GA GA - Shirley, 87, & Russell Dermond, 88, Putnam Co, 2 May 2014 - #13

[stmarysmead]

I believe that is, or at one point was, the Sheriff's theory.

My question is, if she was taken by vehicle, why would they/he bother to then later transfer her to a boat?

Sadly, there are innumerable cases of victims taken by vehicle to some remote place on land, where they won't be found.

Putting a victim in a boat and taking them out to the middle of lake, rarely happens, unless the crime involves a boat to begin with.

And then, unless her killers had their own private boat launch, they'd have to use a public one, and transfer her from the vehicle into the boat, with a high likelihood of CCTV cameras. The idea that a public boat launch is more private than the shoreline of their property (or neighbour's property), doesn't leap out as obvious to me.

Another thing is that everybody knows a vehicle often involves witnesses/camera descriptions of the make and color, and potentially license plate. Although the cameras weren't actually working at the gate, I doubt the perps knew that.

It also leads to criminal conviction because the victim will shed DNA, even if they're not harmed. It's not usually desireable to get rid of a vehicle. Whereas a small outboard boat - even if witnessed - is rarely identifiable, and can easily be hosed down and sold.

JMO

ETA: everybody who had ever worked in the community was interviewed/ polygraphed with assistance of the FBI.

Great point about transferring the body to a boat!

The only possible option I can think of…is a weak one. We have had a few ‘lots’ for sale on the lake where a dock has been put in for an absent owners use prior to building or to enhance the lot for possible sale.

I believe this neighborhood is also heavily wooded. A truck could park there as if doing maintenance, tree removal, whatever, and an accomplice could be waiting at the dock.

This crime is so vicious…it is hard to imagine it being random. It’s either about money..or rage IMO.

 

[stmarysmead]

The strangest thing to me is…why they took the risk of removing her from the house at all?

 

[Canaille]

The strangest thing to me is…why they took the risk of removing her from the house at all?

To give the killers more time? Maybe to destroy evidence, such any dna left on her body. Might not have been all that risky if she was removed after dark.

 

[Canaille]

I agree. I think the symbolism is key here, and it's what keeps drawing me back to this case. I know many people online believe Russell was shot in the head as fact and that the decapitation served a practical purpose only—to remove ballistic evidence. But that doesn't make sense to me when I look at the level of planning involved.

Consider what the killer(s) brought with them: zip ties for Shirley, tools capable of cleanly decapitating Russell in a single cut (according to the autopsy), and cinder blocks to weigh down Shirley's body. They were able to move Shirley's body nearly five miles down the lake without being spotted. That indicates careful consideration, potential research, and deliberate execution. Nine years later, they remain completely off law enforcement's radar.

So why would someone this careful use a traceable gun and then have to resort to the extreme measure of decapitation in order to hide it? If they were concerned about ballistic evidence, they could have used a ghost gun, stolen gun, or simply not used a gun at all. Russell was a big man but he was elderly. The decapitation-as-practical-solution theory assumes sophisticated planning in every other aspect but a critical oversight with the murder weapon.

Let me focus on the forensic evidence. The autopsy found no gunshot residue on Russell's body. Later testing detected trace amounts on his shirt collar, which the sheriff acknowledged could have come from other sources, including Russell's habit of shooting squirrels in the attic. No bullet, bullet fragments, or shell casings were recovered from the scene.

A killer this careful wouldn't make a mistake that required beheading to fix. They'd plan the method of death from start to finish. They would have given their decision as to what weapon to use the same careful consideration that they gave to everything else—like the fact that they brought a mesh bag in order to contain the cinder blocks, making it easier to secure them to Shirley's body.

Instead, they may have deliberately chosen decapitation to make investigators focus on the how and why of the beheading itself, rather than the more crucial questions—who had motive, means, and opportunity? It's a dramatic and disturbing act that dominates the investigation as well as public discourse. We're all talking about the missing head, even now.

