{"id":45825,"date":"2021-07-09T21:53:00","date_gmt":"2021-07-10T03:53:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/defense-expert-offers-differing-views-about-skull-wounds-in-redwine-case\/"},"modified":"2026-03-31T03:27:36","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T09:27:36","slug":"defense-expert-offers-differing-views-about-skull-wounds-in-redwine-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/defense-expert-offers-differing-views-about-skull-wounds-in-redwine-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Defense expert offers differing views about skull wounds in Redwine case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"Bruce
Bruce Anderson, a forensic anthropologist, uses a cast model of a skull to describe how animals can leave marks while scavenging as he testifies Friday during the trial for Mark Redwine, who is charged with second-degree murder and child abuse resulting in the death of his son, Dylan Redwine. (Jerry McBride\/Durango Herald)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

On the first day of direct questioning by the defense team in the trial for Mark Redwine, a forensic anthropologist presented a radically different assessment of Dylan Redwine\u2019s remains than previous expert witnesses.<\/p>\n

Contrary to past testimony brought forward by the prosecution, forensic anthropologist Bruce Anderson said a puncture mark on the zygomatic arch, which forms the cheek area of the skull, could have been caused by a wild animal close to the time of death or months after death.<\/p>\n

Anderson also said the skull fracture previously deemed a result of blunt force trauma could have happened \u201cdays or weeks\u201d after death. A coyote could have caused the damage, as well, Anderson told jurors.<\/p>\n

The testimony comes after prosecutors presented nearly three weeks of testimony from family, expert witnesses and wildlife specialists.<\/p>\n

Forensic anthropologist Diane France and forensic pathologist Robert Kurtzman previously said the mark on the zygomatic arch was most likely caused by a sharp tool, not from animal activity.<\/p>\n

Previous experts told jurors that animal marks appear as U-shaped on bones, while tools or sharp objects appear as V-shaped. Anderson told the court that\u2019s not always the case. For example, the sharp incisors of a coyote or a claw can create a V-shape on the bone, he said.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s going to be some gray area,\u201d Anderson testified. The marks on Dylan\u2019s skull appeared blunt, not sharp, he said.<\/p>\n

But Anderson said he couldn\u2019t determine, without a doubt, that a tool didn\u2019t cause the puncture mark on the zygomatic arch.<\/p>\n

\"Bruce
Bruce Anderson, a forensic anthropologist, testifies about the marks on Dylan Redwine\u2019s skull Friday during the trial for Mark Redwine. (Jerry McBride\/Durango Herald)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

Redwine is charged with second-degree murder and child abuse resulting in the death of his son, Dylan.<\/p>\n

Defense attorneys argue it\u2019s possible Redwine\u2019s 13-year-old son was attacked and killed by a bear or mountain lion in the mountains surrounding the father\u2019s home north of Vallecito Reservoir, 21 miles northeast of Durango.<\/p>\n

Redwine has pleaded not guilty.<\/p>\n

\"Mark
Mark Redwine listens to Bruce Anderson, a forensic anthropologist, as he testifies Friday during Redwine\u2019s homicide trial. (Jerry McBride\/Durango Herald)<\/span>cca<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

In the cross-examination, Anderson said he used an eight-power magnifying glass to assess the remains. But usually, in his lab, he uses a 40-power magnifying glass or a 100-power dissection microscope. Anderson told jurors the magnification used was \u201cenough.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some of Dylan\u2019s finger and toe bones were found in animal feces, which suggests a coyote consumed the remains, Anderson said.<\/p>\n

Some of Dylan\u2019s remains and belongings were found in June 2013, months after the boy first went missing in November 2012. Dylan\u2019s skull was later found in November 2015 by off-trail hikers more than 5 miles from the site of the initial remains.<\/p>\n

Anderson testified the longer a body remains in the wilderness, the more likely it is for remains to become separated.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe more likely critters will get to it, and the more likely different bones will be separated from one another,\u201d he told the court.<\/p>\n

But Anderson\u2019s experience in forensic anthropology is in desert regions, not mountainous and rugged terrain. When asked by the prosecution if he is familiar with the area, Anderson replied: \u201cI am not.\u201d<\/p>\n

When asked by the prosecution if Dylan\u2019s shoe and sock were consistent with animal scavenging, Anderson refused to answer.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m not gonna do that, counselor; I\u2019m not an expert in this,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\n