Thursday, February 14, 2013

Mark Redwine: Statement Analysis and Distance


Dylan Redwine, in images from surveillance video at the Durango Airport, right, and in a Durango Walmart on the day before he disappeared. (credit: La Plata County Sheriff)


Pronouns do not lie.  Statement analysis is in bold type. 

Statement Analysis looks at needless or "unnecessary" words.  Needless words are those that can be removed from a sentence with the sentence still being a complete sentence.  A needless word, according to the law of economy, is to be deemed "doubly important" to the analysis.  When an entire sentence is "unnecessary", we are looking at something very important.

If two unnecessary words are used in a sentence, the importance of the sentence increases, but if two completely unnecessary sentences are used consecutively, we have extremity in language to view. 

In this case, we have two unnecessary sentences, that are not only unnecessary on their own, but employ the pronoun "we" while speaking as a singular entity.  After these two sentences, we have the most shocking use of a pronoun that readers may ever encounter. 

First, a short lesson:  

We also view pronouns for guidance, as they are instinctive, and never wrong. 

Qualifiers. 

We view qualifiers, like the word "think" and how it can appropriately be used, and how it can reveal inappropriate weakness in deceptive statements. 

Let's look at why the word "think" is a weak assertion. 

"I locked my keys in the car" is very straight forward. 
"I think I locked my keys in the car" shows doubt. 

"We think we locked the keys in the car" shows not only weakness, but the word "we" shows a possible desire to share blame.  

If someone does not know where the keys are, doubt is expected.  This is call, "the expected."  If someone is certain, we expect the word "think" not to be used. 

We also look for the use of "think" with the pronouns.  Pronouns give us the best guidance into language, and the verbalized reality we are dealing with.  When we do not know something, or we assert that someone might "think" otherwise, it is appropriate. 



 The father of missing Colorado teenager Dylan Redwine said he believes his son is still alive and the family has plans to appear on the Dr. Phil show.
“I have no reason not to believe that (he’s alive),” said Mark Redwine.
Always note what anyone says in the negative as important and possibly sensitive.  He "has" no reason.  
Dylan, 14, disappeared in Southern Colorado nearly three months ago — the Monday before Thanksgiving. There are very little clues to his disappearance.
It’s frustrating for all of us because there’s so little to go on,” said Mark Redwine. “The tensions are very high between all of us.
Context:  Mark Redwine is alone.  He is supposed to be speaking for himself.  In fact, not only is he alone, but he is embittered towards his ex wife; very distant. 
Note the use of "all of us" is not only additional wording, it is repeated, making it sensitive.  Who would think it is not frustrated?  Of course a parent of a missing child would be frustrated at not finding him.  Why the need to assert this?  The need is what makes it a sensitive statement. 
Yet, Mark Redwine is embittered and distant from his ex, who's quotes show she believes he knows more than he has let on.  
We have seen how, when one is talking for himself, goes to the plural, there is often a desire to share guilt or responsibility.  This is something every mom of every teenager knows intuitively.  
Dylan vanished while visiting his father in Vallecito, outside Durango. He lived with his mother in Colorado Springs and was on a court-ordered visit with his father.
 Redwine said he’s still working with search crews.
Basically they want to come up here and eliminate the Vallecito area as a possibility for where Dylan could be so we can focus our search efforts on other places that he could possibly be,” said Mark Redwine.
If we follow Mark Redwine's words, authorities should be searching in water.  (See Kaaryn Gough's analysis) 
Without any clues there are still countless unanswered questions. The La Plata County Sheriff’s Office said it doesn’t have a suspect.
A divided family is in the middle of the tragic situation.
My ex-wife and I both agree that Dylan is not the kind of kid that would run away but I also think that there’s a possibility that Dylan was torn between his parents,” said Mark Redwine.
Note the incomplete social introduction indicates a bad relationship. 
Note the additional word "both" added for emphasis upon agreement. 
Note the word "but" to refute that which preceded it.
Note "I think" is weak.  
My fear is he’s out there somewhere, able to see what’s going on and he sees the conflict going on between his mom and I,” said Mark Redwine. “I think that’s a huge concern. But who knows what goes through a 13-year-old’s head?.”
If Dylan was "out there somewhere" he would likely have other things to concern himself with than his father's bickering about his mother.  This folly is followed by the weak, "I think" with the exaggerated, "huge concern."  Note that he himself, adds in the word "but" to contradict what he weakly asserted.  
Note the question asked is rhetorical.  This may be the subject asking himself. 
Dylan’s 14th birthday was last week. Dozens gathered to celebrate in Monument in his absence with cake and balloons, holding out hope he will be found soon.
The entire family said they just want their youngest member to come home.