So, based on the evidence and nature of the crime, I can think of several possibilities for why Russell was decapitated:

• An act of revenge for a serious wrong, whether real or perceived, that someone believed Russell committed against them
• A symbolic message intended for someone specific: perhaps a business associate, family member, or criminal contact who would understand its meaning, or to send a message to a member of the Dermond's family or the killer's associates
• A sign that Russell has been killed, his head taken as a trophy, or as an assertion of power
• A financial motive disguised by theatrical violence—perhaps someone who stood to gain from their deaths (inheritance, business dealings, insurance) but staged the crime to appear far more sinister, possibly mimicking cartel-style brutality to misdirect investigators away from following the money
• A professional hit with intentional misdirection, not mob-style (as the sheriff noted, hitmen don't typically do all this) but maybe hired killers who deliberately made it look bizarre to throw off investigation
• Sending a message about silence or betrayal—the missing head might symbolize "you talked" or "you knew too much," communicating to others who might have similar knowledge of something, such as a crime

I’ve always had the feeling it was to show that the “head of the family” or the “head of the company/business/group” has been removed.

 

[Jazzy5980]

I’m struck by the extreme brutality of Shirley’s death and the paltry reward.

 

[Cedars]

The strangest thing to me is…why they took the risk of removing her from the house at all?

Yes, and then took a series of steps to try to prevent her from ever being discovered. When he/they could have just done exactly the same thing to her that they did to Dermond.

Whether it was for a practical reason (ie getting away with murder) , or a psychological reason (shame, to create confusion, to recreate a fantasy), just can't say.

JMO

 

[concernedcitizen706]

How about a serial killer took the head as a trophy? But I believe that he had to shoot Russell because Russell tried to run away. Because you're right, there would be no other reason to make that loud noise in that quiet community. So it was a combo of both. Maybe he accidentally shot him and then he knew he had to hide the bullet evidence so he took the head as a trophy. The other possibility is Russell bit him. So he had to take the head to also get any DNA removed.

You know what's funny to me is, how people never want to consider serial killers. When I think they are probably the most likely scenario for these types of brutal random killings. A lot of these unsolved murders, that we're seeing now solved decades later from DNA, are usually random low life serial killers.

 

[stmarysmead]

I have a;ways had the feeling that it involved someone that knew that neighborhood well. Someone who knew which homes were ‘full-time’ occupied and which were vacation homes, often empty. Someone who knew the camera at the gate was not functioning. Because everything they did took a lot of time.

The violence makes one think there was rage involved. But then, why not just leave both of them dead in the house? The decapitation, carrying the wife off, all that took time and added risk.

And they were quite elderly and long retired. A grudge from business days or the deceased son’s past would seem to be long in the past.

If her body had not been found, would that have delayed settling the estate?

 

[Cedars]

If her body had not been found, would that have delayed settling the estate?

Yes, I believe it would have in those circumstances (no hard evidence indicating who/how/why/where she was gone).

 

[concernedcitizen706]

"The violence makes one think there was rage involved. "

A lot of people say that, but my point is, I don't think that's usually true. Serial killers are violent too. I don't think there's a serial killing without violence. That's why they do what they do. They're not doing it to be non-violent. If someone is going to be very violent and it's because of a personal reason, in my opinion, it's because of something that happened recently. It would be a very rare case, that someone would get all violent and emotional over something that happened like 15 years ago or whatever. I think that's something that takes place more often in movies. And if it is a family member out for some money or whatever, I doubt they're really going to get into the violence. They probably just want the job done.

 

[Valiant]

The security gate cameras not working could be a red herring.
Access via road is tighter controlled than access by water.
There is evidence they had to travel at some time by water because of the disposal of her body.
What if they never used a vehicle, just a boat and launched from outside the private community?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

I forget, did we determine before that they could not have walked in somewhere? Like from the sides. With like a backpack of their stuff?

 

[Valiant]

You can almost always walk into these gated communities if you avoid the guard house on the roads. However, it looks like it would be quite a hike from any public road outside the gates to their house.

