Something that I've been thinking about. WHY would Dylan's boots be removed?
In my mind, there is no way Dylan did this himself. If he was out by that dirt pile for some reason, he would have no reason to take them off on his own. Even if something innocent happened and he got a bloody nose and bled on his boots, why would he remove them, and have to walk 100 yards barefoot? Why not just walk back and THEN take off the boots? If these were actually "old" boots, and not the ones he wore everyday (doesn't seem likely based on the family's statements about the condition of the boots and whatnot), why would they just be left out here by this dirt pile? Dylan doesn't seem like the type to discard rubbish by a pile of dirt instead of just getting rid of them properly.
But also, why would a perp do it? They don't seem like boots that would just "fall off" of his feet, so why not leave them with him? And if you've just removed someones boots after you harmed them, why are you going to leave them so close? Certainly they'd be found in a search... Would they think this "clue" would point in a different direction? But what direction?
A great summary. I would add to it just that Dylan's mom said or it sounds like Dylan wore nothing for footwear but these boots, ever, sounds like for years and when one pair wore out or got close, he bought another of the very same pair and she even helped him sometimes find that brand and that boot. So for Dylan to be without the boots for all intents and purposes would likely mean he was barefoot and NOT in another pair of footwear, he wore nothing else. I mean he could have changed or gotten something mom didn't know about but it seems unlikely.
The boots being found hit mom and dad hard because I think she means it shows something very serious and very bad is wrong if he somehow was parted from his boots.
I think the overall leaning and for me too is some perp got rid of his footwear or made him take them off and probably to keep control of him but you do have a point of why if they did something to him would they leave boots/evidence so close and apparently not that hard to find...? BUT then who would have locked the truck and scooted the seat up, something also that would be found and noticed fairly quickly and close to home...?
I don't however see any reason he would part himself from his boots. I can't imagine a scenario where he would unless he staged this and WANTED people to think something happened but left of his own accord and in NO WAY does he sound like a type that would do that.
I even have wondered if something happened like say he did something to his foot/feet and the boots were rubbing on sores or blisters, etc. and it got so painful walking he had to take them off and we know he was or could have been walking back... BUT why would he ditch them and not carry them unless he realized they were "shot" and just threw them out or left them... If it was a case of sores or pain (and walking five miles may have even done it) the spot of blood may even have been from his own foot...
Some criminals will get rid of their footwear so cops can't match prints from a crime scene BUT Dylan is no criminal that we know of and doesn't seem the type from what we have heard but that is one case you may see footwear discarded.
Maybe he was walking back in the rain (did it ever rain much, not sure if I know) and his feet started getting wet and he realized the boots were shot and no longer waterproof and again took them off and ditched them but doesn't seem likely either...
It is a puzzle for sure.
I would say almost all info we have comes from the mother not from LE although some basics come from news/LE.
@ariel I'd suggest if you watch anything, you watch the links that show the mom's statements/interviews too to help make sense of more although her summary here pretty much covers it all very well.
The mother seems satisfied the guy that asked for the ride didn't do anything to Dylan and I think she even talked with him..
The guy who claimed Dylan was abducted and claimed he was in town that following day after the first one in town one really has to wonder about. If lying about both things who is he covering for--himself or someone else or is he just trying to send the investigation in the wrong direction for whatever unknown reason?
The fired employee one can't really take off their radar at this point... Imo.
Then there was that other guy who also lived right there it sounded like (I forget the name) who LE talked to etc. and the family did and he actually had an outstanding warrant that they didn't arrest him on but then finally did (per Dylan's mom). Not a warrant relating to Dylan but we do have then another person who had committed a crime previously and did enough to have a warrant issued...
So there are a few possibilities here or a few to wonder about and then it could possibly have been a stranger or someone at the bar or that he knew from the bar...
So far there isn't any reason to lean in any one direction but I would say the one giving the false information is the most questionable/suspicious at this point, imo anyhow.
www.eastidahonews.com
