Sunday, 6/9/2013 Radio Show

[azgrandma]

This is what my response was to.



If that is the purpose of the warriors, to put pressure on MR, and LE needs MR to get comfortable, the pressure would keep that from happening. Thus, if LE needs him to get comfortable and to relax, then what the warriors are doing is getting in the way (that is what hindering means of course) of what LE needs. Again I said IF, if that's what LE needs. Of course that's also dependent on if LE is even really focusing on MR.

IF LE felt that people were putting undue pressure on MR, they would IMO say something. I think back to the time of the rally, LE said that they couldn't stop anyone from doing it, but they made caution that they would enforce laws regarding trespassing and any potential violence. (paraphrasing from Gazette article right before the rally in Jan.)
LE can't stop people that are obeying the law. LE can't make people go along with the plan (if as you suggested is for MR to get comfortable). You can't hinder what you don't know. Meaning, nobody is out hiding evidence, intentionally misleading investigators, waterboarding witnesses, MOO.

ETA: I think it is obstruction of justice IDK

 

[Emma Ems]

IF LE felt that people were putting undue pressure on MR, they would IMO say something. I think back to the time of the rally, LE said that they couldn't stop anyone from doing it, but they made caution that they would enforce laws regarding trespassing and any potential violence. (paraphrasing from Gazette article right before the rally in Jan.)
LE can't stop people that are obeying the law. LE can't make people go along with the plan (if as you suggested is for MR to get comfortable). You can't hinder what you don't know. Meaning, nobody is out hiding evidence, intentionally misleading investigators, waterboarding witnesses, MOO.

You just contradicted your original statement with your second, that LE would say something, because doing this isn't illegal unless it crosses legal lines. Also it would reveal details about an investigation which I am sure they wouldn't want to reveal. You can hinder without knowing it. It reminds me of what a professor in college once said when describing the excuses a person could use for breaking laws, he said, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it." Bottom line is, LE knows what's best for this investigation, and what they need, the general population does not. So why is it up to for the general population, who has no knowledge of this investigation or it's needs, deciding what is the best course of action to be taken to solve this case?

 

[sorrell skye]

Was anybody else baffled about MR spending time on trying to get Elaine to change "The Warriors" name. Seriously , priority's here!

:cow:

I don't understand why MR would want to waste attention or energy on something like that. For pete's sake - who cares what they're called?! There's another group out there called Dylan's Warrior's (not affiliated with Dylan Redwine, of course), who are trying to raise awareness about an inoperable form of brainstem cancer in children. Kudos to them!!! Many churches have prayer groups that refer to themselves as "prayer warriors". Keep on keepin' on, I say!!!

Good grief - how about MR get off his hiney and start distributing fliers for his son who has been missing for almost 7 month, instead of quibbling about the name of a group dedicated to disseminating information about his missing son!

What was his reason for wanting them to change their name? I don't get it.

 

[azgrandma]

You just contradicted your original statement with your second, that LE would say something, because doing this isn't illegal unless it crosses legal lines. Also it would reveal details about an investigation which I am sure they wouldn't want to reveal. You can hinder without knowing it. It reminds me of what a professor in college once said when describing the excuses a person could use for breaking laws, he said, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it." Bottom line is, LE knows what's best for this investigation, and what they need, the general population does not. So why is it up to for the general population, who has no knowledge of this investigation or it's needs, deciding what is the best course of action to be taken to solve this case?

IF IMO, LE had any challenges with a bunch of people calling themselves warriors and trying to put pressure on MR, LE would still not be able to stop them. Freedom of speech is a powerful tool and unless people are inciting a riot, there's little that can be done.

Did they stop the crowds with Casey Anthony? Drew Petersen? NO. Because people were not breaking any laws. There is NOTHING that says you (general public) can't discuss, in any forum, of an ongoing investigation. The investigators may not be able to discuss it IDK, they may ask people involved not to discuss it, IDK. LE can't quash the public from saying what they may about an investigation as long as laws are not broken. There may be liable or slander factors that an person falsely accused by the media or someone in the public can bring against another, that's a whole different discussion. Is anyone soliciting anyone to do something illegal? Is anyone suggesting and emploring the public to follow anyone, to break into a home? IMO, no. They are expressing THEIR opinions in various ways, just as we are here. We have rules and TOS to follow, which IMO keeps this somewhat civil. Are we (meaning members here) hindering or obstructing an investigation? We, as members, have no more rights than anyone else on any other forum, whether it be social media, msm comment sections, blogs, anywhere. IMO it would be very difficult to say anyone has hindered the investigation if the goal is to allow someone to get comfortable, comfort levels are unique to each person.

Is LE going to bring obstruction charges against thousands of people? IMO, No, because there is no obstruction, it's a PITA for LE.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice"]Obstruction of justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[beach]

:lurk:

 

[Bayou Mistress]

Did Mark or Tricia talk about obstruction or anything like that? I can't find/recall that they did. It's someone's opinion of someone else's behavior. Ethical, legal or not, it doesn't become a crime until someone is hurt. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

 

[azgrandma]

Did Mark or Tricia talk about obstruction or anything like that? I can't find/recall that they did. It's someone's opinion of someone else's behavior. Ethical, legal or not, it doesn't become a crime until someone is hurt. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I agree.
BBM - does that include feelings? :floorlaugh:

ETA - I am just kidding that's why the :floorlaugh: is there.

