GA GA - Shirley, 87, & Russell Dermond, 88, Putnam County, 2 May 2014 - # 3

[tomkat]

Do we know if the Dermond's had a boat? I am wondering if they weren't sitting out on the boat dock, or a screened in back porch- enjoying the view/weather.

Boat docks have water run to them, to rinse the motor. A boat and dock are also easy to hose down.

I believe the Dermonds sold their boat 2 years ago

 

[tomkat]

while searching something else, this came to my attention SO some say it doesnt' exist here, welll, apparently.............a case in orlando, probably many more,

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cover-20130217_1_cartels-los-zetas-drug-money

 

[Solitaryone]

and that may be messy, unlike if they knew them, they could lure and no one would suspect a thing I s'pose

The more we rule out things, there won't be much left to rule IN

the beheading keeps coming back in to the picture no matter WHAT scenario we play out, that is the key factor IMO

I believe the killer knew the Dermond's very well. Well enough to know he could lure them out of their house. The beheading was probably part of the plan to make it look like something it wasn't. And whoever did this probably had a lot of rage toward Mr. Dermond especially. I have a feeling there will be an arrest very soon.

 

[momrids6]

DID YOU!? WE've rented them in FL but not very comfortable ! haha thought of investing in one though several times

Nothing like cruising "on the pOntooon,..........

but sadly for now, the lake is losing some of it's appeal

Oh no... you usually cruise on that lake? I completely understand how that has lost it's appeal. Maybe move over to Sinclair?

( I'm jealous... I would love a pontoon! )

 

[Backwoods]

I believe the killer knew the Dermond's very well. Well enough to know he could lure them out of their house. The beheading was probably part of the plan to make it look like something it wasn't. And whoever did this probably had a lot of rage toward Mr. Dermond especially. I have a feeling there will be an arrest very soon.

You think, like, a long-standing rage? Who in the world? (Not saying there is not such a person, just that we here have had no real clue of who it might be. If there is, I hope LE is figuring it out.)

The beheading being staging, more or less, yes, I could buy that theory.

I've been feeling an arrest is coming, too -- but was thinking maybe it is just wishful thinking.

 

[Rhyolite]

Anybody know what type of vehicles the Dermonds owned?

Just trying to think of scenarios -- because I am really stumped, basically -- and wondering if maybe someone got into the garage and was trying to steal a vehicle? The Dermonds could have discovered the would-be thief; maybe Mr. D. was staying there "guarding" the thief somehow, while Shirley went inside to call security or 911. Thief panicked, killed Mr. D., then went after Shirley.

Of course this does NOT explain the truly baffling aspects of this case -- the beheading, leaving one (though headless) body and taking another away. And how would my "thief" get a boat ...? Arrghhh. Sorry.:banghead:

ETA: Well ... thinking further ... I guess he, if local, could have stashed Shirley, hidden, near the water, then procured a boat somehow elsewhere and come back and picked up her body...

Exactly, why take the head? There is absolutely no logical motive to take the head. And if the perpetrator wants heads for some sick reason, why not take both victims heads. There really is no logical reason for any of this bizarre case. It is all a red herring.

 

[Backwoods]

But one thing: IF -- and I know we don't know for sure -- both Dermonds died from having someone bash them in the head with something -- it sounds as if it might be an impulsive thing. Maybe not planned. That's why I was thinking maybe they surprised someone up to no good. Thinking MAYBE the perp did not come to murder.

I guess head-bashing could fit with someone (with a long-standing rage) getting reminded somehow (while not "on site") of whatever horrible thing he felt the Dermonds (or one of them) had done or represented or whatever --and just thinking, "I'm gonna charge over there RIGHT NOW and ...!" That would have to be some kind of extremely rageful, impulsive person. (Drugs in the mix, maybe?)

But then -- thinking to use beheading as a smokescreen -- that seems pretty cool-headed -- something someone might plan in advance.

Just thinking "out loud" here, folks, don't mind me...

 

[gngr~snap]

Exactly, why take the head? There is absolutely no logical motive to take the head. And if the perpetrator wants heads for some sick reason, why not take both victims heads. There really is no logical reason for any of this bizarre case. It is all a red herring.

Taking the wife kept LE searching/busy
Taking the head keeps LE busy searching/busy

I don't know why other than jurisdictional linkage blindness, but the killer wants them looking and didn't tie it all up with a bow.
Clearly he wants them looking some where smoother than at him...
Why?
What's he gonna do now?
Moo

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[gngr~snap]

But one thing: IF -- and I know we don't know for sure -- both Dermonds died from having someone bash them in the head with something -- it sounds as if it might be an impulsive thing. Maybe not planned. That's why I was thinking maybe they surprised someone up to no good. Thinking MAYBE the perp did not come to murder.