We don’t know where Dylan’s at. We have no idea where Dylan’s at. Dylan could be anywhere.
This statement is alarming. 
Note:
1. "We don't know where Dylan's at." is something that it needless.
Needless information is doubly important to the analyst.  Why would he feel the need to say this?
2.  Note that he does not say "I don't know where Dylan's at"; but says "we" don't; making it not only needless, but sensitive, since he is speaking for himself. 
3.  "We have no idea" is also completely needless and is an unreliable denial, even while there is no apparent allegation of knowledge.  It is weak, in itself, but its weakness (and sensitivity) is very note worthy as he adds in the plural pronoun "we"; especially given the distance between him and Dylan's mother. 
Pronouns do not lie.  Pronouns are learned in early childhood and are instinctive.  Mark Redwine says "Dylan", and "Dylan" the second time, but then changes the proper name to the pronoun, "it" in his statement. 
Please note that "we have no idea" and "Dylan could be anywhere" are distancing and hopeless language.  
It reminds me of the following phrases that guilty parents of missing children make:

"And that's all I know"; therefore, stop asking questions. Misty Croslin. 
"I told them everything";  this is something no innocent parent says because each night the parent loses sleep thinking of something else, some small, minute detail that might help.  See Justin DiPietro. 
"We've looked everywhere" indicating that there are no other places to search, so why bother?  Lena Lunsford. 

In common, these answers seek to hinder the need to search or stop the flow of information. 


Distancing language in missing child cases. 
We saw something similar in the Celis' language where, while missing, they quickly sought to "move on" in life. 
We saw this in the language of Tiffany Hartley, just as we did in Ronald Cummins, who got married while his daughter was "missing" because "Haleigh would have wanted us to do this..." and in other cases where a child was missing. 

Tiffany Hartley, merely weeks after reporting her husband shot, was out shopping and traveling talking about how "David wanted me to be happy" as she removed her wedding ring.  
"I would never harm that girl" said Shawn Adkins, unable to issue a reliable denial, while showing distancing language. 

Deborah Bradley had a camera follow her around Trick o Treating shortly after Baby Lisa was reported "missing." 
Elaine Redwine's language reveals deep pain, but not guilt, nor deception.  Sensitivity indicators are used to discern deception.  Life's most painful events often do not trigger linguistic "sensitivity" indicators in innocent, suffering parents.  "I did not kill my daughter" said Kevin Fox, and Clint Dunn, both in emotional distress.  The topics could not have been more sensitive, but they both were able to say these sentences without qualifiers, or any sensitivity indicators.  
Mark Redwine's statement has the elements of guilt.  It was needless for him to say that he did not know where he was, but to add in the pronoun "we" and then to move on to the repetition of "no idea" makes it even more alarming.  Recall that when someone says "I have no idea", it is rarely true since we have ideas about most everything in life.  After taking out a life insurance policy on his toddler, Justin DiPietro reported her "kidnapped" and said, "I have no idea what happened..." even after asserting that he did have an idea:  someone came in the home and took her.  It is something deceptive people cling to, yet here, Redwine used it in a follow up sentence to an already needless (doubly important) statement. 
To add in the pronoun "we" compounds this for us, but the change in language, more than anything else, tells us that what happened to Dylan changed Dylan from "Dylan" to an "it" in the language of Mark Redwine.
Police need to search the dam and the waters between Redwine's home and the McDonalds.  

That Mark Redwine was speaking for himself, while alone,  is verified by this video:

video




44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Off topic, but has anyone analyzed the statements of Clint Bobo with regard to Holly Bobo's disappearance? This is worthy of reviewing.



VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok. Clint, it was about 7:30 in the morning. Where were you? What vantage point and what did you see?

C. BOBO: I was asleep in my bedroom and I was awoken by the sounds of our house dog barking.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And what did you see?

C. BOBO: I saw the silhouette of two people in our garage. At the time I had no idea who either one of the people were. And then come to realize later that that was my sister and her abductor.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait, in the garage?

You were -- how do you -- when you`re asleep -- I`m just trying to get a picture. You`re asleep and then how do you see what`s going on in the garage? Ok, the dog barks, you wake up. Are you on the same level -- it`s all one floor.

C. BOBO: Right. Yes, we have a one story house?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: And you walk into the garage?

C. BOBO: No, I saw them from inside the house and they were outside the house in the garage.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: They were in the garage or outside the garage?

C. BOBO: They were inside the garage.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok so as you watched, it was a man inside the garage with your sister and then what happens?

C. BOBO: And then I got in touch with my mom and found out that Holly was supposed to be in school that morning and realized that that must have been her at the house and then I looked back out and saw Holly and a male walking towards the woods and that`s the last time I saw her.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Ok, now, ok, is the garage attached to the house or is it a separate, detached garage?

C. BOBO: It`s attached to the house.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: It is attached to the house.

C. BOBO: Right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So you`re saying you were able to call your mom before they left the garage and after you called your mom you see them walking towards the woods?

C. BOBO: Right. And I told my mom that once I realized it was Holly, I said well, Holly and Drew which is her boyfriend were out in the garage talking.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So where did you find the blood?

C. BOBO: It was in the garage, under where I saw the silhouette of them kneeled down in the garage.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: When you saw them kneeling down did you think to ask them or approach them? How far away were you?

C. BOBO: No, I assumed -- I was inside the house and I assumed that that was Holly and her boyfriend Drew and he was dressed in full camouflage so I thought that Drew had been to the woods and killed a turkey and brought it back to the house and the two were sitting there over the turkey talking. After I saw the blood, I thought that was blood of a turkey that Drew had killed.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Did you see the turkey? Or there was no turkey.

C. BOBO: No, it was gone.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: But you thought they had done that when you initially saw them, but you hadn`t seen the blood yet?

C. BOBO: Right.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: So --

C. BOBO: Didn`t see it until later.

Anonymous said...

Peter I see what your saying. It is similar to Mark saying "in our lifetime" where he reduces his and Dylan's lifetimes to one lifetime.
Is he a killer? Or is he very inarticulate? He is certainly very abusive.
I still feel that Dylan's plans to get to the friend's house at 6:30 am need to be looked at. How was he planning to get there? Would his Dad have been getting up in the 5 am hour to drive him there? It's so unlikely. It is possible Dylan was planning on getting there independantly.
Mark states that Dylan had been up since 4 am the night before.
His Mom says in an interview that Dylan would "get up early" for school in their new town because he was so excited to get there.
It is so very doubtful that the reason Dylan was getting up so early was out of excitement for school?
Why was Dylan planning on getting up so early to go to the friends?
Is there a possibility Dylan was involved with someone shady, older, maybe w a car that could have been picking him up early and driving him places? Something is so odd about a 13 yr old getting up while it is still dark for hours.?!?

Peter Hyatt said...

Being inarticulate would not negate Statement Analysis.
If he is able to speak, for example, with the words that a 7 year old could understand, we can analyze his words.

You mention him being "certainly very abusive", but how do you know?

I agree with you, but do so, because of Statement Analysis. He uses words and phrases that indicate control; words I have heard from too many abusers in my lifetime.

I do not believe that Dylan was alive when Mark left the home. He was not "asleep" and this is why we encourage people to deeply listen to the words and do not interpret.

Deceptive people are counting on you to interpret.

Thank you for posting: choose a name!

:)

Peter

john said...

That word IT disturbed me Peter..

Im going to go out on a limb and say he is involved in the disappearance of Dylan..

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to know what kind of violence MR has done in the past. Does he punch? Threaten to shoot? Go for the throat?

There was another odd use of the word 'it' on the ride home. MR stated they went to McDs. He vaguely implies they got food- but really states they 'got it, ate it' - making it sound like an argument.

Arguments over friends, tinkering in the kitchen, running up to bed- unaware of the clock. water dam dumping.

At 7:00 pm there was a live healthy child. MR has tolnext d us everything that happened except exactly what harmful thing he did to Dylan in his home. - deejay

Anonymous said...

MR had an appt (in Bayfield?) at 7:30am with a lawyer. Assuming Dylan knew that, riding along to be dropped at his friends at 6:30 am was logical. These two places are 1/2 hour apart. -deejay

Hobnob said...

off topic

from a vanity fair interview

Kate, however, cannot help replaying the circumstances that led to the child’s disappearance—the work, she is certain, of a mysterious abductor. “I will tell you what I haven’t told anyone,” says Jon Corner, a family friend. “In August, I was with Kate in Portugal. She told me, ‘I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I’d think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.’ ”

Therein lies the problem.

Innocent parents if they could turn back time knowing what they know would simply have stayed in the apartment thus preventing any abduction full stop.

This simple sentence reveals the truth of the lie.

It simply doesn't cross her mind that by staying in they would have prevented the abduction because there was no abduction to prevent.

Since they have tied themselves so closely and irrevocably to the abduction theory as purported by them and their supporters, she has to go with the slowing time down and looking to see who is watching. She has to remind the public this was an abduction not an accidental homicide or murder.

Staying in the apartment that evening would have changed nothing, Maddie was dead at some point during their vacation.

Statement analysis indicates deception by the parents .

Jazzie said...

ATTENTION PLEASE NOTE -
The following is a misquote:
"We don’t know where Dylan’s at. We have no idea where Dylan’s at. It could be anywhere.”

Please watch the video and listen. This is an incorrect transcript of the video. You are basing your SA on a misquote.

Mark Redwine said "Dylan could be anywhere"

http://www.krextv.com/news/around-the-region/Missing-Boys-Father-Speaks-Out-About-Son-191153671.html

john said...

Jazzie great spot.

Lis said...

OT: Anon, that is a very strange interview with Clint Bobo. He jags back and forth in the story, leaving out the details unless he is specifically pinned down about them, even then he remains vague, what he does say does not add up.

How did he see into the garage from inside the house? Is there a window or was the door open? Why does he avoid explaining this, when the host is obviously confused about it? It would be expected to say something like, "yes, the door was open and I could see into the garage."

Why would he call his mother to find out where Holly was instead of just looking, listening, or asking if that was her in the garage?

He says he had "no idea" who the people were, he saw the silhouettes of two people kneeled down in his garage, yet he thought it was Holly and her boyfriend kneeling over a turkey. Hmmm. Were the two people Holly and himself?

Eve said...

I believe the word "it" was a transcription error. If you listen to the video, it sounds like he is saying "he", not "it". Otherwise, I definitely agree there are red flags for deception.

john said...

Although its a miss quote by a sloppy journalist he is involved..

Anonymous said...

Peter, in that video interview with Mark Redwine a few posts back, he trips over his pronouns at one point. I don't have time to listen to the whole thing now to find it but if I remember correctly he goes from a he to a she, or a him to a her,like "he-she" or "him-her", and it wasn't clear whether he was talking about Dylan or Elaine or both, or if he made a mistake and caught himself too late.

Jazzie said...

I am concerned because half this SA blogpost is dedicated to analyzing a misquoted pronoun. This mistake may not be a deal breaker for everyone but it troubles me. LE has not named any suspects and I don't think it's because they were tripped up or intimidated by the intellectual criminal prowess of Mark Redwine.

annie said...

"We don’t know where Dylan’s at. We have no idea where Dylan’s at. It could be anywhere.”

'"It" does not refer to Dylan. "It" refers where's Dylan at."

Anonymous said...

Peter--I believe he is an abuser for the same reasons you do--the controlling language, the obvious contempt (announcing on TV where she works even though she does not even want him to know), and also the charm.
What I mean by charm is that in the video interview he goes out of his way to seem benign, likable, funny, a good story teller (he's going to tell you what kind of movie Adventureland is and include a cute little tidbit about his short attention span and how he prefers sitcoms WHILE TALKING ABOUT HIS MISSING SON!)--it's hard not to like the guy unless you actually LISTEN carefully to what he is saying and realize that there is a good likelihood he is involved in Dylan's disappearance. But the "charm facade" is there with almost every abuser.
I agree that as far as SA goes his language is sprinkled with alarming statements and word use.
Oh, and I will choose a name--"Layla".

john said...

