shadow of my mind
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,947
- Reaction score
- 10
This case is so odd. Makes me :crazy: The decapitation of Mr. D is the bug-a-boo for me. I have been whirling ideas around for days and can't really settle on any one in particular but have whittled it down a bit, I think.
At least for today
The beheading tends to make one think of an old-fashioned mob hit. To me that does not fit. One reason is that Mrs. D would have not been harmed. Women and children were always excluded from any type of retribution. It was a mans world and it stayed within the men, but is no longer the 1980s. Current mob styles are no longer the same. Mexican and Columbian drug cartels operate much differently. Violence in not kept to just the active players, but is used as big thumb to keep every ones mouth shut; intimidation tactics of entire neighborhoods is common.
The use of blunt force trauma seems a bit out of character here as well, especially for any professional murder ordered by organized cartel/crime. A gunshot to the head would be swifter and with more assured results and if this was some type of retribution for past behavior, both bodies would have been left in plain sight.
Of course you could be looking at this was done as a warning to someone else, by someone new at the whole intimidation by violence, and not necessarily connected to the Dermond family at all.
So then I go to why was this even done. What was the purpose?
Theory A -- Mrs. D was removed from the property along with Mr. Ds head; originally meant to be a killing/abduction with a ransom demand for the safe return of Mrs. D. Possibly, for some reason they were not able to subdue Mrs. D. and she ended up getting killed. The ransom idea was totally dropped. If that was the case, then any planning that was done to access the property, kill Mr. D and take his head as the message pay up or same happens to her and remove Mrs. D actually may have went well up to the point of being able to go forward with a ransom demand. Now the plan needed to change in mid stream, hence her body being dumped in the lake, (and probably the head) making the two parts of the crime appear to be conflicting as if they were from different thought processes, especially why there was no theft from the house.
A ransom demand plan could very well mean that someone has insider knowledge (or thought they did) of finances and is under the impression that it would be easy money and readily forthcoming. It would not necessarily need to be anybody real close to the elder Dermonds.
If this was the case, then the timing or active parts of the crime; finding and accessing the property, not being seen, being able to leave un-noticed, not leaving a huge messy crime scene were well organized, but the entire thought process was flawed because Mrs. Ds abilities were not taken into account and the entire plan ended up failing.
If it wasn't ransom then I go on to
Theory B Someone who was known to the Dermonds was expecting (whether real or imagined) something from them; money, property, backing of a loan, endorsement of some type, assistance of some form or another, even possibly personal recognition or an apology of some type that they did not receive. Rage, all pent up was the driving factor and simply hitting them over the head did not satisfy that rage, hence the decapitation of Mr. D.
Since the home was not ransacked, nor does it appear that anything was taken, then it may have been more to do with a personal conflict that did not have any direct connections to a $ value. The question is was this pre-planned? If it was not, then in my opinion they were very lucky to have been able to execute something that has left very little in the way of evidence that identifies them. (as far as we have been told)
Although I can see both A and B working, I have to wonder why now. What made whomever they are do this now. So then that made think about what else may be going on in the area which brings me to
Theory CThis was pre-planned and had nothing to do with the Dermonds on any type of personal level. They and their home, with the dock placement location and being on a cul-de-sac just played well for an unseen crime. The beheading and an possible abduction were done on purpose to insure it would draw major media attention and have everyone in the area focused on nothing else.
Basically cause and effect:
To deflect attention away from someone else or something else.
To gain a reaction or a chain of actions that will eventually benefit another person or group.
To simply do something to show everybody how smart they are in a sick twisted way.
This is just all pretty much basic though process, and not in any order of which I think is the most likely, it just how I arrived at what I did. You have to start somewhere and see if what you do know fits in what could be. Of course since I have no idea what LE actually knows it is difficult to get beyond just basic theory.
:twocents:
At least for today
The beheading tends to make one think of an old-fashioned mob hit. To me that does not fit. One reason is that Mrs. D would have not been harmed. Women and children were always excluded from any type of retribution. It was a mans world and it stayed within the men, but is no longer the 1980s. Current mob styles are no longer the same. Mexican and Columbian drug cartels operate much differently. Violence in not kept to just the active players, but is used as big thumb to keep every ones mouth shut; intimidation tactics of entire neighborhoods is common.
The use of blunt force trauma seems a bit out of character here as well, especially for any professional murder ordered by organized cartel/crime. A gunshot to the head would be swifter and with more assured results and if this was some type of retribution for past behavior, both bodies would have been left in plain sight.
Of course you could be looking at this was done as a warning to someone else, by someone new at the whole intimidation by violence, and not necessarily connected to the Dermond family at all.
So then I go to why was this even done. What was the purpose?
Theory A -- Mrs. D was removed from the property along with Mr. Ds head; originally meant to be a killing/abduction with a ransom demand for the safe return of Mrs. D. Possibly, for some reason they were not able to subdue Mrs. D. and she ended up getting killed. The ransom idea was totally dropped. If that was the case, then any planning that was done to access the property, kill Mr. D and take his head as the message pay up or same happens to her and remove Mrs. D actually may have went well up to the point of being able to go forward with a ransom demand. Now the plan needed to change in mid stream, hence her body being dumped in the lake, (and probably the head) making the two parts of the crime appear to be conflicting as if they were from different thought processes, especially why there was no theft from the house.
A ransom demand plan could very well mean that someone has insider knowledge (or thought they did) of finances and is under the impression that it would be easy money and readily forthcoming. It would not necessarily need to be anybody real close to the elder Dermonds.
If this was the case, then the timing or active parts of the crime; finding and accessing the property, not being seen, being able to leave un-noticed, not leaving a huge messy crime scene were well organized, but the entire thought process was flawed because Mrs. Ds abilities were not taken into account and the entire plan ended up failing.
If it wasn't ransom then I go on to
Theory B Someone who was known to the Dermonds was expecting (whether real or imagined) something from them; money, property, backing of a loan, endorsement of some type, assistance of some form or another, even possibly personal recognition or an apology of some type that they did not receive. Rage, all pent up was the driving factor and simply hitting them over the head did not satisfy that rage, hence the decapitation of Mr. D.
Since the home was not ransacked, nor does it appear that anything was taken, then it may have been more to do with a personal conflict that did not have any direct connections to a $ value. The question is was this pre-planned? If it was not, then in my opinion they were very lucky to have been able to execute something that has left very little in the way of evidence that identifies them. (as far as we have been told)
Although I can see both A and B working, I have to wonder why now. What made whomever they are do this now. So then that made think about what else may be going on in the area which brings me to
Theory CThis was pre-planned and had nothing to do with the Dermonds on any type of personal level. They and their home, with the dock placement location and being on a cul-de-sac just played well for an unseen crime. The beheading and an possible abduction were done on purpose to insure it would draw major media attention and have everyone in the area focused on nothing else.
Basically cause and effect:
To deflect attention away from someone else or something else.
To gain a reaction or a chain of actions that will eventually benefit another person or group.
To simply do something to show everybody how smart they are in a sick twisted way.
This is just all pretty much basic though process, and not in any order of which I think is the most likely, it just how I arrived at what I did. You have to start somewhere and see if what you do know fits in what could be. Of course since I have no idea what LE actually knows it is difficult to get beyond just basic theory.
:twocents:
