CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #36

[TxJan1971]

And he is trying to deal with the added weight of knowing that some people think he had something to do with his son's disappearance because he was the last one to see him. He has contacted a criminal-defense attorney to help him with that.

http://www.canoncitydailyrecord.com/ci_22110078/dad-its-wait-wonder

 

[cluciano63]

Here is the thing about the idea of a parent having Dylan "kept" somewhere, with some unknown person. This person would have to be, IMO, someone close to and trusted by that parent, someone they had been in contact with for at least some length of time as a friend, lover, whatever. Even if, as a plan developed, they started using so-called "bat phones" to make their plans, there should be a record of someone suddenly no longer being in contact with, for instance, MR or ER, someone who they were in regular contact with up until a date maybe between September and November.

I would think the FBI would be trained to look for this sort of thing. They are aware that people planning crimes often use untraceable phones. And it is difficult to imagine that one is going to plan a crime of this magnitude with someone you have not had any prior contact with. JMO

 

[cluciano63]

Did he ? I only remember him saying he spoke or consulted with one to ' watch his back' . I never heard the word hire or retained and he does not act like a man who's under legal counsel at all.

I agree he does not appear to be under advice, but on the other hand, I never heard of a lawyer who would "watch your back" without being paid.

 

[Eileen730]

Did he ? I only remember him saying he spoke or consulted with one to ' watch his back' . I never heard the word hire or retained and he does not act like a man who's under legal counsel at all.

Well they cant watch his back unless he retains one!
Id bet my last dollar they told him he needs a lawyer.
JMO

 

[Eileen730]

Here is the thing about the idea of a parent having Dylan "kept" somewhere, with some unknown person. This person would have to be, IMO, someone close to and trusted by that parent, someone they had been in contact with for at least some length of time as a friend, lover, whatever. Even if, as a plan developed, they started using so-called "bat phones" to make their plans, there should be a record of someone suddenly no longer being in contact with, for instance, MR or ER, someone who they were in regular contact with up until a date maybe between September and November.

I would think the FBI would be trained to look for this sort of thing. They are aware that people planning crimes often use untraceable phones. And it is difficult to imagine that one is going to plan a crime of this magnitude with someone you have not had any prior contact with. JMO

Also would this friend, lover, or whatever be willing to do time in jail for kidnapping? I dont think so!

 

[*Lash*]

Since the change in custody we have learned MR lost a c/s check. Could this mean not only did MR lose an income, but maybe he was ordered to begin paying c/s to ER?

 

[SCHMAE]

TO CLU and Eileen's posts, YES ! I bet the lawyer has said ' hey while i'm watching your back it's time for you to retain me' and MR wants to put it off until he cannot any more to save money in case he never needs a lawyer. Regardless of if he's guilty of anything from kidnapping or worse, I think most of us can agree, he's kind of a cheapo ! LOL , right? So until he's paid that attorney, his advice is most likely ' hire me' from the attorney ! MR may think unless he's charged with something, why waste the money ?

 

[SCHMAE]

Since the change in custody we have learned MR lost a c/s check. Could this mean not only did MR lose an income, but maybe he was ordered to begin paying c/s to ER?

Ooh, nice thinking.
That would make it literally twice as bad as just losing support.

 

[tamild]

Here are the various MSM statements about Monday morning before MR left for his errands:

Mark said he tried to wake his son the next morning around 7:30 before leaving to run errands, but Dylan was fast asleep

http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20121215/NEWS01/121219687/-1/news01&source=RSS

Mark Redwine said he was going to give Dylan a ride to his friends’ house and tried to wake him up when he left Monday morning but said Dylan was “out like a light.”

http://www.durangoherald.com/articl...ement-says-missing-teenager-did-not-run-away-

The next morning, Dad says at about 7:30 AM, Dylan was still asleep there on the couch. He`d had a bed made up for him there. He said Dylan apparently wanted to sleep in, so dad left, went to go run some errands.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1212/03/ng.01.html