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I agree.
BBM - does that include feelings? :floorlaugh:

ETA - I am just kidding that's why the :floorlaugh: is there.

Well, you know. There is bullying to be considered. Suggesting suicide to someone isn't a crime until the person actually does it and the connection is drawn from the suggestion to the action. That doesn't make it right or acceptable.

 

[Emma Ems]

Did Mark or Tricia talk about obstruction or anything like that? I can't find/recall that they did. It's someone's opinion of someone else's behavior. Ethical, legal or not, it doesn't become a crime until someone is hurt. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I don't think anyone said it was a criminal act either. Hindering means getting in the way of, obstruction is a crime. No one accused anyone of obstruction. My point was if pressure is NOT what LE needs then those who think putting the pressure on will help, may not be right, and may be harming LE's investigation, depending on what their needs are. If it's about Dylan, and only about Dylan, then people should really start considering what is best for Dylan. Not considering what LE may need, especially since LE is unlikely to tell anyone what that may be-especially if what they need may impede on someone's constitutional rights-could get in the way of the investigation LE has going on for Dylan. It is about Dylan after all, and only Dylan at the end of the day right?

 

[Ghostwheel]

We see this so differently--I don't believe that LE told the truth--it's a well known tactic to well, lie. I don't know if we watched the same entertainment tv show. After the way that show went, I completely understand drinking--guys son is missing, the show is nothing like what he thought it would be--his missing son---and frankly, Jack Trimarco did not come across in a way that would build trust for MR. Again, I see MR's response as well within the boundaries of possibly innocent behavior. I admit to wanting him to take the polygraph as I watched it. But I can also understand why the outcome was what it was.

BBM:I respect that people will have their own beliefs on whether or not LE would lie to Mark about his polygraph. What I am curious about, is why would LE lie to someone unless they thought that someone had information they were not telling or had something to do with the crime? If Mark actually did "fail miserably" and he had nothing to do with Dylan being missing, what reasons could there have been for him to fail, especially if he went in with a clear conscience thinking he'd pass with no problem? (Stressed, tired, feeling guilty about some part of the situation, angry about something?) But if LE lied and Mark really did answer conclusively that he had nothing to do with Dylan's disappearance (hereafter referred to by me as "passed"), why would they want him to think he did not unless they suspected him of something? Is there another reason why they would want Mark to think he did not pass when he did?

 

[dlc]

I am curious who even brought up the point of sleuthing minors? In light of some of the newer cases some of us have read about, I think it's impossible to say that a kid may not be involved. Doesn't even have to be a friend of Dylan's.

Skylar's case being one of those, but there is another case I think of that isn't as direct, but the case of Amanda Todd. That poor girl was bullied very badly that she tried a few times to commit suicide. After one suicide attempt her bullies told her she did it wrong and should try again. That to me made me wonder if these kids pushed her as hard as they did just so she would kill herself. While she may have taken her own life, I do think the kids pushing her were responsible for her death, as that seemed to be their goal all along. When did kids get this mean and seemingly so remorseless?

BBM

On this thread? I thought it was your post:

Originally Posted by Emma Ems
Thinking in terms of rings, could you have two based on what could have happened. Like, premeditation then a non premeditation type conclusion. Just thinking of your second ring out. Like his friends knew he was coming too. A bad accident could have occurred or (Lord Forbid) a jealous or angered friend planned something like the Skylar Neece case? It would be so much easier if I could draw a flow chart to show what I am saying.

And that is why I responded to you. If someone else did, I apologize.

JMO, IMO, etc.

 

[Emma Ems]

BBM:I respect that people will have their own beliefs on whether or not LE would lie to Mark about his polygraph. What I am curious about, is why would LE lie to someone unless they thought that someone had information they were not telling or had something to do with the crime? If Mark actually did "fail miserably" and he had nothing to do with Dylan being missing, what reasons could there have been for him to fail, especially if he went in with a clear conscience thinking he'd pass with no problem? (Stressed, tired, feeling guilty about some part of the situation, angry about something?) But if LE lied and Mark really did answer conclusively that he had nothing to do with Dylan's disappearance (hereafter referred to by me as "passed"), why would they want him to think he did not unless they suspected him of something? Is there another reason why they would want Mark to think he did not pass when he did?

Did ER immediately voice her opinion/suspicions to LE when she filed the report with them at LPCSO? Reading some of the stuff about polys and their results, I got the impression that results were not always immediately available either, that sometimes if the tester is confused as the results they may consult with a colleague about them. What I am more curious to know is did LE even have his results in hand when they questioned him about them? Or did they immediately talk to him after the polygrapher was done with the testing part? I have many questions about this, especially after some of the stuff I have read regarding polys as a whole.

 

[dlc]

Are we in the Radio Thread discussion or ???? I'm confused. I'd like to post in the right room.
Or is this the thread to talk about the case in general and everything else ?