At around 38/39 secs on the VT he says"we can focus are search efforts on"He then pauses as if to say "on the" he stops and checks himself and says.
"and we focus on other places he could possibly be"

Did he nearly slip up and reveal something or was he nervous at being interviewed.?


http://www.krextv.com/news/around-the-region/Missing-Boys-Father-Speaks-Out-About-Son-191153671.html

Christy said...

This rings so true. Poor Dylan. I am so sad for him.

Court-ordered visitation, no less. I wish his brother had gone with him.
:(

House Dogs Unite said...

@ Anon upthread:

"C. BOBO: I was asleep in my bedroom and I was awoken by the sounds of OUR HOUSE dog barking."

WTH? Who refers to their dog as "our house dog"??
Strangely worded.

At first I thought of it as a term unto itself; "house-dog"
Sort of like saying "house-cat", but no one usually refers to their own pet as a "house cat"...and I've NEVER heard anyone refer to ANY dog as a "house dog".

Perhaps the slip was an imbedded "our house". Sensitivity for Clint Bobo surrounding the shared residence?

Christy said...

Peter- "words and phrases that indicate control; words I have heard from too many abusers in my lifetime."

Sadly, this intrigues me and sounds like it could be a full article, to boot. Please do elaborate.

taicraven said...

OT:

I would like to see Peters analysis of Clint Bobo too.

Jo said...

annie said...
"We don’t know where Dylan’s at. We have no idea where Dylan’s at. It could be anywhere.”

'"It" does not refer to Dylan. "It" refers where's Dylan at."

I agree that "it" could be referencing "where" he is at rather than Dylan but would think a parent would be focused more on his son's location than the location itself. If he is alive, that may not be a fixed location as it would be if he were dumped somewhere.

"It could be anywhere.” is a broad statement as he knows Dylan is not at his house or his mother's house so "anywhere" is not a true statement. He repeats that we do not know where he is at - which would be an obvious conclusion for a parent of a missing child. He wouldn't be missing if they knew where he was so why did he need to stress that we do not know where he is. By using "we" instead of "I", he is not lying if he alone knows where Dylan is. There is no "we" that knows Dylan's location.

Vita said...

Who took him to Walmart
" Immediately" upon his arrival? Mark did. The question was what time did you go to Walmart, his response, immediately we went to Walmart from the airport. He planned this. He in the definitive names Walmart as a place. Take him to a Walmart and dump him off and let him be, let him go.

My ex-wife and I both agree that Dylan is not the kind of kid that would run away

*but*

I also think that there’s a possibility that Dylan was torn between his parents, said Mark Redwine.

"But" is a stop, not a continuation of his first words. Fractures to the unexpected, it links his first said statement from affirmed to " quasi"

I also think that there's a possibility that Dylan was torn between his parent's.

Quasi: having a legal status only by operation or construction of law and without reference

He takes his affirmed agreed of he and Elaine. Then switches to 3rd person, an outside authority. Dylan's welfare, he his appointed advocate. He is not an advocate, not a mediator, he is his father, embroiled in a custody battle.

He speaks as if he has monitored not only Elaine, himself, yet Dylan from a distance. This shows how in depth he feels his justification, his self importance. As he is not within, yet outside of, and above everyone, including himself.

Torn between HIS parents, dump him off, let him be, let him go. Who is suffering? Mark? or Dylan? He speaks in 3rd person authoritative over his own self. Let him be, let him go, free him? Is this what Mark felt that he was freeing DY of? making his own decision? as he monitored each of them in 3rd person?
--
My fear is he’s out there somewhere, able to see what’s going on and he sees the conflict going on between his mom and I,” said Mark Redwine. “I think that’s a huge concern. But who knows what goes through a 13-year-old’s head?.”

Now Dylan is in third person. Dylan is authoritative over him, his fear that DY is judging him. He sees the conflict going on, between his mom and I. The conflict was/is the catalyst. Dylan is no longer present, yet the conflict survives as he says it. Dylan is the victim, yet remains defined as administrative. Mark is undefined. He puts Dylan in the hold of power, that his fear is Dylan is all knowing and is able to " See" whats going on behind the scenes.

