CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #42

[missrugby]

Or maybe he has had to buy things for him before when he didn't bring something he needed. Maybe he was teaching Dylan to be responsible and think about what he would need instead of depending on Mom to pack his things.
Some kids are picky, and you can't always find a decent looking cheap coat at the beginning of winter at Wal Mart.
I can't tell you how many times my stepkids' mom would send them down here for the entire summer with one scruffy pair of sneakers, and no decent church clothes. We ended up buying shoes and clothes for all 3 of them every summer.

And I totally understand that my step moms kids do the same thing. My point is that he acts like its horrible of Elaine to have sent him without a coat, and I feel if he were that concerned about it he would have bought him one. I in no way when I made this statement meant to he insensitive towards Dylan (and this isn't directed towards you at all) I am just trying to look at this realistically. As sad as it makes me to think about that precious boy no longer being with us as time goes on it's a reality I feel I have to come to grips with. I really hope I'm wrong. MOO

 

[jadejazzkayla]

BBM: Absolutely NOT true!

If a person is not in police custody, however, no Miranda warning is required and anything the person says can be used at trial if the person is later charged with a crime. This exception most often comes up when the police stop someone on the street to question him or her about a recent crime or the person blurts out a confession before the police have an opportunity to deliver the warning.
Pre-Arrest Questioning
People are often surprised to learn that if a person hasn't yet been arrested, the police may question the person and use the answers in court without first providing the Miranda warning.

More: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/police-questioning-miranda-warnings-29930.html

it is true. you didn't bold the pertinent part of my op.

bbm. not if LE has is attempting to talk with is a person they have determined to be a suspect.

 

[NC Analyzer]

it is true. you didn't bold the pertinent part of my op.

bbm. not if LE has is attempting to talk with is a person they have determined to be a suspect.

No disrespect intended, but you are incorrect. Please research this topic. It is a common belief, but it is incorrect. LE can question you any time but until or unless they DETAIN you, your answers can be used against you in a court of law. You may or may not be a suspect/POI...they can question you. You do not have to answer questions, but they can question you. Happens every day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lay person's who are not aware of this FACT.

 

[Seek&Find]

There's this too from the Dr Phil show. This would be the most recent. The link Seek&Find gave above about not naming MR a suspect is from 3 months ago in November.

Neither Dylan’s father, Mark Redwine, or mother Elaine Redwine, are considered suspects by the Sheriff’s Department.

The La Plata County Sheriff's Department has issued the following statement regarding the investigation into Dylan's disappearance:

snip

We have not identified anyone as a person of interest or as a suspect during the entire investigation.

There isn't a link in any of my posts that says they're "not naming Mark Redwine a suspect".:waitasec: I disagree with the idea that the Dr Phil statement is the most recent. The shows were aired 2/26 & 2/27, which would indicate they'd received the statement and LE had released the statement prior to that. Conversely, the article stating no named suspects, wealth of evidence, etc is dated 2/28. (And the considered quote directly from LE was 3 months ago.)

The first quote above is Dr Phil's statement. The "identified" quote is LE, and as mentioned before, some see that as meaning they don't know who's responsible, others see it as consistent with they're not calling, naming, etc.

Long story short, LE could clearly state that Mark Redwine has been cleared, is innocent of any involvement in Dylan's disappearance, etc. They haven't. IMO, they have a reason for stating things as they do. Couple their wording choice with everything else irt Mark, including his statements that he is a suspect, and it's easy to see why some of us believe he is one.

<modsnip>

Moo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No disrespect intended, but you are incorrect. Please research this topic. It is a common belief, but it is incorrect. LE can question you any time but until or unless they DETAIN you, your answers can be used against you in a court of law. You may or may not be a suspect/POI...they can question you. You do not have to answer questions, but they can question you. Happens every day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lay person's who are not aware of this FACT.

What's the legal description of being in LE custody? Is it when they say your under arrest and put handcuffs on you?

