CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #45

[Emma Ems]

I personally have no problem with this position and often I see folks who play Devil's advocate and see how it serves a purpose. I also respect the position some people have of never accusing a family member or never making an accusation without a certain threshhold of evidence. But I will still vigorously argue my own position. That's what we do. It might feel hostile sometimes when there are so many in agreement, but I don't think it's meant to be personal. I think when there are times that it veers into disrespect for Er and CR, or when there's a dismissive attitude about domestic violence (in general--not saying you personally or anything) that's when I am offended. I hope to express to anyone that simply arguing about MR's guilt is appropriate and reasonable. But I will argue back my own point of view!

But I also kind of wonder about this idea of the necessity of looking at the whole picture--if what you mean by the "whole picture" is every possibility. To me I could see this really becoming a huge waste of time, KWIM? I absolutely hate it when I hear about LE tracking down leads from psychics, for instance. And when there is a lot of information pointing in one direction, I think it makes sense to put resources there, while at the same time keeping an open mind to other possibilities. I really do believe that MR is responsible. But I would not be surprised at all if it was a stranger abduction, either. It's just that there are no leads whatsover that we know of indicating anything about the latter. So going on what I know now, if I was LE, I'd have MR under surveillance, I'd be researching his online fetish connections, and talking to people all up and own his trucking routes. It just makes sense to me.JMO

I will tell you what I told someone earlier privately it would neither surprise me if Mark did do something nor would it surprise me if it was someone else entirely.

When I say a whole picture. Let's say there was an accident, car wreck, two cars involved. They spoke to one driver but not the other? How can the make an accurate assessment of what happened when writing up there report? It's not a complete report because you only have the one side. The first driver could have lied about what happened, or their view of what happened because it was such a panicked moment was different than what it actually was. That's why they should speak with both drivers. Somewhere between the two stories is the truth. Of course that's in a case where there aren't witnesses.

It's just this, there are two sides to a story and sometimes even then you won't have a completely clear picture if the two parties recall them differently.

I mentioned earlier about parental alienation and other stuff. I have known both women and men to do it, so it just isn't limited to either of the sexes. I try to consider many factors and variables before I arrive to any conclusion. The biggest factor of all that I consider is that being on the outside looking in another family's affairs, we don't exactly have the clearest of views, especially not into their own private thoughts, feelings, or even their past actions. We just have what is presented to us, but what about what hasn't been presented?

 

[Money Girl]

http://www.daily-times.com/farmingt...wine-disappearance-vallecito-residents-remain

"Dan Bender, Public Information Officer for the La Plata County Sheriff's Office, confirmed that the investigation is still active, but said there are no new developments in the case, which is the focus of a five-agency task force involving his office as well as the Durango Police Department, the Bayfield Marshall's Office, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the FBI.

Bender said immediately following Dylan's parents' contentious appearance on the Dr. Phil television show at the end of February, the Sheriff's Office tipline received over 500 calls, and the task force is following up on tips that were generated by some of these calls.

"We do believe there is foul play involved," Bender said. "We're following everything up, and are now treating this as a possible abduction. We have ruled out the possibility that this is a runaway case."

Bender would not confirm or deny that family members may have been involved in Dylan's disappearance."

 

[Money Girl]

I thought it was very interesting that as of 3/17, Dan Bender basically states they are treating this as a possible abduction. I know several of us had put that or an accident as our possible scenarios of what happened to Dylan.

 

[cattlekate]

I have been here through all 45 threads yet remained silent until fairly recently. Things had slowed down and I thought it might be time to explore other possibilities of what happened to Dylan. What this makes me wonder for those of you who have your mind made up, is why you keep repeating the same things and seem to want to detract from any alternative look at things.

Because of Occam's Razor.

 

[NC Analyzer]

Because of Occam's Razor.

Thanks! :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: I needed that!

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Because of Occam's Razor.

The simplest explanation is an abduction.

 

[cluciano63]

I thought it was very interesting that as of 3/17, Dan Bender basically states they are treating this as a possible abduction. I know several of us had put that or an accident as our possible scenarios of what happened to Dylan.

Considering they have been looking at foul play for months, why is this surprising? A parent being involved would still be an abduction. As would a stranger. Dylan is not where he should be, legally.

 

[TxJan1971]

I thought it was very interesting that as of 3/17, that while Bender basically states that they are treating this as a "possible" abduction, he also states...

"Bender would not confirm or deny that family members may have been involved in Dylan's disappearance."

It appears he is not wiling four months into the investigation to eliminate a "family member" abduction.

IMOO, This would indicate abduction by family member or abduction by SODDI is where they are at. Also, LE did state they were going to try to obtain uncut version of DP show to look for possible clues so I can't see how they would think there would be any clues about SODDI as a result of the show.

JMO though

http://www.daily-times.com/farmingt...wine-disappearance-vallecito-residents-remain

 

[scorekeeper]

http://www.daily-times.com/farmingt...wine-disappearance-vallecito-residents-remain

"Dan Bender, Public Information Officer for the La Plata County Sheriff's Office, confirmed that the investigation is still active, but said there are no new developments in the case, which is the focus of a five-agency task force involving his office as well as the Durango Police Department, the Bayfield Marshall's Office, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the FBI.

Bender said immediately following Dylan's parents' contentious appearance on the Dr. Phil television show at the end of February, the Sheriff's Office tipline received over 500 calls, and the task force is following up on tips that were generated by some of these calls.

