Saturday, February 14, 2015

Statement Analysis: Mark Redwine, Father of Murdered 13 Year Old Dylan

Dylan Redwine would be 16 years old now, the the middle of high school, thinking of college.  Instead, his mother, Elaine, continues to press the DA's office to arrest her ex husband, Mark.  

This case has been covered extensively in Statement Analysis.  You will find excellent analysis by Kaaryn Gough. 

Chronologically, here are some statements from the case.  Mark Redwine's "denial", his charade on the Dr. Phil Show,  where he said he would polygraph and Dr. Phil appeared close to getting a confession.  Redwine did not polygraph and blamed the polygrapher.  

Here are some exerts from analysis:

1.  Denial:

Investigators insisted that Dylan was a runaway.  From Mark Redwine's first statement, we knew otherwise:

"would never do anything to harm that boy.  I know they are looking at me for being involved at some sort of kidnapping scheme, which is one of the reasons I want them to look closely at me. The more they look at me, the more they are going to realize I have nothing to do with this."

Here he avoids using the simplest of terms:  the Reliable Denial of "I" and the past tense verb "didn't" and specific words of what the accusation is.  Instead we find "would never", which is future/conditional tense, and the word "that", which is distancing language.  We note also that he calls him "boy", and not his name. 
Note also "I have nothing to do with this" is present tense, and avoids the RD.
That a father would so quickly distance himself from his "missing" son, so early on, is a red flag. If he cannot say "I did not cause Dylan's disappearance", we cannot say it for him. 

2.  The language of Domestic Violence

"I would do anything for that boy."  

He portrayed himself as willing to drive all the way to Brooklyn, just to buy a pizza:

"That boy ate 2/3rd of it.  He woofed it down."

We hear the need to persuade the interviewer what a great father he was.  This need to persuade should be noted in context of distancing language from Dylan. 

He speaks as one who is involved in Domestic Violence, as if something was wrong with Dylan's mother not wanting the father to know where she was working.  He blames the mother for a poor living environment and for providing for Dylan instead of bonding with him. 

His plans for Thanksgiving:

He avoided the question directly, making the question sensitive. 

"I just wanted him to be happy."  

"So when he wanted to spend time with his friends, I had no problem with that."

"He wanted to spend time with his friends.  I have no problem with that."

"When he's with me, its me and him, with the exception of his friends. You know, I know those are important to him."

Note how he goes from past tense to present tense.  

"I monitor what he does, where he's at.  Its just me and him.  There's not people coming and going in my life because everything I focus on is him and us being together and spending that time.

"I monitor" is present tense.  

Note the need to explain why he has no social interaction with people.  

"There's not a day  goes by that I am not hopeful that we will  find Dylan today. "

Since he is not with Dylan's mother, and his references to her show a very poor relationship, we do not expect to hear him use the word "we" often.  Pronouns are critical to understanding what someone is thinking.  His language shows distance from Dylan's mother.   There is no "we" when he speaks of Dylan's mother.  There is, however, a very strange and unusual use of the pronoun, "we":  

*Please note the use of "we" when speaking of Dylan being missing:

"We still don't have Dylan."

"We needed to know where he's at.  We need to know he's safe. And we need to know that whoever is repsponsible for this has enough  compassion in their heart to to change what has been done and bring him home.  I know that is imprtant to his mom.  And it is very important to me.  We need Dylan home."

1. Who is "we" is something the interviewer should have asked  a man who speaks so poorly of Dylan's mother and has already asserted that he does not have "people" coming into his life "because" of his focus on Dylan.  This is a missed opportunity of a very strange use of the pronoun, "we"

Please note that guilty people will often use the pronoun "we" when having a need to share guilt or responsibility.  This is something that parents of teenagers are familiar with. 

A simple and direct question as to his involvement could have, and should have, been asked. 

2.  "needed" came first, and is past tense. 

3.   Regarding the "person" involved in Dylan's disappearance, Redwine says "compassion in their heart" and needs to:

4.  "change" what has been done.  This is a strange expression.  Rather than just say "bring him home" he says that what has happened needs to undergo a "change."

What "change" does he refer to?  This should have and could have been asked. 

4.  "I know this is important to his mom" is the obvious. 

5.  He then adds in what would apparently be needless:  "It's very important to me"

Note that it is only "important" to Dylan's mother to have him back, but it is "very important" to him. 

Both phrases are unexpected.  

When something is "important" to a person, it takes a place of priority, along with other things that are also important in life. 

Is there anything more important than a missing child to a parent?  It is needless to say. 

It is "important" to his mother, but "very important" to him.  

This is highly unexpected language. 

Q.  What do you want to say to whoever has Dylan?

This addresses, possibly, the person involved.  What language will he associate with this "person"?

A.   Let him go.  Drop him off at the closest police station.  Take him to a Walmart. 

Dump him off.  If you have any compassion in your heart"

Note the use of "dump" in regard to his missing son. 

Why would he consider a kidnapper or someone who harmed Dylan would be a compassionate person?

