CO - Dylan Redwine - Forensics Discussion- *WARNING!* MAY INCLUDE GRAPHIC DETAILS

[Mitsana]

Wouldn't surprise me if he had tucked the shoestrings into his shirt pocket.

Shorts pocket. Shorts pocket! Brain fart there.

If they were just in the pocket, they could easily fall out and be found separately.

I know some kids wear their shoes without laces (don't get me started on idiotic fashion statements) but at least in the airport photo, Dylan appeared to wear his laced.

I also think that something hinkey with the laces could easily lead LE to conclude homicide.

It seems unlikely to me that there would be significant evidence on a femur (who would strike someone in the upper leg? It's also the last place you'd try to dismember someone) or phalange (seems like a long shot that anything would show up on the one finger bone that happened to be found). The clavicle/scapula would be a better possibility, but again a bit of a long shot.

So, I suspect the laces are the source of LE's certainty that the case is a homicide, possibly because they are knotted.

 

[Mitsana]

I guess one big clue for LE as to this not being an accident would be the absence of the backpack? I wouldn't expect animals to carry that, or the electronics, away even if they took clothing. Yet they seem sure they won't find those items.

That's a good point. But I guess if I were LE I wouldn't consider it conclusive.

For example, one could imagine a hiker carrying a heavy pack hearing coyote tracking him, getting nervous, ditching the pack, and making headway, perhaps miles, before being attacked. So I personally wouldn't consider a missing pack as conclusive evidence of homicide as the presence of actual evidence (trauma to bones or knotted ligatures).

I also find it pretty odd that they seem certain they won't find more in the area.

 

[deca]

Might be something there that they have not disclosed-- duct tape, tarp, weapon, etc. but my guess is that the shoelaces were knotted in a way to suggest restraints or "carrying" handles.

 

[margarita25]

This is horrible, but I wonder how old the coyote feces were where the bone was supposedly found. Anything like this is important in ruling out the possibility that the body might have been later moved by the perp to this location, etc.

<I can't believe I just typed that >

 

[jjenny]

I think I know the answer to this but someone may know better than me. Given what was found ...... will there be any way to determine if it's been in that location since Nov 19? If , for example, he was taken up a month later would there be anyway to tell the difference between 6 months vs 7 months exposed to the elements? TIA !

Very unlikely.

 

[jjenny]

IF there turns out to be evidence of dismemberment, then I would lean more towards an RSO than MR.

In all likelihood, the body was dismembered by wild animals, and not humans.

 

[MrsPC]

I'd wager that there was probably some sort of bedding or cover (like a tarp) also found with Dylan's remains, because *if* Dylan actually made it to his father's that night after arriving, and *if* MR is responsible for his death, I sincerely doubt that MR would have carried Dylan out of his home uncovered.

 

[Salem]

If your post disappears, it is because this is the Forensics thread - not the discussion thread. We need to keep this thread on topic, please.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[SCHMAE]

Can any poison or drug penetrate bone ? Would there be any way to test for that? I have a feeling the answer is no, but I'm not sure. tia

 

[Mitsana]

A few people have mentioned surprise/concern that the skull wasn't found. I saw this in a google book extract (Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, section on carnivore scavenged remains)...

"Crania are found for nearly all canid-scavenged remains. They are usually undamaged except for canid punctures... [other minor damage]" (p 374)

This includes stage 4 disarticulation, the final phase (98% recovery).

Femurs are only found in about 61% of phase 4 recovered remains (from a chart on p 376).

 

[*Lash*]

I think it is a rather odd that LE stated they found all they were going to find (not verbatim). In my opinion, an odd statement with the skull missing and his shoes. I tend to believe LE is not telling us everything that was found. Kind of a duh statement, but maybe I am hoping they found more than they have disclosed.

 

[Mitsana]

I think it is a rather odd that LE stated they found all they were going to find (not verbatim). In my opinion, an odd statement with the skull missing and his shoes. I tend to believe LE is not telling us everything that was found. Kind of a duh statement, but maybe I am hoping they found more than they have disclosed.

I am having second thoughts about the missing crania (assuming that it wasn't found already and being withheld). I saw a video of the location the remains were found. It's amazingly steep. The searchers were almost rappelling down to it. Something like a crania would almost certainly roll away downhill, possibly far from the rest of the remains.