“He was sleeping on the couch, and I told him I had to go about my errands,” Mark Redwine said in a Sunday telephone interview. “He said, ‘OK, I understand.’ The focus for him was to go to his friend’s, but I live far back in the canyon.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/dylan-148038-son-redwine.html

AND the latest:

You know, I spent 45 minutes… an hour… trying to get Dylan to wake up and, you know, and helping him… saying, you know, “Dylan, I’m going down,” ‘cos he had talked to me about going to see his friend, Ryan …that morning, but he wasn’t having no part of it… which is not uncommon for him. I mean, you can’t get him to bed and you can’t get him up. Pretty much how it is when he’s not at school to deal with, which is most of the time when he’s up here, although he had a school bus stop right down the street, so he could ride the bus from the school up here if I was home, or he could ride it to his mom’s house, which was a thing of beauty because her and I didn’t have to deal with transporting him.

Melissa Blasius Uncut Interview w/ MR

Thanks for this. So we have no statement from MR where he specifically told Dylan that he would take him to his friends when he got back? Maybe MR thought that Dylan should've known that, but if he didn't say it, maybe Dylan really didn't know. Maybe all he knew was that he missed his ride.

 

[catswhiskers]

TO CLU and Eileen's posts, YES ! I bet the lawyer has said ' hey while i'm watching your back it's time for you to retain me' and MR wants to put it off until he cannot any more to save money in case he never needs a lawyer. Regardless of if he's guilty of anything from kidnapping or worse, I think most of us can agree, he's kind of a cheapo ! LOL , right? So until he's paid that attorney, his advice is most likely ' hire me' from the attorney ! MR may think unless he's charged with something, why waste the money ?

Or he might also be thinking that if he is innocent, why should he need to pay an attorney? He may have thought he could handle the pressure and attention himself, even by staying out of the public eye as much as possible - but that hasn't really worked for him. We don't know either way I guess - he may have been following an attorney's advice all along. If so, I don't know that he has been very helpful.
:moo:

 

[TxJan1971]

Thanks for this. So we have no statement from MR where he specifically told Dylan that he would take him to his friends when he got back? Maybe MR thought that Dylan should've known that, but if he didn't say it, maybe Dylan really didn't know. Maybe all he knew was that he missed his ride.

Let me see if I can find anything specific.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Are you correct is where Dylan's dad lives on this map? Where the red marker is? I think, instead, he lives a little further down the road, the last house on the left before the big green pasture with the pond in the back. I matched up the roof lines from the videos and my google search also shows this is where he lives.

I pulled the map from the media thread just to give otto something to have to look around the area. It was stated a couple times that MR lived at the end of a dead end road and that is not true. So, here is a better map with MR's address for otto. I should have stated that it was the general area MR lived in. lol

[ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2343+county+rd+500,++Bayfield,+CO&hl=en&ll=37.469715,-107.549801&spn=0.003798,0.007639&sll=37.473481,-107.548212&sspn=0.007595,0.015278&t=h&hnear=2343+County+Road+500,+Bayfield,+La+Plata,+Colorado+81122&z=17"]2343 county rd 500, Bayfield, CO - Google Maps[/ame]

 

[ColdHands]

The discussion of child support and alimony is interesting, but honestly killing Dylan would have been the last thing MR wanted if his motive was to get his child support income back. No judge would award child support for a dead kid, would they? I think it would be hard for him to argue that she should start paying him again if Dylan was missing?

So I think the child support change would be a trigger for a different motive. There seem to be a number of things happening that could trigger a rage against ER - her moving away with MH, CR going too, she has a new job/house, he lost his child support income, etc.

So I honestly don't think those details matter at all. If you look at the MR Did It Theories, MR could be described as having motives (anger/revenge/control/manipulation), access and opportunity.

So what happened?
Accidental?
Premeditated murder?
Impulsive Murder?

When did he do it?
On the way home Sunday night?
After they got home Sunday night?
Before he left Monday morning?
Did he come back and do something to Dylan Monday afternoon?