For the love of God, if you have any compassion in your heart, you will do the right thing and let him come home to his family. 

Note the invocation of Deity is not in asking for help in finding Dylan.  

Note the phrase, "compassion in your heart" is repeated; making "compassion in the heart" something sensitive to Mark Redwine.  

The person associated with Dylan's disappearance has the description of "compassion" and "heart" together. 

Regarding abduction, he claims that Dylan never met a stranger, and continued to use the word "that boy", which is distancing language. 

"He never knew a stranger, ever in his life."

If he knew a stranger, it would not be a stranger. This is a very unusual sentence and appears to be an attempt to portray Dylan as having gone off with someone he instantly trusted, without discrimination or sense. 

 This is, in a twisted way, a disparagement of the victim

The interviewer sounded juvenile with her overly use of the word "like" in her sentences and does not ask relevant questions, in spite of preparation.  Some sentences she uses it 3 and 4 times.  

She needs analytical interview training.  

There are some very concerning things in this interview, in spite of the interviewer's reluctance to do her job. 

"I wanted to go to a sit down restaurant.  Sit down and talk to him. He wanted to go to McDonald's."

Argument.  They wanted different things.  The reference to "sit down" is associated with tension (body posture).  It is also sensitive since it is repeated.  This appears to be another reference to arguing with his son. 

His description of what time he got home begins a period of time that is sensitive. (12:50)  This period of sensitivity continues.

"I specifically remember him texting at that time. People can only tell us what they remember so why the need to emphasize?  The texting is important to Mark Redwine.  Why?

He wants us to think he cannot remember certain things, like a movie title, or what time he went to bed, but wanted us to know that he "specifically" remembered Dylan texting that night. 

Whatever took place that night is sensitive to Mark Redwine.   From this point in his statement, we enter into the very sensitive part of his story and it continued through the next day.  Anything said during this period of time is important.  

Regarding waking Dylan up:  

"He was having no part of it.  You can't get him to bed and you can't get him up. "  

He did not say Dylan was asleep here.  Note the distancing language of "you" and not "I" 

It is hard to believe that Mark Redwine could not wake up his son, unless his son was dead. 

"Never heard from him. I sent him text messages.  Hey dude, are you up yet?  Call me.  Is there anything you need?"  

dropped pronoun means no commitment. 

"I spoke with my divorce attorney" is mentioned in the same time period.  This is alarming.

Q.  Anything else?

"I made a phone call to a property managment company."

He then went on to say what his "biggest reason" to want to communicate with Dylan was.  

Note his references to phone call, bill, and divorce attorney, while Dylan was not responding. 

"I need to go find that boy" is not only present tense, but it also uses the distancing language. 

"So I am driving by the lake and I didn't see anything..." is also present tense. 

Present tense language, in this sensitive period of time, is unreliable.  Redwine changes to presnt tense language after Dylan is no longer 'speaking' or communicating in the story.

Analysis conclusion:

Police should consider Mark Redwine a suspect in the disappearance of Dylan Redwine. 

"I was at the marshal's office taking care of this" and than about Dylan's mother he said,  "that's when all hell broke loose with her" 

Why wouldn't "hell" be his missing son?  Why is "hell" associated with Dylan's mother, and not with Dylan being missing?

He continued to disparage Dylan's mother.  The repeated emphasis should be something police consider as a motive.  

"Dylan's a peace keeper.  I believe that Dylan's the kind of kid that when he is with his mom, tries to keep peace with her and will tell  her anything she wants to hear."

"I don't bug him about what goes on with mom."

"He and I get along, when we're together.  Contrary to what people might want to think."

Note the lack of "we" with he and Dylan, in context, to Dylan being missing.  From the point of the sensitive part of his story, Dylan is no longer quoted.

"I'm  a private person. "

"I see her being more vocal.  I can only imagine that her focus is on finding someone to blame" instead of finding Dylan.  This is a very negative portrayal of a mother of a missing child.  Police should take careful note of the level of bitterness this man has towards Dylan's mother. 

"In her eyes, 'Im the last person to see him. "

Please note the words, "I'm the last person to see him" are not words attributed to Dylan's mother, but to her thoughts.  When asked about blaming himself, he switched from "I" to the second person, "you":  

"you relive this a thousand times. "

"I seen him laying on the couch and maybe I didn't try hard enough, maybe, to wake him."

Verbal indication using body posture and possible state of unconciousness. 

"To sit here and beat yourself not helping me stay strong."

"yourself" and not "myself"

Here he introduces the words "beat up" while speaking of his son.    

"I don't care if its his mom he reached out to"

Mark Redwine has  a strong need to portray himself as being very close to Dylan.  There are two things to be noted about this.  He fumbled in his attempt to tell the media his son's favorite TV shows, citing shows far too young for Dylan. 

1.  The need to portray himself as close to Dylan suggests distance.

2.  The language employed by him about Dylan is distancing language. 
3.  Note the lack of the pronoun, "we" regarding Dylan, particularly note the change in language after the last night he described Dylan, right at the point of sending a text message. 

