HurleysRUS, perceived hypothesis, is one of the primary reasons that missing persons' investigations grow cold; choosing a suspect and forging the evidence to fit.. Perceived hypothesis is why the Adam Walsh case went cold for almost three decades..
With that said, I haven't followed Dylan's case that closely. After the news of his recovery, I began scanning the threads and noticed a few very disturbing revelations; Dylans' disappearance was initially treated as a runaway by LE. There was no Amber Alert issued for Dylan.
Critical/valuable time was squandered by investigators in the first few hours and days, focusing on his father, imo..
The stats indicate a stranger or slight acquaintance abduction when a child of Dylan's age vanishes..
As someone who has closely followed Dylan's case from the start here at WS..and in being someone who did not have any perceived hypothesis' attempting to thereby force fit the pieces of the case to "fit a perceived hypothesis"..nor came into this case with thoughts or suspicions of this wonderful young man's father being the responsible individual for this child's "disappearance".. Much different is the actual, factual reality of the way in which myself and many, many others approached this case from the start in our looking at every angle possible for why/who was responsible and/or involved in this young man's having suddenly "disappeared"..
Thorough and exhaustive discussion took place about every angle and person possible that may have been responsible and/or involved in why this young man was gone ..the factual reality is myself and many others approached the case in an extremely fair manner wrt the time, effort, and large volume of discussions, sleuthing, and studying ALL AVAILABLE OPTIONS IN THE WHY/WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE AND/OR INVOLVED WITH THIS CHILD'S ABDUCTION..MARK REDWINE WAS NOT ZEROED IN ON FROM THE START.
Atleast not here at Websleuths he was NOT..Much different was it that all angles and possibilities were explored and quite frankly continued to be explored long past reason..the sightings, especially the mail carrier's sighting was so thoroughly explored and looked at from a standpoint of it being used as basis for which we worked around timeline wise and attached great weight in the available options and possibilities that comes from using that mail carrier's sighting as a point of reference in our breaking down of the case and the possibilities in those early on weeks and months..
The truth of the matter is that a very good many of us even continued on with looking at all those other available possibilities OTHER THAN MARK REDWINE'S BEING RESPONSIBLE AND INVOLVED.. THIS EXTREMELY THOROUGH AND IN GREAT DETAIL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ANGLES SUCH AS ABDUCTION BY A STRANGER OR SLIGHT ACQUAINTANCE WERE ALL THOROUGHLY EXPLORED BY MANY OF US, FOXFIRE..
Those many of us who have followed closely from the beginning and have been active participants throughout the various stages of discussions, sleuthing, theorizing, and looking at ALL angles and possibilities of why this young man suddenly, extremely uncharacteristically ceased ALL communication, permanently and then seemingly vanished from existence..thousands of pages of documented, black and white proof exists right here on WS in Dylan's forum that myself along with many other members approached this case with NO PERCEIVED HYPOTHESIS and from there force fit the pieces of this case to suit these "perceived hypothesis"..<<-- this could not be more way off base from what is actually the factual truth of how this case has been approached, discussed, sleuthed, etc by the many members who've actively participated in looking at this from all angles and possibilities..most pointedly is the fact that we did not initially zero in or zoom focus on this wonderful young man's "dad", Mark Redwine.. ..
IMO in having those hundreds upon thousands of posts upon posts where these thorough alternative to Mark Redwine possibilities were discussed long past ad nauseum and clearly stand as proof positive of the fair shake Mark Redwine was given by many of us from the start and throughout those earlier stages of this case.. IMO the factual truth of how this case was approached as well as how exhaustively all alternatives, avenues, and possibilities were discussed in great depth with Mark Redwine NOT BEING the main focus or theory..This truth IMO needs to be clarified immediately in replacing the false, mistaken, and untrue notions of there being perceived hypothesis, tunnel vision type approach from the onset, or any other falsehood related to the notion of Mark Redwine receiving anything other than a fair shake in the approach that was taken by those of us who have actively participated in the discussions of this MISSING YOUNG PERSON'S case.. now known to be murder of a beautiful, vibrant, full of such life and vivacious personality that his small framed body could possibly contain.. Dylan Nicolas Redwine's having been literally stripped from the lives of the so many who truly love him and now will live every day of the remainder of their lives with the huge, gaping, vacant, empty hole left in their lives from this young man's life and light having been extinguished from this world.