 

[Rational_Geographic]

The three main keys to this case imo is that

1) the killer clearly is someone very local who had ease of access but also 2) the actual "motive" will almost certainly be something you would never guess. It could be even something where the killer/killers didn't necessarily intend on killing the Dermonds from the outset but something went awry. One thing led to another and here we are. To that end, I also strongly disagree with Sills that it was a robbery/extortion gone wrong because if that were the case, there would be some indication of that, ie people saying "oh they were known for having a lot of cash on them" or "oh they had this famous Rembrandt in their living room" or "the Dermonds had diamonds" or I mean their stuff would have been rummaged through or ransacked at the very least. I have a strong suspicion that whatever the killer/killers were after (if they even were after something) wasn't an item at all, but maybe something entirely immaterial. Perhaps they wanted the Dermonds to do something, ie apologize for something. Given the fact that nobody seems to be able to come up with anyone who might want to harm the Dermonds or even any obvious offending event in their past that could make sense in terms of why what happened, happened, it may stand to reason their killers were not well known to them at all and the events surrounding what led to their demise may have been fairly recent (hours) prior to their murders.

I know one thing regarding the killer/killers. Its not going to be anything you see in these threads where people just say the most obvious scenarios as if LE is just so dumb and has "overlooked" a mobster or family member or cult. So lazy. Get effing real guys. This is 11 going on 12 years here. All the obvious typical "go to" suspects have been exhausted.

And finally 3) the actual dynamic or relationship between the Dermonds and their killer will inevitably be such that the connection is either very superficial like I said earlier OR, the killer/killers are close to someone who was close to the Dermonds and even that person is entirely unaware of this peripheral association with the murders.

This is a total random scenario I came up with but its along the lines of what I believe happened. It'll be something like this if we ever get answers here:

An elderly woman Shirley plays Bridge with at the country club, Beatrice, who Shirley viewed as a competitor but also considered a friend, secretly was very jealous of Shirley and loathed her in private. Shirley was completely oblivious to this woman's true feelings. Beatrice would voice her opinions to her family and vent on occasion. But as much as she faked being nice around Shirley and although she secretly despised her, she would never do anything to actually harm her or Russell. However members of Bea's family may have interpreted her feelings more literally and maybe this is what led to a confrontation and ultimately the Dermonds demise. Something like this, where nobody would make this connection, not even "Beatrice."

^I want to be absolutely crystal clear that this scenario is entirely for illustrative purpose and its complete fiction. As far as I know there's not even a person known to them with that name.

Another thing you have to take into account is that Sills seems pretty adamant that there are multiple killers involved here which I could also add an additional point here. If there's multiple killers and you take away the possibility of financial motive, throw in the fact that when there's multiple killers, one almost always talks, but clearly has not, the number of reasons you can use for a "mutual benefit" to both killers to carry out the act of killing these two and taking on the risk, etc all that. It strongly suggests that these two individuals are almost certainly related, number (4.

 

[stmarysmead]

I will offer another invented imaginary scenario, based on living in one of these communities. Among the residents are retired individuals who have once run companies, had important jobs. Now life consists of a lot of leisure time and the only thing they are ‘running’ is maintenance of a large home and its grounds. Residents who may be most convivial to their other neighbors, can be very…exacting…and demanding in dealings with folks they hire to take care of their only remaining responsibility in life. The house and grounds.

There is also an expectation as to how these homes must be kept by the HOA. Add to that a sense of ‘competition.’ The Dermonds had a dock, large wooded lot and a home that was growing older. Lots of potential maintenance requirements.

I can imagine a scenario where one of the Dermonds might have refused to pay for a service or threatened to have some workers reported negatively in a residents forum. Maybe it all went bad after that.

The decapitation might have been just an attempt to conceal a large body in something smaller to remove from the house. Then they gave up, left him…and just took Mrs Dermond.

No one who stood to inherit would want to hide one of the bodies and cause delay in receiving their share.

Just another possible scenario, entirely made up.