The language before the text and the language after the text should be noted. 

"Authorities have not said a whole lot, to be honest with you" suggests that police do suspect him. 

Redwine questioned that in only 24-48 hour period that a sex offender could be cleared.  It can be done in under 5 minutes:  if a sex offender has an alibi, it is not difficult to discern.  This appears to be a desire

"I'll be honest with you. We are all suspects."  

Note another signal of deception. 

Note the word "we" seeks to spread guilt. 
Note that the word "we" includes himself. 

A journalist should simply ask direct questions.  She finally asks him about his involvement: 

"Absolutely not.  I would never do anything to harm that boy. "

Unreliable denial.

Again we have "would never" and "that boy", which is distancing language and impersonal. 

"I'll be honest with you, the only thing that anyone should be interested in is finding Dylan."

Note the need to use this phrase comes only after the sensitive time period above. 

q.  Is he still alive?

"Absolutely" quickly became "that's a possibility

"It's a thread that we all hold on to"

He then confused pronouns, "that's what crosses our minds and I..."

Regarding not going public early on:  

That's why I agreed to participate in this.  This isn't about me"

The interviewer went to Jonbenet case.  Self-importance.  Poor interview.  Jonbenet had nothing to do with this case and the interviewer should avoid, as best as possible, of introducing any new words or new topics.

Analytical Interviewing takes the words of the subject and asks follow up questions using the subject's own words, seeking to avoid introducing even a single new word.

"These are the things I say when I am praying to him, talking to him."

Note that he "prays" to his son.  This deification of someone is after death. 

Redwine does not give any indications that he believes that Dylan is alive.  When he does assert, he contradicts quickly.  

His animosity towards his ex wife is severe.  

The time period in his story, beginning where Dylan sent a text message, is highly sensitive and the language changes.   

3.  Next, we learned that Dylan had come across a picture of his father cross dressing and practicing perversion.  With his controlling and blaming language, the more he spoke, the more we were able to learn what happened to Dylan.  It may have been that the altercation between Dylan, 13 and his father, was due to Dylan defending his mother's honor, due to his father's verbal attacks. 

R: So you went to run errands. Were you going to take him with you to run errands?

M: Well, there was some discussion he had with me the night before about leaving with me so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends that had been trying to text him or that he had been communicating with.  As he had indicated to me he had been up until 4 o'clock in the morning the night before, he was tired from being in the airport most of the day in his travel from Colorado Springs to Durango. I laughed at him kind of jokingly because I know him.  If he ain't got to get up, he's not likely to get up. 

And he's not the type of kid who's going to get up at 6:30 if he doesn't have to. 
But you know, his friends are important and I know they're important me. 
So there was a possibility but it doesn't surprise me he elected to not get up when I left. And when I left, he acknowledged everything I was saying to him and that I would be back. 
He knew when I came back that I would be working on getting him down to his friends. And that's part of the struggle we all have, you know, what happened to him between the time I left and when I got back. And that's what nobody seems to be able to answer. 

M: Well, there was some discussion he had with me the night before about leaving with me so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends that had been trying to text him or that he had been communicating with. 

1. "there was some discussion."  

Note the passive language of "there was some discussion" rather than report what was said.  Passivity in language is used to conceal.  It is likely that father and son had an argument the night before.  Note the distancing language found in the use of the word "with" regarding that night.  

When communicative language is  passive, the concealment is often due to an argument or fight.  Whatever it is, the subject does not want it known. 

2.  "with me" is distancing language.  We can say things like, "we went to the store" or "Bob and I went to the store" but when one says "I went to the store with Bob" we note the word "with" between them, indicating distance. 

Note that "with me" is used twice.  He is distancing himself from Dylan regarding this timer period.  Twice, so close together, is acute. 

3.  "so" explains the reason why. 

4.  "or"  He says "trying to text him or that he had been communicating with" allows for one or the other.  

As he had indicated to me he had been up until 4 o'clock in the morning the night before, 

He only "indicated" to Mark Redwine; Dylan did not "say" he was up until 4 o'clock in the morning.  Dylan did not say he was up until 4.  There is no speech nor quotes from Dylan at this point.  

This is very concerning. 

How was this "indicated"?  

Dylan has no voice here. 

he was tired from being in the airport most of the day in his travel from Colorado Springs to Durango. I laughed at him kind of jokingly because I know him. 

Redwine feels the need to explain why he "laughed" at his son.  This laughing was "kind of" jokingly. 
Note that he laughed "at his son" and not "with" his son.  The laughing was only "kind of" jokingly, making it serious. 

This was likely a very bad argument in which the father held the son in contempt, laughing at him.  

If he ain't got to get up, he's not likely to get up. 

He does not say that he stayed asleep.  We must note what he says and what he does not say. This statement may be truthful, but it may be that Dylan was deceased at this time. 
Dylan was not able to get up here.  This is generalization, not specific, meaning that Mark Redwine is avoiding specifically anything Dylan said or did at this time. 