I guess head-bashing could fit with someone (with a long-standing rage) getting reminded somehow (while not "on site") of whatever horrible thing he felt the Dermonds (or one of them) had done or represented or whatever --and just thinking, "I'm gonna charge over there RIGHT NOW and ...!" That would have to be some kind of extremely rageful, impulsive person. (Drugs in the mix, maybe?)

But then -- thinking to use beheading as a smokescreen -- that seems pretty cool-headed -- something someone might plan in advance.

Just thinking "out loud" here, folks, don't mind me...

Whe this first broke how many people were willing to consider Alzheimer's /dementia and behavior issues/rage as a possible reason the wife would lash out?
Well we learned her mind was sharp as a tack!

Any of Mr.D's friends could have done this as long as they aren't too frail.
He would still be able to remember his old fishing spots etc...
I still think it's someone younger...
moo

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[Migmuu]

The whole decapitation issue is confusing, but what's really throwing me for a loop is that the killer(s) took the head with them. What was the point of that?

I came up with a few potential reasons why:

1. He took it as his own personal "trophy".
2. He took it so he could show it off later.
3. He took it to throw LE off and buy time to dispose of evidence and/or leave town.
4. The killer decapitated Mr. Dermond to send a message to someone, and may have taken the head to terrorize that person even more with it.
5. Shirley was still alive when the killer took her, and he brought the head with him to torment/terrorize her even more before she died (for his own sadistic pleasure).
6. He's severely mentally ill or was drugged up out of his mind, so he took the head because he thought that God told him to ... or some other psychotic reason.
7. He's trying to prove himself to someone or trying to join a gang, and this was part of some weird initiation to prove that he's vicious enough to be a part of the gang. This would tie in with the gang/drug hit theory.

Whatever it is, this guy is disgusting and needs to be arrested ASAP.
We don't have enough info to really decide on which one it is. Hell, it might be a combination of any of the above. But ... considering what we know so far, what do you think is most likely?

 

[alreetlike]

The whole decapitation issue is confusing, but what's really throwing me for a loop is that the killer(s) took the head with them. What was the point of that?

I came up with a few potential reasons why:

1. He took it as his own personal "trophy".
2. He took it so he could show it off later.
3. He took it to throw LE off and buy time to dispose of evidence and/or leave town.
4. The killer decapitated Mr. Dermond to send a message to someone, and may have taken the head to terrorize that person even more with it.
5. Shirley was still alive when the killer took her, and he brought the head with him to torment/terrorize her even more before she died (for his own sadistic pleasure).
6. He's severely mentally ill or was drugged up out of his mind, so he took the head because he thought that God told him to ... or some other psychotic reason.

We don't have enough info to really decide on which one it is; it could even be a combination of any of the above. But ... considering what we now know, what do you think it is?

I was going to bold the ones I thought were most likely.. but on going through your list I could see an argument for each of them. I'm a bit behind on the thread so I've some catching up to do, but it really could be any of those.

 

[gngr~snap]

The whole decapitation issue is confusing, but what's really throwing me for a loop is that the killer(s) took the head with them. What was the point of that?

I came up with a few potential reasons why:

1. He took it as his own personal "trophy".
2. He took it so he could show it off later.
3. He took it to throw LE off and buy time to dispose of evidence and/or leave town.
4. The killer decapitated Mr. Dermond to send a message to someone, and may have taken the head to terrorize that person even more with it.
5. Shirley was still alive when the killer took her, and he brought the head with him to torment/terrorize her even more before she died (for his own sadistic pleasure).
6. He's severely mentally ill or was drugged up out of his mind, so he took the head because he thought that God told him to ... or some other psychotic reason.
7. He's trying to prove himself to someone or trying to join a gang, and this was part of some weird initiation to prove that he's vicious enough to be a part of the gang. This would tie in with the gang/drug hit theory.

Whatever it is, this guy is disgusting and needs to be arrested ASAP.
We don't have enough info to really decide on which one it is. Hell, it might be a combination of any of the above. But ... considering what we know so far, what do you think is most likely?

I think he did it because of
4 - if you want to keep your head don't open your mouth about me to anyone. Moo

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[gngr~snap]

"A lot of fish are starting to show up on the deeper brush piles and trees. Use your Lowrance structure scan to locate the fish in the tree tops and drop a live minnow to them."

http://www.southernfishing.com/current-fishing-report/lake-oconee-fishing-report.html

So I am wondering did he place her there for the fish to eat her and hasten decomposition. Was it so a crappie fisherman/ angler would see her and she could be buried properl
Or, was was his plan to place her there we here he knew she would be deeper than the depth the crappie are at right now.
Was it also to protect her from getting run over by a boat when she resurfaced?
Could this killer have killed her yet still feel the need to protect her?
Just a thought running in my head. Moo

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Morning Everyone!:seeya:

I have been thinking about what we have learned about Shirley's body being 'placed' where it was found.