Who's knows what goes through a 13-year-old's head?

Fear, author, planning, conflict, no exchange, thoughts, bullets. As it is said, bullet points, Dylan a 13-yr old who knew the truth. Dylan, who held authority had he been listened to, had he survived this visitation. Mark's planned, to remove, replace outside authority from the equation. He became the authority (3rd person).

Dylan's only power he had, was his cell phone. His constant explain of where Dylan's phone activated, instead of where it did not activate is sensitive to Dylan's present location.

Illeism: The act of referring to oneself (often habitually) in the third person. According to Wikipedia, illeism has a variety of uses including self-promotion, to give the speaker lofty airs, to illustrate the feeling of being outside one's body and watching things happen. Because when you do that it makes you feel like you're not so alone. It's a psychological way of making yourself feel like there's someone with you, even if it is only yourself.

Sus said...

Wow Vita! You nailed what I've been feeling. It is like Mark is the authority on Dylan...
...needed things at Walmart
...what kid doesn't want McDonald's
...on when he should see his friends
...that he couldn't wake up
...he was an outdoors kid

Elain said it was like Mark was not describing the Dylan she knew. I don't think Dylan went along with Mark's picture of him. With Dylan gone, now Mark can create what he wants. That is a hallmark of an abuser/controller.

Vita said...

More statements, of both parents linked below

MR quoted, he is a piece of work. He is the one that won't let go. His choice word he uses over and over is conflict. His own said, this isn't about Dylan ..personal conflict. Who is he kidding? this isn't about Dylan? SMH

Mark Redwine said appearing on the “Dr. Phil Show” could raise awareness about Dylan’s disappearance and reach millions of viewers across the country. But he doesn’t want it to turn into a tabloid feud between family members, he said.

“There is a lot of personal conflict between myself, Elaine and Cory as a group,” he said. “These all go back over time. It has nothing to do with Dylan. I think Dylan missing has magnified that to some degree.”

“I’m not afraid of the truth,” he said, “but what I don’t want to see is it turn into a ‘Jerry Springer Show.’

“We need to unite for Dylan’s benefit. ... Hopefully, Dr. Phil will take a position where he can address some of those issues and help us as a family focus on what is really important right now. We don’t have time to be pointing fingers and making blame or standing out in front of my house like a bunch of idiots holding this (stupid) rally to call me out.”

http://durangoherald.com/article/20130213/NEWS01/130219806/-1/News01/Dr-Phil-working-on-a-Redwine-program--

Vita said...

Quite Frankly, I don't care..who has Dylan....

What parent of a missing son would say this, he is shameful! He IS involved, he is Dylan's Father. Or this too is irrelevant? his words said are Ugly. His son is missing as endangered, not runaway, is on the National Missing and Exploited website. A parents nightmare. Dy missing without a trace 80+days. Where is his humility?. Every thing is about Mark's world, what he wants, he feels, he lays down the law.. Dylan who?

Again here (this article) he is speaking 3rd person, authoritative, he is the producer? is advocating the premise of the show, he sets the stage. For him (in order to) be on Dr. Phil. He proposing, setting up concessions. Frankly I don't care who has Dylan. His statements are so polar. Because of the show? his mode changed? he doesn't care, nor wants anyone accountable, or to be blamed. Vita Bangs head on wall.

“We need to unite for Dylan’s benefit. ... Hopefully, Dr. Phil will take a position where he can address some of those issues and help us as a family focus on what is really important right now. We don’t have time to be pointing fingers and making blame or standing out in front of my house like a bunch of idiots holding this (stupid) rally to call me out.”

Mark Redwine said he doesn’t want to place blame.

“Quite frankly, I don’t care who has Dylan or for what reason they have Dylan,” he said. “The fact is that they need to let him go and reach out to somebody in his family. And whether that means dropping him off at the nearest Walmart or the nearest post office or the nearest police station or whatever the case may be, let him go.”

http://durangoherald.com/article/20130213/NEWS01/130219806/-1/News01/Dr-Phil-working-on-a-Redwine-program--

What's next Mark Redwine will ask local LE for the abductor to have IMMUNITY? he is about there.