It is similar to:

Q.  Did you smoke pot last Wednesday while on shift?
A.  I am one who doesn't smoke pot much. 

The answer avoids the issue and goes to a generalization. 

And he's not the type of kid who's going to get up at 6:30 if he doesn't have to. 

Here we find the generalization and not what specifically happened.  This, along with the other indicators, suggest that Dylan was not able to get up, nor able to speak at this time in the statement. 

Mark Redwine has used the language of Domestic Violence and control.  He is not someone who is not going to wake his son up if he wanted him up.  This is why he avoids saying "I tried to wake him up" instead uses a "general" theme of what Dylan was like, in general terms.  

But you know, his friends are important and I know they're important me. 

The word "but" is to refute that which was previously stated.  Here, what is he refuting?  The notion that Dylan was asleep?

If he is going to attempt to portray Dylan as asleep, only to rebut this, we will  not argue with him. 

So there was a possibility but it doesn't surprise me he elected to not get up when I left. And when I left, he acknowledged everything I was saying to him and that I would be back. 

Note that there was only a "possibility" that he "elected" not to get up.  This means that Mark Redwine knows that there were other "possibilities" why Dylan did not get up, but does not want to share them.  It is the time frame, however, that jumps out at us. 

Here we come to the critical part of Mark Redwine's story.  This is the "cluster of blues" taught by LSI that shows the hyper sensitive part of the story where critical information has been removed.  He "doubles up" on the leaving.  This is likely where the most sensitive information is concealed.  

Note that Dylan no longer speaks.  He is no longer quoted at this point in the account.  It is as if Dylan no longer has a voice.  He can "indicate" and he can "acknowledge" but he cannot "speak."

Was Dylan Redwine dead at this point?

He knew when I came back that I would be working on getting him down to his friends. And that's part of the struggle we all have, you know, what happened to him between the time I left and when I got back. And that's what nobody seems to be able to answer

Nobody "seems" to be able to answer.  This is true, but it only "seems" to be this way.  If Mark Redwine can answer the question, it would explain why it only "seems" that nobody can answer. 

Mark Redwine can answer the question of what happened to Dylan between the time he left and the time he got back.  
People do not like to lie as it causes internal stress.  Here it only "seems" that nobody can answer, as it appears to the public, but he adds in this word, "seems" because of the stress that comes from lying:  he avoids making a direct lie. 

R: Can you tell me about your plans for Thanksgiving?

This may be what is explored about premeditation
 versus an angry confrontation with his son.  Mark Redwine is unable to control his animosity towards his ex wife and investigators will seek to learn if he killed Dylan to hurt his ex, or if Dylan died due to an unplanned or unintended consequence from the "struggle."

M: Well, 
because he was with me for such a short period of time, we had touched on a few things. One of the things was we talked about going to my brother David's house in Castle Rock. Um, I know his friends were important to him so we were wanting to make sure he had adequate time with his friends. Um, you know basically the plan was Monday and Tuesday he would spend with his friends. Maybe Wednesday, you know we had talked a little bit about going bowling or doing something as an activity, not with just me and him, his friends included. Then we would have Thanksgiving day to ourselves. Or there was a possibility we would travel and get to my brother's house. So, you know, none of that ever got finalized. I mean, we were just focusing on the next day and what we were going to do and how that was going to take place. That's as far as we really ever got. You know, his friends are important to him and I certainly don't expect him to spend a whole week with me when he's got, he's grown up in this community and he's got tons of people who love and care about him.

This is a very lengthy explanation as to why he did not have concrete plans.  He even leaves himself open with "or" plans, so that he can change his account.  There is a constant repetition about his "friends", showing high sensitivity to Redwine. 
Note the change of language from "touched on" to "talked" about.  

His own wording: 
"struggle" , "beat self up"

Note the depersonalization after a certain period of time in the statements.  Follow the pronouns. 

R: So he was going to spend a whole week with you. When was the last time he saw you?

The question is when was the last time Dylan saw Mark; not the last time Mark saw his son.  This reveals the thinking of the interviewer. 

M: Um, I think probably sometime in early September, I had flown him over from Colorado Springs on a round trip ticket on that point so he came over here and probably spent three or four days with me and that. And then you know, we obviously got him back to the plane and got him back safely to his mom. And you know, in that case it was a transfer flight from the Durango airport or Denver airport leaving to Colorado Springs. And it was my goal to keep him on a direct flight or one that he never had to change planes on with because there was some controversy between mom and I about him being thirteen years old and being able to do those kinds of things. And so, you know, when I got the flight for him I made sure it was flight he could get on in Colorado.

On the last visit, "we" got him back, we got him back "safely" to his mother.  

This time, he did not.  

Regarding waking Dylan up:  

"He was having no part of it.  You can't get him to bed and you can't get him up. "  

Note the passivity in the language.  He did not say "I could not wake him up", but "you", which is distancing language.  The passivity conceals information. 