All of those I think are important questions, the answers to which could lead to finding Dylan.

 

[Eileen730]

With all due respect, this doesn't answer the poster's questions. Your last paragraph makes it even harder to rationalize to me. If it's beyond your scope of understanding or acceptance, then how on earth did you come to this conclusion, that this man is capable of murdering his own son? What did he DO that caused these feelings? There has to be something, IMO, otherwise it is just feelings and doubts... not certainty.

Did he ever cause serious harm to one of you? Did he ever threaten to hurt or kill one of the boys, either verbally or physically? Did he pick up a baseball bat or a club or a gun, and come toward any of you in a threatening manner? (That right there, in Texas, is enough to land someone in jail, btw.)

Please understand, I mean no disrespect, I am only asking what happened to make you think he's capable of murder. Your post only covers your feelings, it says nothing about what HE has done that caused them. That's all we're asking. WHY would he want Dylan dead?

IMO, it takes a special kind of evil for a parent to kill their own child. So far I have not seen any evil in this man. You know him better than we do, so I'm not asking HOW you feel, but WHY you feel that way.

Again, I apologize if this is too personal. If you can't answer, then just ignore, I'll understand.

Are your serious here?

 

[SuperMom1995]

If she is wrong, it is only because of his own past behavior. He brought on the suspicions HIMSELF because of his past actions. So she has nothing to feel badly about. If he had never been cruel, and never hidden the kids before, and never been volatile, and been more consistent with his versions of events, and had successfully passed his poly, then nobody would be doubting him.

You know that you mention the brothers' that does sound right. I guess
we gotta go find a link

Here is one: http://news.gcu.edu/2012/12/search-continues-for-13-year-old-brother-of-gcu-enrollment-counselor/

 

[NC Analyzer]

Interesting...

Contrary to some claims, these cases are not about fathers losing access to their children. The reality is that in both cases, the fathers had access to their children and, in both cases, killed them during it. There is no logic to the thinking that if a person is distressed about not spending enough time with their kids they would decide to kill them.

If, however, they are consumed with anger and hatred towards their ex-partner and wish to hurt them, then it is, tragically, a very effective means to do so.

The killing of the children in such cases should be recognised as a form of violence against the mother. We need to explore the relationship between the parents in order to understand the killing of children. In particular, the father’s attitudes and behaviour towards the mother before, and after, separation must be examined. VicHealth has clearly identified the underlying causes of violence against women as including belief in rigid gender roles and a masculine sense of entitlement.

What we really need to challenge is the sense of entitlement that some men have over their families, an entitlement that leads them to believe that their partner has no right to leave them and no right to form a new relationship, and that punishing her is justified because of the suffering they themselves experience.

The current focus of commentary suggests that men are victims of the family law system. The mothers seem to be implicitly blamed for the distress their partners experienced when they left them.

Let’s be clear: the first and foremost victims here are the children whose lives are taken. The mothers, whose children have died in perhaps the worst way imaginable, are also the victims, as are remaining siblings and other family members.

Read more: http://americanmotherspoliticalpart...ll-their-children-to-punish-their-ex-partners

 

[NC Analyzer]

I found this part very apropos:

In these ”spousal revenge” cases – as recognised by the Freeman jury – fathers kill their children to punish their ex-partners. There is usually no prior violence against the children. In fact, they appear to love their children. The act of killing is directed towards harming the child’s mother. The motive is revenge.

http://americanmotherspoliticalpart...ll-their-children-to-punish-their-ex-partners

 

[cfreyja23]

Jumping off your post. I don't think CO has alimony, but not positive. My husband's ex lives there and they had kids who are now grown. All he was ordered to pay was child support.

If they had joint custody, I can't understand why either one of them would be paying the other child support, unless he had Dylan with him more than she did. CO may look at joint custody different than other states but to me, joint means they have the child equal time... say 2 weeks at one parent's and 2 weeks with the other, and alternate holidays.