Jen said...

From the article posted by Vita above: my comments in parentheses...

“There is a lot of personal conflict between myself, Elaine and Cory as a group,” he said. “These all go back over time. It has nothing to do with Dylan. I think Dylan missing has magnified that to some degree.”

(MR is a controlling abuser, he speaks of conflict between himself, his ex and oldest son 'as a group', and separates Dylan from the conflict although he claims 'Dylan missing' (passive) has magnified the conflict to some degree. To me this means MR had lost control over his ex and the oldest son, but still perceived himself to be in control of Dylan, maybe even exercising the ultimate control over his life/future)

“I’m not afraid of the truth,” he said, “but what I don’t want to see is it turn into a ‘Jerry Springer Show.’

(Stated in the negative...he is afraid of the truth or wouldn't feel the need to say that..(why would the innocent parent of a missing child be afraid of the truth?) Dr Phil is a far cry from Jerry Springer so his real fear is being forced to answer for his lack of cooperation, and a national audience seeing his past and current behavior regarding his family.)

“We need to unite for Dylan’s benefit. ... Hopefully, Dr. Phil will take a position where he can address some of those issues and help us as a family focus on what is really important right now. We don’t have time to be pointing fingers and making blame or standing out in front of my house like a bunch of idiots holding this (stupid) rally to call me out.”

(His venom toward his ex-wife and son cannot be contained even as he speaks of the need to unite...in the sentence following his call for unity he calls his ex and son a 'bunch of idiots holding this stupid rally", and even speaks of the position he wants Dr Phil to take. MR wants to control everything.. his methods for 'finding' Dylan haven't been successful, but he wants to dictate the type of help he wants from Dr Phil. He also has a slip of tongue saying 'we don't have time to be pointing fingers or MAKING blame'...which implies his personal perception, 'I blame myself'... whereas, PLACING blame is done by someone else). Also if time is so precious why did he postpone his participation in the show taping?

Anonymous said...

I just watched a different interview with Mark Redwine and I noticed that he says "I was WITH Dylan the night before and SAW him the next morning":
it sounds odd the way he said it--he was WITH him the night before but then he just SEES him the next morning.

Pam said...

MR uses the tactics of an abuser. He keeps his voice well modulated, he seems to be speaking rationally, he uses some good catchwords and phrases. The abused are more emotional, they just want to convince someone-anyone that the abuse is happening. They scream and cry and speak loudly-anything to get someone to listen.

If the story of MR having sexual relations with a girlfriend outside of Elaine's window are true, it is hard for me to believe that a judge would allow MR unsupervised visitation. For any man to do something so outrageous when he knows his children are in the house is sociopathic and shows that the man is only concerned with his punishment of his (ex) wife and not the needs of his children.

No matter if MR killed Dylan, Dylan ran away, or the Brownies are hiding Dylan somewhere; Dylan did not want to spend time with his bio-father. The texts, Dylan's words and even MR's own words prove that.

It is time for some common sense in custody arrangements. A teenager should certainly be old enough to decide if they want to "visit" a parent. The courts need to stop with the equal time garbage and listen to the children that are affected by the courts decisions.

Vita said...

Pam
You said it.

"listen to the children" that are affected by the courts decisions.

Listening is a skill many do not attempt nor do they know how to. They HEAR, they do not listen.

Good post.

Lis said...

I watched the video and transcribed Mark Redwine's statements myself and there is an error in the article.

This is what I heard (I did not transcribe the interviewer's statement's, just those of Mr. Redwine):
----
"It's flustrating [sic] for all of us because there's [pause] so little to go on."

"That-the tensions are very high between all of us."
----
"And basically, they want to come up here and eliminate the Vallecito area as a possibility of where Dylan could be so that we can focus our search efforts on the- (gulp, pause) other places that he could go-huhh- possibly be." [He started to say 'go' and quickly sucked in his breath and changed to 'possibly be'.]
---
[Asked, do you think he's still alive?]