He did not say Dylan was asleep here.  Note the distancing language of "you" and not "I" 

It is hard to believe that Mark Redwine could not wake up his son, unless his son was dead. But we must keep in mind:  he didn't say he couldn't wake him up here.  Only "he was having no part of it."  Remember, people do not like to lie outright; it is stressful and confrontational. Instead, they splice words together, quickly, to avoid the direct lie, while attempting to continue the deception.  

"Never heard from him. I sent him text messages.  Hey dude, are you up yet?  Call me.  Is there anything you need?"  

Alibi building noted. 

Note that the dropped pronoun means no commitment. Yet, the pronoun, "I" returns immediately.  

When he said, "I sent him text messages" he told the truth and this is something police can verify. 

"Never heard from him" is also true, but this is likely because Dylan was deceased.  He sent specific messages in which he even quoted himself as he was alibi building:  'I was sending messages because I thought he was alive' type. 

The constant use of "friends" by someone who only saw his son a few times a year is sensitive. 

It  appears to be part of the contention.  It appears that Dylan did not want to spend Thanksgiving with his father, but with his friends.  This is a sensitive issue to Mark Redwine and likely a source of anger. 

"Hey dude" in the text message:  The text messages were intended, not for deceased Dylan, but for police.  The use of "dude" is an attempt to portray the relationship as good, highlighting how bad it was.  
Note the extra words.  Texts are generally short:  "do you need anything?" would suffice.  Deceptive people strain over a need to persuade and often employ extra words thinking that it will help with perception and persuasion.  

From Kaaryn Gough:

...he was with me the night before. And you know, I saw him in the morning before I left to go run my errands.

Change in language: he was with me applies only to the night before. But in the morning, he onlysaw him. The father no longer considered his son to be "with him" in the morning.


Who is the "we" Mark Redwine so often references?  This is likely an attempt to share guilt.  

Analysis conclusion:

Mark Redwine is deceptively withholding information about what happened between himself and Dylan just prior to Mark Redwine's leaving of the home.  

4.  More statements with analysis from Kaaryn Gough and Peter Hyatt:

Here is more analysis of the words of Mark Redwine, father of missing 13 year old, Dylan Redwine.  Statement Analysis is in bold type, with emphasis in the quotes added. 

As we continue to look deeper into this case, a very sad picture is emerging. 

Dylan Redwine, according to his father's language, is not going to be found alive.  

Mark Redwine is deliberately attempting to conceal information on what happened between him and his son

1)  "You know, Dylan wanted to throw in a few videos that he found in the $5 dollar bin, so we threw those in, which is one of the movies we would watch the night, you know, we were together."

a) "one of the movies"--indicates more than one movie was watched that night. This contradicts what he later reports as having watched one of the movies.
b) "we would watch"--not "we watched". "would watch" is a future intention, not what happened.

We look at the phrase "you know" as a habit of speech and ask, "What topics bring up this habit?"  The phrase, "you know" indicates an acute awareness of the interviewer (or audience) and we should seek to learn what topics cause it to be used, and what topics do not.  Here, we see the context of the videos and watching a movie.   He does not tell us that they watched a movie together.  We cannot conclude that they did.  

2) "You know…it wasn’t a whole lotta things that we needed. We went to McDonalds. I wanted to go to a sit-down restaurant. Sit down and talk to him. He wanted to go to McDonalds. He always wants to go to McDonalds. What 13 year old kid  doesn’t want to go to McDonalds? You know, wasn’t my first choice. We didn’t even eat it in McDonalds. We got it in the truck and went to the drive-thru and we’re eating it on our way home. So…"

a) Note the lengthy explanation leading up to the point where they went through the drive-thru. Recall that when a subject approaches a dangerous portion of the statement, he/she will slow down. This is done in both verbal and written statements.  They do this by adding information outside of telling "what happened". It's like he's putting on the breaks here as he approaches a danger zone.  The danger zone is a stressful part of the account and the subject slows down to avoid the stress of it. Here we are given extra details that appear to be needless.  "Needless" details are deemed to be "doubly important" to the work of analysis. 

b) "it"--he does not include what "it" is. He's trying to imply they got a meal, but he doesn't say it. "it" We cannot assume "it" is a meal.  Why is he unable to say what "it" is?

c) "We got it in the truck and went to the drive-thru..."--Note the order. First "we got it" then "went to the drive-thru". 

If they had gotten it already, then why did they need to go through the drive-thru? Doesn't make sense. One should wonder if "got it", means was hit or beaten.

d) "...and we're eating it on our way home". Two things: 

i) "we're" = we are--present tense. Unreliable.  He knows how to use past tense verbs, as we have seen.  We know that lying is stressful and people will go out of their way to avoid a direct lie.  Why is eating sensitive to him?  Our answer may be here: 

ii) "we're eating"--the use of ing on the end of the verb indicates this activity was in process when something else happened. Example: I was watching tv when the phone rang. What happened while they were eating and driving home?

