CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #32

[TxLady2]

One thing that really stood out to me was she mentioned so many of the same things many of us have said here. She doesn't believe he started walking then got abducted, that an abductor would pack his bag, he wouldn't have hitchhiiked, he would have called or texted for a ride and the something could have happened Sunday night.

Why would anyone have had to pack his bag? Maybe he had never got around to unpacking it when he arrived?

We've gone to visit family for a week and never unpacked our bags... we leave them packed and just get out clothes and things as we need them. For one thing, some people just don't have the space to put extra things away.

I would think a 13 y.o. would not be concerned with unpacking and putting things away the same night they get there. Just saying.

 

[asyousay]

This is also one to ponder!

She said there was nothing there of Dylans not even a sock so where and when did the sweat pants come tolight! She said nothing!

A past visit ?

Dylan stayed there in September

 

[asyousay]

Why would anyone have had to pack his bag? Maybe he had never got around to unpacking it when he arrived?

We've gone to visit family for a week and never unpacked our bags... we leave them packed and just get out clothes and things as we need them. For one thing, some people just don't have the space to put extra things away.

I would think a 13 y.o. would not be concerned with unpacking and putting things away the same night they get there. Just saying.

True but then no 13 year old boy is going to carry around a rucksack full of the items he brought with him for a weeks stay to his "friends house" . Sorry it just does not make sense.

 

[SCHMAE]

True but then no 13 year old boy is going to carry around a rucksack full of the items he brought with him for a weeks stay to his "friends house" . Sorry it just does not make sense.

Hmm!
Could this be a hint in ruling out a wandering SO ?
Let's just say SO knocks on door and sees an opportunity.
SO doesn't know DR doesn't live here full time. He doesn't
know he's only there for a week, so why say let's get your backpack?
If he just sees a child and wants to snatch him, he would assume that
is his home and no way would he say I need to ' pack up ' all this child's
belongings to ' hide' evidence because if the child lives in that home, he's
got a room full of evidence, closets and dressers full of clothes. So how
and why would an SO know that he's only got one tiny little sack full of
belongings? According to ER in the interview, there were none of DR's foot
prints anywhere leading away from the house as if he'd taken off on foot, so
an SO driving up and snatching him seems LESS likely than before. It's
as if the only place something could have happened is inside the house and yet
there's no evidence that something did. WTH ?

Ok I've just thought myself into a circle for the 40th time . If MR is responsible,
why didn't he LEAVE something of Dylan's at the house. That seems more likely
if you're to believe his story, some proof he was even there ? UGH!

 

[Dee10]

His phone & charger were also put in the bag.

 

[TxLady2]

Two things strike me
ER had lots of friends right near by that would have given him a ride if he needed it. By saying that it seems that DR had those friends' numbers and knew them well enough to call if he needed a ride. But he did not. Could one of those friends be a bad person and ER didn't know ? Maybe DR did call them ? Food for thought. Second, they checked everywhere for his shoe print. I'm assuming she means as soon as she got there while prints would still be fresh. But there wasn't snow then, correct? So if he were walking on pavement there would be no shoe print, right?

Third, sorry ! TxJan's transcribe again :
Elaine Redwine:
The judge made it very clear when he spoke with Dylan one on one that he would not release those records. They were released to law enforcement but they won’t release them to anybody other than law enforcement

What the HECK is in those sealed records. This statement makes it sound as if Dylan was very concerned about what he was going to say and would only say it once he knew it would be sealed and no one, more specifically MR, would never see it . So if it's so bad, why would the judge even allow him to go ? It cannot be that bad, right?

Either it wasn't all that bad, or the judge didn't believe Dylan. He could have told the judge he just didn't like being with his dad because they didn't get along. But maybe he didn't really mind going to his dad's because it gave him a chance to see his friends.
If he had told the judge that his father abused him and he was scared of him, or that his father gave him alcohol or drugs, for instance, and if the judge believed him, then it's possible he would still need some proof in order to change the visitation order. Judges prefer that children have a relationship with both parents, as long as one or the other is not endangering the child.

 

[asyousay]

Hmm!
Could this be a hint in ruling out a wandering SO ?
Let's just say SO knocks on door and sees an opportunity.
SO doesn't know DR doesn't live here full time. He doesn't
know he's only there for a week, so why say let's get your backpack?
If he just sees a child and wants to snatch him, he would assume that
is his home and no way would he say I need to ' pack up ' all this child's
belongings to ' hide' evidence because if the child lives in that home, he's
got a room full of evidence, closets and dressers full of clothes. So how
and why would an SO know that he's only got one tiny little sack full of
belongings? According to ER in the interview, there were none of DR's foot
prints anywhere leading away from the house as if he'd taken off on foot, so
an SO driving up and snatching him seems LESS likely than before. It's
as if the only place something could have happened is inside the house and yet
there's no evidence that something did. WTH ?

