search? (in my research of the cadaver dogs, it does state they need permission from the owners to do the search)

I am just trying to figure out why we have not heard why or if these types of dogs were used at MR's house and cars. I do remember reading they were at the lake, and had some hits.

I know someone said they saw dogs when LE was searching MR's house. I'm not sure if this was the first or second time and I'm not sure what type of dogs they were.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

R: So you went to run errands. Were you going to take him with you to run errands?

M: Well, there was some discussion he had with me the night before about leaving with me so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends that had been trying to text him or that he had been communicating with. As he had indicated to me he had been up until 4 o'clock in the morning the night before, he was tired from being in the airport most of the day in his travel from Colorado Springs to Durango. I laughed at him kind of jokingly because I know him. If he ain't got to get up, he's not likely to get up. And he's not the type of kid who's going to get up at 6:30 if he doesn't have to. But you know, his friends are important and I know they're important me. So there was a possibility but it doesn't surprise me he elected to not get up when I left. And when I left, he acknowledged everything I was saying to him and that I would be back. He knew when I came back that I would be working on getting him down to his friends. And that's part of the struggle we all have, you know, what happened to him between the time I left and when I got back. And that's what nobody seems to be able to answer.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8596261&postcount=31

Here is the complete statement. This really bothers me! The part that says one of his friends that had been TRYING to text him.

Here's the thing. If he would have just left it at that (above) I would assume he was referring to one of his friends that was trying to get ahold of him the next day (Monday). But he doesn't leave it at that, so I'm assuming he was referring to one of his friends that he was texting with Sunday night. Why say the TRYING TO TEXT HIM part if he's talking about Sunday night?

 

[SCHMAE]

The fact of the matter is :cow: a innocent man does not keep changing his story!

And he keeps adding tiny little bits or changing the story which points to him hiding something.

Would the continually adding new details be because once the lie is told, the liar fears it's not good enough or seems suspicious, so they add more to try to make it more believable? That's what I would guess is a reason for the add ons !

 

[SCHMAE]

Here is the complete statement. This really bothers me! The part that says one of his friends that had been TRYING to text him.

Here's the thing. If he would have just left it at that (above) I would assume he was referring to one of his friends that was trying to get ahold of him the next day (Monday). But he doesn't leave it at that, so I'm assuming he was referring to one of his friends that he was texting with Sunday night. Why say the TRYING TO TEXT HIM part if he's talking about Sunday night?

Wow , great catch. Who caught this? Fedfan ? Nice job !
If I'm gathering it right, the question is How did MR know his
friend was TRYING to text him ? Right ? Oh boy !

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

R: So you went to run errands. Were you going to take him with you to run errands?

M: Well, there was some discussion he had with me the night before about leaving with me so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends that had been trying to text him or that he had been communicating with. As he had indicated to me he had been up until 4 o'clock in the morning the night before, he was tired from being in the airport most of the day in his travel from Colorado Springs to Durango. I laughed at him kind of jokingly because I know him. If he ain't got to get up, he's not likely to get up. And he's not the type of kid who's going to get up at 6:30 if he doesn't have to. But you know, his friends are important and I know they're important me. So there was a possibility but it doesn't surprise me he elected to not get up when I left. And when I left, he acknowledged everything I was saying to him and that I would be back. He knew when I came back that I would be working on getting him down to his friends. And that's part of the struggle we all have, you know, what happened to him between the time I left and when I got back. And that's what nobody seems to be able to answer.

As a matter of fact, wouldn't most people say 'Well, there was some discussion he had with me the night before about leaving with me so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends' and leave it at that? Why add the part about texting at all? Why is that even a significant part of the answer?

This is what I mean about liars having a tendency to go overboard with an answer. They try to get too detailed to cover their tracks and it's just not necessary. (I'm no expert in the field but I have many years of experience with a pathological liar first hand)

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Wow , great catch. Who caught this? Fedfan ? Nice job !
If I'm gathering it right, the question is How did MR know his
friend was TRYING to text him ? Right ? Oh boy !

Well we do know that MR knew at the time of this interview that RN had been trying to text Dylan on that MONDAY. So if he wouldn't have added the part about RN and Dylan actually having a text conversation I would have assumed he was talking about the friend that had been trying to text him Monday.