We also see in the statement the introduction of body posture, twice, with "sit down"; indicating that for Mark Redwine, at this point in his statement, there is tension increasing.  

Note that he wanted to talk "to" Dylan.  This may be part of what escalated between him and Dylan.  This has the "sat down and talked to" feel to it of correction.  Correction itself is not unusual, but when it appears just before a child goes missing, it becomes a severely sensitive matter. 

Mark Redwine's lengthy explanation about McDonald's shows a needless slowing down of the pace of his account, and has indications of the increase in tension.  He does not commit to the things he would like us to believe, verbally, therefore, we cannot commit to those things for him. 

We conclude that the portion of his story about going to McDonald's preceded, or began, a very dangerous part of the account of what happened to Dylan Redwine. 


S + K Mum said...

Every time I read about Dylan my heart breaks for his Mom and brother.
All this time and nothing has moved forward for them towards justice?

GetThem said...

Wow, huge read and nicely done. I'm sure that took forever to finish.

Good for Dylan's poor mom, how hard for her. Everything this guy says screams deceit. I wonder why so many guilty people always have such a lame message to kidnappers to drop the child off somewhere safe. It happens so frequently.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps he drugged the boy to keep him at home. Too much?
Force fed him and choked to death?
he woofed it down..."

As I recall, these people kept their hands in their pockets alot.Forced to lie about their feelings? Self-perserving, gut feelings? Like forcing Dylan to be with someone he feels is a danger to him?

Perhaps they argued about where to eat. Dropped it. Another broke out later. Dropped it. Then another. More than the confused father could handle.

Dylan must have been the baby of the family is why he "monitors" him. Perhaps his strange behavior came on around the time of his birth. Competetion? A way to get back at both ex and other son?

It is still possible the boy played posseum and met with wild animals whilst trying to escape. This man is so screwed up it would be impossible to pin him down for murder. No evidence to link him to the crime other than being evasive and drunk.

No fishing pole, either.

Surely they drug the lake. So, why the mention of the fishing pole? Why would it be gone?

Storyline: gone fishing. changed mind. went bear hunting with a switch?

...dump him off at Wal Mart."

elf said...

I think that it all started because Dylan wanted McDonald's but I don't think anything happened til they got back to the fathers house. The father starts his drinking and things escalated until he hit Dylan. That's why they didn't watch any movies. If Dylan had been found sooner I bet the estimated time of Dylan's death would have been around 4 am, when Dylan 'indicated ' he went to sleep. I can't believe the police don't have enough to charge mark redwine.

Anonymous said...

Im very glad you're not letting Dylan be forgotten or Mark Redwine off the hook! Cause he is GUILTY.
Great analysis and I have only gotten this far

"Present tense language, in this sensitive period of time, is unreliable. Redwine changes to presnt tense language after Dylan is no longer 'speaking' or communicating in the story."

I agree with this, and again, grest analysis. If you look at Terry Elvis' story in xojane, he does this also as far as switching to present tense during thr pivotal point in story where the cops come to door and tell him daughter's car has been abandoned. I know this will be deleted, but just saying.

Anonymous said...

Excellent Peter ! Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I do think Mark killed Dylan. Somehow I think the key to what happened lies in the fib Mark tells about texting Dylan and he is not answering while Mark claims he is at home sleeping. His mind formulated that LIE of Dylan at home, sleeping, cant be woken up, Mark leaves house and is texting him. It's there in that part of the story--what happened to Dylan but I cant put my finger on it

Anonymous said...

Actually I think I know what it is. I think Mark was angry at Dylan the night before and drank himself to sleep as usual abd when Mark woke up all hungover or still half-drunk, he tried to wake up Dylan who was pretending to still be sleeping because he didnt want to talk to him, and that's when Mark started shaking him, hitting him, Dylan probably started fighting back, and that is when he killed him.

Anonymous said...

Every time I think of this case, I remember the barely-disguised glee on Mark Redwine's face when Dylan's mom confronted him on Dr. Phil. Anyone who saw that show has to believe he is guilty. I do.

He is a disgusting creature. I can't believe it is taking so long to bring him to justice.

Anonymous said...

Peter wrote

Regarding waking Dylan up:

"He was having no part of it. You can't get him to bed and you can't get him up. "

I think that that is what happened is Dylan was pretending to be asleep because he didnt want to be there or talk to his Dad, hoping Dad would leave and go do his errands.
"He was having no part in it"

Right. This is true. I think Mark started shaking him, hitting him, taking out his anger cause he could see Dylan was pretending to be asleep because he didnt want to talk to him. I think Dylan fought back, and that's when Mark killed him.

Turtle said...

"Never knew a stranger" is an expression. Similar to "never met a stranger". Means he had an instant rapport with anyone he met, could easily converse with anyone.

Kellie said...

Mark Redwine has shown himself to be a chronic, self-absorbed drunk, like all drunks. And he's violent to boot! I think he is completely capable of killing the poor child. I hope for the truth to come out!

Peter Hyatt said...


