Just saying.. 'need' isn't always the thing. Often it seems that 'want', and 'greed', (and entitlement) might play leading role. imo.Looks may be deceiving but it doesn't look like they needed any money.
Just saying.. 'need' isn't always the thing. Often it seems that 'want', and 'greed', (and entitlement) might play leading role. imo.Looks may be deceiving but it doesn't look like they needed any money.
Not tangentially related to the above article, but it did trigger a thought/question about hair. It was reported that hairs from Shirley were found clutched in Russell's hand. Does anyone have any thoughts about why/how this would have occurred?
The only thing that comes to my mind is a scenario in which there are two perpetrators. As one is dragging Russell one way, and the other taking Shirley another way, Russell desperately grabs at Shirley to try to prevent her from being separated from him and manages only to get a handful of hair.
Any other ideas?
IIRC, it wasn't ever said that the hair found in RD's hand had been proven (through DNA analysis) to belong to his wife. I am posting below what each of the autopsy reports stated in regard to hair. We have discussed this before, but note that SD's autopsy report states that most of her hair was gone due to decomposition, and also that her remaining hair was light brown-blonde and approximately four inches long. Meanwhile RD's autopsy stated that 'what appeared to be gray hairs' were found in both of his hands and on his shirt. RD had grey hair, however with his head missing.. there was likely none of his hair to compare with. (Hopefully there was a brush or a comb inside the home that contained his hair that could be used for analysis and comparison!)funny you should bring this up because i was going to ask the same exact question with an additional thought -- could it have been a plant?
because like you, i really only can picture one scenario where Russell tried to stop them from taking Shirley. But if there were 2 perps I'm not sure if RD would even have had a chance to grab her, you know? I would think he would've been too restrained, but i suppose its possible. If he really did grab at her hair, there had to have been quite a struggle then so I'm curious if there were any signs of that such as defensive wounds on his hands or something.
Also makes me wonder though....could her hair have been planted there by the perp(s) as a red herring?
dotr said:Nov 8 2020
Unsolved double-murder of Putnam Co. couple to air on TV
''Sills will be shown in segments on the popular HLN crime show Sunday at 8 p.m.''
''Sills said the investigation into one of the worst homicide cases he’s ever been involved with during his 40-plus years as a lawman, has taken a different course.
“It’s proceeding in a more technical manner,” Sills said. “We are utilizing some new technology and we have received some data that we think may help us. I don’t know at this time if it will or not.”
Several warrants have been obtained in the process, he said.
“We don’t know if this new technology will lead us anywhere as far as solving this case, but that’s the direction we’re going in right now,” Sills said.
GA - GA - Shirley, 87, & Russell Dermond, 88, Putnam County, 2 May 2014 - #13
Should have said, 'did any candidates have grey hair at the time of the murders'..IIRC, it wasn't ever said that the hair found in RD's hand had been proven (through DNA analysis) to belong to his wife. I am posting below what each of the autopsy reports stated in regard to hair. We have discussed this before, but note that SD's autopsy report states that most of her hair was gone due to decomposition, and also that her remaining hair was light brown-blonde and approximately four inches long. Meanwhile RD's autopsy stated that 'what appeared to be gray hairs' were found in both of his hands and on his shirt. RD had grey hair, however with his head missing.. there was likely none of his hair to compare with. (Hopefully there was a brush or a comb inside the home that contained his hair that could be used for analysis and comparison!)
SS has said the hair found in RD's hands was his wife's, but has not to my knowledge ever indicated that this was proven by lab results. Is it possible the hairs in RD's hands were not previously able to be analyzed because they had no roots? And is newer technology of analyzing hair withOUT roots what is being alluded to in SS's comments (see dotr's quoted post below)? It says 'several warrants have been obtained in the process' - could the warrants be to collect hair samples from people SS has already interviewed? Do any candidates have grey hair? Could the hair simply be RD's own hair?
....
It was my thinking, after members writing about the latest hair technology, that if the hairs found in RD's hands and clothing did not have roots, they may not have been able to definitively determine whose it was. (If no root, then as I understand it, no DNA could be analyzed from it.) I know that prior to the latest technology, they could still take a strand of hair without root and compare it microscopically to another strand to see if it had matching properties, but it seems that method is very flawed and numerous wrongful convictions have occurred based on that method.The hair in RD's hand could be proven to be his even without the head or SD's even if most of hers was missing. They have both Dermonds DNA. They dont need proven hair samples to compare.
![]()
![]()
Shirley and Russell Dermond
Missing wife of decapitated Georgia man found dead in lake
GA GA - Shirley Dermond, 87, Putnam County **Media Links***NO DISCUSSION*** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Thread #1 Thread #2
Thread #3 Thread #4
Thread #5 Thread #6
Thread #7 Thread #8
Thread #9Thread#10
Thread #11 - GA - GA - Shirley, 87, & Russell Dermond, 88, Putnam County, 2 May 2014 - #11
Thread #12 - GA - GA - Shirley, 87, & Russell Dermond, 88, Putnam County, 2 May 2014 - #12
Welcome to Websleuths and the Dermond thread. This is the case that brought me here in 2014. We can always use new ideas. Great first post!Hi, new member here. This case has been bothering me...I recently saw that they assume that Russell was decapitated because the killer or killers didn't want the bullet in his head to be found. Meaning it was a bullet that didn't go all the way through...which limits to gun type. But I am more interested in why they wouldn't want the shell linked back to the gun. This has to be someone in their inner circle who owns a registered firearm. Someone that knows they'd be looked at, and knows the police would learn about the guns they owned. If it was a burglar, a hired gun, they wouldn't care about the bullet being found. Any thoughts?
There is really nothing to say that RD was shot in the head, it is only a best-guess by SS, based on the fact there was no blood spatter to indicate that it occurred inside the garage, so he goes on to also believe he was shot somewhere else and then brought back to the garage and decapitated (which totally makes no sense), and the fact that apparently some GSR was found on RD's t-shirt or something (I forget where exactly, but only a tiny bit), which could have really come from the killer's hands, or if RD had a gun of his own he had touched, or whatever. But if he WAS shot in the head, and that is the real reason why they decapitated him, then your questions are same as mine. I wondered if it could have been a police gun which killed him... but it seems that bullets from police weapons can't be identified as specifically police bullets, so can't be that. It seems that dare I say 'most' out that way seem to own guns? Would it be that rare of a gun/bullet type that identifying it would ID the killer? I doubt it?? Unless the gun had already been used in another crime, and bullet-matching could be done, and then the two crimes linked? That's the only thing I can come up with. imo.Hi, new member here. This case has been bothering me...I recently saw that they assume that Russell was decapitated because the killer or killers didn't want the bullet in his head to be found. Meaning it was a bullet that didn't go all the way through...which limits to gun type. But I am more interested in why they wouldn't want the shell linked back to the gun. This has to be someone in their inner circle who owns a registered firearm. Someone that knows they'd be looked at, and knows the police would learn about the guns they owned. If it was a burglar, a hired gun, they wouldn't care about the bullet being found. Any thoughts?
Was the plan to take both Shirley and Russell hostage for ransom or to be murdered? Could both of them have been walked to the boat first but Russell kept fighting them off and maybe got away? When he was caught back up at the house, Russell could have been knocked unconscious and then he was too heavy to move. Do we know if the autopsy showed any medical problem with Russell? They/he decided to take the head as proof of his capture. I think they would have ditched the head soon afterwards because of the blood dripping and it is somewhere in the lake. Would the weight of the skull bones keep a head submerged? Since the plan had fallen through, Shirley was dropped in the water before going back to the boat landing.
His head is in the lake! Heads don't rise to the surface with gases, the way unpunctured bodies do. Lake Oconee is massive. His head is somewhere at the bottom. I think the same is probably true for whatever item was used in the beheading. IIRC, the police have never said that any knives were missing from the knife block in the house. Whoever upthread said that they suspect the beheading was premeditated - I'll agree to the extent that it seems someone brought with them quite a large/serious blade that was used on Russell. You can't behead someone with a penknife. So, if we can deduce that the killer(s) brought along a knife, gun, and rope used to tie Shirley, and arrived by boat ... this looks like a hit. Or someone very, very angry or vengeful. Also, I forget- were the blocks used to weigh Shirley down determined to have come from the yard? I thought I recalled that that was the case, but it's been a while so I'm not sure.personally I feel that a beheading points to premeditated murder. Not always, because I suppose a sophisticated/experienced criminal could possibly resort to that if things went wrong. But seeing as how it's very difficult to cut through human flesh and bone, I'd wager that a beheading is part of planned murder like 99.9% of the time.
as for the skull bones remaining at the bottom of the lake, i could see it getting lodged in sand or other debris for awhile. i would think eventually currents might move it, but that might also depend on how in tact it was when it entered the water. a blow to the head that would cause fractures would fall apart and be scattered sooner and more easily than if everything pretty much remained.
it's so disturbing that his head is just gone....i mean it obviously has to be SOMEWHERE. did they bury it? it's just really dark to think about.
I think that's probable but I did find this info. Bouyancy of A Severed Human HeadHis head is in the lake! Heads don't rise to the surface with gases, the way unpunctured bodies do. Lake Oconee is massive. His head is somewhere at the bottom. I think the same is probably true for whatever item was used in the beheading. IIRC, the police have never said that any knives were missing from the knife block in the house. Whoever upthread said that they suspect the beheading was premeditated - I'll agree to the extent that it seems someone brought with them quite a large/serious blade that was used on Russell. You can't behead someone with a penknife. So, if we can deduce that the killer(s) brought along a knife, gun, and rope used to tie Shirley, and arrived by boat ... this looks like a hit. Or someone very, very angry or vengeful. Also, I forget- were the blocks used to weigh Shirley down determined to have come from the yard? I thought I recalled that that was the case, but it's been a while so I'm not sure.
OMG ew! Thank you for posting that! I learn something new every day on WS ... even if I didn't want to know lol.I think that's probable but I did find this info. Bouyancy of A Severed Human Head
Again, I've never been able to rule out the dead son (Mark IIRC) having a prison buddy or connection who got out and either (1) believed the Dermonds were rich and went to rob them (maybe believing Mark's prison tales of his parents' expensive home, boat etc) or (2) vowed to avenge Mark being 'wronged' (i.e., written off) by his parents, perhaps having made some kind of agreement with Mark in prison to settle each others' debts. It's far fetched, but it would explain both the viciousness and personal nature of the crime.