Maybe it was shared custody, and he was the primary custodian? IDK, but I can't feature the court making HER pay HIM child support unless she did not have primary custody at the time.

When my husband's daughter came to live with us, there was no child support either way for the few years she was here, because the son stayed with his mother, so the court said one cancelled out the other... they did not order her to pay him child support, and they suspended the child support he was paying her for the son. And btw, they live in CO, too.

Maybe this is what the court battles have been about, the custody and child support. I still don't get why she would have had to pay him, or why she wouldn't have had primary custody, since he was on the road so much. Something does not add up! This could shed a whole new light on the situation.

In Texas, "custody" really means who makes the decisions about the child's well-being, including where the child lives. We don't use it the same way that other states do. Custody is technically called "conservatorship" here, and there are two types of conservatorship: managing and possessory, and two different ways parents may exercise it: joint or sole. Visitation is a different matter, and is called "possession and access." Under our family code, a history of domestic violence must be considered by the judge in determining whether one parent is designated as the sole managing conservator and the other a possessory conservator. I always look at conservatorship and possession and access as two separate pieces of a puzzle. If one parent is the sole managing conservator, that means she has the exclusive rights to make decisions about the child(ren). However, the other parent may still have standard visitation (and we have specific times and days written in our family code). There really is no such thing as "split custody." There may be joint conservatorship, in which the parents share decision making power about some things, but one parent will almost always have the exclusive right to decide where the child lives. But there is almost never "split time" with the children, as my experience has been that judges here do not like to split the child living between parents unless rare circumstances call for it. (Their reason being that child need one stable residence, and not to constantly be moving between residences) Even if the parents have joint conservatorship, one parent will have the child, the other parent will have visitation. It's very statutory, and my experience has been that judges will rarely approve an agreement between the parents for one parent to not pay child support. Almost always here, the parent who does not have the kids living with them will pay some kid of child support.

 

[ColdHands]

@NCAnalyzer,

This is an interesting perspective you have posted and I think it does tie to what I've said above. That the details of the divorce battle are really negligible. Primary is the fact that any number of things could have triggered a rage that was taken out on poor Dylan.

I am not saying MR did anything to Dylan. I am pointing out that this information supports any MR Did It theories as providing a motive and making it seem possible for a father to kill his child. IMO.

 

[cfreyja23]

Interesting...

Contrary to some claims, these cases are not about fathers losing access to their children. The reality is that in both cases, the fathers had access to their children and, in both cases, killed them during it. There is no logic to the thinking that if a person is distressed about not spending enough time with their kids they would decide to kill them.

If, however, they are consumed with anger and hatred towards their ex-partner and wish to hurt them, then it is, tragically, a very effective means to do so.

The killing of the children in such cases should be recognised as a form of violence against the mother. We need to explore the relationship between the parents in order to understand the killing of children. In particular, the father’s attitudes and behaviour towards the mother before, and after, separation must be examined. VicHealth has clearly identified the underlying causes of violence against women as including belief in rigid gender roles and a masculine sense of entitlement.

What we really need to challenge is the sense of entitlement that some men have over their families, an entitlement that leads them to believe that their partner has no right to leave them and no right to form a new relationship, and that punishing her is justified because of the suffering they themselves experience.

The current focus of commentary suggests that men are victims of the family law system. The mothers seem to be implicitly blamed for the distress their partners experienced when they left them.

Let’s be clear: the first and foremost victims here are the children whose lives are taken. The mothers, whose children have died in perhaps the worst way imaginable, are also the victims, as are remaining siblings and other family members.

Read more: http://americanmotherspoliticalpart...ll-their-children-to-punish-their-ex-partners

I couldn't agree with you more. I frequently see in my practice the use of children by one parent to control the other parent, or threatening the children to hurt the other parent, or threatening to take them away and hiding them. I have seen men (and occasionally women) fight to have their children--after months of not even bothering to visit with them--solely so that they can use the child to control (or have frequent access to/ communication with) the other parent.