But he didn't leave it at that. He added the friend that Dylan had been having a text conversation with, so he must have been referring to Sunday right? So why say anything at all about the friend TRYING TO TEXT HIM (Dylan). As far as we know RN was not just trying to text Dylan, they were actually having a text conversation. Until the 9:27 text that Ryan sent. I believe at that point RN was TRYING to text Dylan with no response.

This actually makes me wonder if maybe it wasn't really Dylan responding to RN in those texts Sunday night.

Imagine this scenario for a second. ALL HYPOTHETICAL. MR does something to Dylan shortly after McDonalds Sunday evening and he's frantically trying to cover up evidence etc. Dylan's phone keeps getting text messages and he's getting annoyed. He knows he can't just not respond to RN so he responds. But in his mind as things are unfolding Sunday night it's this darn RN who keeps TRYING to text Dylan! Why would he say the friend that was TRYING TO TEXT HIM? As far as we know on Sunday RN was not TRYING to text Dylan, he was successfully texting Dylan and getting responses too right?

 

[asyousay]

[/B]


Would the continually adding new details be because once the lie is told, the liar fears it's not good enough or seems suspicious, so they add more to try to make it more believable? That's what I would guess is a reason for the add ons !

I have no idea but it rings alarm bells that 2 months after the fact he is still adding things to that night. First of all i think Dylan was tired and crashed , then it became they threw around a ball and now add in they watched a movie and Dylan was awake when he went upstairs to bed. So what happened to Dylan being really tired?

 

[mck16]

As a matter of fact, wouldn't most people say 'Well, there was some discussion he had with me the night before about leaving with me so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends' and leave it at that? Why add the part about texting at all? Why is that even a significant part of the answer?

This is what I mean about liars having a tendency to go overboard with an answer. They try to get too detailed to cover their tracks and it's just not necessary. (I'm no expert in the field but I have many years of experience with a pathological liar first hand)

Well, hmm! After reading this in context, I just don't know what to think. Had the texts been released at this point? I agree that there was too much information, but at the same time I cannot say I feel it was for nefarious reasons. I guess what I am saying is I just don't know. But, it is interesting and somewhat baffling. Course it could just be because of what we know now. Hindsight is always better if you know what I mean. I will continue to keep my mind open while reading all the great posts here. jmo

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

I hope I'm not confusing everyone. Think of it this way. IF it was MR that was replying to RN and not Dylan then his comment makes perfect sense in HIS mind. If Dylan were already gone at this point, then in MR's mind RN WAS TRYING TO TEXT DYLAN but after he said that he realizes that HE (MR) was actually responding as Dylan so he had to add the cover up line of 'OR THAT HE HAD BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH'

M: Well, there was some discussion he had with me the night before about leaving with me so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends that had been trying to text him or that he had been communicating with.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I hope I'm not confusing everyone. Think of it this way. IF it was MR that was replying to RN and not Dylan then his comment makes perfect sense in HIS mind. If Dylan were already gone at this point, then in MR's mind RN WAS TRYING TO TEXT DYLAN but after he said that he realizes that HE (MR) was actually responding as Dylan so he had to add the cover up line of 'OR THAT HE HAD BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH'

Maybe Dylan complained to Mark about having difficulties with texts being received and sent from the house. MOO.

 

[Moxie Vi]

Just a thought... perhaps he said the part about trying to text because DR mentioned problems with his cell (I say this because for some reason he switched to his iPod). Then he mentions that they had b3en communicating because DR was successful with his iPod. I am not convinced of this but it is another potential explanation.

 

[mck16]

Maybe Dylan complained to Mark about having difficulties with texts being received and sent from the house. MOO.

I was just about to post the same. We have all commented on the disjointed texts. MR may have asked for definite plans and DR complained that he couldn't get texts to firm up plans. It did seem that the texts began at 8:00 and texts were still coming through until 9:27. jmo

 

[Moxie Vi]

Maybe Dylan complained to Ma
having difficulties with texts being received and sent from the house. MOO.

I had the same thought! Great minds and all that.