Your post reminded me of that "gleeful" look on his face.

He is a manipulator.


Anonymous said...

´´so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends that had been trying to text him or that he had been communicating with.´´

Reads so awquardly. If the friend had been ´trying´to text Dylan that means he didn´t succeed. So How would Dylan or Redwine know that someone was trying to text him? Lies.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous 1:56, excellent point. Good common sense. Choose a name!

This entry is an example of a story not fitting. It is not Statement Analysis, yet a good reminder to, after analysis, to "read the text" too!



Anonymous said...

The part where it switches to present tense almost exclusively is actions of searching the surrounding area of car, calling her phone, etc. Sorry for confusion, it was late.

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous said...

´´so I could drop him off in the Bayfield are with one of his friends that had been trying to text him or that he had been communicating with.´´

This does read jarringly, particularly text and communicating with.

Since text is a form of communication, why does he use two different terms?
What is the difference between the two in mark's mind?

Text are pretty much anonymous.
They purport to come from a specific individual but as they are written there is no way to verify the writer.
The recipient assumes they have come from who is claimed to have sent them.

Communication could be voice or cam.
It is much harder to pretend to be the alleged sender if you sound or look nothing like them.
Texts can be sent and delayed or not viewed immediately.
Peer to peer is instant, once the call is answered the conversation is instant.

Could it be that texts sent from Dylan's phone to friends arranging to meet up the next day were not actually sent by Dylan?

Could it be mark responded to any texts pretending to be Dylan?

Calls were not answered, perhaps with the excuse of no signal.

Would this explain the difference in mark's statement?

A change in language is a change in reality.

A text is anonymous,a passive message so to speak.
There is a delay which allows time to think of a reply.
The flow of information is interrupted,has pauses caused by time needed to receive , read and decide on a reply if any.

Communication is identity,It is personal.
You know who you are talking to, you hear their voice, their tone, their language. it is active, there is an immediate and constant flow of information.
There is instant action and reaction.

He could fool Dylan's friends with a text (perhaps), he could never have fooled them with a call.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:56,

Overcompensation, excuses for why he was really trying to wake him up. Dylan probably did not have plans to go see friends that morning. Rather, Mark wakes up hungover, angry he doesnt think Dylan wants to spend time with him (he didnt want to go to sit-down restaurant the night before.) Mark tries to wake him up to go on errands with him. Dylan "wasnt having it". I think that's when Mark killed him. Especially considering that would probably have been when Mark was thr most miserable was hungover 1st thing in morning.

Anonymous said...

Mark Redwine said "So there was a possibility but it doesn't surprise me he elected to not get up when I left. And when I left, he acknowledged everything I was saying to him and that I would be back."

Peter asked "Was Dylan dead at this point?"

Good question.
I dont think he was though, but I think Mark had beat him badly, and I think Mark was in denial of how badly he had hurt him. I think Dylan did "acknowledge" what he was saying perhaps with a groan or something from being badly beaten up.

The only possibility here brought to mind by the phrase "acknowledged" Id be back is that what if Mark had tied him and gagged him to prevent him from leaving to go be with his friends and Dylan nodded to acknowledge what Mark was saying about he's be back.
I think at this point in time in the story Dylan is either A) badly beaten ot B) tied and gagged and may have died as a result.

Anonymous said...

sorry it should say "other possibility ^^^^^

Anonymous said...

Mark's message to kidnapper:

A. Let him go. Drop him off at the closest police station. Take him to a Walmart.
Dump him off. If you have any compassion in your heart"

"Dump him off"
May reveal that Dylan was tied up and gagged before his death. The word "dump" can refer to a dead body but may also leak out that at some point Dylan was tied up hands, feet, not able to walk.

Mark says he "monitors" his son. One "monitors" a captive. It is different than "watch", "keep track off". May indicate Dylan was tied up/gagged before his death to prevent him from leaving. During that time, Mark "monitored" him.

Anonymous said...

Mark says, dispargingly of Dylan's mother

"I see her being more vocal." (than himself).

the word "vocal"
possibly he gagged Dylan, may have bern what killed him

Anonymous said...

Marks says of Dylan's Mom

"I was at the marshal's office taking care of this" and than about Dylan's mother he said, "that's when all hell broke loose with her"

"broke lose"

Was Dylan tied and gagged and prevent him from leaving?
He probably sees Dylan as extension of his mother.
He says of Elaine
--"more vocal"
--"hell BROKE LOOSE"

GeekRad said...

Mark Redwine is a disgusting excuse for a human being. There is no doubt in my mind that he killed Dylan. Another sad case of law enforcement giving up the fight.

Deejay said...

This dad fought with his son and then killed him.

I'm going to guess they fought over D having to come to Durango first. They argued that dad was late to the airport. They argued over McDonald's. D wanted to visit his friends, the dad definitely did not want him to. 'Monitoring' refers to the dad's sick control issues, probably read his son's cell phone messages.

