Does anyone remember what time that Derby party was? I'm wondering if the perps knew about that party, and knew most of the permanent residents there would be attending it. If a majority of the people were at a party, or preparing for the party, they would be distracted and not notice what's going on around them as much as they might if they were just sitting on their porches or docks, and enjoying the day. Was this party broadcast to the whole neighborhood? Or only a few families were getting together? I don't think I ever really understood that aspect of the party.
Nobody is talking about the Derby Party. It's like that proverbial ELEPHANT in the room again. Couple of thoughts on the Derby Party.
1. We know the Dermonds residence was called by someone from the "party" and no one answered. Did someone at that point call LE and ask that a welfare check be made on the Dermonds? Because if they did and LE did NOT respond that certainly would NOT put Sheriff Sills in a good light. Oh nothing ever happens at GW/RP, people are just being paranoid
2. Could the perp have attended the "Party" and been the one to call the Dermonds and say they didn't answer and tell the other party goers "oh maybe Shirley isn't feeling well or perhaps one of their children came for a surprise visit." Thus calming everyone that it was no big deal the Dermonds were NO-SHOWS when they had indeed RSVP'd.
"IF" the perps stayed at the home for any significant amount of time, then IMO they knew others were occupied and less likely to come snooping around. OR they were extremely familiar with the property, and their presence there wouldn't set off any alarms to anyone that saw them there. Otherwise, this was a rather brazen crime. Too many chances of someone coming to check on the Dermonds, or pick them up for the Derby party, or stopping by for a chit chat, etc. I just don't see a random stranger spending much time at the residence. IMO, they would come in, commit their murders, and get out.
Yes, do it and get the he!! out of there. Did they think this house was the one for sale? Mistaken identity/wrong address and thought since the house was for sale and thought the seller was not even living in the house... Much food for thought. Makes me mind wander to the scenario of perp/perps were controlling the crime scene. I too agree with you thinking this was not a random stranger. Again, were they comfortable because they knew the cameras not working? Did they know when the Dermonds usually set their alarms and struck before they had a chance to set the alarms?
Too much just doesn't add up. If the purpose was to murder them, then why not just do that, and leave? Why behead Mr. Dermond, and why remove Mrs. Dermond from there? Much easier to just murder and leave. Maybe it gave the perps a bit of time in getting outta the area, or to another state while the LE was searching for Mrs. Dermond, but I just don't see that. IMO, there would have been one group of LE looking into the murder of Mr. Dermond, the crime scene with another group, and the abduction of Mrs. Dermond another group. So I just can't see the purpose other than adding a sense of terror among the residents, family, and LE.
Of course I don't know if Mrs. Dermond was deceased before going on the boat or not. Or even IF she went on a boat, but I cannot see her being gagged, blindfolded, or restrained and walking to the dock. Just don't see that happening. Can you imagine how much time it would take to get an elderly lady down that slope while being restrained??? Nah. And if she walked down to the dock, the dogs should have picked up her scent. Which they might have, we don't know. Maybe that's why Sills is sure a boat was used at some point. But then again, did the Sills ever walk the property? Did they walk to the dock and relax on that couch or whatever it is on the dock? Only those closest to the Dermonds would know. Did the perp take Mrs. Dermond alive with the intent to demand a ransom, and quickly decided that wouldn't work? Who knows at this point.
Right! No one knows so we are left to own theories. I just figure Shirley's scent was everywhere on the property. The dogs would hit on the freshest scent of Shirley's, if I understand how the dogs work a scene. If she was dead at the pier then the scent dogs that detect death would have hit there. However, if she was alive, bound and gagged and walked to the concrete pathway with a perp on each side (or just one perp - I'm of the opinion still that one person could have pulled this off)and still alive the dogs would have given the signal that Shirley was alive and left by boat. So I think she was alive when she left the pier. To me that indicates someone with a little bit of LE knowledge and how dogs work off scents, live versus death. However, Sills knows if the dogs hit death or alive there at the "area of interest." Maybe why not much of a public appeal from the Family as they were told the dogs indicated Shirley was dead by the time she was taken.
When this case is solved, I think it's going to be rather straight forth, versus our many theories.
It still bothers me that the deceased son was NOT mentioned in the obit. And it bothers me that the obit was so short. But each family does things differently, and some don't even have an obit published, nor have a funeral. So... I do have to keep that in mind. Not all families are alike!
As for the day of death listed, I've seen this in many cases. The official date of death is the day they are found deceased, in most of the cases I've followed here. I would assume that's the date put on the death certificates, so it's the date used in obits. But the trial may show a different time of death. I believe that due to the facts LE and the ME have, they know Mrs Dermond died on the same day Mr. Dermond died. They are using the date he was found deceased, though as Sills has stated, they believe they were dead before they were found.
As for Mrs. Dermond floating to where she ended up, looking at the layout of the lake only, IMO, she would have surfaced in one of the coves before coming to where she was "IF" she was placed in the water at their dock. Put in the water in larger open area, she may have floated near the dam. BUT, I do think she was weighted down with something, and the perp didn't feel she would surface. Considering the amount of debris, especially the trees in that lake, it is almost a miracle she did surface! Sheriff Sills said Shirley was placed where she was found and not adrift. I too think she was weighted down, but again Sills is holding his cards regarding weighted or not weighted close to his chest.
Many bodies are caught in debris and never found. And depending on the type of fish in that lake, it's possible she might not have ever been found. Now WHO would benefit from that?? Who would benefit from Mr. Dermond being found deceased, and/or considered deceased before Mrs. Dermond?? Would a will be different? Would trusts be different? Did one have a will leaving their assets set up different than the other? No way of knowing at this point. Great questions!!! I haven't a clue, but I think the daughter and two sons are wealthy on their own and I don't see them wanting their parents dead to benefit from anything. Extended family maybe, but can't go there because no mention in MSM. But as you said earlier, at this point who knows!!!
IMO, the bottom line in solving this case is figuring out WHO benefited from their deaths. WHO felt they were being slighted, or have been done wrong? What was their motive? Nothing stolen that we know of. If they had a safe at home, we don't know about it. If they kept any cash at home, we don't know about it. Was there anyone the Dermonds had been assisting over time. Maybe to help them get on the right path, or given them money in the past to keep them afloat with the declining economy? Did they mentor anyone in becoming successful, and floated them some money to get started, and the money stopped?
Or was this truly some random killer, that killed just to kill? Was the Dermonds the true target, or was their deaths to send a message to someone else to say "see we told you we are serious!"? IMO, almost a month later, and we truly do not know anything about the Dermonds.
When will Sills speak again? We get bits and pieces for a few days, and then nothing for a week, then drips again for a few days, and then silence again. I'm sure there is a purpose for that, and as someone else said, most likely what FBI is saying he should release. Maybe they have suspects in their sights, and are watching reactions to the news that is released.
