Friday, March 1, 2013

Mark Redwine Behavioral Analysis

Last Thanksgiving, 13 year old Dylan Redwine was forced, via court order, against his and his mother, Elaine's will, into visiting his father, Mark Redwine, a violent, controlling narcissist.

Dylan hasn't been seen since.

When a child goes missing, Behavioral Analysis kicks in, immediately, observing the behaviors of the parents.

The first thing noticed is the reaction.

I.  Crying Out To and For the Missing Child 

If you are walking in a mall, holding your child's hand, and your child wanders off, your reaction will be to both look, and if not successful, call out to your child.  This is natural, and it is "the expected."  Only Cindy Anthony claims that the "expected" is not known.  It is known.  We know how parents of missing children behave:  they attempt to find them.

If a parent went to the mall and the child went missing, we would not expect the parent to continue shopping, get in the car, and drive home, take a nap, and, eventually, call the police.  The delay would speak volumes.

Casey Anthony waited 31 days to report Caylee missing, has often been reported.  It is not true.  She was not "waiting" to make a report.  She likely had no intention of making a report but was forced into it by her parents, who later obviously regretted doing so.  At the time, Cindy Anthony thought by calling the police she would force Casey to give Caylee to her.

When a parent does not cry out to or for the child, it is similar to losing a child in the mall, but continuing to shop, drive home, and take a nap.

When a child goes missing, police have the expectation, quite naturally, that the parent (s) will go before the camera and speak to the child, and to the child's kidnapper.

When a parent refuses, it is the same as the parent losing the child in the mall, but continuing to shop, just the same. The parent does not want the child found.

Justin DiPietro refused to cry out to Ayla because he knew she was dead, having been responsible for her death.  When he did finally speak out, he indicated to us that Ayla was dead.

Sergio Celis, with his wife Becky, also refused, for 5 days, to call out to missing 7 year old Isabel, and only did so under pressure from media.  When they spoke, they indicated guilty knowledge of Isabel's death.

When Casey Anthony was pushed into speaking out, we knew that Caylee was dead.

Mark Redwine did not speak out and did not cooperate with the search.  When he decided to speak out, we knew just why he had been silent.

The polygraph.

Parents of missing children could not be more upset than they are, yet they polygraph.  They polygraph quickly because they know that as upset as they are, they will not grow more upset when asked, "Did you cause the disappearance?"  By clearing themselves, they cause investigators to focus in areas where success is more likely.

Parents fail polygraphs because they lie.

Justin DiPietro failed his polygraph.
Billie Jean Dunn failed her polygraph, as did Shawn Adkins.

Some refuse to take the polygraph.  This is part of behavioral analysis.

Balking at the polygraph is an indication of guilt in Behavioral Analysis.
Failing a polygraph is obvious.
Attempting to "beat" a polygraph is an indication of guilt in Behavioral Analysis.

Mark Redwine agreed to take a polygraph, only to sabotage it by drinking alcohol, so he could then blame the polygrapher about not feeling "good" enough to take the test.

He said, "we're going to take it" even though he was alone.  This was a verbal indication that he was not going to take the polygraph.  There was no "we" in his taking of a polygraph and pronouns do not lie, nor make mistakes:  deception indicated.

II.  The Past Tense Reference

When a parent of a missing child references, even once, the child in the past tense, it can indicate belief or knowledge that the child is dead.  This has been highlighted in cases recently, as going against the Solomonic wisdom of a natural parental instinct.

We recently saw this erroneously applied when a psychotherapist appeared on the Nancy Grace Show and said that the parent used "the present tense verb" in describing the missing child "proving" that the parent had nothing to do with it.  (She was wrong).  The deceptive parent will speak in the present tense while attempting to deceive, but 'slip up' by accident.  Casey Anthony said, "Caylee loved the park.  Caylee loves the park", correcting herself.  The psychotherapist on the NG Show misread the principle and actually played into the hands of the deceiver.

Did the police give the parent reason to believe the child is dead?
Does circumstances rob the parent of natural denial, leading the parent into believing the child is dead?
How early in the case did the parent slip into past tense language?

