jmo and I realize that y'all are discussing specifically the interview, but IMO the weight of importance is not just on one issue(ie. the interview, or how he chose to answer questions).. its looking at all the various issues..
of course there can be a legitimate excuse or reason for why or how someone chose to speak.. there are legitimate reasons for "irregularities" that vary from person to person..
its when issue, after issue is in need of an explanation ...when issue, after issue is problematic and does not add up that it becomes apparent that there is more to it .. IMO it is illogical for there to be necessary explanation and excuse time after time where Mark Redwine and his son's "disappearance" are concerned.jmo, tho and sorry that it veers slightly away from the specific discussion of the interview.
Yes, I agree. I am not saying it is just his words or mannerisms but I am saying that when you add those to everything else, including how he answered questions, it looks very suspicious to me and apparently to a lot of other folks too, so
Off the top of my head:
Phone and all other
communication activity
from Dylan comes to an
abrupt halt no later than 9:37 or 9:27, Sunday night;
Dad has
attorney appointment day after Dylan comes in;
Dad claims trying to reach him all morning but doesn't try
land line (as far as we know)
Dylan never answers him, MR comes home, and Dylan along with all of his belongings are gone, but he
TAKES A KNAP;
<modsnip>;
<modsnip>;
Dad
stays away from public and <modsnip> instead of taking an active role in finding his son;
There seems to be
no sense of urgency in finding Dylan;
Now, adding his choice of words in answer to specific questions:
"
that boy meant the world to me" (
distancing and
past tense)
"...
dump him off at Walmart" (an alive person isn't dumped...trash is dumped, bodies are dumped)
"...I was trying to
rouse him...wake him up....45 minutes"
he changes back and forth from
past tense to present tense when
talking about the same event. Talking in the present tense about a past event often happens when someone is making up part of the story. There cannot be present tense when talking about a past event.
He has changed (not just added) significant details of his story.
Dad can give a pretty sensible and detailed report of what happened up until a certain point and then it gets fuzzy and he is all over the place:
they are tired but he is
pacing, and he
RAN upstairs to bed, and instead of Dylan telling him plans or them talking about plans together he says "there was
some discussion" , "Dylan
indicated" not said, just to name a few weird words. They are vague and distant words which are often used in telling lies without telling direct lies.
And I could go on, but for me it is a combination of all of that, and to answer TXLADY:
a solid reliable answer to "did you have anything to do with Dylan's disappearance?" would be "No, I did not kidnap my son, Dylan and I did not kill my son Dylan" because it is a direct statement. You are owning what you say when you use the pronoun "I" and you are specifically naming what you did not do and by saying my son and his name, you are showing closeness to him.