I really do not think LE wasted any significant time. Looking at the terrain involved and the vast area in which Dylan could have been, it is either a miracle that his remains were found or excellent LE work. I choose the latter. (JMO)
<RSBM for space>..ITA!
The stats indicate that, but in this particular case, LE was right on in their assessment of the father, imo/ Look at where the remains were found. It was not a stranger or slight acquaintance that left them on the mountain overlooking the father's cabin, imo.
The reason that LE INITIAlly thought 'runaway' is they listened to the father, who told them the kid's fishing pole was missing, and he told them he thought the boy might have gone fishing that morning. He was trying to throw them off, purposely, IMO.
its the responsibility of the parent to report their child missing isn't it?
he sent a text to his ex wife that he couldn't find Dylan and he was supposedly 'at the marshalls office taking care of it'
many months went by before LE stated that EH was the parent who reported Dylan missing.
Of course the responsibility lies with the parent to whom the minor child's entire well being and care is reliant upon at the time they "vanish".. IMO no one but the parent is responsible for providing this level of care especially in a case where there are specific, detailed court orders for whose physical custody/care the minor child is to be in at the time of the child's "vanishing"
The time lapse before a child goes missing is normally about 2+ hours and it is not the responsibility of the father of the missing child to initiate a missing child investigation..
Most State Law Enforcement Agencies have a CARD Team & other resources available immediately upon request.
and/or Federal Resources upon request..
Criminal Pursuit: The FBI Child Abduction Team
http://investigation.discovery.com/...inal-pursuit-the-fbi-child-abduction-team.htm
Yes, it is solely a parents responsibility to sound the alarm, and initiate the ball rolling of involvement from LEA when their child goes "missing".. IMO no where else and with NO ONE ELSE does the responsibility lie for initiating and informing LE about your minor child who is at that time in your physical custody via court ordered custody for a parental visitation when that minor child uncharacteristically, suddenly ceases ALL communication WITH ANYONE..and the child's quite literally ceasing to exist on the face of the earth..IT IS NO ONE BUT THAT PARENT WITH THE COURT ORDERED, SCHEDULED, PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD AT THE TIME ANY/ALL TRACES OF THE CHILD CEASE TO EXIST..THAT PARENT AKA MARK REDWINE IN THIS CASE IS EXACTLY WHO BORE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ENSURING CARE OF HIS MINOR SON WAS PROVIDED..
IMO THE FACT IS THAT THE CARE WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THIS MINOR CHILD, DYLAN..ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE RESPONSIBLE PARENT WHO WAS COURT ORDERED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF HIS MINOR CHILD, DYLAN FOR A PARENTAL VISITATION DID NOT EVEN INITIATE AND REPORT THE FACT HIS MINOR SON, DYLAN WAS MISSING..
Unfortunately when LE immediately become involved in the extremely critical issue of a minor child "MISSING" it is the parents to whom investigators are reliant upon for all their immediate, initial info/details surrounding the child's having gone "MISSING"..Therefor it is those initial details that they are relying upon initially in beginning their involvement in finding and seeing to it this minor child is brought to safety..
Tragically the fact is that all too often we see it being the actual parent(s) that have direct involvement and are responsible for why the minor child is "missing" and this tragic fact obviously allows critical hours and minutes of that initial stage of LE involvement to be lost, wasted, and/or even sent off in completely wrong AND opposite directions in that initial, crucial period of time in searching for the missing child..
IMO anyone can play blame-game when intentional misleading is done by an involved in the crime parent..but this isn't a game and the only one that bears responsibility and blame for the blatant, intentional misleading details given by a parent to investigators, IS THE PARENT(S).. The responsibility lies solely with the parent(s) in their mal intent and the very real repercussions those intents and actions bring about as a result.
IT IS MOO!.. MOO!.. MOO!.. AND MORE MOO!!