When the police have given no indication that the child is dead, and it is early in the search, a single slip into past tense language can indicate belief or knowledge, from the parent, who is expected to have natural denial, instinctively, giving hope, that the child is dead.

We have seen this in cases where the parent was suspected in killing the child:

a.  Billie Jean Dunn
b.  Sergio Celis
c.  Susan Smith
d.  Casey Anthony
e.  Deborah Bradley (Baby Lisa)

Mark Redwine.

III.  The Statements

Once a parent is identified as having knowledge or belief that the child is dead, and there are no circumstances leading the parent in this manner, and the parent has been indicated for deception, we then move on to the language employed in deception, for a basis of what has happened to the child.

For example, Justin DiPietro used the phrase "floating out there", possibly indicating that Baby Ayla was dumped in water.
Mark Redwine used phrases such as "beaten up" and "digging" to cause us also to wonder why he is employing such phrases.

This is where the work is done.

"In my heart, I know she's close" said Casey Anthony.  True enough, she was less than a half-mile from the home, dumped where Casey had previously buried pets.

Where is Dylan Redwine?

Statement Analysis is now being done on the statements of Mark Redwine, in order to gain insight into where Dylan may be.

Stay tuned for more analysis...

We will also help Elaine Redwine keep Dylan's name in the public eye, and listen carefully to any descriptions Mark Redwine has given.


john said...

Re;Past tense.


When a child goes missing,are you saying that the earlier the parent slips into past tense.IE thier first press statement the more likely it is that they either know the child is dead and or have guilty knowledge of it?

Also,is it the longer the child is missing the more likely the parent will use past tense even though they have not had any confirmation.

The reason i'm asking this, is that ER talks about Dylan in the past tense?

john said...


Video: Philpotts' 999 Call Played In Court

Transcript Of Philpott 999 Call.

Updated: 3:45pm UK, Friday 01 March 2013

Below is part of the transcript of the 999 call Mick and Mairead Philpott made to the emergency services on May 11 last year.

Operator: Talk to me.

Mick: I can't get in the bedroom mate.

O: Yeah.

M: I can't get in me bedroom and the kids are all upstairs six of 'em.

O: Is it a terraced house?

M: Please.

O: Er, yeah we've got some, we've got the police on their way, have you any idea what caused the fire?

M: I've no idea, we've just been woken up by the alarm. There's smoke everywhere.

O: There's smoke everywhere.

Mairead: The electric's gone.

Mick: Me electrics gone and all my babies are all upstairs.

O: You're alright, you're in the garden are you?

Mick: I'm round the back mate. I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't get out.

O: Ok, what's your name please?

Mick: Michael, I'm the, the Daddy.

O: Ok.

Mick: I can't get in.

The video audio is below.

Ivy said...

OT -- We are deep in the Redwine case, but I found this on YouTube. I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but it is the Nov. 22 depo by Charles Erickson about the the Murder of Kent Heitholt. For most of it, he is reading a prepared statement (don't think that one was done with the help of a lawyer, though) I would be curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this. In this deposition, Charles Erickson is admitting that he may have been specific about certain details of the murder to satisfy the police, particularly concerning Ryan Ferguson's involvement. He is not, however, denying his own involvement, nor the fact that Ryan Ferguson was there. He still remembers quite a lot of details though, and is reluctant to say for instance that they did not set out to rob anyone or that Ryan didn't say later that he wanted to kill someone before he turned 60. He wants to clear Ryan, to say the blame rests entirely with him, but he seems to even be struggling with clearing Ryan. Ryan says he wasn't there. I think a lot of people would agree that Ryan Ferguson may not have gotten a fair trial (judicial innocence) in light of the recantations, but does everyone really think Erickson completely made up being there and committing this murder and Ryan's presence/participation because of information fed to him by the police? He would have to be a total lunatic. I am not familiar with the details of the encounters he describes with the people who saw him possibly with the belt or the other person (Mallory) he spoke with. Will read up more on this.