Of course that doesn't mean that searchers shouldn't look for it and it doesn't explain the missing shoes.

 

[katydid23]

I think it is a rather odd that LE stated they found all they were going to find (not verbatim). In my opinion, an odd statement with the skull missing and his shoes. I tend to believe LE is not telling us everything that was found. Kind of a duh statement, but maybe I am hoping they found more than they have disclosed.

I agree. If they really did find only 2%, it seems odd that they would stop searching already. I wonder if they have more than they said they have.

 

[Elley Mae]

I have not kept up on these new findings, been busy. Am I reading correctly that all that is being said is that 2 % has been found and definitely it is Dylan. And then I am seeing the mention of animal feces and that LE does not expect to find any more evidence in that area. Is this all correct? TIA

 

[katydid23]

I have not kept up on these new findings, been busy. Am I reading correctly that all that is being said is that 2 % has been found and definitely it is Dylan. And then I am seeing the mention of animal feces and that LE does not expect to find any more evidence in that area. Is this all correct? TIA

We don't know if it is correct, because it is all coming from Mark redwine's mouth. Is he telling the truth? AND did LE tell him the whole truth?

I am not sure how accurate the info is. I am sure it is Dylan, but am not sure that only 2% has been recovered. Would they really stop searching at only 2% recovery?

 

[Elley Mae]

We don't know if it is correct, because it is all coming from Mark redwine's mouth. Is he telling the truth? AND did LE tell him the whole truth?

I am not sure how accurate the info is. I am sure it is Dylan, but am not sure that only 2% has been recovered. Would they really stop searching at only 2% recovery?

With that information it makes me wonder if what was found was animal feces and that is why there is no sense in searching the area further. Not saying this is true, but if by chance that is what was found it would make sense that searching that area further would probably be fruitless.

I did forget to ask about the shoelaces, what is up with that, were shoelaces found as well? TIA

 

[caffeinejean]

Dylan Redwine's father talks about his son


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN23Zrd77tA"]Dylan Redwine's father talks about his son - YouTube[/ame]


Posting this here, as a forensic anthropologist is interviewed in this clip, as it relates to the discovery of the bones.

 

[Tink56]

I am having second thoughts about the missing crania (assuming that it wasn't found already and being withheld). I saw a video of the location the remains were found. It's amazingly steep. The searchers were almost rappelling down to it. Something like a crania would almost certainly roll away downhill, possibly far from the rest of the remains.

Of course that doesn't mean that searchers shouldn't look for it and it doesn't explain the missing shoes.

BBM Unfortunately many forms of wildlife WILL eat clothing and/or shoes, especially leather. Think of the puppies and other older dogs who often make a trip to the vet's after consuming socks, shoes, furniture, etc.

) :

 

[*Lash*]

BBM Unfortunately many forms of wildlife WILL eat clothing and/or shoes, especially leather. Think of the puppies and other older dogs who often make a trip to the vet's after consuming socks, shoes, furniture, etc.

) :

Using a dog as an example, if the item is not removed surgically it later appears in the dogs feces. I'm assuming this would be the same for a wild animal. If the search team was able to find a phalange in coyote feces, I would expect the same from a piece of shoe that may have been eaten. I guess we have to take in consideration how far an animal would travel from the crime scene. Do coyotes have dens? Maybe the search team located an area that is/was frequented by coyotes.

*I really didn't like typing the above*

 

[Tink56]

Using a dog as an example, if the item is not removed surgically it later appears in the dogs feces. I'm assuming this would be the same for a wild animal. If the search team was able to find a phalange in coyote feces, I would expect the same from a piece of shoe that may have been eaten. I guess we have to take in consideration how far an animal would travel from the crime scene. Do coyotes have dens? Maybe the search team located an area that is/was frequented by coyotes.

*I really didn't like typing the above*

A little bit about the coyote...
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/species_a_to_z/SpeciesGuideIndex/coyote/tabid/6598/Default.aspx
Migration Patterns: Year-round resident; juveniles will break from the family unit and establish their own territory anywhere from 10 to 100 miles away.

The area probably also has bear, mountain lions, wolves....and certainly the smaller scavengers...birds, mice and rats, etc....

The search for further remains would be unfathomable, IMO...MOO