Dylan Redwine Case Discussion Thread/Dylan's Remains Found, #2

[MissJ]

JMO, don't know who LE has in their sights but I believe they have someone. JMO, but coming from a law enforcement family, I trust them. JMO

 

[Dee10]

http://www.coloradoan.com/viewart/2...-seeks-rename-Colorado-mountain-Dylan-Redwine

Denise Hess, a longtime family friend who worked tirelessly on efforts to find the missing teenager, suggested it would be more appropriate to rename a park in Bayfield for the boy.

“Dylan was murdered and put up there, and I don’t feel like when we go up there that is something we want to be reminded of,” Hess said. “I don’t want to go up there and say, ‘That’s where he laid for seven months.’”


The U.S. Board on Geographic Names oversees the naming of geographic features. The process to rename a feature is a long one, requiring extensive geographic information, community support and biographical information of the person to be commemorated.

 

[katydid23]

Maybe the perp did use shoelaces. But MR would have better tools at his disposal seeing that Dylan was at his home. So if the perp did use shoelaces, that points to a perp other than MR, imo.

Unless, of course, he did not want to use anything from his home, to avoid detection.

 

[Mitsana]

Maybe the perp did use shoelaces. But MR would have better tools at his disposal seeing that Dylan was at his home. So if the perp did use shoelaces, that points to a perp other than MR, imo.

I do not think the use of shoelaces would argue against MR. Presumably MR would not want to use anything that definitively tied the murder to his house so the laces were something MR could use instead of something from his own house. (BTW, I see now katydid23 made the same point just above me.)

Assuming the list of items that MR divulged is correct and complete, LE found both laces and a sock but no signs of either shoe. I can imagine ways that laces and shoes get separated, but it seems unlikely that that both laces and a sock would be found without signs of either shoe in some natural process. Not impossible, but unlikely.

A different possibility is that Dylan took his shoes off when he got home and settled in to watch a movie. (IMO) After the incident, MR may have unlaced the shoes in an attempt to put them back on Dylan's feet (it's hard to put someone else's shoes on if they aren't cooperating). MR may have then decided to do something else with the loose laces once he had them in his hand and possibly the shoes still were not cooperating. He may have used them as carry handles or staged bindings.

IMO, if LE found the laces in a knotted condition, they would be able to declare it a homicide, which they did. This is one reason that I think the laces were knotted, since otherwise I don't see any other items in the list that seem like they could provide evidence of a homicide (but of course, we aren't sure the list is accurate and complete). Another reason I think they might have been knotted is that if they were tied together, it would be more likely that both laces would be recovered instead of just one.

If this speculation were correct, MR might have disposed of the uncooperative shoes along with the backpack and its contents (which have not been found so far as we know). That would provide a different explanation for why no sign of the shoes have been found, but both laces have.

 

[EastCoastMama]

Long time lurker and other than posting on whether or not I loved my job, this is my first real post. I listened to the show with MR and TG not too long ago as well as DR's mother's interview and personally felt a disconnect between the two regarding urgency and passion for this young man's disappearance. Hearing this news not only saddens me but increases the well of anger I feel any time I read or hear about cases such as these. This is, of course, only my opinion and anything I say here is based upon my own emotional and mental capacities of reason and logic which do not always coincide perfectly. I suppose most people feel there is more to the story when it is found that a parent was the last to see a child and cannot give (or will not) give more detail. To me, the parent, is the responsible party as they are the adult in charge. Off that soapbox, sorry. I think there is a fundamental and functional reason to show the remains to a parent who was last seen with the child. It serves to gauge reaction and to possibly gain more information into the psychological and subconscious reactions that trained professionals can notice. Am I alone in this approach?

 

[kkdj]

Do we know that both shoelaces were found? If so, were they tied together? Its just so strange to me that very few bones were found but both shoelaces in the same area! What are the odds of that!?!

 

[Mitsana]

Do we know that both shoelaces were found? If so, were they tied together? Its just so strange to me that very few bones were found but both shoelaces in the same area! What are the odds of that!?!

I believe that all we know of the non-bone items came from an interview with Mark Redwine. There is no mention of them being knotted, but that is something I have speculated on as explaining the LE conclusion of homicide and the finding of both laces.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...edwine-remains-found-middle-mountain-colorado

"Investigators also found a piece of the boy's shirt, one sock and his shoestrings but not the backpack or other items he had when he went missing, [Mark] Redwine said."

 

[finder108]

L I think there is a fundamental and functional reason to show the remains to a parent who was last seen with the child. It serves to gauge reaction and to possibly gain more information into the psychological and subconscious reactions that trained professionals can notice. Am I alone in this approach?

I agree ... I think that in general, there's a reason for everything that LE does.

I like it when "lurkers" express what they're thinking.

:welcome6:

 

[finder108]

I believe that all we know of the non-bone items came from an interview with Mark Redwine. There is no mention of them being knotted, but that is something I have speculated on as explaining the LE conclusion of homicide and the finding of both laces.

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingn...edwine-remains-found-middle-mountain-colorado

"Investigators also found a piece of the boy's shirt, one sock and his shoestrings but not the backpack or other items he had when he went missing, [Mark] Redwine said."