D died in the house-maybe right after they got home. I think the dad got drunk and hit him hard. It was either an 'accident' where he hit him and he banged his head and died. Or the dad beat his son up, realized that he would be jailed, and strangled him to hide the evidence.

Then Dad had from 10 pm to 6 am in the DARK to take this poor kid in the truck- hike up a high mountain- and leave him. Then go about his alibi errands like nothing happened... Evil man.

Lis said...

We see too many cases where the DA will not bring a case even when guilt is obvious. It makes me think of this verse:

Proverbs 25:26
Like a trampled spring and a polluted well Is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

Anonymous said...

Can you do a write-up on how when Mark talks about his interactions with Dylan on Nov 18, 19, Dylan is a subject, passive, and MUTE? Nothing is said from Dylan's mouth. There is no "Dylan SAID."

And yet when Mark talks about Elaine, it's active - "she yelled, she screamed, she muttered, she's hollering, she SAID."

I mashed together pieces from interview transcripts of what Mark said occurred Nov 18, 19. Dylan is a subject and MUTE.
…..Dylan had acknowledged that he would be interested in doing…I think that it was a stressful time for Dylan..Dylan was out like a light…..some discussion he had with me ….. had been communicating with. he had indicated to me….. he acknowledged everything I was saying to him and that I would be back. He knew…. we had touched…. we talked….. we had talked a little bit…. we were just focusing on the next day and …..The only comment that he made to me that he was disappointed …..he was hurt by that – I could hear it in his voice. That bothered him…we had talked about a couple things … …‘cos he had made mention.. . he indicated to me that because he had been up ‘till 4:00 the night before ….. trying to get Dylan to wake up and, you know, and helping him… saying, you know, “Dylan, I’m going down,” ‘cos he had talked to me about going to see his friend, Ryan …that morning, but he wasn’t having no part of it……He acknowledged that he understood what I was saying. .…I won’t say that he’s happy. I think that there was uh…there was something on his mind, and, in many ways he was a little more distant . .that there was something going on with him, …….…he was perfectly fine, I mean he wasn’t necessarily acting abnormal by any means. ….and from there we had a conversation about getting something to eat. .. . we weren’t conversing … Dylan isn’t responding to any of that, so, you know, I’m hollering his name, I’m, you know, whistling, doing all the things that I would normally do when I’m trying to get him awake. . . trying to get his attention and I couldn’t get through to him, .… . We had talked about going to my brother’s house. … . he had indicated that night that he would have the ability to get to his friend’s house . I don’t at all find it odd that he was not waking up…..which is something Dylan had acknowledged that he would be interested in doing…..Well, obviously I think that it was a stressful time for Dylan because, you know, in September we were in a court hearing.

Anonymous said...

"That had been trying to text" In my opinion, Mark would only say this if he had read the text himself after Dylan was deceased!

A lot of the things Mark said in this interview had been said in an interview with Dylan's mother! I do believe Dylan's friends were an issue for Mark! However, calling them "important" to Dylan was also said by his Mom and I do believe Mark is watching her interviews and trying his best to appear a loving parent by mimicking her! The number of times he mentions how important Dylan's friends were to him is concerning! I have no idea what caused him to harm his son - I do believe he is guilty as sin - but one would think he expected Dylan to spend all of his time with him while visiting and that was an issue for the two! He wanted to be just as important to Dylan as his friends were.

I also believe Mark is jealous of the mother and I'm sorry but he doesn't seem the type that would filter himself & not bad mouth Dylan's mom in front of him! I can also see that leading to an argument between him and Dylan! He went on about Dylan being a peacemaker, saying what the other parent wanted to hear in this interview! ( the question was would Dylan just leave, take off walking and he started talking about him being a peacemaker between parents? I felt that odd) A) he was covering his own butt by saying Dylan says what the parents want to hear in case Dylan had told his mom disparaging things about him! And he gave me reason to believe he may have been pressing Dylan for information about his mom that he believed Dylan was lying about to protect her. I mean, he does say he called the divorce attorney over some papers...
So much information here.... So many obvious lies on Marks part!

Anonymous said...

Mark actually states in one of the interviews that Dylan's friends are important to "me". Dylan's friends were very important to Mark when he wanted everyone to believe that Dylan could have been hitch hiking. Dylan and a GROUP of his friends had hitch hiked ONCE from the library in Bayfield, Mark used that statement by one of Dylan's friends to portray Dylan as a known hitchhiker. That kept the search along the road and Lake long enough for the snows to close off where Dylan actually was on Middle Mountain. jmo

Anonymous said...

"I monitor what he does, where he's at. Its just me and him. There's not people coming and going in my life because everything I focus on is him and us being together and spending that time."

To me it seems that his reference to "not people coming and going in my life" is a slag against Dylan's mother....he often talked about her not paying enough attention to her son due to her career. And, she had a boyfriend, who Dylan now lived with. She let someone into Dylan's life...but Mark, by heck, didn't. (What a noble guy, isn't he?)

Anonymous said...

Mark Redwine arrested in connection to Dylan's death.