Discussion in 'Trials' started by Niner, Jun 25, 2021.
If I could wish for anything during this whole trial, it would be a camera feed devoted solely to MR's face during testimony.
Not much from Betsy Horvath. Single statement made 30 years ago. Really not a surprise since she didn't keep in contact with MR after their divorce in 1990. JMO
She has a lot to say---but the defense shut her down. She was a victim of his Domestic Violence, and she always believed, from the start, that Mark killed Dylan.
She took her boys out of state years ago, to protect them from her angry, drunken ex.
She has a lot to say but she was muzzled by the court.
True, because she was clipped by defense.
However, this was interesting from her.
This is what she couldn't say:
"A previous wife of Mark Redwine's, Betsy Horvath, told investigators shortly after Dylan's disappearance that she was concerned Redwine might have hurt the boy. She said that during her and Redwine's own divorce and custody proceedings over their children he told her he would 'kill the kids before he let her have them.'"
Grim details revealed as father is charged with murdering his 13-year-old son
Exactly right. It's not going to matter though. The jury has already made up their minds (IMO).
Betsy was not stopped by the defense. She had nothing more to say that was relevant to Dylan's murder. If she had anything to add that was allowed by law the judge would have let her testify to it. JMO
Dylan’s atm card was the only card issued on that account that was in both their names.
MR got rid of all of Dylan’s things…but kept his card that LE found in a wallet in luggage in his truck.
Hope the jury is seeing this!
Sept 3, 2012 card was attempted to be activated 2X, but failed. Then again on 9/16 2012
I disagree. I think it is relevant that he threatened to kill his older sons during their contentious divorce.
But legally, it is harder to get that statement admitted in a murder trial. That doesn't mean it isn't relevant, IMO, but it does mean it is legally contentious.
Catching up and not seen this mentioned today: an important note before the Jury brought in this morning was a discussion that Dylan's actual skull is NOT being used in the courtroom (out of respect to the family).
Prosecutor stated the expert witnesses would be using a model or cast skull. Also noted that a different skull demonstrative of similar skull injury (to Dylan) would be used -- this was objected to by defense but Judge agreed the expert witness could use whatever for demonstrative purposes.
Who was trying to use that ATM card of Dylan's in Sept of 2012? It was never activated. Was it Dylan trying to use it?
If he's convicted, maybe they'll allow her testimony during the sentencing phase.
Why didn't the prosecution have her testify about that?
My guess is it shows that while Mark threatened to kill his older son's if Betsy obtained custody he didn't do it. All talk no action.
It helps the defense more than the prosecution IMO.
Judge is getting impatient with the prosecutions amount of time on this witness.
He needs to release the jury at 5:00…it may be some jurors have kids to pick up or something like that.
I've got to disagree, Ranch.
I can't imagine it ever helping the defense if the jury heard that he threatened to kill his sons.
What kind of a father makes a threat like that? I cannot imagine my husband ever saying that about our kids. EVER. He would die for them.
So this 'all talk and no action' excuse makes no sense to me because WHO talks that way about their children? Only a sick cruel narcissist, would say something like that, IMO
I bet the prosecution was trying hard to get that in, but judge denied it.
I don’t know, I missed that.
It was something about a debit card issued to Dylan, from an account shared with Mark.
And Dylan, I believe, tried to use it a few times, but it had never been activated. But I believe Mark sent it to him, telling him he could use it. And there was 2k in the account.
After Dylan passed, Mark withdrew the cash. Apparently.
She is going back to finish testimony tomorrow, so I hope it is clarified then.
I found it interesting that the defense was fighting so hard to get testimony in about Mark’s emotional state after the remains were found. He basically said that since the prosecution brought up Brandon’s interpretation of Mark’s emotional state based on conversations they had when Dylan went missing (they only referenced a few conversations before the remains were found) that it should open up questions to Brandon about ALL conversations with Mark, even after they were found. It makes me think that Mark showed no distress or concern about Dylan’s welfare until his remains were found. Only then, not knowing what evidence the remains may show, did he play the grieving father. I would sure love to listen to those recordings Brandon did.