 

[Eileen730]

I'm just a "peacemaker" I do think it is very likely MR is involved. It was just a suggestion because I see people defending MR and they get shot down. I didn't realize threads died when that happened. I definitely was not looking to stir up stuff. I guess I just appreciate everything everyone has to say on here and don't want anyone to get put down for their thoughts. But I see someone posted about the agree to disagree and that seems like a great alternative. I sure hope no one was offended by the suggestion!!!

LOL I know!
and no one was offened im sure!
I was just saying this is why I come here!
No one is right no one is wrong!
Love all the opinions and theories.

 

[*Lash*]

I was doing some reading and happened upon the Missing Persons of America website. I was reminded in the murder of Breeann Rodriguez, both of her parents failed the polygraph test. Breeann was murdered by a neighbor, her parents were completely innocent.

http://www.missingpersonsofamerica.com/2013/02/missing-dylan-redwines-story-on-dr-phil.html

 

[Alicia_marie]

"I didn't notice his backpack not being there," Mark Redwine told Dr. Phil. "There was a fishing pole at the house, and it was Dylan's fishing pole. That fishing pole was never found."

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/missing-boys-parents-snipe-on-dr-phil

MR on DP regarding the backpack.

 

[NC Analyzer]

What's the legal description of being in LE custody? Is it when they say your under arrest and put handcuffs on you?

They don't even have to go that far, just not allowed to leave, ie. DETAINED. And actually, they can slap cuffs on you and detain you without Miranda, but they can't question you without Miranda. (Well, they can, but it will probably get thrown out in court...violation of rights issue).

 

[jadejazzkayla]

No disrespect intended, but you are incorrect. Please research this topic. It is a common belief, but it is incorrect. LE can question you any time but until or unless they DETAIN you, your answers can be used against you in a court of law. You may or may not be a suspect/POI...they can question you. You do not have to answer questions, but they can question you. Happens every day. Unfortunately, there are a lot of lay person's who are not aware of this FACT.

no disrespect taken.

The pertinent part of my statement is - when a person has been determined by le to be a suspect -

that person has the legal right to be mirandized before Le asks to take a statement from them.

IF LE, for whatever reason, does not give the suspect the Miranda warnings and the suspect agrees to talk with le - any statement they may make can not be used against them.

 

[Seek&Find]

So, who here thinks that Mr. Redwine told Dylan that it was too late for him to see his friend(s), but then in the next breath, said that they were going to sit down and have a nice, long meal?

<My Hand is Raised>

A smart kid would call him out on that BS.

Excellent point! It's illogical. How can it be too late when Dylan was planning to spend the night, yet they have time to consider a long dinner, but instead end up throwing the football (in one version of the story), watch a two hour movie, and MR heads to bed at 10:30 while Dylan's still awake?

Moo

 

[azgrandma]

it is true. you didn't bold the pertinent part of my op.

bbm. not if LE has is attempting to talk with is a person they have determined to be a suspect.

Jumping off your post, not in disagreement with you at all.

Once a person had been determined to be a suspect, they do need to be mirandized..................perhaps a reason LE has not named a suspect? Investigative questioning does not require a person to be mirandized. The difference is, a suspect will be arrested and not free to leave. A witness or a person with information pertaining to the investigation is free to leave and stop talking whenever they want to.



Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
^^^is from the link below.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

 

[SCHMAE]

Jumping off your post, not in disagreement with you at all.

Once a person had been determined to be a suspect, they do need to be mirandized..................perhaps a reason LE has not named a suspect? Investigative questioning does not require a person to be mirandized. The difference is, a suspect will be arrested and not free to leave. A witness or a person with information pertaining to the investigation is free to leave and stop talking whenever they want to.



Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
^^^is from the link below.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

LE probably knows that once they arrest him ( if they do) his talking days are over. Even though it does not appear he's hired a lawyer, I'm sure he's got one on standby who said call me if an arrest comes . So the more MR babbles prior to being named or arrested, the better it is for LE because his wealth of info or disinfo will stop at his arrest time. MOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[NC Analyzer]

no disrespect taken.

The pertinent part of my statement is - when a person has been determined by le to be a suspect -

that person has the legal right to be mirandized before Le asks to take a statement from them.

