CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #37

[otto]

I'm actually more inclined to believe it was someone Dylan (and his parents) knew who came to the house and agreed to give him a ride to Bayfield. I personally find that much more likely than a father murdering the only son he's been said to be close to. Being picked up by the wrong person while hitchhiking would probably be my choice for second most likely. Obviously, not everybody agrees with me. MOO

If contact with Dylan stopped at 9:30 ish and the father is responsible, the he must have murdered his son ... since being chained up somewhere, or voluntarily vanishing don't seem to be viable alternatives. At the same time, it doesn't seem like the father had any reason to murder his son .... so the next point must be (for me) that the father is not responsible.

 

[Seajay]

Thanks. No need to look for links. Someone posted them on the weekend. It sounds like Dylan was known to hitch hike once with a group, but at that time it was his idea and he actively hitch hiked. I see no reason to assume that he didn't do it other times as well. It seems to me that as soon as someone discovers how easy it is to get around by hitch hiking, they're not going to just stop.

We know that Dylan wanted to get together with friends and I see no reason to exclude hitch hiking. It's the one thing that the parents do not want to accept, as it pretty much guarantees that Dylan is deceased, but it's also ... in my opinion ... a very likely scenario.

And, to me what is very telling is that when Dylan's friends were ASKED about Dylan, they are quoted as saying that maybe he hitchhiked and got taken away. That came from their mouths, his friends, the ones who knew him best.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

His DAd said his fishing pole was missing and he was angry that LE didn't start searching the lake sooner than they did. Yet Dad took a nap before he went looking. And we are not sure that dad ever went to look at the lake himself.

Snipped by me

Not to mention Dad says that after returning home and after texting Dylan with no response that morning, Dad took a nap then decided to go out searching for his son. On his first account he stated that he went to Dylan's friend Tristan's house on the lake but Tristan had not seen him. Later he said he went to Tristan's and Tristan wasn't home. Which was it? He also stated that he thought Dylan may have went to the nearby river or campground but yet he never mentioned going to look for Dylan there. Why not?
He first said he thought Dylan was abducted and taken out of the area. Why would he think this?

The biggest red flags for me (and there are many) IF Dylan was going to hitchhike to his friends in Bayfield why would he take all of his belongings and his fishing pole?

Why wouldn't Dylan communicate with his friends later Sunday night/Monday morning? If the phone broke he had an iPod touch. Even if he had no password for Dad's computer and no way to get numbers to use the landline...why not use the iPod?

Why didn't Dad try to call Dylan on the landline Monday morning? He was texting him with no response so why not call your home phone?

The list goes on and on and on.

 

[Dee10]

I think it is important to remember that the lst thing LE does is look at the parents to see if they can clear them. I can't see a reason anyone else looking at a case should start somewhere else.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Thank you for your informative post.

The main problem I have with scrutinizing a parent of a missing child and interpreting everything as though they are guilty is that I see this over and over again. Take any missing child and the first person that is discussed as guilty on forums is the parent.

I'm trying to see this without looking at the usual suspect ... trying to understand whether Dyan could have disappeared without the father murdering him on the night he arrived for a visit. Personally, I can't see any reason why the dad would murder his son at 8 or 9 that evening.

I totally understand this. I am never one to assume the parents did it and rarely have I thought this. So take that FWIW

 

[katydid23]

The alternative would be that his father murdered him that evening. Does that seem more likely than hitch hiking?

No, not exactly like that. The scenario is more of an accidental tragedy.

Dylan's mom once said that she was worried that D might have said something to make his dad angry.

Dylans mom was about to remarry her first husband. The husband she had when she and Mark Redwine met, and eventually got married themselves. Mark seems to have a lot of hostility about that situation.

Dylan had planned to sleep over at his friends house Sunday night. But after his plane was delayed until 6 pm-ish, Mark decided it was too late for that. So D texted his friend and made it for the next morning at 6:30 am.

D and his dad went to Walmart. Have you seen the picture of D in walmart? Not a happy camper. They had probably argued about the sleepover by now.

Some of us have wondered if the argument escalated that night. Dylan was a pretty small kid, especially compared to his father. What if dad lost his temper, which he had in the past--it is documented. What if he got in a tussle with his son and things went sideways?

 

[cluciano63]

I think it is important to remember that the lst thing LE does is look at the parents to see if they can clear them. I can't see a reason anyone else looking at a case should start somewhere else.

Yes and they have been unable to do so.

 

[otto]

So just because everyone always says the parents did it, MR must be innocent?

If a suspect is not available ... because it is a stranger abduction ... then one of the parents is usually dragged through the mud.

In this case, if the father is responsible, there are three possibilities: murder, Dylan is held against will, Dylan voluntarily disappeared. The last two don't seem possible, so it must be that the father murdered his son ... so why would he murder his son? That doesn't make any sense either.

Sure the divorce was acrimonious and maybe the father was controlling (that's usually a sign of an insecure person), but that doesn't make him a murderer.

 

[TxLady2]

Dylan's family life was not very difficult. By all accounts, he was happy in school and had many friends. And police already ruled out the "run away" theory.

Well, it couldn't have been 100% perfect all the time if his parents couldn't even speak without arguing and sniping at each other, unless they made it a point to only speak when he wasn't around. Parents don't realize how much it affects their children when they see the two people they love arguing and fighting.

We do not know how Dylan felt 24/7. It's possible that he didn't tell his mom every thought he had, that maybe the animosity between his mom and dad got to him. Boys don't talk about their feelings like girls do, anyway. I found out long after my boys were grown that there were a few times when I was in a short relationship with someone when they were not happy, but they never told me because they wanted me to be happy.

Not trying to imply anything... just offering another POV. Kids run away for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes they're running TO something rather than FROM something. I don't think he ran away, either, but what if? I can't close my mind to other possibilities.

 

[The Cheese]

Thank you for your informative post.

The main problem I have with scrutinizing a parent of a missing child and interpreting everything as though they are guilty is that I see this over and over again. Take any missing child and the first person that is discussed as guilty on forums is the parent.

I'm trying to see this without looking at the usual suspect ... trying to understand whether Dyan could have disappeared without the father murdering him on the night he arrived for a visit. Personally, I can't see any reason why the dad would murder his son at 8 or 9 that evening.

We think alike, otto.

Homicide investigators, through no fault of their own, sometimes fail to realize that the investigations of the
murders of abducted children are different from the other murders they usually investigate. Consequently, they sometimes make decisions about the direction of the investigation that are not “high percentage” choices. For example, some
detectives believe that in any murder of a child the logical suspect is a parent and, therefore, devote a considerable
amount of resources to proving that the killer was the father. But this research shows that the parents are the least likely
suspects in an abduction murder of a child. This kind of false assumption is made, in part, from lack of experience with
these types of cases and because there is no body of empirical research on these types of child murders and their investigations from which detectives can draw guidance. This research will help investigators make the decisions, identify the
strategies, and implement the tactics that will lead to the more certain and timely capture of the killers of abducted children.

http://findthekids.org/pdf/casemanag.pdf

Murder of children by their parents is very rare - 250 to 300 cases per year according to the FBI.

Murder of children by their father is even more rare - of those 250 - 300 cases per year, 50% are by the mother, and the other 50% are by the father and all other family members combined.

Rather than give one specific link, I'll just recommend looking up forensic psychiatrist Philip Resnick for anyone seeking more info. He seems to be the leading expert on filicide in the US. The reason I'm not giving a specific link is because you have to poke through his writings to get the info on paternal filicide because it's mostly about maternal filicide. Info on paternal filicide is scattered in bits and pieces. There's just not much on it, because it's so rare.

edit to add - comparison on numbers - info from NCMEC

Number of children abducted per year -
Family abductions - 200,000 children
Non-family abductions - 58,000 children

 

[Seajay]

Thank you for your informative post.

The main problem I have with scrutinizing a parent of a missing child and interpreting everything as though they are guilty is that I see this over and over again. Take any missing child and the first person that is discussed as guilty on forums is the parent.

I'm trying to see this without looking at the usual suspect ... trying to understand whether Dyan could have disappeared without the father murdering him on the night he arrived for a visit. Personally, I can't see any reason why the dad would murder his son at 8 or 9 that evening.

That's where I've been in this case since the beginning. Hitchhiking does seem much more likely then a parent going off the rails and murdering his child. Then, leaving no evidence that such an event occurred. No evidence.

 

[jjenny]

Well, it couldn't have been 100% perfect all the time if his parents couldn't even speak without arguing and sniping at each other, unless they made it a point to only speak when he wasn't around. Parents don't realize how much it affects their children when they see the two people they love arguing and fighting.

We do not know how Dylan felt 24/7. It's possible that he didn't tell his mom every thought he had, that maybe the animosity between his mom and dad got to him. Boys don't talk about their feelings like girls do, anyway. I found out long after my boys were grown that there were a few times when I was in a short relationship with someone when they were not happy, but they never told me because they wanted me to be happy.

Not trying to imply anything... just offering another POV. Kids run away for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes they're running TO something rather than FROM something. I don't think he ran away, either, but what if? I can't close my mind to other possibilities.

I am not sure why he would care that much about animosity between mom and dad, considering they have been divorced for years, didn't live together, and didn't even live close to each other anymore. I don't think he would run away and sit in a snow for 3 months over animosity between mom and dad.

 

[otto]

No, not exactly like that. The scenario is more of an accidental tragedy.

Dylan's mom once said that she was worried that D might have said something to make his dad angry.

Dylans mom was about to remarry her first husband. The husband she had when she and Mark Redwine met, and eventually got married themselves. Mark seems to have a lot of hostility about that situation.

Dylan had planned to sleep over at his friends house Sunday night. But after his plane was delayed until 6 pm-ish, Mark decided it was too late for that. So D texted his friend and made it for the next morning at 6:30 am.

D and his dad went to Walmart. Have you seen the picture of D in walmart? Not a happy camper. They had probably argued about the sleepover by now.

Some of us have wondered if the argument escalated that night. Dylan was a pretty small kid, especially compared to his father. What if dad lost his temper, which he had in the past--it is documented. What if he got in a tussle with his son and things went sideways?

If his dad decided that it was too late to go for a sleepover, then so be it. If Dylan was a good, happy, well adjusted child, why would he have a problem doing what he was told?

If Dylan planned to get together with his friend at 6:30 am and his dad left around 7:30, then he may have been determined to meet with his friend. Why wouldn't he hitch hike rather than wait around until 11:30 when his dad was coming home?

 

[TxLady2]

lease:T

How tall is mark and how much does he weigh?

I don't know, but I don't think anyone could mistake him for hispanic.

 

[katydid23]

If contact with Dylan stopped at 9:30 ish and the father is responsible, the he must have murdered his son ... since being chained up somewhere, or voluntarily vanishing don't seem to be viable alternatives. At the same time, it doesn't seem like the father had any reason to murder his son .... so the next point must be (for me) that the father is not responsible.

I think he and D had reasons to argue that night. So involuntary manslaughter is an option, imo.

I remember when my son was 14. My husband and i caught his 16 yr old secret 'girlfriend' sneaking into his bedroom for the second time that week. DH and DS got into a pretty loud argument which went sideways when DS said he was ' outta here, peace out.' He said he was leaving, but it was after midnight, so DH said ' NO, you are not leaving.' So 14 yr old hormonal teen said' Try and Stop Me!' They tussled and DH let him leave, to avoid the physical fight.

That is what I remember and what I envision when I wonder about D's going missing. Did they argue and D said ' I'm outta here-Peace out?' And the fight began?

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

If a suspect is not available ... because it is a stranger abduction ... then one of the parents is usually dragged through the mud.

In this case, if the father is responsible, there are three possibilities: murder, Dylan is held against will, Dylan voluntarily disappeared. The last two don't seem possible, so it must be that the father murdered his son ... so why would he murder his son? That doesn't make any sense either.

Sure the divorce was acrimonious and maybe the father was controlling (that's usually a sign of an insecure person), but that doesn't make him a murderer.

otto, I've always felt this was not intentional murder. I think perhaps an argument happened over the not being able to go to the friends and perhaps the Dad smacked Dylan and Dylan fought back and it got out of hand. Something like this....Mom stated that she was afraid of what Dad might do if Dylan made him mad. Mom also stated that she thinks Dad may have underestimated Dylan.

More recently I have noticed (in interviews) just how jealous and obsessed Dad still is with Mom and this gave my pause. Other's have speculated that he did it to punish Mom and maybe it was even premeditated and I thought this was a little far fetched. But when I saw his interviews well let me say I was chilled. I still don't want to believe this is possible.

 

[Seajay]

If a suspect is not available ... because it is a stranger abduction ... then one of the parents is usually dragged through the mud.

In this case, if the father is responsible, there are three possibilities: murder, Dylan is held against will, Dylan voluntarily disappeared. The last two don't seem possible, so it must be that the father murdered his son ... so why would he murder his son? That doesn't make any sense either.

Sure the divorce was acrimonious and maybe the father was controlling (that's usually a sign of an insecure person), but that doesn't make him a murderer.

BBM: Exactly!!! He can be a jerk, he can be insecure, he can be jealous. I've known a lot of people like that, but that does not make them murderers.

 

[Lordeebee]

If contact with Dylan stopped at 9:30 ish and the father is responsible, the he must have murdered his son ... since being chained up somewhere, or voluntarily vanishing don't seem to be viable alternatives. At the same time, it doesn't seem like the father had any reason to murder his son .... so the next point must be (for me) that the father is not responsible.

BBM
How do you come to the conclusion that the father had no reason to murder his son?

 

[Ronald99]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...ultiple-tips-to-find-possible-witness-in-case

(The tipster told investigators they were approached that day by a man who asked where he could find gasoline for his vehicle. The man was described as Hispanic, between 45 and 50 years old, about 5 feet 10 inches tall, weighing about 170 pounds with dark hair.)

I just noticed the word 'They' from the above news article.

The word 'they' could have also been used to protect the gender of the tipster.

So it's either a typo or there was two people that interacted with the person Law Enforcemect is seeking to interview !!

 

[SuperMom1995]

IMO - regardless of whether or not the tip is valid
A) LE is checking it out
B) LE is making a public plea for this person
C) LE does not know, until they talk to this person if he saw anything or anyone in the area that may help the investigation
D) LE, IMO, is actively following up on all tips that may aide in the investigation
E) This person could be a witness, may not be a witness, could be hinky

Could that man have been paid to show up at that time? Just speculating.