Authorities say forensic findings were only one part of a broader investigation into Christy Dunn’s disappearance and the conduct that followed it.
ANDERSON, S.C. — Human bones recovered from a burn pit, financial activity after a woman vanished and a trail of cellphone, surveillance and witness evidence are at the center of a murder case against a South Carolina man accused in the disappearance and death of his mother.
Justin Queen, 32, faces charges of murder and destruction of human remains in connection with 52-year-old Christy Dunn’s death. The Anderson County Sheriff’s Office says detectives concluded that Dunn was assaulted inside her home and that her body was later taken to a burn pit on the property. Investigators believe remains found there belong to Dunn, although reports following the arrest said material had been submitted to a Texas laboratory for DNA testing. Authorities have not disclosed a motive or the full evidence prosecutors may eventually present in court.
The physical evidence emerged early enough in the investigation to make the length of the case notable. Multiple local reports based on the sheriff’s office account say investigators searched Dunn’s property in July 2025, within weeks of her disappearance. The search brought together sheriff’s detectives, forensic personnel, the Anderson County Coroner’s Office and a forensic anthropologist from Clemson University. What appeared to be human bone was found in a burn pit, and another search warrant later led to the recovery of additional remains. The anthropologist confirmed that the recovered material was human, authorities said.
Investigators did not immediately announce a homicide charge after making that discovery. Instead, the case continued as detectives worked to determine whose remains had been found and how the physical evidence connected with Dunn’s disappearance. The remains were submitted for additional DNA testing, while detectives built a separate evidentiary record from documents, digital information and interviews. Authorities ultimately said the totality of what they gathered led them to believe the burned remains were Dunn’s, but the public reports reviewed through Oct. 17 did not show a later announcement of final DNA confirmation.
The location of the remains was especially significant because Dunn had vanished from the same property. Her employer contacted the sheriff’s office on June 27, 2025, after Dunn had not been seen for roughly a week. Deputies responded to her home but could not find her. Investigators said her vehicle and personal belongings remained there. Queen and his son, who was Dunn’s grandson, were living with Dunn at the time, placing the subsequent investigation inside a household where detectives could compare the missing woman’s normal possessions and financial activity with what happened after she was gone.
One of those comparisons involved Dunn’s car. The sheriff’s office said detectives determined the vehicle was moved only when Queen drove it. Another involved Dunn’s debit card, which authorities said continued to be used after she was reported missing. Officials have not publicly released a transaction-by-transaction account showing where the card was used, who made each purchase or how those records would be presented in court. Those limits matter because the continued use of property can form part of an investigation without, by itself, proving who caused a person’s death.
Detectives widened the inquiry beyond the home and financial records. According to the sheriff’s office, they reviewed cellphone records, surveillance footage and other evidence. They also interviewed witnesses who said Queen had previously been seen in the woods with Dunn. Publicly available accounts do not explain when the reported sightings occurred, what the witnesses observed beyond the two being together or how those statements fit the prosecution’s eventual timeline. Investigators nevertheless cited those accounts as part of the evidence they assembled before seeking arrest warrants.
The sheriff’s office says the investigation eventually allowed detectives to reconstruct a broad sequence: an assault occurred inside Dunn’s residence, and her body was then taken to the burn pit. Authorities have not described the alleged assault in detail, disclosed a suspected weapon or said exactly when they believe Dunn died. The absence of those public details prevents a complete reconstruction of the prosecution’s theory. It also underscores that the case is still at the accusation stage, when law enforcement can describe probable cause without revealing every fact that could later appear in filings, hearings or trial testimony.
The evidence was submitted to the 10th Circuit Solicitor’s Office for review. According to the sheriff’s office, prosecutors determined that sufficient probable cause existed to pursue charges against Queen. That review produced one count of murder and one count of destruction of human remains. The decision established that authorities believed they had enough evidence to charge Queen; it did not resolve disputed facts or establish guilt. Those questions remain for the courts, where the government carries the burden of proving each charged offense.
By the time the homicide warrants were approved, Queen was already in state custody. He was being held at Kirkland Correctional Institution in Columbia on a separate child-neglect matter. Law&Crime reported, citing prison records, that Queen had begun serving that sentence two days after the June 27 welfare check. The timing meant that much of the homicide inquiry unfolded while he was incarcerated in an unrelated case. Authorities served the new warrants at Kirkland on Aug. 27, 2026, then transferred him to the Anderson County Detention Center.
The two new charges received different treatment at Queen’s first appearance. FOX Carolina reported that he was denied bond on the murder charge, while a $10,000 surety bond was set on the charge involving destruction of human remains. Because he remained held on the murder count, the separate surety bond did not mean he could leave custody simply by satisfying the conditions attached to the second charge. No conviction has been entered in the homicide case, and the reviewed reports did not identify a trial date.
The forensic evidence also exposes a discrepancy in early media coverage. Law&Crime reported that the bones were found in July 2026. Anderson-area outlets, including FOX Carolina, WSPA and the Anderson Independent Mail, consistently reported that the search occurred in July 2025 and described it as part of the 14-month investigation that preceded Queen’s August 2026 arrest. Because those local reports rely directly on the sheriff’s office chronology and include the participating forensic agencies, the July 2025 date is used here.
What remains unknown may become as important as what authorities have already disclosed. No motive has been announced. Officials have not publicly detailed the alleged assault, released a complete timeline of Dunn’s final known movements or announced in the reviewed material that DNA testing conclusively identified the remains as hers. The sheriff’s office has said the investigation is continuing. Until those questions are addressed through further official releases or court proceedings, Queen remains charged on the basis of probable cause and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Author note: Last updated Oct. 17, 2026.