Ivy said...

Oops, here is the link

Ivy said...

I understand that Erickson has since recanted his recantation and said he only had dreams of being there. I think the deposition is even more interesting for SA purposes in light of that.

Hobnob said...

darnit John you beat me

~kicks ankle~

It is telling there appears to me no rush, no panic.

Note the order "my electrics gone and my babies are upstairs."

The mom makes no mention of her children being trapped rather she says the electric's gone.

From the initial press conference it was clear they were involved, his language and behavior was off, she coudn't even cry real tears rather it looked like she was going for a degree in ham acting 101 her motive for the role being bad gas.

Layla said...

Ivy, I will watch the youtube video, but, not having seen it yet, I will say that based on what I have seen I believe Erickson made up the whole story--his reason for doing so involves deep psychological problems which include but are not limited to masochism and a deep desire to self-punish, also the drug and alcohol use was a contributor.

john said...

O: Ok, what's your name please?

Mick: Michael, I'm the, THE Daddy.

Placing THE in front of Daddy to me seems like he is distancing himself away from his children.

I would expect to hear.

"I'm THEIR Daddy"

Lis said...

John said " they either know the child is dead and or have guilty knowledge of it?"

One has to look at the statements given before the circumstances have become clear, that the child is likely dead. In the case of Elaine, she has had to face what MR has done.

Excruciating Headache said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Excruciating Headache said...

Okay. I buy this 99.99% But I want to ask a quick question. If my child disappeared, especially my youngest, who couldn't disappear on her own, I would immediately think she was gone. Every time I see a missing young person, he or she is usually later found (gosh, I can hardly even write it *uncomfortable LOL*) dead.

So, if my child disappeared and my first thought was that someone had taken and killed her, would my language reflect that? If it did, how could you distinguish that from someone who KNOWS their child is dead?

Lis said...

Ivy, with the Ryan Ferguson case, you have to start with the absolute beginning with Chuck. His earliest interviews showed that he did not know the facts of the case. After that, his statements have gone all over the place.

Chuck Erickson IS a complete nutjob. Playing the role of an infamous killer is the biggest accomplishment of his life. He was a compulsive liar before this event and has been since. The timeline and other details of the night that he added to the police account have been proven to be impossible or have been denied by other witnesses. He has changed his story numerous times in numerous ways.

The witness who identified Ryan at the trial has admitted he perjured himself, being pressured by the DA. He was made to feel that he would be serving justice by identifying Ferguson even though he did not know whether it was him or not. He trusted that the DA was sure it was Ferguson. Afterward, when he found the facts of the case, he felt he had done a terrible wrong and admitted to it.

Members of the jury have said that they convicted an innocent man and would find differently if they knew what they know now.

The night of the murder, there was a huge Halloween party at the bar that Ryan and Chuck snuck into, underage. Ryan's older sister was a college student at the time and worked at the bar, which was a popular hangout for students, and it was her idea that they come down there, thinking there would be no harm in it. So there were numerous college students in the area and it would not be unusual for another pair of guys to have come upon the crime scene who resembled Ryan and Chuck. It also would be likely they would be people who long since graduated and left the area and may not even be aware of what transpired 2 years after that night, unless they happened to have seen a tv show about the case.

I do not think the two who were seen in the parking lot were the killers, they were two who came upon the murdered man and stood there in shock. They called out for someone to call 911. It is not likely that any witnesses are going to come forward after seeing what happened with Ryan.

The chances that DNA and bloody fingerprints were all over the place but none matched Ryan or Chuck makes it far-fetched to me that they were the killers. The victim was clutching hair that did not belong to Ryan or Chuck. I wonder how much has been done to match the DNA to anyone in the system?

Layla said...

Ivy--I just watched the video--very interesting.
My opinion is that Erickson was mentally ill and did make up the story--basically, he was so mentally ill he thought something happened that didn't happen, he became delusional that he was responsible. He was and is a genuinely confused person, but I don't believe him and/or Ryan killed Heitholt. You can clearly see when he initially gives his "confession" he has no idea what he is talking about and the police spoon feed him the info. The nature of his "confession" is such that he is very eagerly trying to CONVINCE police that he is responsible. When they ask him what was used to strangle Heitholt, he eagerly guesses trying to "please" them like he is playing a "guessing game".
One important thing you can clearly see is Erickson's masochism and desire to self-punish. You notice he says he doesn't need a lawyer when he gives this taped deposition although this can seriously effect him through possible increased jail time. If it seems like Erickson does not care what happens to him, I think that is because that is the case, and that this is tied into his psychological problems.

Mainah said...

Observation: the word "time(s)" appears more often than "Dylan"

MR is more than doubly concerned about "time" than he is about "Dylan".

Mainah said...

Another observation:

The words, "over" and "helping" multiple times.

The pronoun "you", "yourself", etc near "over"


"me", "myself", etc. near "helping"

Mainah said...

and another:

"this" is used two times...both with body posture words nearby, "laying" and "sit"

1) MR says: "relive" "seeing" "him laying on the couch" and (MR) "maybe" doesn't try hard "enough"

2) "sit here", "beat yourself up"

Mainah said...

Are MR transcripts available yet? I'm curious about his use of "this", in context.


"knowing that"
"over that"
"but that's"
"with that"
"something that"
"believe that"
"do that"
"do that"

impulsive said...

OT: "Court releases Sandra Inman's Confession"

There is a PDF of her confession on that page

Hobnob said...

Excruciating Headache said...
Okay. I buy this 99.99% But I want to ask a quick question. If my child disappeared, especially my youngest, who couldn't disappear on her own, I would immediately think she was gone. Every time I see a missing young person, he or she is usually later found (gosh, I can hardly even write it *uncomfortable LOL*) dead.

So, if my child disappeared and my first thought was that someone had taken and killed her, would my language reflect that? If it did, how could you distinguish that from someone who KNOWS their child is dead?

Hi Excrutiating.
As a parent if your child vanished, especially the youngest, your natural instinct would not be to assume they are dead, parental instinct is so overpowering that you would believe your child was alive until it was proven otherwise, your language would be all present tense.
It is common that in cases where the child is dead and long buried, parents, especilly moms, will refer to their child in the present tense even after years have passed. it is a form of denial so to speak.
As it is rare that a child dies before their parents, the expected is that they will speak in the present tense, it is normal parental behavior.

In cases where a child vanishes, the expected is for the parents to use present tense and to hope that whoever has them is looking after them, keeping them safe even loved even when the statistics show otherwise.
When a child is abducted, particularly young ones the mother will always hope it is a mom looking to bring a child up as her own, they either cannot have a child or have lost one and their maternal instinct is controlling their behavior, it is a better hope than their child has been raped. tortured or murdered. Any hope no matter how faint is better than none.
We expect parents to use present tense when referring to their child especially in the hours and days of the child vanishing, past tense may slip in over the weeks, months and years, this to is expected. What is unexpected is when a parent especially a mom uses past tense in the hours and days following the disappearance. We have to ask why they believe or sispect their child is dead. Is it because or police info, guilty knowledge or something else?
if you lost your child in a mall would you immediately assume she was dead? No, even if she is very young and unable to wander off, your instincts would compel you to believe she is with another family member, taken by accident, wandered off (you would be surprised how agile and mischevious they can be)or was taken to be loved by a childless couple, your parental instincts won't let you believe anything else which is why you call out to your child, search frantically and so on.

With all of the cases we follow here, we expect the subjects to be telling the truth, we look for the expected, we know what is the norm, anything thus that is unexpected will stand out and get our attention be it language or behavior. We may not always be able to say why there is deception just that there is. The more the subject talks, the more they write or their behavior in public, the better we can pinpoint the areas of sensitivity.

john said...


I think that is what i was trying to say in my first post,but without the police info.

Pepper said...

I would be really interested if anyone could take the time to analyse the keli lane interview and phone taps from Australia. She has been convicted of murdering her newborn baby. The baby has never been seen since leaving hospital with her mum at 2 days old. Keli hid the pregnancy and others from her family. She maintains her innocence but her versions of what happened to the baby cannot be proven.

Pepper said...

The links to the audio are :
Check out this video on YouTube:

Check out this video on YouTube:

Hobnob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hobnob said...

Hi Pepper.

Wasn't she the olympic swimmer? If so i recall the case and from her behavior and language concluded deception. I'll have to have a rummage on another blog where i think i posted about it (if it is still up since the blog owner was having problems with it)

Hobnob said...

Keli lane police interview

LE: Did you kill the child?

keli: No i did not, i did not do amything like that.

LE: Someone else then?

keli: No, No

LE: Right keli, like i said, i'm gonna have to make a lot of enquiries now, i'm gonna have to go..

keli: Please don't.

LE: it's gonna go through the cornoner's court, there's gonna be a coroner's court hearing in relation to this, alright? That's why i say to you now, if there is something you're not telling us, now is the time to tell us.

keli: I don't understand how, can you, can we stop the tape, can i speak.. without.. the tape on?

LE: I'd rather you did it on the tape.

keli: Ok i don't understand, how you're gonna.. go and speak with my parents or people like that who have no idea what you're going to be talking about... this is between me and Andrew.

There we have it no strong reliable denial.

Hobnob said...

has links to the police interview and taped phone calls

Mainah said...

Pepper, Thanks for the Keli Lane story. It is fascinating.

She gives no reliable denial and in the couple of stories and phone taps I reviewed I noted repeated instances of (deception by) omissions and she was petrified with fear of her parents (rage?).

Interesting that her father was in LE, like George Anthony; her mother reminded me of Cindy Anthony (a cold, controlling, manipulating, lying matriarch who highly values image over truth) and Keli became an accomplished liar, an epic manipulator and constant baby disposer, who like Cindy and George's spawn hid her pregnancy(ies).

It's horrifying to think her mother (Sandra Lane) now has contact (custody?) with Keli's daughter. No one need suffer the fate of being "mothered" by either of these monsters.

Several pregnancies in as many years; two aborted, two given up to be adopted, all unknown by family & friends - those are big secrets to attempt to keep, big lies to perpetrate. Something happened to Tegan and Keli is the only one who knows and she will not (yet) tell the truth, just whimpers and whines about her (miserable) life.

Mainah said...

P.S. Forgot to mention, Keli's mother, Sandra Lane is a nurse, her father a cop, like Caylee's grandparents.

Juli Henry said...

Has anyone seen this facebook page?!/pages/Mark-Redwine-is-Innocent-Unless-Proven-Guilty/472976319435251

I think it is admin'd by Mark Redwine's sister, Bridgett. What an enabler!!!

Jen said...

Hi Julie-

Even more telling she acknowledges that Mark is guilty...even by her standards he is only innocent UNLESS PROVEN guilty! If someone is innocent then they do not anticipate a point where they will be PROVEN guilty.

Innocence is absolute. If you are innocent and yet found guilty by a court if law, you would consider yourself 'wrongly convicted' wouldn't change from an innocent man to a guilty man by a court decision. Not only is this sister an enabler, it appears she knows the truth about Mark, even if she's not ready to admit it to herself!

Juli Henry said...

I got into an arguement with her on Gather about a week after Dylan disappeared. It was over her continued use of past tense pronouns, and the subject matter she kept bringing up. When a kid has been missing for 7 or 8 days, who talks about whether or not he loved/loves both his parents? Had I been in her shoes, I would have been talking about places he might be, people he might be with, and how tall he was/his eye and hair color/the clothes he had on.....NOT family relationships that really won't mean a thing to a stranger wh spots him somewhere. has been my opinion ever since that Bridgett Redwine-Simmers knows exactly what happened to Dylan.

Jen said...

I remember that! Didn't you post your convo with her on this site or a link to it? She claimed that her past tense references were typos..and went on and on about how people we making a big deal out of it. She has the same lying strategy as in circles about meaningless issues, while claiming it's everyone else besides them who's got it all wrong!