IF LE, for whatever reason, does not give the suspect the Miranda warnings and the suspect agrees to talk with le - any statement they may make can not be used against them.

BBM: Everyday LE has "suspects" they question without Miranda. It is not a requirement to question a person.

Please do some research, I have no reason to provide you will false information. You and everyone else CAN and WILL be questioned by LE if they so choose. You don't have to speak to them or answer questions, but they can ask questions. If you speak to them, anything you say can be used in a court of law because you have VOLUNTARILY provided the statement. If you are DETAINED, is the key word, not whether or not you are a suspect.

 

[azgrandma]

no disrespect taken.

The pertinent part of my statement is - when a person has been determined by le to be a suspect -

that person has the legal right to be mirandized before Le asks to take a statement from them.

IF LE, for whatever reason, does not give the suspect the Miranda warnings and the suspect agrees to talk with le - any statement they may make can not be used against them.

BBM - also, fruit of the poisonous tree. If a suspect has not been mirandized, any information that is given that leads to additional evidence is also dismissed.

LE can't "unfind" a body, but they wouldn't be able to say in court that John Doe told us that the body was located here.

 

[Seek&Find]

Good thing about that "not considered a suspect" line....kinda like a license for MR to talk, and talk and talk and talk. Seems to be working out well for LE, bwahahahaha!

:floorlaugh: hysterical, NC! Love the evil laughter! :clap:

 

[NC Analyzer]

Jumping off your post, not in disagreement with you at all.

Once a person had been determined to be a suspect, they do need to be mirandized..................perhaps a reason LE has not named a suspect? Investigative questioning does not require a person to be mirandized. The difference is, a suspect will be arrested and not free to leave. A witness or a person with information pertaining to the investigation is free to leave and stop talking whenever they want to.



Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.
^^^is from the link below.

http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

MR can be LE's number one suspect/POI, all day and all night. They are NOT required to give him Miranda and they can question him all day and all night.

Now, if he tries to leave and wants to end the interview, they have 2 choices...let him go or charge him and read his Miranda rights.

Simple as that. All this "suspect/POI" wording means nothing as far as due process and individual rights.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

BBM: Everyday LE has "suspects" they question without Miranda. It is not a requirement to question a person.

Please do some research, I have no reason to provide you will false information. You and everyone else CAN and WILL be questioned by LE if they so choose. You don't have to speak to them or answer questions, but they can ask questions. If you speak to them, anything you say can be used in a court of law because you have VOLUNTARILY provided the statement. If you are DETAINED, is the key word, not whether or not you are a suspect.

bbm...I don't beleive detain is the key. I believe the key is whether or not LE has determined a person is a suspect. and on that note I am going to agree to disagree with you. no disrespect intended of course.

 

[NC Analyzer]

no disrespect taken.

The pertinent part of my statement is - when a person has been determined by le to be a suspect -

that person has the legal right to be mirandized before Le asks to take a statement from them.

IF LE, for whatever reason, does not give the suspect the Miranda warnings and the suspect agrees to talk with le - any statement they may make can not be used against them.

BBM - also, fruit of the poisonous tree. If a suspect has not been mirandized, any information that is given that leads to additional evidence is also dismissed.

LE can't "unfind" a body, but they wouldn't be able to say in court that John Doe told us that the body was located here.

If information is given freely, it can and will be used against him. No poisonous tree.

LE doesn't usually let questioning go that far, but any information can be used unless or until a person is DETAINED. Now a lot of suspects claim they "didn't know" they could leave or "they were scared" or whine, whine, whine, (geez, I hate Defense Attorney's) but bottom line, if LE didn't try to stop them, they could have left anytime, and anything they said is allowed.

 

[NC Analyzer]

bbm...I don't beleive detain is the key. I believe the key is whether or not LE has determined a person is a suspect. and on that note I am going to agree to disagree with you. no disrespect intended of course.

You may believe whatever you want. It isn't something that I need to agree or disagree with. It is your rights vs LE rights. Constitutional Law. I don't just make this stuff up.

Now if you would rather not discuss it, that is your prerogative and I have no problem with that.