Sunday, 6/9/2013 Radio Show

[Lordeebee]

From the Sunday 6/9 radio show starting around 94:12

That's just it! LE told him over and over and over that the poly is one of the tools to use. If my child was missing, I would use EVERY tool in the box, even the hammer!

 

[Lordeebee]

Please bring me up to speed to avoid wasting time. I transcribed the radio show but have to go back, relisten and make edits and make sure I have everything accurate.

Question 1: Has anybody already transcribed it? Do you all still want a full transcript?

Question 2: I am working on it as we speak and hope to have it completed soon but it is a slow process to make sure it is accurate, so my 2nd question is:

Do you want me to post it in here in pieces/sections (as I complete each section), or do you just want to wait until the entire transcript is available and I'll post that in the media/timeline and let everyone know? Your choice.

Please advise so I know if and how to proceed from this point forward.

Thanks to all.

YES! Please finish TxJan and THANK YOU SO MUCH!

 

[scorekeeper]

then my next question would be what did the phone do after those few days were over?

as long as Dylan's phone is still on a plan it would kick over to regular voicemail...even if battery died

JMO/and test I ran today...see previous posts...

 

[ColdHands]

That's just it! LE told him over and over and over that the poly is one of the tools to use. If my child was missing, I would use EVERY tool in the box, even the hammer!

And that's the next topic actually. Tricia asks him what other tools, he says media, and she congratulates him for realizing media is an important tool when a child goes missing. I didn't transcribe that section.

 

[Lordeebee]

as long as Dylan's phone is still on a plan it would kick over to regular voicemail...even if battery died

JMO/and test I ran today...see previous posts...

So is it true that there would be no pings unless the phone was being used?
eta - I mean while the phone was still charged and working?

 

[sorrell skye]

MR said he didn't look for Dylan's backpack, but he looked for the fishing pole, because he "was more concerned about Dylan, and trying to figure out where he might have been".

BS. Dylan brought a backpack with him when he came to visit. If anything, checking to see if Dylan's backpack was still in the house would have given him more information than looking for a stupid fishing pole.

MR brought up the fishing pole from the very beginning. IMO, he used the fishing pole to try to steer the investigation. When that didn't work, he decided to criticize LE for not searching at the reservoir/dam right away.

Now, he's saying that he doesn't believe that Dylan is in the area, and is speculating that Dylan may be in Mexico, Germany, or Australia.

This speculation about Dylan being in another country is not at all logical, and I feel is MR's attempt to criticize LE for not looking for Dylan in these far-fetched places.

He claims that he wants the focus to be on finding Dylan, yet it seems that MR's energy is spent on attempting to deflect the focus away from himself: IOW, don't look at me! Look in Mexico! Look in Germany! Look in Australia!

Dylan is not in a foreign country. MR knows this. He needs to stop making such ridiculous statements, as it only makes him look like a fool, IMO.

Without a doubt, LE has followed all of his recent interviews, and have taken note of everything he's said.

 

[Lordeebee]

And that's the next topic actually. Tricia asks him what other tools, he says media, and she congratulates him for realizing media is an important tool when a child goes missing. I didn't transcribe that section.

Yeah personally I don't think he used that tool much either :maddening:

 

[katydid23]

Just something that came to mind about last weeks interview:

Tricia said to MR, something like " You were the one that first reached out to the Dr Phil show...right?"

and he hemmed and hawed and said well, no not really...

Tricia was very apologetic, and said it was her fault, her mistake...but later on she said " I really thought you had told me that, I'm sorry.."

Well, JUST MY OPINION< I think Tricia WAS RIGHT. I bet he did say that. He says all kinds of things like that..." I was the first one there, the first one in line, the first one to commemorate the 6 month anniv, the first to reply to the dog handler, .....bla bla bla.

I think he probably did tell her that, then backtracked. JMO

 

[scorekeeper]

So is it true that there would be no pings unless the phone was being used?
eta - I mean while the phone was still charged and working?

sorry, I do not know much about phone "pings". I know Dylan's phone did NOT have gps. I think this is one thing LE is keeping quiet....JMO

 

[TxLady2]

You might be right about him not being a good poly candidate. It happens. But he COULD have passed his name, address, DOB, then showed deceptive on the next one, two, x number of questions that might have been involving Dylan.

I have to say, what if, instead of answering with a direct answer on a poly, Mark used his usual word salad. I don't know how anyone could get an accurate reading off of that.

