Mark Redwine's Pronouns

Statement Analysis rivals the best of polygraphy, as we rely upon the words one uses to discern truth versus deception.

Close to Thanksgiving, 2012, Dylan Redwine, 13, went on a court-ordered visit to his father's home, against his wishes and his mother's wishes.  Elaine Redwine did not want to send her son, but attempted to make the best of things in not violating a court order.

Her worst fears were realized when Dylan went "missing."

Statement Analysis of Mark Redwine's words revealed:

1.  Dylan Redwine is dead.
2.  Mark Redwine is deceptive specifically about Dylan going missing.

Statement Analysis of Elaine Redwine shows no guilty knowledge, nor deception, regarding the disappearance of her son.

Body language is often helpful, but a baseline of 'norm' is something critical to the analysis.  Nothing can get to the truth like the principles of Statement Analysis.  Words do not come from a vacuum, and changes in language come from somewhere, with emotion having the greatest impact upon language.

Personal, internal, subjective dictionary.
Instinctive Language

Everyone of us has a personal, internal, subjective dictionary.  For example, when one uses the word "boy", we may need either context to know its meaning, or follow up questions.  For one, a "boy" may be a newborn, yet for another, it was the "fighting boys" in the Gulf War, aged 18 to 21.

Instinctive Language is exempt from the personal, internal dictionary that is subjective.  These exemptions:

1.  Time.   Objective time on the clock.  6PM is 6PM is 6PM.
2.  Articles.  "The, a, an"...are articles and are instinctive.  "A man approached me to demand money.  The man took my wallet."   This shows "a" man, indicating, instinctively, that the man was not known, but once known, he became "the" man.
3.  Pronouns

Pronouns are the single greatest reliability to detecting deception and have a "life all their own" (see "The Secret Life of Pronouns" for further understanding) and best guide us.

When someone is alone, and says "we", the person is attempting to deceive us.  When someone claims to be alone, and slips out the instinctive word "we", the subject is calling us to attention.

Every parent of a 13 year old knows how quickly the plural pronoun "we" is employed when a child feels guilty, just as every Junior High teacher knows.  Humans like to say "but everyone was doing it" as if the plurality of trouble-making causes it to be acceptable.

"We're going to take the polygraph" said Mark Redwine, while alone, to the Dr. Phil polygrapher.

He had no intention of going through with it.

Search Dylan's case here in the blog for the specific words of Mark Redwine and see how the same principles used in his case have been used in every other case, including Casey Anthony, someone everyone accepts as a liar.  There is no change in principle.

Once it has been established that a subject is lying, people often dismiss the subject as irrelevant.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  On the Nancy Grace Show, guests routinely dismissed Casey Anthony's statements as useless.  Mike Brooks said, "I know that Casey Anthony is lying because her lips are moving" in a chuckle, making investigators' skin crawl.  This is the opposite of what an investigator does.  A trained investigator listens to the very words of a liar because the words come from a memory and it may be that the lying subject may give out valuable information, even within lies.  Two examples from the Casey Anthony case:

"George and I don't believe that Caylee's in the woods or anything..." shortly before she was found in the woods.

"In my heart, I know she's close" Casey said.

Caylee was close and she was in the woods.  Even in lies, truth is sometimes found.

Mark Redwine's statements are vital.


I did not see the original airing of part 2 of Mark Redwine, part 2.

As I am now watching the recording, here are some observations

First:

ex girlfriend:  only dated for 6 months and has 1 week experience with Dylan.  How dare she say anything to Elaine Redwine.

Dr Phil put her in her place.

Mark:  Likely Flunked his original polygraph; at least the direct questions.  When asked about it, his answer was to avoid and say, "there were some discrepancies..." (passivity noted)

Ex wife:  language showed signals of veracity in description of Domestic Violence.
Mark kidnapped previous kids.

She believes he could have harmed Dylan because  "he has a violent temper and snaps easily."

Mark enjoyed himself, especially when he inflicted pain upon Elaine.  Elaine was honest; signals of veracity consistently.  He loved the attention, even negative.

Nothing on the show signals anything but that Mark killed Dylan.

Note the interaction between Mark and his oldest son:

The oldest son is scared for Dylan and Mark, on national television, answered him by saying "you are being disrespectful..."

This is bad enough of a divergent from Dylan, but then Mark gave us what is needed:

"And I believe that what you are saying is coming right from your mother..."  (more on this in next article)

The son knows why Mark did this:  "...to hurt my mom. "

Raising money:  he went from "people" wanting raising money to "her"; they called "her"; singular.  He lies consistently.

Elaine:  reliable.