Anyone?

I'm sorry, TxJan. This was a good question, and I breezed right by it. It seems like the threads have become commingled a bit. Thanks for trying to straighten us out.

Also, thanks again for the recent transcripts.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Question:

With regard to the time MR/DR left McDonalds.

I remember 7:22 was released by LE as Dylan was at McDonalds at that time.

For purpose of a timeline, are we to assume that 7:22 is the drive through window time, or the time they arrived, or the time they left? Would it be safe to ASSUME that they left at 7:22 p.m., and then it took 45 minutes to get home (per MR's statement) - that would have them arriving at home around 8:07 p.m., yes?

(7:22 leave McD + 45 minutes = 8:07)

Can we get a general consensus that this would be a reasonable timeline? (Give or take a few minutes traffic or no traffic)

TIA

It would be safe to assume the 7:22 time was the window receipt time, not the time they left. If Mark still had his receipt, the time would be stamped on it. If they were seen going through the drive through on a video, I would think they would use the time they first saw them on the video, but then I would also assume they would have said what time they left the drive through window, and that was not released anywhere so I am going with the time came from the receipt.

The drive through average for McDonalds is 3 minutes 07 seconds. That is from the time you order (and the receipt is generated) until you get the order in your hands.
http://www.qsrmagazine.com/content/2011-drive-thru-study-average-service-time

So add 3 minutes to 7:22 making 7:25. Mapquest says it takes 54 minutes to get from the Durango McDonalds to Mark's house, Google maps says 1 hour 9 minutes. While Mark might actually drive it faster (he knows the area), he was also eating at the time, which often slows people down. I'd go with the 54 minutes.

This puts them home around 8:19, by my calculations. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Redhead72]

I wish I was caught up more. I honestly don't know what we can or can't discuss about anything. It makes me paranoid to post or respond to anything...

Is there any summary of the rule changes for Dylan's threads over the last few weeks. I know that on the new thread they wanted to keep the radio stuff here, but I think I missed some stuff or something. I thought we could post from FMDR as that was the official FB page - am I correct that it's been "unapproved" or something?

Are we allowed to post info. and discuss it from the websites posted above? Have either of those two been "approved", or whatever?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just a wee bit lost right now.

ETA: Changed a few days to a few weeks because I've truly been out of the loop for a while now...

 

[Bayou Mistress]

I wish I was caught up more. I honestly don't know what we can or can't discuss about anything. It makes me paranoid to post or respond to anything...

Is there any summary of the rule changes for Dylan's threads over the last few days. I know that on the new thread they wanted to keep the radio stuff here, but I think I missed some stuff or something. I thought we could post from FMDR as that was the official FB page - am I correct that it's been "unapproved" or something?

Are we allowed to post info. and discuss it from the websites posted above? Have either of those two been "approved", or whatever?

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just a wee bit lost right now.

I do agree with you! It's very confusing. I brought the new website here because it was discussed on the radio show, suggested by Tricia and it's nice to know that Mark is following through. Besides, any tool that raises awareness about Dylan is helpful as long as no one else is harmed.

 

[Emma Ems]

I do agree with you! It's very confusing. I brought the new website here because it was discussed on the radio show, suggested by Tricia and it's nice to know that Mark is following through. Besides, any tool that raises awareness about Dylan is helpful as long as no one else is harmed.

I agree, I am glad that someone has helped him get moving in the right direction for raising awareness for Dylan.

 

[Ghostwheel]

I think the new one doesn't ask for donations that I can see. Oh well. Before long we won't be able to talk about websites either. I wonder what we can do to eliminate a sense of competition. We all want Dylan home.

The new one is still being set up. It's a template that makes it easy to quickly get a website up, but if you need to make it do something that isn't obviously available, it will take a bit for the person setting it up to figure out all the tools available. Really, can you have too many websites with information about Dylan? If both sites would link to each other, that would eliminate a sense of competition. :hypno: It's a good idea, really.

 

[dlc]

BBM:I respect that people will have their own beliefs on whether or not LE would lie to Mark about his polygraph. What I am curious about, is why would LE lie to someone unless they thought that someone had information they were not telling or had something to do with the crime? If Mark actually did "fail miserably" and he had nothing to do with Dylan being missing, what reasons could there have been for him to fail, especially if he went in with a clear conscience thinking he'd pass with no problem? (Stressed, tired, feeling guilty about some part of the situation, angry about something?) But if LE lied and Mark really did answer conclusively that he had nothing to do with Dylan's disappearance (hereafter referred to by me as "passed"), why would they want him to think he did not unless they suspected him of something? Is there another reason why they would want Mark to think he did not pass when he did?

It's good to see someone else has the same questions that I do! I just cannot make sense of that line of thought.

 

[Lordeebee]

a portion of Salem's post from yesterday:

We are making a change in Dylan's case. From this point forward, facebook will not be allowed. No linking, no bringing information over, no discussing. This includes FMDR facebook.


So can we stop, pleeeeeeeeeeese?


or wait is this about other sites and that's okay?? ETA