As an example, the following not supposed to be derogatory, it is just how I hear Mark when he talks:

"Did you have anything to do with Dylan's disappearance?"
"Well, you know, I didn't see him when I came home from Durango, and, you know, he wasn't where I left him on the couch, so I thought he'd gone outside for a while. I didn't think anything of it at the time, so I laid down for a bit, you know, because I do that when I have the opportunity..."

How could you get any kind of reading if the answer was like that? In that case, "failed miserably" would make sense.

I'm behind, and this may already have been answered, but if your example happened, the polygrapher would have stopped him before he got the 3rd or 4th word out. They only ask 'yes' or 'no' questions. They do not ask open-ended questions nor give anyone the option to qualify answers. And if he continued to try to elaborate, the test would have probably been stopped.

IIRC, with my limited experience, the series of control questions, or pretest as some are calling it, could take longer than the actual test, because they instruct the person to answer 'no' with a series of questions, and then to answer 'yes' with another series of questions. This is to gauge the body's reactions between telling a lie and telling the truth.

It would not surprise me at all if they did only ask 4 or 5 questions during the actual test. All they needed to know is, does he know where Dylan is, did he have anything to do with the disappearance of Dylan, and if he believes he is alive or dead, possibly if he knows what happened to him.

 

[katydid23]

I'm behind, and this may already have been answered, but if your example happened, the polygrapher would have stopped him before he got the 3rd or 4th word out. They only ask 'yes' or 'no' questions. They do not ask open-ended questions nor give anyone the option to qualify answers. And if he continued to try to elaborate, the test would have probably been stopped.

IIRC, with my limited experience, the series of control questions, or pretest as some are calling it, could take longer than the actual test, because they instruct the person to answer 'no' with a series of questions, and then to answer 'yes' with another series of questions. This is to gauge the body's reactions between telling a lie and telling the truth.

It would not surprise me at all if they did only ask 4 or 5 questions during the actual test. All they needed to know is, does he know where Dylan is, did he have anything to do with the disappearance of Dylan, and if he believes he is alive or dead, possibly if he knows what happened to him.

He says they only asked 4 or 5 INCLUDING the baseline questions. If so, they really got down to business with the final two questions.

 

[sorrell skye]

For crying out loud - MR "embraces" being at the top of LE's list.

This has got to be THE most ridiculous & disturbing thing I've EVER heard a parent of a missing child state.

NO ONE "embraces" being at the top of LE's list. It's not a badge of honor. It's not something to strive for. It's certainly not something to be proud of.

Yet, MR "embraces" it.

 

[ColdHands]

Yeah personally I don't think he used that tool much either :maddening:

Hoping for the best here, that someone finally got through to him and he will step up for his son's sake. Turning over a new :leaf2:

 

[Tink56]

I just saw this too. I was looking for an amount they were asked, but that other thing I was reading mentioned asking a series of questions in different manners. This really has me going hmmmm, since the more questions you ask the more unreliable the test is. This may be a science that I fully do not understand at the end of the day, because I could see someone taking a test being asked, "Did you kill so and so?" and their initial mind thought is, "I didn't do it, I know I didn't do it, do they think I did it," you know total mind freak out. It made sense to me when I read the other thing about trying to "gently" ask the questions in a non accusatory fashion.

Can you imagine though? Did you harm your son? Did you hide your son? How many other questions could they ask for this one instance that would cover all bases of a missing child?

People being given a polygraph are instructed to only answer yes or no.

Here's some examples of several ways to ask the same questions:
From an actual polygraph...David Westerfield with regard to disappearance of Danielle Van Dam

PR: Okay, questions are about to begin. Is your first name David?

DW: Yes.

PR: Do you believe me when I promise you I won't ask a question we haven't gone over word for word?

DW: Yes.

PR: Regarding whether or not you yourself are involved in the disappearance of Danielle van Dam, do you intend to answer truthfully each question about that?

DW: Yes.

PR: Regarding the disappearance of Danielle van Dam, do you suspect anyone in particular of being responsible for her missing?

DW: No.

PR: Regarding the disappearance of Danielle van Dam, do you know for sure who is responsible for her missing?

DW: No.

PR: Other than what you told me, during the first 40 years of your life, do you remember ever lying to anyone who loved and trusted you?

DW: No.

PR: Regarding the disappearance of Danielle van Dam, are you yourself in any way responsible for her missing?

DW: No.

PR: During the first 45 years of your life, do you remember ever hurting anyone when you were drunk or angry?

DW: No.