"Absolutely. I have no reason not to (gulp) believe that."
---
"My ex-wife and I both agree that dylan's not the kind of kid that would run away. Buut I also think that there's a possibility that Dylan was [note the 'was' here!] torn between his parents. You know, my fear is that he- he's somehow is being able to see what's going on out there and he sees the conflict going on between his mom and I, I think that's a huge concern. [Seems like there is a splice in the video here?] But who knows what goes through a 13 year old's head."
------
"We don't know where dylan's at. We have no idea where dylan's at. Dylan could be anywhere."
------

I usually skip watching videos because I want to analyze only the written word and once I see the subject talking, it often forms my opinion before I can really analyze the words. This is one of those times. Mark Redwine is overly persuasive in his tone and gestures, trying to seem like the casual, agreeable, reasonable guy, trying to use a relaxed tone of voice to minimize the seriousness of the situation. There are times he suddenly sputters on a word or drags on a word a little too hard for emphasis. I get a bad vibe from him.

"We" includes everyone, and "we" may not know where Dylan is at together, but that does not mean Mr. Redwine, alone, does not know where Dylan is.

Lis said...

ABC and Jazzie, the error is in the news article, Peter was going by what it said, I assume. They were the ones who mis-transcribed it.

~ABC said...

Thank you Lis! :)

I understand the error was in the transcription. I asked that the SA be revisited on what has been brought forth as "key points" that are no longer relevant because they were based on error.

Sus said...

Thank you, Lis. I rarely watch videos for the same reasons you mentioned.

Anonymous said...

Both parents (in my opinion)would be ANGRY during any interviews BUT act apologetic.

Anonymous said...

peter, post by anon at 10:02 photo ...you may want to remove that post, but its your web site.

Anonymous said...

also at 5:01 am

Peter Hyatt said...

Thank you to those of you who pointed out that the word "it" was not used and the transcriber of the article was in error.

I have updated the analysis, removed the analysis pertaining to "it", and reviewed it in its entirety.

Besides the editing, the conclusion, however, has remained the same.

The unreliable denial, the distancing language and the sensitivity indicators are all the same.

Mark Redwine is deceptively withholding information on what happened to Dylan, and has given us linguistic indicators that Dylan is deceased.

Our prayers remain with Elaine and the family, who are, even now, attempting to process this information.

Peter Hyatt

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter, anon 3:25 here again. I had time to listen to the video again and the point at which he trips his pronouns is at 21:01.

MR says: But at that moment in time I felt the need to address this issue with Mom. So I immediately s- ask her had she heard from him and indicated to her that, you know, I hadn't heard from him-(h)er all day, and that I was at the Marshal's office taking care of this, and that's when, you know, pretty much, all hell broke loose with her.

Also at 08:28 MR says: drop him off at the f--- closest police station

It sounds as though he was going to say "firehouse" and changed to "police station". Interesting because he chose to go to the Marshal's office and not the police station to originally report Dylan missing. His wife reported it to the Sheriff's Dept according to MR, and then this later causes a "time delay in the communication between the Marshal's office getting this information out, so that, because apparently from what I understand the Sheriff's office had no idea I had been to the Marshal's office in that short period of time."

This sounds suspect because it doesn't make sense.



Hobnob said...

My ex-wife and I both agree that Dylan is not the kind of kid that would run away

This is close that is distancing.
He distances Dylan from running away.

The expected / what i would expect to hear is My ex-wife and I both agree that Dylan is not the kind of kid WHO would run away

The action of running away is allocated to Dylan.
It is also interesting to see mark uses the distancing word THAT twice both times in relation to Dylan.
Kid is gender neutral and implies youth, why not use boy?

Anonymous said...

Peter, part of the analysis pertaining to it is still there. I was confused until I read the comments.

Anonymous said...

The word "it" that is.

The beginning - shocking use of a pronoun & the paragraph that begins with pronouns do not lie...Mark changed from proper use of "Dylan" to "it."

~ABC said...

Thank you so much Peter! :)

Joanna Caujolle said...

Mark Redwine scares the hell out of me. Actions speak louder than words and his words speak volumes to me. You can tell when someone isn't being truthful by giving too much info or answering questions that were not asked of them. The manner in which a person answers unasked questions can be alarming, as in this case.
I surely hope that Dylan is found alive and well, soon.