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

[Lordeebee]

Up until the press release defining the last texting activity from Dylan, EH was telling everyone the wrong time. So, IMO, she was not in the loop, learned things after presenting them as fact and she was inaccurate. It is extremely naive to think that LE would put either parent "into the inner investigative circle of trust". No one has been cleared.

Elaine was telling everyone the wrong time about what?

 

[Emma Ems]

IMO - These people dont care about Dylan and just latch onto something to justify there behavior. If it was not Dylan it would be somebody else .


:cow:

I am with you on this one. Using a child to justify their own abnormal, socially unacceptable behavior to try to make it seem normal and out of concern or protectiveness. Very insane thought process IMO.

 

[ColdHands]

IMO - These people dont care about Dylan and just latch onto something to justify there behavior. If it was not Dylan it would be somebody else .


:cow:

I think this is very insightful. Thank you for posting.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

Elaine was telling everyone the wrong time about what?

She wasn't. She was talking specifically about the last texts on the CELL PHONE not the iPod. I'm sure it took a while for LE to find the last electronic communication via the iPod texting account so how would Elaine have even known about that?

 

[asyousay]

Deleted - for some reason my message got posted twice !!

 

[asyousay]

She wasn't. She was talking specifically about the last texts on the CELL PHONE not the iPod. I'm sure it took a while for LE to find the last electronic communication via the iPod texting account so how would Elaine have even known about that?

She would not have .
If she pays for Dylan's contract for his phone then she would get the detailed billing for it . But on a IPod touch there is no such thing and so Elaine would of been oblivious to what Dylan got up to on it unless she had it in her possession and she did not .

 

[katydid23]

When I think of massive search, I think of the one like Ransom went on. 300 volunteers. IIRC wasn't there something posted asking for volunteers for that?

In that particular search, there was one LE for every small group of searchers.

 

[katydid23]

I thought that search seemed to be pretty well organized. And I was thinking LE asked for volunteers. I could be wrong about that, but compared to the other recent searches I would imagine something like the like Ransom went on, to be massive(for this case anyways.) You know, imagine if you could have one of those types of searches every day for two weeks, I wonder how much ground they could get covered?

I think LE does ask for volunteers. But mostly they like to ask 'groups' like volunteer firefighters, veterans associations, Eagle scouts, conservation groups, etc, that have experience in the woods and LISTEN TO DIRECTIONS. The two worst things that can happen are others being lost or injured and/or someone messing up the evidence found.

 

[Emma Ems]

In that particular search, there was one LE for every small group of searchers.

Yes I know, and if IIRC they asked for volunteers too. That was the point in what I said.

 

[Kimster]

Is this a thread about threats against MR and ER, or a thread about locating Dylan?

Back on track. Now!

 

[katydid23]

Up until the press release defining the last texting activity from Dylan, EH was telling everyone the wrong time. So, IMO, she was not in the loop, learned things after presenting them as fact and she was inaccurate. <mod snip> No one has been cleared.

She was telling the accurate time about the last CELL activity. The 37 text was from his ipod touch. So she was correct about the cell phone time of last text. And yes, she has been cleared. IMO :moo:

 

[Emma Ems]

Is this a thread about threats against MR and ER, or a thread about locating Dylan?

Back on track. Now!

Sorry Kimster, we did get a little off course.

 

[katydid23]

Yes I know, and if IIRC they asked for volunteers too. That was the point in what I said.

Yes, I agree. They typically ask for volunteers. But they usually ask organized groups first, like retired LE, Firefighters, conservation groups, police academy cadets, first.

 

[Emma Ems]

You know, I read a lot of paranormal fiction and sometimes I wish the methods in those works were real, like scrying when you want to find someone's location. I know that's a bit off topic, but thinking of all these missing kids that need to be found, I really wish something like that would be possible, so they could be quickly recovered. Just wishful thinking on my part.

 

[Psychic Sleuth]

You know, I read a lot of paranormal fiction and sometimes I wish the methods in those works were real, like scrying when you want to find someone's location. I know that's a bit off topic, but thinking of all these missing kids that need to be found, I really wish something like that would be possible, so they could be quickly recovered. Just wishful thinking on my part.

You and me both!! Of course if that was possible there would be nobody still missing! Isn't scrying where they swirl the water in the bowl and see images or is that something else?

 

[Emma Ems]

You and me both!! Of course if that was possible there would be nobody still missing! Isn't scrying where they swirl the water in the bowl and see images or is that something else?

The first scrying that popped in my mind was from Charmed where they use the map and the crystal to get a location. But yeah, I think that is another version too.

 

[TxLady2]

They ran out of time for the show - one of Tricia's guests had to be rescheduled. If Mark had anything he wanted to debate or clarify that Elaine said, he knew he was coming up next. Elaine didn't have that.

I think Tricia was very fair in how she ran the show, and Elaine texting to comment wasn't unfair to me. Tricia takes calls and questions during the show anyway. She was just giving Elaine a way to respond to Mark, just as he had his opportunity to respond to her, since he came on after her.

JMO.

With all due respect, she was not responding to Mark... if the poster's account is correct, she was disputing to Tricia what Mark was saying, and Mark was not even aware of it at the time. Beyond that, why did she feel the need to dispute what he says anyway? If HE is the one lying about anything, it will all come out in the wash anyway, sooner or later.

I would like to also ask, how does ER know for a fact what LE does or does not tell Mark, unless she was there when they spoke to him. They would not be telling her what they say to him, any more than they will tell him what is said between them and ER. I'm not saying she's lying, just wondering how she would know that, unless Mark told her, which is possible. For all we know, they could tell him one thing, and tell her something opposite, they have been known to do that.

 

[Salem]

Is this a thread about threats against MR and ER, or a thread about locating Dylan?

Back on track. Now!

I'm bumping this for those that may have missed it.

This is NOT about ER or MR, it is about Dylan.

Where is Dylan?

Salem

 

[TxLady2]

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I meant everything that he 'presently' had at his Dad's home, the ONLY belongings that he currently had with him, were in his backpack.

If your child was visiting, and all of his clothing, electronics, and toiletries, were in one backpack, and your child was MISSING, wouldn't you wonder if he took his belongings when he left?

Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Guess I should have thought it through myself.
Of course I would want to know if he took everything that he brought with him. I wish we had a list of what was in the backpack from the time he left home. It looked really light to me. I know that when my stepkids would come down for the summer, the two boys would be skimpy on the clothes they brought, and no extra shoes, but the girl would try to pack everything she could into one suitcase and bring 5 or 6 pairs of shoes, plus half of her dolls. Her suitcase weighed 3 times more than her brothers' combined.

 

[TxLady2]

I wish that were the case, but more is not always better in searches. On some of the searches I have been on, they have to surreptitiously weed out people who will not be good searchers. (for example, a bad searcher can be worse than no searcher, because you think an area was covered, but they were too busy chatting about how EXCITING this all is to have actually looked at anything, or someone who really cannot walk well enough to keep up or go the distance). It also depends on the organization of the search. People should be trained on how to walk together so you don't miss any areas, how to approach something that might be evidence, how to mark it, what to look for that could easily be missed, what the signal is for when you find something. You can't really just gather a bunch of people and say "Go look over there." Well, you can, but it might not be effective.

I agree with this 100%!! Even if it means covering less ground with fewer searchers, that is better than having people like you described who would do more harm than good. An inexperienced, untrained volunteer can walk right past a vital piece of evidence. Or they could stumble upon a crime scene before they realized what it is. At this point in time, they are not looking for a live Dylan, hiding out in the woods, so they need more people with training and experience.