PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Prosecutors have said Mark Redwine killed Dylan in a fit of rage over sordid photographs. Expert witnesses brought by prosecutors earlier in the trial testified that several factors made it highly unlikely that Dylan was killed by an animal, and that fractures found in his skull appeared to have been made by a knife or sharp tool. The prosecution rested its case Thursday afternoon."
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "The 13-year-old was reported missing on Nov. 19, 2012, and his disappearance prompted an extensive search and drew national attention. Dylan’s remains were not found until 2013 and 2014. The first set of remains were discovered about eight miles from Redwine’s home."
STORY: "Father's defence opens with expert pointing to potential wildlife role in in 13-year-old son's death," by Reporter Sam Tabachnik, published by The Denver Post on July 12, 2021. (Thanks to Dr. Michael Bowers of CSIDDS: Forensics and Law in focus' for bringing this trial to our attention. Much appreciated. HL);
SUB-HEADING: "Father is accused of killing his 13-year-old son in La Plata County in 2012."
GIST: "The damage on Dylan Redwine’s skull could have been made by a coyote’s teeth or claws and the boy’s head could have been carried for miles by the scavenger, a forensic anthropologist testified Friday morning in a Durango courtroom.
The expert testimony came as attorneys opened their defense in the murder trial of Mark Redwine, who is accused of killing Dylan, his 13-year-old son, in 2012.
The testimony from Bruce Anderson, an Arizona forensic anthropologist, in La Plata County Court showcased the defense’s central argument in the case: that Dylan’s death can be attributed to an animal, not a person, as a previous expert witness posited earlier in the trial.
Dylan’s death was ruled a homicide by the La Plata County coroner, but the cause of death was not determined.
Friday morning’s testimony centered on marks made in Dylan’s skull, which was found 1.5 miles from the rest of his remains.
Anderson testified that coyote teeth can be sharper than a dull knife, and could be responsible for the small bit of broken bone in the boy’s skull. He added that coyotes have always been known to carry human remains miles away.
Prosecutors have said Mark Redwine killed Dylan in a fit of rage over sordid photographs. Expert witnesses brought by prosecutors earlier in the trial testified that several factors made it highly unlikely that Dylan was killed by an animal, and that fractures found in his skull appeared to have been made by a knife or sharp tool.
The prosecution rested its case Thursday afternoon.
Redwine’s attorneys attempted to call an expert witness to begin their defense Friday morning, but a judge ruled that the witness should not take the stand until he could evaluate an objection from the prosecution.
Friday’s testimony came after nearly three weeks of prosecution testimony delving into Dylan Redwine’s death.
The 13-year-old was reported missing on Nov. 19, 2012, and his disappearance prompted an extensive search and drew national attention. Dylan’s remains were not found until 2013 and 2014.
The first set of remains were discovered about eight miles from Redwine’s home."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/07/12/mark-redwine-trial-dylan-redwine-defense/
------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S: When I first learned about the 'Redwine' case, I immediately thought of two cases in which the defence claimed the fatal injuries had in fact, been inflicted by animals - both of which I followed closely cover the years.
The first case: (Commonly referred to was the 'Dingo' case): Wikipedia: "Alice Lynne "Lindy" Chamberlain-Creighton (née Murchison; born 4 March 1948) is a New Zealand-born woman who was wrongfully convicted in one of Australia's most publicised murder trials. Accused of killing her nine-week-old daughter, Azaria, while camping at Uluru in 1980, she maintained that she saw a dingo leave the tent where Azaria was sleeping. The prosecution case was circumstantial and depended on forensic evidence. Chamberlain was convicted on 29 October 1982, and her appeals to the Federal Court of Australia, and High Court of Australia, were dismissed. On 7 February 1986, after the discovery of new evidence, Chamberlain was released from prison on remission. She and her husband Michael Chamberlain, co-accused, were officially pardoned in 1987, and their convictions were quashed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 1988. In 1992, the Australian government paid Chamberlain $1.3 million in compensation. In 2012, a fourth coroner's inquest found that Azaria died "as a result of being attacked and taken by a dingo".
The second case: (A Charles Smith case): Louise Reynolds: A 'Backgrounder' from a post published by this Blog: "The prosecution of Louise Reynolds for the second-degree murder of her seven-year-old daughter Sharon, was Canada's very own "Dingo" case, and involved none other than Dr. Charles Smith. Smith stubbornly held on to his opinion that Sharon had died after receiving eighty-one knife and scissors wounds - in spite of the clear signs - that should have been evident to a real forensic pathologist that Sharon had been savaged by a Pit Bull in the basement of the family home. As Justice Stephen Goudge noted in the report of his public inquiry, Smith tended "to mislead the court" by overstating his knowledge in a particular area, rather than acknowledging the limits to his expertise. "When Dr. Smith performed the post-mortem examination in Sharon's cases, he had little experience with either stab wounds or dog bites. He had only seen one or two cases of each kind. At the preliminary hearing, however, Dr. Smith left the impression that he had significant experience with both. Dr. Smith told the court: "I've seen dog wounds, I've seen coyote wounds, I've seen wolf wounds. I recently went to the archipelago of islands owned by another country up near the North Pole and had occasion to study osteology and look at patterns of wounding from polar bears. His attempt to so exaggerate his abilities disguised his lack of relevant expertise." Smith's unscientific, utterly ignorant opinion, placed Louise Reynolds in a hell in which she was wrongly arrested as a murderer in her small city, imprisoned, and experiencing the horror of having her other children seized from her by the authorities. Similarly, Lindy Chamberlain, a bereaved mother, was branded as a killer and placed in her own hell, as a result of the Crown's forensic authorities who were oh so certain about their faulty opinions."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