"We do believe there is foul play involved," Bender said. "We're following everything up, and are now treating this as a possible abduction. We have ruled out the possibility that this is a runaway case."

Bender would not confirm or deny that family members may have been involved in Dylan's disappearance."

BBM

Thanks for re-posting.

The BBM above still puts Mark on the top of my list. He may have been involved or he knows the details of Dylan's disappearance.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I will tell you what I told someone earlier privately it would neither surprise me if Mark did do something nor would it surprise me if it was someone else entirely.

When I say a whole picture. Let's say there was an accident, car wreck, two cars involved. They spoke to one driver but not the other? How can the make an accurate assessment of what happened when writing up there report? It's not a complete report because you only have the one side. The first driver could have lied about what happened, or their view of what happened because it was such a panicked moment was different than what it actually was. That's why they should speak with both drivers. Somewhere between the two stories is the truth. Of course that's in a case where there aren't witnesses.

It's just this, there are two sides to a story and sometimes even then you won't have a completely clear picture if the two parties recall them differently.

I mentioned earlier about parental alienation and other stuff. I have known both women and men to do it, so it just isn't limited to either of the sexes. I try to consider many factors and variables before I arrive to any conclusion. The biggest factor of all that I consider is that being on the outside looking in another family's affairs, we don't exactly have the clearest of views, especially not into their own private thoughts, feelings, or even their past actions. We just have what is presented to us, but what about what hasn't been presented?

EXACTLY! One version is not enough. Good post!

 

[scorekeeper]

The simplest explanation is an abduction.

The simplest explanation to me is that Dylan never made it to Mark's house and that something happened during the ride home that caused Mark to harm Dylan.

 

[NC Analyzer]

EXACTLY! One version is not enough. Good post!

Ahhh, contraire, we've heard "both" sides quite a bit. Problem is...Mark Redwine's "side" doesn't add up and I, for one, don't believe a word he says...although I do have to admit, that is after I decipher what it is he actually says. Or what he says after he changes his version of what he said earlier. :seeya:

 

[Bayou Mistress]

The simplest explanation to me is that Dylan never made it to Mark's house and that something happened during the ride home that caused Mark to harm Dylan.

That hypothesis requires Mark to have done something to Dylan and disposed or put him somewhere where no one has been able to find any sign. That's not simple.

Whereas, an abduction (non-parental) is supported by the lack of evidence and Mark's version of events.

Abduction is simpler.

 

[NC Analyzer]

That hypothesis requires Mark to have done something to Dylan and disposed or put him somewhere where no one has been able to find any sign. That's not simple.

Whereas, an abduction (non-parental) is supported by the lack of evidence and Mark's version of events.

Abduction is simpler.

Oh yeah, it's pretty simple. Many, many posts to affirm exactly how simple. You also have no idea what evidence LE has. It does take time to build a case. It is also preferable to most DA's to have a body. Spring is coming. Tic-Toc.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Oh yeah, it's pretty simple. Many, many posts to affirm exactly how simple. You also have no idea what evidence LE has. It does take time to build a case. It is also preferable to most DA's to have a body. Spring is coming. Tick-Tock.

Right. You also have no idea what evidence LE has. No named person of interest, no suspect. And no boy. Simple.

 

[Emma Ems]

Ahhh, contraire, we've heard "both" sides quite a bit. Problem is...Mark Redwine's "side" doesn't add up and I, for one, don't believe a word he says...although I do have to admit, that is after I decipher what it is he actually says. Or what he says after he changes his version of what he said earlier. :seeya:

Let me ask you this? Do you want us to quit discussing other possibilities and focus solely on discussing Mark?

 

[Redhead72]

That hypothesis requires Mark to have done something to Dylan and disposed or put him somewhere where no one has been able to find any sign. That's not simple.

Whereas, an abduction (non-parental) is supported by the lack of evidence and Mark's version of events.

Abduction is simpler.

BBM and italics mine also...

The problem is though that MR's version of events has changed several times. Therefore, I don't know how one can take MR's version of events as "supporting evidence", so to speak...

 

[ColdHands]

I don't think the simplest answer is necessarily correct. This isn't IMO a simple case. I think the real answer will have to address some of these complexities although maybe not have to encompass all.

What do I mean?
Well, stranger abduction while Dylan is walking down the road. Sounds simple, but needs to address why he left instead of waiting for his ride, why he didn't contact anyone, why he took his backpack, and hey let's not forget the fishing pole.

Mark did it. Sounds simple, but what if Mark handed Dylan off to someone that turned out to be not such a great person? What if without anyone knowing, LE is working with Mark to get Dylan back? Not saying this is what happened but this is an example of how a simple "it" could be quite complex.

IMO. Example only. Not going to debate this on its merits.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

BBM and italics mine also...

The problem is though that MR's version of events has changed several times. Therefore, I don't know how one can take MR's version of events as "supporting evidence", so to speak...

The content of Mark's version of events has varied in the inclusion or exclusion of details. The basic story has not changed. If he repeated himself in rote fashion, I would have alarm bells ringing, but the gist of his version has remained essentially the same. That isn't to say, that MR is free and clear in my mind; he is not. He's simply not my sole focus when I think about finding Dylan.

 

[Emma Ems]

BBM and italics mine also...

The problem is though that MR's version of events has changed several times. Therefore, I don't know how one can take MR's version of events as "supporting evidence", so to speak...

I hate to ask you this, but I didn't see any clear changes in his story, can you point some direct examples. I would really like to see what you are talking about.