CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #51

[Allusonz]

Thanks, then I guess that means we don't know for certain that nothing was found. Glad that has been cleared up to be rumor and I can stop searching the msms.

IMO LE does not take absolutely everything and keep everything until trial. They get their chance and some items do have to be returned. IIRC correctly Drew Petersen got his computers and vehicles back and there had been evidence taken from both. He was convicted of murdering his wife in the bathtub but that was never removed.

It can't be a maybe, maybe not. Either something was found and LE takes it into evidence, as the defense has the right to test it, or nothing was found and it remained in Marik's home.

The last I saw it was in the MB interview. We can dance around this all day but the fact remains the loveseat is in Mark's home.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

He was convicted of murdering his wife in the bathtub but that was never removed.

Snipped by me.

That's funny! I've never heard of LE removing a toliet or a sink or a bathtub. Furniture is a different story. A bathtub would be labor intensive and would take away a defendant's critical need for cleanliness. Maybe LE only takes bathtubs when they are in someone's yard?

 

[azgrandma]

It can't be a maybe, maybe not. Either something was found and LE takes it into evidence, as the defense has the right to test it, or nothing was found and it remained in Marik's home.

The last I saw it was in the MB interview. We can dance around this all day but the fact remains the loveseat is in Mark's home.

I understand that you are referring to the loveseat. I was referring to your comment that you stated that "nothing was found". WE don't know that nothing was found and WE don't know that something was found. IMO the fact that the loveseat was present during the interview does NOT indicate that it proves or disproves anything.

I was looking for a link to your comment "nothing was found" since one can't be provided and I looked for one as well. I will have to consider that as rumor. IMO it should not be stated as if it was fact.

We can agree to disagree on the loveseat.

 

[Eileen730]

Snipped by me.

That's funny! I've never heard of LE removing a toliet or a sink or a bathtub. Furniture is a different story. A bathtub would be labor intensive and would take away a defendant's critical need for cleanliness. Maybe LE only takes bathtubs when they are in someone's yard?

.........

 

[Eileen730]

I believe in the Zahara Baker case they removed sinks and drains

 

[Dee10]

Thanks, then I guess that means we don't know for certain that nothing was found. Glad that has been cleared up to be rumor and I can stop searching the msms.

IMO LE does not take absolutely everything and keep everything until trial. They get their chance and some items do have to be returned. IIRC correctly Drew Petersen got his computers and vehicles back and there had been evidence taken from both. He was convicted of murdering his wife in the bathtub but that was never removed.

Exactly, this is a big misconception that any & all items have to be seized intact for trial. Thinking of the Jodi Arias trial as well. Items can be tested, photographed, swatches maybe taken & preserved. LE just takes what is needed for the case no need for an entire vehicle for instance, so it would be returned if it wasn't stolen IMO.

ETA - One case I can think of they took the entire seat as it was blood soaked & had different kinds of DNA on it, but as a rule...I don't think it is necessary these days.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I believe in the Zahara Baker case they removed sinks and drains

They DID! I looked it up. So a loveseat would be no problem at all. I wonder why they didn't take MR's bathtub and drain pipes?

 

[nikb]

I see a lot of bitterness and jealousy towards his ex. Overwhelmingly so. JMO

FWIW, I see a lot of bitterness and anger on both sides. Jealousy not as much - I can see reasons to be jealous, but I don' tsee it expressed as much. It's enough to make me feel really sad for any kid(s) stuck in the middle of it.

Whether or not it has anything to do with Dylan being missing though? I've leaned towards MR from the beginning but the longer this goes on, the more I seem to be on the fence. I'm not even sure why exactly.

I want nothing more than for him to be found, but a close second is knowing what happened/is happening to him.

 

[Ghostwheel]

They DID! I looked it up. So a loveseat would be no problem at all. I wonder why they didn't take MR's bathtub and drain pipes?

Because every case is different. Every case doesn't have a sink, and/or drain and/or bathtub and/or anything specific removed. Each case is different, and if LE can get what they need without taking something, they will. Or if they can take something, rule it out, and return it, they will. In the Zahra Baker case, "Elisa also told police they can find Zahra's body parts in the drain trap of the bathtub"http://www.observernewsonline.com/content/source-zahra-was-raped

 

[Ghostwheel]

I believe the used luminol based on the search warrant for the house. And they would have swabbed before luminol for DNA because after luminol can cause the degradation of DNA and render it no longer useful. And it doesn't look as if they swabbed everywhere. Not by a long shot.

True. They could have just swabbed a couple of stains, and not used luminol, though. Not every thing that is suspicious is invisible to the eye.

 

[Eileen730]

True. They could have just swabbed a couple of stains, and not used luminol, though. Not every thing that is suspicious is invisible to the eye.