Ok I've just thought myself into a circle for the 40th time . If MR is responsible,
why didn't he LEAVE something of Dylan's at the house. That seems more likely
if you're to believe his story, some proof he was even there ? UGH!

The 2 things that have always alarmed me and to me point to Mark's guilt is lack of use of the phone on Monday and Dylan taking everything with him on Monday morning.

:cow:

 

[TxLady2]

True but then no 13 year old boy is going to carry around a rucksack full of the items he brought with him for a weeks stay to his "friends house" . Sorry it just does not make sense.

I know some kids who carry around a backpack stuffed with a lot of things, all the time, the things have to weigh a lot.
But I was referring to what the poster I quoted said, that an abductor would not take the time to repack his bag before abducting him. Just saying that it's possible the bag was never unpacked.

ETA: He might want to take his backpack with his things if he planned on spending the night with his friends. Whether someone he knew slightly came along and offered him a ride, or he started out hiking along the road, it's quite possible he took it with him. We can't rule that out by saying no boy would or wouldn't. We have no idea what every 13 y.o. in the country would or wouldn't do.

 

[Dee10]

MR's video is not up yet.

Elaine's video got
431 views | 11 hours ago

 

[Dee10]

Hmm!
Could this be a hint in ruling out a wandering SO ?
Let's just say SO knocks on door and sees an opportunity.
SO doesn't know DR doesn't live here full time. He doesn't
know he's only there for a week, so why say let's get your backpack?
If he just sees a child and wants to snatch him, he would assume that
is his home and no way would he say I need to ' pack up ' all this child's
belongings to ' hide' evidence because if the child lives in that home, he's
got a room full of evidence, closets and dressers full of clothes. So how
and why would an SO know that he's only got one tiny little sack full of
belongings? According to ER in the interview, there were none of DR's foot
prints anywhere leading away from the house as if he'd taken off on foot, so
an SO driving up and snatching him seems LESS likely than before. It's
as if the only place something could have happened is inside the house and yet
there's no evidence that something did. WTH ?

Ok I've just thought myself into a circle for the 40th time . If MR is responsible,
why didn't he LEAVE something of Dylan's at the house. That seems more likely
if you're to believe his story, some proof he was even there ? UGH!

BBM
There was one item left, the iPod that may have been used & conveniently left for LE to examine. I believe this was used for whatever texts were either sent or rec'd after 8 ish but that is JMO.

 

[azgrandma]

BBM
There was one item left, the iPod that may have been used & conveniently left for LE to examine. I believe this was used for whatever texts were either sent or rec'd after 8 ish but that is JMO.

I disagree, the ipod that was taken by LE (according to MR) is not known if it was Dylan's or Mark's. I would imagine that if there was an ipod and it belonged to Dylan than Elaine would have said, the only thing left was his ipod - instead she said there was nothing not even a sock.

 

[asyousay]

I disagree, the ipod that was taken by LE (according to MR) is not known if it was Dylan's or Mark's. I would imagine that if there was an ipod and it belonged to Dylan than Elaine would have said, the only thing left was his ipod - instead she said there was nothing not even a sock.

This makes sense. If not for the Dylan messaging ( i assume it was him) , i would still think Dylan never made it to Marks that night.

 

[katydid23]

Hmm!
Could this be a hint in ruling out a wandering SO ?
Let's just say SO knocks on door and sees an opportunity.
SO doesn't know DR doesn't live here full time. He doesn't
know he's only there for a week, so why say let's get your backpack?
If he just sees a child and wants to snatch him, he would assume that
is his home and no way would he say I need to ' pack up ' all this child's
belongings to ' hide' evidence because if the child lives in that home, he's
got a room full of evidence, closets and dressers full of clothes. So how
and why would an SO know that he's only got one tiny little sack full of
belongings? According to ER in the interview, there were none of DR's foot
prints anywhere leading away from the house as if he'd taken off on foot, so
an SO driving up and snatching him seems LESS likely than before. It's
as if the only place something could have happened is inside the house and yet
there's no evidence that something did. WTH ?

Ok I've just thought myself into a circle for the 40th time . If MR is responsible,
why didn't he LEAVE something of Dylan's at the house. That seems more likely
if you're to believe his story, some proof he was even there ? UGH!

BBM

But that might have been risky because if he reached in an grabbed something of D's from the backpack then he would have to make sure it would still have D's prints mainly on it and not his own. And so maybe he decided not to chance that and just dispose of everything, making it appear like he ran away. JMO:moo:

 

[Dee10]

I disagree, the ipod that was taken by LE (according to MR) is not known if it was Dylan's or Mark's. I would imagine that if there was an ipod and it belonged to Dylan than Elaine would have said, the only thing left was his ipod - instead she said there was nothing not even a sock.

Right it could be Marks & 'someone' used it. I lean towards the iPod because nothing else registered on Dylan's phone records (according to Elaine) after the 8 conversation with R. Also this:

Melissa Blasius ‏@MelissaBlasius @missreported @9NEWS They searched computers. They found his ipod texting account.