PR: Regarding the disappearance of Danielle van Dam, do you know her whereabouts at this time?

DW: No.

PR: Are you afraid I'll ask a question we haven't gone over word for word?

DW: No.

PR: That concludes the first test....

DW: That's the hard part?
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2003/jan/23/you-think-im-guilty-something/

 

[Dee10]

For crying out loud - MR "embraces" being at the top of LE's list.

This has got to be THE most ridiculous & disturbing thing I've EVER heard a parent of a missing child state.

NO ONE "embraces" being at the top of LE's list. It's not a badge of honor. It's not something to strive for. It's certainly not something to be proud of.

Yet, MR "embraces" it.

Yet, he says:

"One of the agreements we had in this Conflict Resolution Meeting to communicate once a week. So I made it...marked it on my calender that l day every week I am going to touch base with LE."

Wonder if he this agreement was with the LEO in the room??? Interesting that he hasn't been doing the once of week meeting or phone call as he has said previously he was doing that.

 

[katydid23]

Quote:
"One of the agreements we had in this Conflict Resolution Meeting to communicate once a week. So I made it...marked it on my calender that l day every week I am going to touch base with LE."



Amazing to me that he wasn't already contacting them. I'd be camped on their doorstep if my son was missing. And I wouldn't be criticizing them publicly every chance I got, either.

 

[sorrell skye]

He says they only asked 4 or 5 INCLUDING the baseline questions. If so, they really got down to business with the final two questions.

I don't believe for a minute that the examiner only asked 4 or 5 questions.

I think MR wants everyone to believe that he was a victim of an inexperienced polygraph examiner (gee - where have we heard THAT before).

When he had the chance to take a polygraph with Jack Trimarco, MR made sure that didn't happen, because, IMO, MR knew that Jack Trimarco would catch him in his deception.

I'll tell you this: if my child was missing, and I had the opportunity to clear my name by taking a polygraph with Jack Trimarco so that LE could focus resources on other avenues of investigation, wild horses couldn't keep me from taking that poly. I sure as hell wouldn't have gotten drunk on Jim Beam the night before, no matter how much of an alcoholic I was. I'd tell my demons to go to hell, and I'd keep myself sober for the sake of my missing child.

 

[Lordeebee]

Did we already hear that Mark went to T's house twice?

Did he really go to T's house twice, or was this just damage control on his earlier statements (went to T's house and talked to T, and then went to T's house and no one was home)?

If he went to T's house twice, then why didn't he say this on the Dr. Phil show when AZGrandma called him on the two different versions?

 

[katydid23]

I don't believe for a minute that the examiner only asked 4 or 5 questions.

I think MR wants everyone to believe that he was a victim of an inexperienced polygraph examiner (gee - where have we heard THAT before).

When he had the chance to take a polygraph with Jack Trimarco, MR made sure that didn't happen, because, IMO, MR knew that Jack Trimarco would catch him in his deception.

I'll tell you this: if my child was missing, and I had the opportunity to clear my name by taking a polygraph with Jack Trimarco so that LE could focus resources on other avenues of investigation, wild horses couldn't keep me from taking that poly. I sure as hell wouldn't have gotten drunk on Jim Beam the night before, no matter how much of an alcoholic I was. I'd tell my demons to go to hell, and I'd keep myself sober for the sake of my missing child.

AGREED.

And another important thing to keep in mind, LE WANTS innocent people to pass so they can be cleared and out of the way.

They were not trying to trick him or make him look guilty. They really wanted to know if he was involved or not. And before he was asked if he was involved, the examiner would have sat with him and told him directly, that this was his chance to clear himself, and they had no reason to doubt him, they just needed to ask these questions, was he ready to be hooked up.

That kind of pre-interview usually calms people, so they aren't overly nervous when they actually hear the questions. If he was innocent, he would have seen it as a way to clear himself. And his heart rate would have been slow and steady, imo. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Did we already hear that Mark went to T's house twice?

Did he really go to T's house twice, or was this just damage control on his earlier statements (went to T's house and talked to T, and then went to T's house and no one was home)?

If he went to T's house twice, then why didn't he say this on the Dr. Phil show when AZGrandma called him on the two different versions?

I never heard that before. And the FIRST time I heard the story, he had stopped and talked to T, who said he hadn't heard from D, so THAT IS WHY HE WENT IMMEDIATELY TO BAYFIELD.

That is different from this new version. Where he goes by, no one home, so he searches the lake area for awhile, and then drives to B-town.