That's the only reference to what items were found that I've been able to find as well. I'd love to see links for any other info - someone said that another source mentioned a sock? I don't recall reading that.

 

[EastCoastMama]

Thank you for the welcome. I love this site!

 

[YidArmyRach]

The discrepancy is that MR claimed they found a particular set of bones and a piece of a shirt, a sock, and shoestrings (plural). A recent MSM news article instead claimed that a shirt and a shoe had been found, but there have been no other reports like that. I have always thought the shirt and shoe report was just terribly sloppy reporting, mis-remembering what MR had divulged (which we still don't know is the actual set of items found since LE has never released that list).

I've also always thought it odd that the shoestrings were found but no shoes. Someone pointed out that shoes are often leather and the animals might well eat them. If so, the soles would still be somewhere, but perhaps more difficult to find. I still find it odd that the laces wouldn't have gone with the shoes. So, that leads me to speculate that the laces may have been removed from the shoes and used by the perp.

A lot of trainers now come with a little packet of spare laces. I know my sons' Nike trainers and football boots did - one pair in the shoe, and a second pair of a different colour in a little packet. Its a long shot, but could Dylan have had recently new trainers, and still had the spare laces in his backpack?

Still doesn't explain where the backpack is though :banghead:

 

[YidArmyRach]

Completely off topic, but anyone know why my cat licks my toes? I'm a dog person and this cat behavior is freaking me out a little....sometimes he pounces on my foot like it was prey except he licks.

I remember being told that they lick human's to get the salt from our skin - a bit like rabbits with a mineral lick.

No idea if its true though

 

[Linda7NJ]

Completely off topic, but anyone know why my cat licks my toes? I'm a dog person and this cat behavior is freaking me out a little....sometimes he pounces on my foot like it was prey except he licks.

He has a foot fetish!

 

[Bravo]

He has a foot fetish!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[ColdHands]

Completely off topic, but anyone know why my cat licks my toes? I'm a dog person and this cat behavior is freaking me out a little....sometimes he pounces on my foot like it was prey except he licks.

Is this new behavior in an adult cat or consistent behavior since he was a juvenile? Any time you get new behaviors in an adult cat I think it's worth a talk to the vet. Cats do weird things when they don't feel right. If he's always done it, it's probably just how he bonds with you, like a cat family would bond.

ETA my cat attacks my older son's legs as he walks by, if he doesn't get played with enough. Kind of a "pay attention to me now!" Thing

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Is this new behavior in an adult cat or consistent behavior since he was a juvenile? Any time you get new behaviors in an adult cat I think it's worth a talk to the vet. Cats do weird things when they don't feel right. If he's always done it, it's probably just how he bonds with you, like a cat family would bond.

ETA my cat attacks my older son's legs as he walks by, if he doesn't get played with enough. Kind of a "pay attention to me now!" Thing

We've had Melvin for about 5 months and he's getting close to being a year old. His first couple of months with us was learning how to co-exist with our dogs, which I'm happy to report has evolved into a tolerant and almost loving relationship. About the time everyone was getting along is when the licking started. Some lovely member here sent me an article about licking as an expression of love first learned from the mother cat since he is still juvenile and otherwise healthy. I hope so anyway.

 

[gitana1]

Completely off topic, but anyone know why my cat licks my toes? I'm a dog person and this cat behavior is freaking me out a little....sometimes he pounces on my foot like it was prey except he licks.

Oh my gosh that's so cute! My guess is that he thinks the toes look like prey and wants to "play" with them, but he also knows the toes are really a part of you so he doesn't want to hurt you by biting them. So he compromises with a lick!

 

[Bravo]

A perp has also been know to be tracked simply with a GPS device. Just sayin...

 

[Ghostwheel]

Completely off topic, but anyone know why my cat licks my toes? I'm a dog person and this cat behavior is freaking me out a little....sometimes he pounces on my foot like it was prey except he licks.

O/T I found this:
"When your cat licks you, she's cleaning you up and claiming you -- just as she would for a feline friend or litter mate."
http://animal.discovery.com/pets/healthy-pets/what-does-it-mean-when-your-cat-licks-you.htm

 

[gitana1]

Long time lurker and other than posting on whether or not I loved my job, this is my first real post. I listened to the show with MR and TG not too long ago as well as DR's mother's interview and personally felt a disconnect between the two regarding urgency and passion for this young man's disappearance. Hearing this news not only saddens me but increases the well of anger I feel any time I read or hear about cases such as these. This is, of course, only my opinion and anything I say here is based upon my own emotional and mental capacities of reason and logic which do not always coincide perfectly. I suppose most people feel there is more to the story when it is found that a parent was the last to see a child and cannot give (or will not) give more detail. To me, the parent, is the responsible party as they are the adult in charge. Off that soapbox, sorry. I think there is a fundamental and functional reason to show the remains to a parent who was last seen with the child. It serves to gauge reaction and to possibly gain more information into the psychological and subconscious reactions that trained professionals can notice. Am I alone in this approach?

Excellent post. I wish more lurkers would post their thoughts. I am on board with you. I think that's exactly what LE was doing - gauging his reaction, trying to get a response, something.