Something doesn’t make sense about the reporting on authorities’ decision to file charges against Mark Redwine in connection with the death of his son Dylan nearly five years ago.
Denver news sources reported last Saturday that Redwine had been arrested in Washington State and faced charges of 2nd degree murder and child abuse resulting in death. On Sunday, Denver’s Fox affiliate KDVR featured the comments of former FBI criminal profiler Pete Klismet. The La Plata County Sheriff’s office reportedly asked Klismet to review their case file to see where the evidence pointed. It was an extensive undertaking.
“I said don’t give me any hints on who I am supposed to be looking for. I want to look at this in an unbiased manner,” Klismet said.
He spent months combing through evidence and reports.“You name it, I looked at it,” Klismet said.The behavioral scientist also studied Mark Redwine’s behavior, including his appearance on the “Dr. Phil Show” in which Mark Redwine refused to take a lie detector test.“In looking at the reports, the things Mark was saying didn’t seem to mix well with everything else,” Klismet said.Klismet said he explored different options, but continued to come back to the same answer.
“I came to an inescapable conclusion. It had to be Mark,” Klismet said.
But this is puzzling. Profilers are commonly understood to help police try to identify the type of suspect they might be looking for. In this instance, Mark Redwine had long been declared “a person of interest” and police had ample reason to suspect Rewine. What could a profiler add to their files of evidence? Dylan had been with his father on a court-ordered visit. He disappeared. Redwine claimed he had been out running errands and a stranger snatched his son. But, Denver’s KMGH channel 7 reported the physical evidence against Redwine appeared daunting:
As they searched for evidence into the disappearance and death of the teenage boy, investigators found his blood in multiple locations inside his father’s home, including a couch, the corner of a coffee table, on the floor beneath a rug and on a love seat.
During another search, on Aug. 5, 2013, a K9 was introduced into the suspect’s home to find more clues into the boy’s death. The dog was able to sniff out the scent of a cadaver in various locations of Mark’s home, including the living room and the washing machine, as well as on the clothes Mark wore the night Dylan disappeared, the indictment shows.
On Feb. 13, 2014, another search with the K9 was conducted at Mark’s home, which pointed to the scent of a cadaver on Mark Redwine’s Dodge pick-up truck, including the bed of the truck.
Whether or not a trained dog’s indications are reliable or admissible, the investigators found Dylan’s blood throughout the house! A child is missing. He was in the custody of his father. His blood is found in multiple places throughout his father’s house.
What could have caused authorities not to file charges based on that evidence? What can a profiler tell them now that buttresses the ample evidence they already possessed? What evidence and arguments do they think they can present to a jury that they did not already have four years ago?
Something doesn’t make sense. This tragic case will be interesting to follow.