I think in the Zahara Baker case they found blood on the wood hipper outside I think this would be reason to check the drains

 

[Ghostwheel]

I think in the Zahara Baker case they found blood on the wood hipper outside I think this would be reason to check the drains

If you read my link above, Elisa Baker allegedly told police they would find something in the drains. Makes that one a no-brainer, IMO.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Again, if evidence had been found to support the fact that Dylan never woke up since he slept on the loveseat, it would of been removed.

Just like if a evidence had been found in a vehicle, that vehicle is now evidence and it would not be returned.

In the MB interview, I did not see that it had been removed.

BBM: This is not correct. If the evidence that was found in a vehicle can be removed (a hammer, axe, cell phone, carpet, etc), then the vehicle is not evidence, the items from inside are. LE makes the determination as to whether to return the vehicle or not.

 

[katydid23]

Neither do I see what is to be gained by an individual doing this, yet repeatedly I see people file reports with the police that turn out to be unfounded. Conversely, I see ones filed that are legitimate.

The fact remains we are in a he said:she said.

Soloman Metawala comes to mind here where he was accused of abusing his children in more than one way, on more than one occassion, and the allegations proved to be unfounded.

But when we look at Solomon's accuser, we can clearly see a very sick and troubled woman. That is not the case with those who are accusing Mark, imo.

 

[Salem]

I am uncertain how anyone could think that DH had the most up to date grid of searches, as there were probably areas searched that she was not made aware of.

I don't believe it was a matter of a location that was changed, compared to utilizing the resources available to the maximum. As well, LE would be thinking of the safety of those searchers.

The main search focused on what the media reported on.

What LE did not reveal were the areas that other groups searched on the QT.

Actually - this was much simpler, iirc. DH had organized a search, I believe in the lake area. While she was organizing, LE was also organizing a search on the highway. When LE informed DH of the search on the highway, DH switched gears and asked everyone to join LE in their search. LE needed the help and asked for it and DH and the community responded.

There are articles and pictures in the media thread. Both EH and MR attended and helped search.

Salem

 

[Deleted member 39678]

True. They could have just swabbed a couple of stains, and not used luminol, though. Not every thing that is suspicious is invisible to the eye.

That's why the mere fact that LE takes swabs of a particular area doesn't mean much. Stains could be swabbed and after testing in a lab be found to be innocuous. That could be the case here. Swabs taken and later found to yield no evidence. MOO.

 

[ColdHands]

Seems to me he is throwing out spaghetti to see what sticks no matter how ridiculous it is like running away; a 13 yr. with no money, dead cell phone, doesn't contact anyone, missed his free ride to his friends, on and on and then something terrible must have happened after he ran away? Who knows what goes on in MR's head?

That's actually not unlike what we've been doing, or did do several months ago. Brainstorming means exactly that - throwing out ideas to see what sticks.

 

[Ghostwheel]

That's why the mere fact that LE takes swabs of a particular area doesn't mean much. Stains could be swabbed and after testing in a lab be found to be innocuous. That could be the case here. Swabs taken and later found to yield no evidence. MOO.

Too true. I have to wonder, though, could something be tested, test as something that MIGHT be evidence, but not be enough evidence on it's own?

For example, two spots of blood on a pillow. It could be from a nosebleed, or from something more nefarious. On it's own, it means nothing, but if there was something else found later (like a blanket with a lot more blood on it), would the spots on the pillow then become a major piece of evidence?

Again, I am not saying this happened here, just wondering if something that didn't look like evidence could become a major piece of evidence should something else surface. It seems to me like it would be possible. This is just me thinking out loud.

 

[cluciano63]

Too true. I have to wonder, though, could something be tested, test as something that MIGHT be evidence, but not be enough evidence on it's own?

For example, two spots of blood on a pillow. It could be from a nosebleed, or from something more nefarious. On it's own, it means nothing, but if there was something else found later (like a blanket with a lot more blood on it), would the spots on the pillow then become a major piece of evidence?

Again, I am not saying this happened here, just wondering if something that didn't look like evidence could become a major piece of evidence should something else surface. It seems to me like it would be possible. This is just me thinking out loud.

That is kind of what I said earlier. I.e Ayla Reynolds. LE found her blood, but not enough to prove she died. But they have said they believe she is dead and that her father knows how, etc. They have been much more open that this LE but that does not mean that this LE does not have similar evidence. They ( LE in Dylan's case) did say they had lots of pieces of evidence I believe, but that they needed that one more piece in the puzzle. JMO

 

[Allusonz]

BBM: This is not correct. If the evidence that was found in a vehicle can be removed (a hammer, axe, cell phone, carpet, etc), then the vehicle is not evidence, the items from inside are. LE makes the determination as to whether to return the vehicle or not.

I disagree.

If as it was stated by Azgrandma that Dylan died on the couch, the couch would be removed.

Just like if they believe you died in the vehicle.

Or the bathtub (or dismembered)

We are talking death here, not a stain that can be swabbed.

The other alternative would be to take a portion of loveseat, such as the leather, maybe anything under like filler.

Zahra Baker was dismembered, some went down the toilet, it was done in the bathtub and they removed both.