 

[deoneta]

Two things strike me
ER had lots of friends right near by that would have given him a ride if he needed it. By saying that it seems that DR had those friends' numbers and knew them well enough to call if he needed a ride. But he did not. Could one of those friends be a bad person and ER didn't know ? Maybe DR did call them ? Food for thought. Second, they checked everywhere for his shoe print. I'm assuming she means as soon as she got there while prints would still be fresh. But there wasn't snow then, correct? So if he were walking on pavement there would be no shoe print, right?

Third, sorry ! TxJan's transcribe again :
Elaine Redwine:
The judge made it very clear when he spoke with Dylan one on one that he would not release those records. They were released to law enforcement but they won’t release them to anybody other than law enforcement

What the HECK is in those sealed records. This statement makes it sound as if Dylan was very concerned about what he was going to say and would only say it once he knew it would be sealed and no one, more specifically MR, would never see it . So if it's so bad, why would the judge even allow him to go ? It cannot be that bad, right?

BBM My friends were divorced and custody was revisited when their son was thirteen, an age where the child's preference was a factor. The son told me that the judge reassured him that anything he said was strictly private and he could be honest without worrying about hurting the feelings of either parent. I think the assurance of confidentiality might be sort of standard. To me, this doesn't indicate there was necessarily anything alarming in Dylan's statement. It's possible their were misgivings and negative comments, but apparently not rising to the level of denying MR visitation. All MOO.

 

[SuperMom1995]

good point. If he had decided to try to walk to his friends, why take his whole backpack? That would just weigh him down. Most kids travel light , especially boys and especially for a one day outing. It just clicked in my head that he would almost certainly not have taken a backpack if he were going to attempt to walk or hitch to his friends' house !

bingo!!!

 

[Salem]

BBM

BBM My friends were divorced and custody was revisited when their son was thirteen, an age where the child's preference was a factor. The son told me that the judge reassured him that anything he said was strictly private and he could be honest without worrying about hurting the feelings of either parent. I think the assurance of confidentiality might be sort of standard. To me, this doesn't indicate there was necessarily anything alarming in Dylan's statement. It's possible their were misgivings and negative comments, but apparently not rising to the level of denying MR visitation. All MOO.

It is assumed that Dylan didn't want to go to his dad's. BUT maybe it was ER's feelings Dylan didn't want to hurt? Maybe Dylan did want to go to his Dad's but knew his mom didn't want him to, or didn't want to tell his mom because she doesn't like his Dad.

Kids are really good at understanding what a parent thinks/likes/wants and kids will do what they need to do, including keeping secrets and not being 100% honest, when they feel they need to, in order not to upset the parent. It is an assumption that Dylan did not want to go to MR's with very little basis in fact, given that Dylan had just been there the month before with, apparently no problems, or at least no problems we know about. And the month before that, he went on a road trip with MR and apparently, there was no problem there either? At least not a problem that we know about?

Dylan could have been trying to protect his mom's feelings, as much as he might have been saying he didn't want to go. We don't know. BUT LE knows, and that is what counts. I hope it leads them to some answers and pretty darn quick. This child needs to come home.

Salem

 

[asyousay]

BBM

It is assumed that Dylan didn't want to go to his dad's. BUT maybe it was ER's feelings Dylan didn't want to hurt? Maybe Dylan did want to go to his Dad's but knew his mom didn't want him to, or didn't want to tell his mom because she doesn't like his Dad.

Kids are really good at understanding what a parent thinks/likes/wants and kids will do what they need to do, including keeping secrets and not being 100% honest, when they feel they need to, in order not to upset the parent. It is an assumption that Dylan did not want to go to MR with very little basis in fact, given that Dylan had just been there the month before with, apparently no problems, or at least no problems we know about. And the month before that, he went on a road trip with MR and apparently, there was not problem there either? At least not a problem that we know about?

Dylan could have been trying to protect his mom's feelings, as much as he might have been saying he didn't want to go. We don't know. BUT LE knows, and that is what counts. I hope it leads them to some answers and pretty darn quick. This child needs to come home.

Salem

There is absolutely no excitement in his texts to show he is pleased to be back in the place he lived for about 12 years .

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Is it possible that Dylan's iPod was out of the backpack (say in the truck) and it wasn't discovered until later?

 

[SuperMom1995]

BBM - I lost my mother suddenly a few years ago, my siblings and I all spoke of her in the present & past tense for almost a year. IMO it was us learning to accept it, sometimes we could and it was past tense, sometimes we couldn't and it was present tense.
Amazing how your mind works
ETA I agree that it is towards acceptance

...and the fact that you still spoke of him in the present tense shows how hard it is to accept a close loved one's death after you KNOW they are deceased and how difficult it would be to speak of them in the past tense within only a week or two of your child being missing. My Dad was my best friend and passed away 10 years ago and sometimes I find myself slipping and speaking of him in the present tense.