Being a Georgia girl myself, I at first thought this was just the way the man who found her phrased it, and it shouldn't be taken literally. We do have our own way of talking that's fur shur!:floorlaugh:

But now for LE to know that she was placed there I am beginning to think the fisherman that found her told it just like it was and she was found 'hanging in the trees.'

If LE now knows she was placed there instead of drifting there then there has to be evidence of 'placement.' which can only mean they discovered that she was tied to the trees by some kind of cord or rope to keep her in place. Something they knew wouldn't break.

It just seems whoever this is .......is playing a cat and mouse game. With whom? Maybe LE. Leaving evidence behind but knowing they cant catch him even if they do find what he has left for them to find?

IMO

 

[scubadvr99]

I thought I would try a theory.

The person or persons could have killed them in the garage. Decided to take them to the lake to dump them. Maybe he was beheaded, because the person decided it would be easier and less obvious to transport to dumping area. After beheading Mr. D, decided they couldn't do that and just carried her and Mr. D's head to the boat with the plan to come back and get the rest of Mr. D. Something interrupted or spooked them and they couldn't return because they were scared they would be seen. So they went ahead and took Mrs. D and her husband's head to the dumping area.

It's possible with all the stories on WMAZ and Macon Telegraph about the Giddings case, the person thought that they could dismember them. But after taking the head off, decided they couldn't do that.

I think it is obviously someone that knows the lake or fishes the lake a lot. Especially since she was placed in an area that had stumps/trees under the water. Only someone that knew that would venture in those areas.

I no longer think it was some kind of hit, but someone they knew (briefly or for some time) But definitely someone that knew the lake. I personally didn't know that the lake had stumpy areas like Lake Blackshear.

All MOO

 

[shefner]

while searching something else, this came to my attention SO some say it doesnt' exist here, welll, apparently.............a case in orlando, probably many more,

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cover-20130217_1_cartels-los-zetas-drug-money

Very interesting article, tk.....lots to think about there.

 

[ClaireNC]

Good morning all!

Just a few random thoughts as I read through the thread. On the "placement" of Mrs. D's body, it seems like the perp must know the lake in order to choose that spot. On the other hand, are there detailed fishing/boating maps of the lake available that show the areas where trees are submerged and other aspects of the lake? Such a map may enable a person who does not know that particular lake, but is an avid boater/fisherman, to determine a good spot to "place" or secure a body.

Are there public boat ramps close to the location where the body was found? I live about 4 hours away and I'm almost tempted to take a drive down there to get a feel for the area.

On the topic of crowbars and golf clubs, another thought crossed my mind. Is there a fireplace in the house or an outside fire pit? Fireplace tools are pretty heavy.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I thought I would try a theory.

The person or persons could have killed them in the garage. Decided to take them to the lake to dump them. Maybe he was beheaded, because the person decided it would be easier and less obvious to transport to dumping area. After beheading Mr. D, decided they couldn't do that and just carried her and Mr. D's head to the boat with the plan to come back and get the rest of Mr. D. Something interrupted or spooked them and they couldn't return because they were scared they would be seen. So they went ahead and took Mrs. D and her husband's head to the dumping area.

It's possible with all the stories on WMAZ and Macon Telegraph about the Giddings case, the person thought that they could dismember them. But after taking the head off, decided they couldn't do that.

I think it is obviously someone that knows the lake or fishes the lake a lot. Especially since she was placed in an area that had stumps/trees under the water. Only someone that knew that would venture in those areas.

I no longer think it was some kind of hit, but someone they knew (briefly or for some time) But definitely someone that knew the lake. I personally didn't know that the lake had stumpy areas like Lake Blackshear.

All MOO

Most all of the large lakes in Georgia are made the same everywhere. They leave stumps and trees on the bottom of the lake bed and closer to shore in order to attract fish life. The stumps nor the trees left in the lakes are close to the surface in the large open waters. Rarely does someone hit a stump unless they are in shallow water or closer to the bank. The main channel in all of these kind of lakes have deep and wide channels through the main parts of the lake in the big open water.

We have put our boat in at Lake Blackshear many times over the years and its a 28 footer. Never had a problem with hitting stumps. I have occasionally seen a log drifting by that came up from the floor bottom because of decay.

IMO

 

[OLDMACONBOY]

Blunt force trauma could be someone's fists ....does have to be an inanimate obje


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[OLDMACONBOY]

I have been on Sinclair all weekend this weekend. This case is all I can think about as we ski and fish with my kids. So tragic and so close to my old stomping grounds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk