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

[azgrandma]

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.

You are correct and I misspoke, I did mean that they needed to be detained (not allowed to leave).
As you also mentioned earlier, correctly too, LE can handcuff you but that does not mean that you are under arrest. Happens all the time when there is a concern for their safety or the safety of others.

 

[NC Analyzer]

When the Miranda Warning Is Required
It doesn't matter whether an interrogation occurs in a jail, at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or the middle of an open field: If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way), the police must read them their Miranda rights if they want to question the suspect and use the suspect's answers as evidence at trial.
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.

See this KEY wording? There ya go.
If a person is in custody (deprived of his or her freedom of action in any significant way)

ETA: Note, there is nothing that says anything or distinguishes between a suspect or POI and a PERSON. Suspect/POI/person = all the same thing.

 

[The Cheese]

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

I was referring to this quote and link you posted, which is from 3 months ago on November 29 -
"The Sheriff's Office is not calling Mark Redwine a suspect,"
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8997921&postcount=850"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - ACTIVE SEARCH CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #42[/ame]


You posted what seemed to be a complaint that my quote and link, from after that - December 3rd - was 3 months old -
the father is not considered a suspect, said Capt. Jim Ezzell, chief investigator with the La Plata County Sheriff's Office
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8998041&postcount=856"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - ACTIVE SEARCH CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #42[/ame]


I don't understand why your 3 month old link was okay, but mine, although more recent, wasn't. :waitasec:

Regarding the Dr Phil statement from LE, it's dated 2/13/2013. You can see the date in the video. If there is a more recent statement, press release, or quote from LE stating Mark's status as a suspect, could you please direct me to it? This one from the Dr Phil show that I posted is the most recent one I have -

Neither Dylan&#8217;s father, Mark Redwine, or mother Elaine Redwine, are considered suspects by the Sheriff&#8217;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.

<modsnip>.

 

[azgrandma]

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

The purpose of an arrest is to bring the arrestee before a court or otherwise secure the administration of the law. An arrest serves the function of notifying the community that an individual has been accused of a crime and also may admonish and deter the arrested individual from committing other crimes. Arrests can be made on both criminal charges and civil charges, although civil arrest is a drastic measure that is not looked upon with favor by the courts. The federal Constitution imposes limits on both civil and criminal arrests.

An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.

The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known. Thus, a defendant's presence at a police station by consent does not become an arrest solely by virtue of an officer's subjective view that the defendant is not free to leave, absent an act indicating an intention to take the defendant into custody

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+custody

 

[packerdog]

It's a fact, actually he was getting child support. He was then ordered to pay ER child support when the custody order changed.

Thanks, AZ grandma. Did he ever pay ER child support since he was ordered to?

 

[Seek&Find]

I was referring to this quote and link you posted, which is from 3 months ago on November 29 -
"The Sheriff's Office is not calling Mark Redwine a suspect,"
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - ACTIVE SEARCH CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #42

I thought that might be the case but wasn't sure, since the post specifically said "not naming MR a suspect" as a statement of fact, not acknowledged as opinion. It was not clear IMO, so I clarified that no article I linked stated that.

You posted what seemed to be a complaint that my quote and link, from after that - December 3rd - was 3 months old -
the father is not considered a suspect, said Capt. Jim Ezzell, chief investigator with the La Plata County Sheriff's Office
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - ACTIVE SEARCH CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #42

And this highlights differing perceptions. It was not a complaint. It was an observation, particularly in light of LE's most recent statements.

I don't understand why your 3 month old link was okay, but mine, although more recent, wasn't. :waitasec: That wasn't stated or implied.

Regarding the Dr Phil statement from LE, it's dated 2/13/2013. You can see the date in the video. If there is a more recent statement, press release, or quote from LE stating Mark's status as a suspect, could you please direct me to it? This one from the Dr Phil show that I posted is the most recent one I have -

Neither Dylan&#8217;s father, Mark Redwine, or mother Elaine Redwine, are considered suspects by the Sheriff&#8217;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.

I've already quoted and linked the more recent article.

S & CBM (my responses in blue)

This conversation began because your post stated as fact that Mark is not a suspect. There was no opinion disclaimer or acknowledgement, so I pointed out that's an opinion; others differ. Thus, I'm supporting the existence of varied opinions.

Moo

 

[NC Analyzer]

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

(Respectfully snipped by me)

Bottom line, LE has not and will not name, identify or call anyone a suspect or POI. They haven't. They don't plan to do so, (as they have repeated this information, ad nauseum). They don't have to. They don't want to. It means NOTHING! It doesn't mean MR is a suspect and it certainly doesn't mean MR isn't a suspect. <modsnip> :what:

 

[The Cheese]

S & CBM (my responses in blue)

This conversation began because your post stated as fact that Mark is not a suspect. There was no opinion disclaimer or acknowledgement, so I pointed out that's an opinion; others differ. Thus, I'm supporting the existence of varied opinions.

Moo

I apologize for forgetting to put my :twocents: sign.

Regarding any LE press release, statement, or direct quote more recent than 2/13 regarding MR's status as a suspect that I asked for a link for, I'm unable to find it in your posts. Could you please give me some idea of where I might find it? Thank you.

 

[Salem]

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

It is when your "liberty is restricted." When LE tells you, you are not longer free to go, if you wish. That is "in custody."

Salem

A bit O/T - This issue was discussed thoroughly in the Casey Anthony trial revolving around when the detective had her in the car and drove her around looking for Caylee. Defense said her liberty was restricted and she should have been Mirandized. Prosecutors said she was not "in custody." They were going to the places where she said she last saw Caylee. She was not a suspect at the time - she was the mother of a missing child.

It was really good. I'd link it, but at this point in time, I have no idea where to even find it.

 

[NC Analyzer]

I apologize for forgetting to put my :twocents: sign.

Regarding any LE press release, statement, or direct quote more recent than 2/13 regarding MR's status as a suspect that I asked for a link for, I'm unable to find it in your posts. Could you please give me some idea of where I might find it? Thank you.

Let me see if I understand your comment. You think LE doesn't consider MR a suspect? If that is your OPINION, I understand, but I can assure you LE certainly hasn't said if he is or he isn't. One way or the other, it's very simple, they haven't said. He may be or he may not be. They don't have to tell the public what they think. And they haven't.

But it is my personal OPINION, that MR is very much the unnamed suspect/POI in this case. It is my OPINION, based on my observations and knowledge of how LE handles suspects. LE is very aware that MR likes to talk. He talks, talks, talks. The longer they let him talk, the better off they are as far as building a case and "fitting all those pieces" together. LE doesn't often do anything without a reason. There is a reason here.

 

[absentia]

I don't disagree with you at all but I want to add another possibility. Hypothetically, IF all they need is Dylan as the one piece they are looking for to put all those small pieces of evidence together for a case, then there is no reason to waste time looking for someone else, which wouldn't help at all.

I doubt LE will have tunnel vision. They go by the evidence wherever that leads. Nobody will be arrested until the prosecutor believes there enough evidence to convict.

yes, I think that's the ONE piece they are referring to that they need to tie the rest of the evidence together. Either that or a confession. I think they've got what they need to make a case against MR, but without a body a conviction is that much harder. they can't prove DR is dead without his body. So they can't prove without a doubt that he's dead and has been killed. Circumstantial is possible, but not as reliable as actually having proof. I think they don't want to mess this up by trying to convict without a body. I think we just need to wait til spring. when they find DR in the lake and can prove how he died (prior to being put in the lake), they can make their case against MR much more strongly. It still may be circumstantial, but with the body they can prove he's dead and maybe get some more out of MR to use against him. I think by May this will be a much clearer situation.

 

[azgrandma]

Thanks, AZ grandma. Did he ever pay ER child support since he was ordered to?

I know but I can't answer at this time. Sorry.

 

[NC Analyzer]

It is when your "liberty is restricted." When LE tells you, you are not longer free to go, if you wish. That is "in custody."

Salem

A bit O/T - This issue was discussed thoroughly in the Casey Anthony trial revolving around when the detective had her in the car and drove her around looking for Caylee. Defense said her liberty was restricted and she should have been Mirandized. Prosecutors said she was not "in custody." They were going to the places where she said she last saw Caylee. She was not a suspect at the time - she was the mother of a missing child.

It was really good. I'd link it, but at this point in time, I have no idea where to even find it.

Thank you, Salem! :blushing:

I do my very best to inform whenever I can, so people know what their rights are....and aren't. Custody, Detained, Not allowed to leave, all of these things are what determines admissible evidence vs inadmissible evidence. I sincerely hope everyone knows their Constitutional Rights!

 

[Salem]

This thread is starting to derail because everyone wants to control the conversation.

STOP IT! If you don't want to have a particular conversation anymore, that is fine. Move past it. But don't tell others they can't talk about it, if they want to.

I know the rehashing can be a bit frustrating at times BUT it is allowed and it serves a useful purpose, not only for looking at all the details but for new members that are just joining the discussion.

Do NOT tell others to move on. If that becomes necessary, the Mods will take care of it. BUT do feel free to move, if you wish. There is no rule that you have to respond to every post.

Salem

 

[The Cheese]

(Respectfully snipped by me)

Bottom line, LE has not and will not name, identify or call anyone a suspect or POI. They haven't. They don't plan to do so, (as they have repeated this information, ad nauseum). They don't have to. They don't want to. It means NOTHING! It doesn't mean MR is a suspect and it certainly doesn't mean MR isn't a suspect. I don't know why we continue to have this particular argument? :what:

Let me see if I understand your comment. You think LE doesn't consider MR a suspect? If that is your OPINION, I understand, but I can assure you LE certainly hasn't said if he is or he isn't. One way or the other, it's very simple, they haven't said. He may be or he may not be. They don't have to tell the public what they think. And they haven't.

But it is my personal OPINION, that MR is very much the unnamed suspect/POI in this case. It is my OPINION, based on my observations and knowledge of how LE handles suspects. LE is very aware that MR likes to talk. He talks, talks, talks. The longer they let him talk, the better off they are as far as building a case and "fitting all those pieces" together. LE doesn't often do anything without a reason. There is a reason here.

I'm fine with it meaning nothing to you, but it means something to me when LE states that someone is not considered a suspect, in this case, two someones - Mark and Elaine. To me, it means that right now, neither Mark nor Elaine is considered a suspect so far as LE is concerned.

That's my opinion only, and you are certainly entitled to yours. No problem!

 

[Salem]

Thank you, Salem! :blushing:

I do my very best to inform whenever I can, so people know what their rights are....and aren't. Custody, Detained, Not allowed to leave, all of these things are what determines admissible evidence vs inadmissible evidence. I sincerely hope everyone knows their Constitutional Rights!

I agree and I agree with your previous posts on this subject.

Lots of folks don't understand that they don't have to answer LE, submit to questioning, etc. if they don't want to. Now, of course it is always a risk LOL - because LE can then just "restrict your liberty" and arrest you if they have "probable cause." But if they don't, then you can sue them for illegal arrest

Salem

 

[deoneta]

I don't think it matters if LE has named POIs or suspects or cleared anyone (other than 9 area RSOs).

MR is the last KNOWN person to see Dylan. He hasn't passed a poly. He has a history of DV and hiding his children. He is openly hostile to his ex wife and has accused her of poisoning the children against him. There has been a recent change in custody and child support. His accounts of the Sunday and Monday prior to Dylan's disappearance have been rambling, evasive and at times inconsistent.

Does anyone seriously think MR is not under LE scrutiny/suspicion? All MOO

 

[Seek&Find]

I think he should have contacted his son long before and asked him what hed like to do that week.

Not wait for him to land and drag him off to walmart.

Dylan made plans and mark had none.

Good point! Especially given that Dylan's flight was delayed from Sat to Sun, AND took off late on Sun. He could've done the shopping then. He could've texted Dylan and asked what cereal he wanted and picked it up on the way to the airport, especially since Mark knew he'd be back in town the very next morning and he did in fact intend to do add'l grocery shopping that day. If Mark's intent truly was to go to a sit down dinner, the trip to Walmart, after Dylan's flight arrived late, doesn't make sense, IMO.

It's these sorts of things that makes me lean toward premeditation. I'm still split between two theories, premed or spontaneous, that both involve Mark.

Moo

 

[ColdHands]

Well, I sent my questions about the cost of the investigation to KT at 9news as a possible direction he could take the reporting. Wait and see.

 

[The Cheese]

I don't think it matters if LE has named POIs or suspects or cleared anyone (other than 9 area RSOs).

MR is the last KNOWN person to see Dylan. He hasn't passed a poly. He has a history of DV and hiding his children. He is openly hostile to his ex wife and has accused her of poisoning the children against him. There has been a recent change in custody and child support. His accounts of the Sunday and Monday prior to Dylan's disappearance have been rambling, evasive and at times inconsistent.

Does anyone seriously think MR is not under LE scrutiny/suspicion? All MOO

BBM -

I certainly think that MR is under LE scrutiny, and that LE is suspicious of him. I would hope so since he was the last known person to see Dylan. I trust that LE has done and is doing their job, particularly because of the CBI and FBI involvement in the case. I trust that they are scrutinizing and suspicious of everyone who warrants it.

:twocents: