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

[concernedcitizen706]

I hear you but I would have to go back to the old threads to find where I saw a theory that I believe was from Sills saying where she was found had trees under the water so she may have been snagged as she was coming up.

However, I don't recall ever reading anything saying she may have been held. This article states:
The time authorities believe her badly decomposed body was in the lake is consistent with the timing of when her husband was killed a few weeks ago, reports the station.

Report: Slain Ga. woman, 87, suffered head trauma

The badly-decomposed body of Shirley Dermond was found in a central Ga. lake weeks after her elderly husband was found slain and decapitated in the couple's home

www.cbsnews.com

Okay well the state of the body would be one way to determine the date. So if it was badly decomposed then I guess that supports that she was in the water for 2 weeks instead of one week.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

So what's the theory based on, that the beheading did not take place in the garage? You realize you can put the body in something, right? And that would stop the blood. And what's with someone saying that you could see his pajamas and that means it didn't happen there? What does that mean?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Starry, If you want to know what really happened, you have to go back to May 8,2014. It only takes a few clicks. First, go back to the beginning of this thread series (click "Prev"). Above all of the previous threads of this format you will see the beginning thread in a different format at the top left. You will then have gone back 9 1/2 years with nothing to show for "the crime was committed in the garage". That will never be solved IMHO because that is not how this happened. I can not think of a more eloquent argument against the "garage" theory than that wasted decade.

The coroner never said where the crime happened. He said it could not have been committed in that garage. He was the only person with a medical background to see the garage. The fact that you could clearly see Mr. Dermond's pajamas shows that the head could not have been removed there IMHO.

"The fact that you could clearly see Mr. Dermond's pajamas shows that the head could not have been removed there IMHO."

What do you mean by the pajamas situation?

Edit - I'm not exactly sure what you mean. But either way, people can get redressed. You can put a body in something, so there's no bleeding, and you can also take the clothes off and put the clothes back on them. I don't understand why people think that criminals can't do these basic things.

 

[Rational_Geographic]

I've been digging into this case for the better part of the past six months, now. While I certainly cannot say "here from day one," I've really been feverishly trying to consume as much as I can in terms of the gathered known facts. Specifically, communications from Howard Sills whether it be via press conferences, articles or podcasts he's appeared on, and also of course scouring WS posts.

There's a lot of great information out there, as people have done their homework and due diligence in terms of researching the background/context of the Dermonds family, Putnam County, and also reaching out to Sills for interviews and people with a lot of knowledge. Hats off to those efforts.

I'm going to be honest here, in terms of theories that I've seen basically all around there's just a lot to be desired. Great takes on this case are just far and few inbetween. I get it, there's these huge mysteries in terms of motive and how the crime was commissioned so it leaves a lot of room for speculation but I keep seeing comments online where it's like people are acting like someone showed up to the Dermond house on a boat with a chainsaw ready to go and I'm sorry but that is not what happened.

I see a lot of theories for instance, where people keep insisting Shirley was killed hours after Russell. This is fundamentally nonsensical. It's been known since at least November of 2020 when Howard Sills was interviewed by HLN that Russell was found with Shirley's hair intertwined in his left hand, with which his corresponding left index finger was lacerated all the way to his palm. I agree with Sill's conclusion that this is logically the result of Russell attempting to block the Killer as he attempted to deliver one of (at least two) deadly blows to Shirley's skull. Therefore Russell was present when Shirely was killed and at least able to try and intervene. He could not have been killed, and certainly not decapitated (don't even go there, Sills has said the decapitation occured post-mortem) before this. I think given these details, the matter of "who died first" becomes moot because it's very likely they died, or at least were fatally attacked minutes if not seconds within each other.

The biggest mystery to me in this case, is that there's no blood splatter anywhere in the dermond's home, aside from the small mess from Russell's post-mortem decapitation in their garage. Are you effin kidding me? Blunt force trauma like what Shirley sustained should yield massive amounts of splatter everywhere, it's like a whipping around a drenched paintbrush effect. Where on earth did their murders take place? You answer that and you basically crack this thing wide open. I see a million people commenting about cults and how Sills is clueless. Let's get this conversation going in the right direction.

Sills has said that there's nothing to indicate that either Russel's or Shirley's blood is anywhere outside the home or on the dock. From what I understand, Sills has also said that the scent hounds were unable to pick up Shirley's scent ANYWHERE outside the surrounding area of the home. This also suggests to me that the killer's did not take her via boat. If they did not take her via boat, then that also means they did not arrive via boat. While it's very likely that a boat was used in the commission of Shirley's disposal in Lake Oconee, as disappointing as it may be to some, the killer/killers most likely did not arrive via water vessel.

I still have a lot of questions I would like answered. I find the fact that the security cameras were taken out by a lightning bolt very suspicious. I would really like to know everything about that. That explanation for them not working sounds like something out of a movie. It might be one of those things that sounds like bs but is actually just one of those odd coincidences (just like the Dermond's home security system being conveniently off) I would like to
know more.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I've been digging into this case for the better part of the past six months, now. While I certainly cannot say "here from day one," I've really been feverishly trying to consume as much as I can in terms of the gathered known facts. Specifically, communications from Howard Sills whether it be via press conferences, articles or podcasts he's appeared on, and also of course scouring WS posts.

There's a lot of great information out there, as people have done their homework and due diligence in terms of researching the background/context of the Dermonds family, Putnam County, and also reaching out to Sills for interviews and people with a lot of knowledge. Hats off to those efforts.

I'm going to be honest here, in terms of theories that I've seen basically all around there's just a lot to be desired. Great takes on this case are just far and few inbetween. I get it, there's these huge mysteries in terms of motive and how the crime was commissioned so it leaves a lot of room for speculation but I keep seeing comments online where it's like people are acting like someone showed up to the Dermond house on a boat with a chainsaw ready to go and I'm sorry but that is not what happened.

I see a lot of theories for instance, where people keep insisting Shirley was killed hours after Russell. This is fundamentally nonsensical. It's been known since at least November of 2020 when Howard Sills was interviewed by HLN that Russell was found with Shirley's hair intertwined in his left hand, with which his corresponding left index finger was lacerated all the way to his palm. I agree with Sill's conclusion that this is logically the result of Russell attempting to block the Killer as he attempted to deliver one of (at least two) deadly blows to Shirley's skull. Therefore Russell was present when Shirely was killed and at least able to try and intervene. He could not have been killed, and certainly not decapitated (don't even go there, Sills has said the decapitation occured post-mortem) before this. I think given these details, the matter of "who died first" becomes moot because it's very likely they died, or at least were fatally attacked minutes if not seconds within each other.

The biggest mystery to me in this case, is that there's no blood splatter anywhere in the dermond's home, aside from the small mess from Russell's post-mortem decapitation in their garage. Are you effin kidding me? Blunt force trauma like what Shirley sustained should yield massive amounts of splatter everywhere, it's like a whipping around a drenched paintbrush effect. Where on earth did their murders take place? You answer that and you basically crack this thing wide open. I see a million people commenting about cults and how Sills is clueless. Let's get this conversation going in the right direction.

Sills has said that there's nothing to indicate that either Russel's or Shirley's blood is anywhere outside the home or on the dock. From what I understand, Sills has also said that the scent hounds were unable to pick up Shirley's scent ANYWHERE outside the surrounding area of the home. This also suggests to me that the killer's did not take her via boat. If they did not take her via boat, then that also means they did not arrive via boat. While it's very likely that a boat was used in the commission of Shirley's disposal in Lake Oconee, as disappointing as it may be to some, the killer/killers most likely did not arrive via water vessel.

I still have a lot of questions I would like answered. I find the fact that the security cameras were taken out by a lightning bolt very suspicious. I would really like to know everything about that. That explanation for them not working sounds like something out of a movie. It might be one of those things that sounds like bs but is actually just one of those odd coincidences (just like the Dermond's home security system being conveniently off) I would like to
know more.

Welcome to Websleuths! I appreciate your well written thoughts on things. As you point out there are many unanswered questions and each of us with our individual ideas on what happened grade those questions differently as to their important. An example: It does not rate at all with me that the Dermond’s security system was off. Maybe it should, but it doesn’t.
I don’t necessarily believe Mrs D was killed or beaten in the house or garage, so the lack of signs of that vicious beating doesn’t surprise me. But I don’t necessarily believe the Ds were spirited away somewhere and Mr D was brought back.
I’ll stop there for now or I’ll spent all day writing here.
You give out a lot of food for thought, and thank you for that, so I need to ponder it all again. It’s all pretty maddening.

 

[dotr]

2014 re-post

Decapitation mystery: Security camera wasn't on, son tells AJC

Keith Dermond has no idea why anyone would kill his father and presumably abduct his mother. It's been nine days since 88-year-old Russell Dermond's decapitated body was found and his wife reported…

www.augustachronicle.com

''Investigators believe they were killed sometime between May 2 and 3rd. Though he wouldn't elaborate, Keith Dermond said it's likely the crimes happened during the day.

"They had a security system. And they always kept their doors locked," Dermond said. "They were religious about that."
Dermond also revealed that cameras manning the gates at Reynolds Plantation weren't functioning at the time.''
"We've got a little bit of concern," Keith Dermond said. "We've gotten a few weird phone calls."

''Keith Dermond wonders about how the security cameras were not working at the Great Waters guard shack when his folks were killed. The shack sits at the edge of Wards Chapel Road. It was pure bad luck the cameras were out. They’d been zapped in a lightning storm days earlier and no one noticed they weren’t functioning. Thinking back, Keith Dermond also thinks about how visitors’ license plates weren’t routinely recorded, how almost anyone could have driven in undetected. But then there is no telling whether the killer or killers came by car at all, what with Shirley Dermond’s body disposed of miles down the lake in nearly 50 feet of water.''

Read more at: https://www.macon.com/news/local/crime/article74944397.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Kittybunny]

I've been digging into this case for the better part of the past six months, now. While I certainly cannot say "here from day one," I've really been feverishly trying to consume as much as I can in terms of the gathered known facts. Specifically, communications from Howard Sills whether it be via press conferences, articles or podcasts he's appeared on, and also of course scouring WS posts.

There's a lot of great information out there, as people have done their homework and due diligence in terms of researching the background/context of the Dermonds family, Putnam County, and also reaching out to Sills for interviews and people with a lot of knowledge. Hats off to those efforts.

I'm going to be honest here, in terms of theories that I've seen basically all around there's just a lot to be desired. Great takes on this case are just far and few inbetween. I get it, there's these huge mysteries in terms of motive and how the crime was commissioned so it leaves a lot of room for speculation but I keep seeing comments online where it's like people are acting like someone showed up to the Dermond house on a boat with a chainsaw ready to go and I'm sorry but that is not what happened.

I see a lot of theories for instance, where people keep insisting Shirley was killed hours after Russell. This is fundamentally nonsensical. It's been known since at least November of 2020 when Howard Sills was interviewed by HLN that Russell was found with Shirley's hair intertwined in his left hand, with which his corresponding left index finger was lacerated all the way to his palm. I agree with Sill's conclusion that this is logically the result of Russell attempting to block the Killer as he attempted to deliver one of (at least two) deadly blows to Shirley's skull. Therefore Russell was present when Shirely was killed and at least able to try and intervene. He could not have been killed, and certainly not decapitated (don't even go there, Sills has said the decapitation occured post-mortem) before this. I think given these details, the matter of "who died first" becomes moot because it's very likely they died, or at least were fatally attacked minutes if not seconds within each other.

The biggest mystery to me in this case, is that there's no blood splatter anywhere in the dermond's home, aside from the small mess from Russell's post-mortem decapitation in their garage. Are you effin kidding me? Blunt force trauma like what Shirley sustained should yield massive amounts of splatter everywhere, it's like a whipping around a drenched paintbrush effect. Where on earth did their murders take place? You answer that and you basically crack this thing wide open. I see a million people commenting about cults and how Sills is clueless. Let's get this conversation going in the right direction.

Sills has said that there's nothing to indicate that either Russel's or Shirley's blood is anywhere outside the home or on the dock. From what I understand, Sills has also said that the scent hounds were unable to pick up Shirley's scent ANYWHERE outside the surrounding area of the home. This also suggests to me that the killer's did not take her via boat. If they did not take her via boat, then that also means they did not arrive via boat. While it's very likely that a boat was used in the commission of Shirley's disposal in Lake Oconee, as disappointing as it may be to some, the killer/killers most likely did not arrive via water vessel.

I still have a lot of questions I would like answered. I find the fact that the security cameras were taken out by a lightning bolt very suspicious. I would really like to know everything about that. That explanation for them not working sounds like something out of a movie. It might be one of those things that sounds like bs but is actually just one of those odd coincidences (just like the Dermond's home security system being conveniently off) I would like to
know more.

Welcome to Websleuths and thank you for your thoughtful and rational (as befits your name) post. I have not contributed much to the discussion lately, as I find some of the recent speculation a bit outlandish for my taste. I don’t believe this was a random crime, not at all.

But you raise some really good points - where did the murders take place, if not the garage or in the house? Is it possible the killers cleaned up the crime scene so well because they had a lot of time to do so?

I think about the McStay family murders - the entire family was bludgeoned to death in their home, and not a trace of evidence as such was found, leading to LE chasing down an alleged sighting of them crossing the Mexican border when in reality their bodies were buried in the desert.

 

[Cedars]

I think about the McStay family murders - the entire family was bludgeoned to death in their home, and not a trace of evidence as such was found, leading to LE chasing down an alleged sighting of them crossing the Mexican border when in reality their bodies were buried in the desert.

Good point. One thing though is that no bodies were left in the McStay home, so they were ruled as missing, and police didn't process the home as a crime scene. There was evidence in that case of recent painting of rooms - though that had started before the crime, so it wasn't flagged as odd. It was presumed later, after the bodies were discovered (along with a missing futon cover), that Luminol would have shown evidence of blood splatter. Charles Merritt's DNA Found in McStay Family Car: Search Warrants

Was there a place in the Dermond's home where Luminol could have revealed blood, but it wasn't used?

I question why the killer(s) of the Dermonds, who were quite capable of taking Shirley plus Russell's head, didn't just take him when he was fully intact ie instead of removing his head at the scene?

To me, that suggests they were able to overpower Shirley and take her while she was alive, whereas they didn't want to or couldn't remove R's deceased body....to me, that suggests some type of logistical problem: a problem in moving the body, or a problem in where to put it?

The fact that one victim was handled differently than the other - there must be a reason for that.

JMO

 

[Cedars]

Just wanting to work through my own thoughts, if posters will bear with me:

1. moving or interfering with a body is extra effort added to the crime, the purpose is usually to mislead police.

However, it also increases the risk of being caught while, for eg, staying longer at the scene, transporting the remains, etc. So normally, killers will make that effort in proportion to their perceived risk of being associated with the crime.

So, eg. C Merritt made a huge effort, he clearly perceived that suspicion could land on him, unless he staged the McStay's as missing in Mexico. There would be no probable cause for police to look at him, in particular.

Whereas Murdaugh's strategy was to use two different guns, and claim to have not been there. He also lured his victims to an outdoor crime scene, where there wouldn't be questions about how the killer(s) got into the home.

2. The other possibility is if the intention of the crime was kidnapping, and Russell's death was accidental.

(One YTer's theory is that the intention was to take him to an ATM. But there's nothing indicating that. And ATM limits are the same for everyone, why go to all this trouble of home invasion and two victims?)

3. So, the killer(s) probably believed there was a risk to themselves if they left both Shirley and Russell's remains in the home.

4. As already pointed out, removing Russell's head potentially indicates an effort to conceal the type of bullets/gun. Also, Shirley died from blunt-force trauma, not gunshot. So, a hypothesis is that the killer(s) believed they might be traced by the gun. That would mean a very unusual weapon, or one already known to police...or they might be found to own or have owned such a gun, if police scrutinized them?

5. If Russell had been completely removed, the killer(s) would have concealed that the couple had been murdered, at all. They would just be missing. Evidently, this is what the killer wanted to do with Shirley, (but they miscalculated about the buoyancy of human remains). A head alone would not inflate and become buoyant, so presumably it is still in the lake.

7. Even though Shirley's remains were found within days, that hasn't helped solve the crime. So whatever the reason for concealing her, it was unlikely to be forensic evidence. To me, that means making her disappear was intended to just create confusion about what might have happened.

6. So, it seems to me, Russell's death may have been a mistake by the killer(s). IMO, they had the intention of doing to Russell what they did to Shirley, but he defended more vigorously than anticipated.

I think the killer(s) ruled out trying to move a dead body. It just wouldn't work. That suggests one killer. IMO Shirley was able to be walked out. (That further suggests a gun.)

So, perhaps the killer reasoned that they could still confuse the situation by removing R's head, eliminating evidence as well.

7. My conclusion: possibily the person feared they would be identified as a suspect if the Dermond's were simply found dead in their home. The purpose of the crime would clearly be just plain murder. The person didn't want that, because police would look very closely at the few people who would like/benefit from them simply being dead.

JMO

 

[Rational_Geographic]

Welcome to Websleuths! I appreciate your well written thoughts on things. As you point out there are many unanswered questions and each of us with our individual ideas on what happened grade those questions differently as to their important. An example: It does not rate at all with me that the Dermond’s security system was off. Maybe it should, but it doesn’t.
I don’t necessarily believe Mrs D was killed or beaten in the house or garage, so the lack of signs of that vicious beating doesn’t surprise me. But I don’t necessarily believe the Ds were spirited away somewhere and Mr D was brought back.
I’ll stop there for now or I’ll spent all day writing here.
You give out a lot of food for thought, and thank you for that, so I need to ponder it all again. It’s all pretty maddening.

Ty for the welcome! Yes I know it seems very unlikely they were taken off-site but I don't know what to otherwise make (of SS's claims.) Are we going to just go rogue and say he must be wrong?

Some questions I have. Sills says there's no blood or evidence the murders took place in the home, does that exclude the area immediately outside the home like the front lawn area? And also to that end, someone showed me this very strange video someone did not long ago, a "reenactment" of the Lake Oconee Murders. There was a lot they got wrong so I don't trust the informational value of the video. However it starts off that morning with the day and its raining. Does anyone know if it rained on the morning of Saturday the 3rd? If it did, I wonder if the rain would have made a difference in terms of determination of a crime scene days later?

Also I know its an odd question but hear me out. In the very early days of the Lake Oconee Murders, if you go all the way back to the earliest threads on Lake Oconee here on WS, as you would expect to see, people are trying to find information on the Dermonds. Some people were getting confused between Russel Dermond from Putnam County, GA and a man from Athens, GA also named Russell "Chick" Dermond, who is famous as an Olympic canoeist. Once this is cleared up, people seem to accept that he is not the same Russell Dermond who was found decapitated at 147 Carolyn Drive. However. If you look at "Chick's" Wikipedia page, you will immediately notice that similar to Russell he is originally from New Jersey. There was an old Reddit thread that claimed that after Russell's mother left his father (at the age of four) he went on to have a child with another woman and ended up naming his subsequent son, Russell as well. Not only that but apparently Russell died, never knowing this sibling existed. I just thought jeez what a ridiculous rumor.

I mean, what are the odds that this half brother of Russel lived in NJ and just happened to ALSO move to Georgia? I guess another thing that bothers me is why is this never discussed. It all may be inconsequential but its certainly odd right?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

I've been digging into this case for the better part of the past six months, now. While I certainly cannot say "here from day one," I've really been feverishly trying to consume as much as I can in terms of the gathered known facts. Specifically, communications from Howard Sills whether it be via press conferences, articles or podcasts he's appeared on, and also of course scouring WS posts.

There's a lot of great information out there, as people have done their homework and due diligence in terms of researching the background/context of the Dermonds family, Putnam County, and also reaching out to Sills for interviews and people with a lot of knowledge. Hats off to those efforts.

I'm going to be honest here, in terms of theories that I've seen basically all around there's just a lot to be desired. Great takes on this case are just far and few inbetween. I get it, there's these huge mysteries in terms of motive and how the crime was commissioned so it leaves a lot of room for speculation but I keep seeing comments online where it's like people are acting like someone showed up to the Dermond house on a boat with a chainsaw ready to go and I'm sorry but that is not what happened.

I see a lot of theories for instance, where people keep insisting Shirley was killed hours after Russell. This is fundamentally nonsensical. It's been known since at least November of 2020 when Howard Sills was interviewed by HLN that Russell was found with Shirley's hair intertwined in his left hand, with which his corresponding left index finger was lacerated all the way to his palm. I agree with Sill's conclusion that this is logically the result of Russell attempting to block the Killer as he attempted to deliver one of (at least two) deadly blows to Shirley's skull. Therefore Russell was present when Shirely was killed and at least able to try and intervene. He could not have been killed, and certainly not decapitated (don't even go there, Sills has said the decapitation occured post-mortem) before this. I think given these details, the matter of "who died first" becomes moot because it's very likely they died, or at least were fatally attacked minutes if not seconds within each other.

The biggest mystery to me in this case, is that there's no blood splatter anywhere in the dermond's home, aside from the small mess from Russell's post-mortem decapitation in their garage. Are you effin kidding me? Blunt force trauma like what Shirley sustained should yield massive amounts of splatter everywhere, it's like a whipping around a drenched paintbrush effect. Where on earth did their murders take place? You answer that and you basically crack this thing wide open. I see a million people commenting about cults and how Sills is clueless. Let's get this conversation going in the right direction.

Sills has said that there's nothing to indicate that either Russel's or Shirley's blood is anywhere outside the home or on the dock. From what I understand, Sills has also said that the scent hounds were unable to pick up Shirley's scent ANYWHERE outside the surrounding area of the home. This also suggests to me that the killer's did not take her via boat. If they did not take her via boat, then that also means they did not arrive via boat. While it's very likely that a boat was used in the commission of Shirley's disposal in Lake Oconee, as disappointing as it may be to some, the killer/killers most likely did not arrive via water vessel.

I still have a lot of questions I would like answered. I find the fact that the security cameras were taken out by a lightning bolt very suspicious. I would really like to know everything about that. That explanation for them not working sounds like something out of a movie. It might be one of those things that sounds like bs but is actually just one of those odd coincidences (just like the Dermond's home security system being conveniently off) I would like to
know more.

Well I tend to think my own theory hits all the points. And of course I know I'm being very modest about it, lol.

First of all, yes serial killers will just walk in and target somebody random. That's why they're serial killers. They do that on purpose, because if they know that if they get somebody close to them, it'll lead quickly back to them. So usually they just go about their normal life, and at some point they pick up on somebody random, and they start to focus on them. So maybe the perp used to hang out by boat in that area, and at some point he noticed their isolated house, and he got interested.

Also just because Shirley was attempted to be hit, and Russell got cut and got some of her hair on his hands, does not mean she died at that point. I picture it as Russell trying defend Shirley and to grab Shirley away from the perp, and the perp was trying to hit Russell to get his hands off of her and struck Russell's hands. And that's when Russell ran out, because he realized he was losing. So Shirley was still alive at that point. Maybe the perp had already handcuffed her or tied her. That's why she didn't run.

I believe the killer brought an inflatable rowboat to the scene. That makes sense because he could fit it into his car. Maybe he was efficient and he even brought a little cart too.

So I believe Russell ran out of the house. The perp ran after him and shot him in the back of the head to keep him from escaping. That was not part of the plan. So he let Russell lay outside in the yard for a little while after he died. So the bleeding stopped.

Then he maybe he wrapped up his bleeding head, and or maybe he put him in the cart, and got him back to the garage. Or maybe he rolled him over into the inflatable boat. Dragged the boat back to the garage. Hopefully he didn't scrape the bottom of the boat. See that's why I'm thinking he had to have like a cart or something too. Because he didn't want to scrape the bottom of the boat. Or you know, he could even put the body in the half inflated boat and put the boat on top a tarp he had or some cardboard or something, to protect the bottom. And drag the body back to the garage.

So he left Shirley tied up inside while he cut off the guy's head in the garage. Because he wanted to remove the forensic evidence of the bullet. Russel had probably been dead for a few hours by this point, so there was probably not much bleeding. Plus the body was on top of something, either the half inflated boat, or on top of a tarp or some cardboard. Or both.

Somebody was talking about his pajama shirt. Maybe he took off the shirt first before he did that. Then put it back on.

When he was done, he tried to clean up the blood spots in yard with some water. I don't know if it rained too, that would help. It probably wasn't a lot of blood, it was just one gunshot.

Then he took the head, deflated the boat, and put the cardboard or tarp back in his car, and he untied shirley and put her in his car and he drove off.

He killed Shirley maybe later on at the campground across the lake. He made her get into the inflatable boat on the shore of the lake, and struck her in the head. Then used his inflatable boat to put her out to the lake, put the uninflated boat back in his car, and he left.

I think it works, right,?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Also I looked up a few things recently, because I was reading about the JonBenet Ramsey case again. For example, there was a urine stain in the carpet where she died there. And I looked it up to see when that happens, and found out that the body releases urine shortly after death. So the question is, was there urine stains in the Dermond house for one or both of them? And where was it. Police would have that knowledge, but I don't believe they've commented on it yet. For example, if there was one for Shirley, that would probably mean she died there, and I would have to rethink my theory that she was killed outside the house.

 

[Rational_Geographic]

Well I tend to think my own theory hits all the points. And of course I know I'm being very modest about it, lol.

First of all, yes serial killers will just walk in and target somebody random. That's why they're serial killers. They do that on purpose, because if they know that if they get somebody close to them, it'll lead quickly back to them. So usually they just go about their normal life, and at some point they pick up on somebody random, and they start to focus on them. So maybe the perp used to hang out by boat in that area, and at some point he noticed their isolated house, and he got interested.

Also just because Shirley was attempted to be hit, and Russell got cut and got some of her hair on his hands, does not mean she died at that point. I picture it as Russell trying defend Shirley and to grab Shirley away from the perp, and the perp was trying to hit Russell to get his hands off of her and struck Russell's hands. And that's when Russell ran out, because he realized he was losing. So Shirley was still alive at that point. Maybe the perp had already handcuffed her or tied her. That's why she didn't run.

I believe the killer brought an inflatable rowboat to the scene. That makes sense because he could fit it into his car. Maybe he was efficient and he even brought a little cart too.

So I believe Russell ran out of the house. The perp ran after him and shot him in the back of the head to keep him from escaping. That was not part of the plan. So he let Russell lay outside in the yard for a little while after he died. So the bleeding stopped.

Then he maybe he wrapped up his bleeding head, and or maybe he put him in the cart, and got him back to the garage. Or maybe he rolled him over into the inflatable boat. Dragged the boat back to the garage. Hopefully he didn't scrape the bottom of the boat. See that's why I'm thinking he had to have like a cart or something too. Because he didn't want to scrape the bottom of the boat. Or you know, he could even put the body in the half inflated boat and put the boat on top a tarp he had or some cardboard or something, to protect the bottom. And drag the body back to the garage.

So he left Shirley tied up inside while he cut off the guy's head in the garage. Because he wanted to remove the forensic evidence of the bullet. Russel had probably been dead for a few hours by this point, so there was probably not much bleeding. Plus the body was on top of something, either the half inflated boat, or on top of a tarp or some cardboard. Or both.

Somebody was talking about his pajama shirt. Maybe he took off the shirt first before he did that. Then put it back on.

When he was done, he tried to clean up the blood spots in yard with some water. I don't know if it rained too, that would help. It probably wasn't a lot of blood, it was just one gunshot.

Then he took the head, deflated the boat, and put the cardboard or tarp back in his car, and he untied shirley and put her in his car and he drove off.

He killed Shirley maybe later on at the campground across the lake. He made her get into the inflatable boat on the shore of the lake, and struck her in the head. Then used his inflatable boat to put her out to the lake, put the uninflated boat back in his car, and he left.

I think it works, right,?

Believe it or not, my current leading theory based on everything that I can know or say is along the lines of the thrill kill theory. However. With a few additional pieces of information that may or may not be known that (Sills may or may not be in possession of or share eventually) my leading theory coud change. In fact I predict my theory will change from thrill kill. But at this moment in time with what Sills has said in total, thrill kill makes the most sense.

Also yes while I agree Shirley didn't die "on impact" with the trauma caused by her assailant, she most likely died shortly thereafter. She was almost 90 years old. Even just one blow to her skull with enough force would have killed her, maybe not instantly but would be sufficient ultimately. My bigger argument is not who died first necessarily but rather what the order of events the attacks took place. Who died first is kind of a moot point because its really they died within moments of eachother. Does that make sense? All I know is they didn't die nor were they attacked hours apart like some people suggest. That is nonsensical imo. I would be shocked to learn they died hours and hours apart based on what we know thus far.

Here's my working theory (that again I cannot stress enough, WILL change):

At some point in the early hours of Saturday May 3rd (Shirley and Russell were stalked potentially for days or at least weeks, and targeted based on the location of their residence in Lake Oconee) someone or someones approached the Dermond home. I tend to think its two individuals but not necessarily, could be one could be three. The more the merrier doesn't apply in these cases because one person inevitably talks so if it was multiple killers its a father/son, brother/brother or husband/wife situation most likely because nobody has talked. Now Sills says the killer/killers were known to the Dermonds. I'd like to know why he says this because if it's the no forced entry thing, that's not convincing to me in terms of they absolutely knew their killer.if that's his rational I will differ from Sills on that aspect. There are lots of ways the killer could have gained non-forceful entry to their home without Shirley or/and Russell's permission. My guess is they were somehow drawn out of the home. Maybe they noticed someone on their front lawn and they went out to confront them? Something like that?

Anyway they go out and speak with this individual/individuals face to face. Idk if it was just one of them at first and then the other comes out but at some point they're right in front of them and then out of nowhere (no defensive wounds on Shirley) the killer assaults Shirley, and Russell intervenes. Now you have Shirley collapsed in the front yard, Russell is irate and fighting. Two scenarios here, either Russell bites his wife's assailant/assailants or they feel the need to reluctantly shoot Russell in his head. I think the gunpowder residue is sufficient to consider that Russell may have been shot out of haste. At any rate, this is where things didn't go as planned. The reason you know this is because of the two different methods in which Shirley and Russell were disposed of. At some point there is a functional purpose to consider. The killer or killers thought they'd be "in and out" just to leave both bodies and now they're on the hook for hours because of this sudden need to remove Russel's head either because of the bullet or DNA.

So now you have two collapsed bodies on the lawn of the Dermonds and the killer/killers have to think quick. There's drag marks in the garage from the side entrance to where his body is found. So the killer/killers drag Russell from this point and set him next to one of the cars for now. Shirley is immediately placed in the back of the van the killers backed up to their residence. I simply do not buy that the lake jad anything to do with the killers arrival or departure at any point based on what Sills has said. Russell has a gaping wound on his head and the killer/killers know they need to come back to decapitate so they place the towels under the garage door for the time being while they figure out a way to dispose of Shirley and they retrieve the proper utensil/utensils for decapitation.

They dispose of Shirley the night of May 3rd/early am of May 4th and circle back to the home to tend to Russell. This time if there is two killers it might only be one of them hence the need for the lamp. Maybe the plan was for Russell to be dumped in Lake Oconee as well but it didn't happen because they ran out of time and the sun had come up?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Believe it or not, my current leading theory based on everything that I can know or say is along the lines of the thrill kill theory. However. With a few additional pieces of information that may or may not be known that (Sills may or may not be in possession of or share eventually) my leading theory coud change. In fact I predict my theory will change from thrill kill. But at this moment in time with what Sills has said in total, thrill kill makes the most sense.

Also yes while I agree Shirley didn't die "on impact" with the trauma caused by her assailant, she most likely died shortly thereafter. She was almost 90 years old. Even just one blow to her skull with enough force would have killed her, maybe not instantly but would be sufficient ultimately. My bigger argument is not who died first necessarily but rather what the order of events the attacks took place. Who died first is kind of a moot point because its really they died within moments of eachother. Does that make sense? All I know is they didn't die nor were they attacked hours apart like some people suggest. That is nonsensical imo. I would be shocked to learn they died hours and hours apart based on what we know thus far.

Here's my working theory (that again I cannot stress enough, WILL change):

At some point in the early hours of Saturday May 3rd (Shirley and Russell were stalked potentially for days or at least weeks, and targeted based on the location of their residence in Lake Oconee) someone or someones approached the Dermond home. I tend to think its two individuals but not necessarily, could be one could be three. The more the merrier doesn't apply in these cases because one person inevitably talks so if it was multiple killers its a father/son, brother/brother or husband/wife situation most likely because nobody has talked. Now Sills says the killer/killers were known to the Dermonds. I'd like to know why he says this because if it's the no forced entry thing, that's not convincing to me in terms of they absolutely knew their killer.if that's his rational I will differ from Sills on that aspect. There are lots of ways the killer could have gained non-forceful entry to their home without Shirley or/and Russell's permission. My guess is they were somehow drawn out of the home. Maybe they noticed someone on their front lawn and they went out to confront them? Something like that?

Anyway they go out and speak with this individual/individuals face to face. Idk if it was just one of them at first and then the other comes out but at some point they're right in front of them and then out of nowhere (no defensive wounds on Shirley) the killer assaults Shirley, and Russell intervenes. Now you have Shirley collapsed in the front yard, Russell is irate and fighting. Two scenarios here, either Russell bites his wife's assailant/assailants or they feel the need to reluctantly shoot Russell in his head. I think the gunpowder residue is sufficient to consider that Russell may have been shot out of haste. At any rate, this is where things didn't go as planned. The reason you know this is because of the two different methods in which Shirley and Russell were disposed of. At some point there is a functional purpose to consider. The killer or killers thought they'd be "in and out" just to leave both bodies and now they're on the hook for hours because of this sudden need to remove Russel's head either because of the bullet or DNA.

So now you have two collapsed bodies on the lawn of the Dermonds and the killer/killers have to think quick. There's drag marks in the garage from the side entrance to where his body is found. So the killer/killers drag Russell from this point and set him next to one of the cars for now. Shirley is immediately placed in the back of the van the killers backed up to their residence. I simply do not buy that the lake jad anything to do with the killers arrival or departure at any point based on what Sills has said. Russell has a gaping wound on his head and the killer/killers know they need to come back to decapitate so they place the towels under the garage door for the time being while they figure out a way to dispose of Shirley and they retrieve the proper utensil/utensils for decapitation.

They dispose of Shirley the night of May 3rd/early am of May 4th and circle back to the home to tend to Russell. This time if there is two killers it might only be one of them hence the need for the lamp. Maybe the plan was for Russell to be dumped in Lake Oconee as well but it didn't happen because they ran out of time and the sun had come up?

Okay not a bad theory. But where do you get the idea that, Shirley and Russell must have been killed within a very short amount of time with each other? As I see it, Shirley could have been kept alive for days later, for all we know. What evidence points to your thought on that?

 

[Rational_Geographic]

Okay not a bad theory. But where do you get the idea that, Shirley and Russell must have been killed within a very short amount of time with each other? As I see it, Shirley could have been kept alive for days later, for all we know. What evidence points to your thought on that?

A number of factors. Shirley was killed via blunt force trauma. But she has no defensive wounds to account for. Russell has a few defensive wounds, specifically a laceration and gash on his left index finger that extends to his palm that are consistent with the idea that he tried to intervene when Shirley was attacked. Additionally, there's a strand of Shirley's hair in his hand. Could there be a number of explanations for this that don't involve Russell attempting to reflect a blow to his wife's head? Sure but you have to admit its very likely what occured. SS talks about this in more depth on the Nancy Grace episode from last year if you have not watched it, you should. But if you accept that SD was being attacked and RD intervened, then you know given her age, SD died shortly after the blows wether it was the initial or subsequent blow(s.)

As far as RD is concerned, after attempting to intervene, I see two options from that point forward that lead to a final outcome where the killers ultimately decided to go to the extreme lengths of decapitation. As things escalated Russell became incredibly irate and upset as you'd surely expect him to. I'd imagine in that moment he'd be described from the killer/kilers point of view as "unmanageable." I see a scenario where either Russell lashes out and possibly during an attempt to restrain him, he somehow is able to bite his killer OR Russell became so enraged that a gun they had brought to maybe corral or perhaps as a fear tactic was actually used to hastily "deal" with him in his rage, so to speak. Either way the decapitation was not something that the killer intended upon, imo. The reason that is obvious is because why would there be two separate final outcomes for both? That doesn't make sense. Either both decapitated or both disposed in the lake. The dichotomy here is the clue that something changed to where the final outcome is at leat in part at something that was done out of necessity.

And just in general, as wild and crazy as the final appearance/outcome appears, while yes absolutely this killer or killers thinks in a way most people can never relate to, that doesn't mean in terms of logistics they just simply threw caution to the wind and said "fk it! YOLO!" No. They still did things in a way to minimize time spent at the scene and to avoid detection. I don't believe the culprit/culprits just hung around the Dermonds house for hours and hours beyond what they had to do to get this all done. That is just not reality. In fact, Sills recently alluded to this idea that the killer wanted to return. I don't the killer intended to return, I think the killer did. Here's why. The killer left the front door open but yet put towels underneath the garage door to prevent blood and body fluids from seeping out of the garage? I don't buy that. And what is the benefit of Russel's body s not being detected a few hours vs a few days after his murder/beheading? It doesn't make sense to me. Instead it seems much more likely that after the initial incident involving Shirley and Russell after they are killed, Russell's body is dragged into the garage and Shirley is whisked away in a land vehicle where they decided to dump her body in the lake. During this time they leave the doors open with the intention of coming back with the proper items for decapitation and this is the period they lined the bottom of the garage door for, not post-decapitation. At least in my opinion.

 

[concernedcitizen706]

A number of factors. Shirley was killed via blunt force trauma. But she has no defensive wounds to account for. Russell has a few defensive wounds, specifically a laceration and gash on his left index finger that extends to his palm that are consistent with the idea that he tried to intervene when Shirley was attacked. Additionally, there's a strand of Shirley's hair in his hand. Could there be a number of explanations for this that don't involve Russell attempting to reflect a blow to his wife's head? Sure but you have to admit its very likely what occured. SS talks about this in more depth on the Nancy Grace episode from last year if you have not watched it, you should. But if you accept that SD was being attacked and RD intervened, then you know given her age, SD died shortly after the blows wether it was the initial or subsequent blow(s.)

As far as RD is concerned, after attempting to intervene, I see two options from that point forward that lead to a final outcome where the killers ultimately decided to go to the extreme lengths of decapitation. As things escalated Russell became incredibly irate and upset as you'd surely expect him to. I'd imagine in that moment he'd be described from the killer/kilers point of view as "unmanageable." I see a scenario where either Russell lashes out and possibly during an attempt to restrain him, he somehow is able to bite his killer OR Russell became so enraged that a gun they had brought to maybe corral or perhaps as a fear tactic was actually used to hastily "deal" with him in his rage, so to speak. Either way the decapitation was not something that the killer intended upon, imo. The reason that is obvious is because why would there be two separate final outcomes for both? That doesn't make sense. Either both decapitated or both disposed in the lake. The dichotomy here is the clue that something changed to where the final outcome is at leat in part at something that was done out of necessity.

And just in general, as wild and crazy as the final appearance/outcome appears, while yes absolutely this killer or killers thinks in a way most people can never relate to, that doesn't mean in terms of logistics they just simply threw caution to the wind and said "fk it! YOLO!" No. They still did things in a way to minimize time spent at the scene and to avoid detection. I don't believe the culprit/culprits just hung around the Dermonds house for hours and hours beyond what they had to do to get this all done. That is just not reality. In fact, Sills recently alluded to this idea that the killer wanted to return. I don't the killer intended to return, I think the killer did. Here's why. The killer left the front door open but yet put towels underneath the garage door to prevent blood and body fluids from seeping out of the garage? I don't buy that. And what is the benefit of Russel's body s not being detected a few hours vs a few days after his murder/beheading? It doesn't make sense to me. Instead it seems much more likely that after the initial incident involving Shirley and Russell after they are killed, Russell's body is dragged into the garage and Shirley is whisked away in a land vehicle where they decided to dump her body in the lake. During this time they leave the doors open with the intention of coming back with the proper items for decapitation and this is the period they lined the bottom of the garage door for, not post-decapitation. At least in my opinion.

I'm not sure your train of logic is definitive there. There are other explanations as to the injuries on Russell's hands and his wife's hair in his wound. For example, Russell could have grabbed his wife to try and help her, and the perp tries to hit RDs hand so that he would let go of her. And Russell raised up his hands after he had just held on to his wifes head and got hit in the hand. That does not mean the perp connected a blow to Shirley's head right then. In fact it could mean that Russell's successfully deflected a blow to Shirley's head, with his hand. Then if Russell ran right then, the perp had to run after him, and let go of Shirley. I think it's likely that Shirley was first handcuffed or tied up. That's why she did not run at that point.

 

[Rational_Geographic]

I'm not sure your train of logic is definitive there. There are other explanations as to the injuries on Russell's hands and his wife's hair in his wound. For example, Russell could have grabbed his wife to try and help her, and the perp tries to hit RDs hand so that he would let go of her. And Russell raised up his hands after he had just held on to his wifes head and got hit in the hand. That does not mean the perp connected a blow to Shirley's head right then. In fact it could mean that Russell's successfully deflected a blow to Shirley's head, with his hand. Then if Russell ran right then, the perp had to run after him, and let go of Shirley. I think it's likely that Shirley was first handcuffed or tied up. That's why she did not run at that point.

Is it possible a scenario like what you are proposing could've happened? Sure. But is it likely? I don't personally believe the killers spent a long duration in or around the home during the murders. The reason I feel this way is because Sills has said that they don't believe the killers barely even entered the home beyond the towel and lamp retrieval. In fact, Sills says almost nothing was touched in the garage itself. This killer was very focused from one moment to the next and dare I say "disciplined," for lack of a better term (not to compliment this savage or savages as it may have been.) As true as that may be, like Sills says they weren't professionals and my guess is that the reason they appear to be so disciplined eod has more to do with the fact that they simply knew not to sit there and dick around twiddle their thumbs. They knew enough to know they had to be there and then gone. The attack/murder/comforntation was immediate and quick imo.

Now. One thing I really wonder about is the claim by Sills they were killed "off-site." I guess while not impossible, its hard to imagine the killer or killers putting them both in a vehicle and driving them somewhere with Russell in his robe and risking them yelling or drawing attention to the situation at some point along the way. Its not impossible I suppose but it seems unlikely. How then to account for the lack of expected blood splatter from their murders in the Dermond home?

I'm just as perplexed by this as Sills appears to be so I'm open to suggestions. My initial thought is that they were killed on the front lawn maybe in one of the adjacent vacant lots where they may have been obscured from the view of neighbors? But then I thought a forensic team should have been able to determine that and not to mention the scent hounds and being able to pick up Shirleys scent on the property (which SS says they were unable to outside of the Dermonds home.) However, it made me wonder if at some point during those days either it had rained or maybe even the Dermond's sprinkler system (assuming they had one) may have kicked on and washed away evidence?

 

[concernedcitizen706]

Well in my theory, Shirley was killed later on where the body was dumped. And Russell was killed in the yard, after he tried to run away. And how are the dogs going to pick up their scent when they live there? I don't think that's going to work. The killer clearly got the lamp inside and Russell's body was in the garage, so we know they were in the house in some capacity. By the way, what type of phone did they have? A lot of older people just have landlines. So the perp could have cut the landline at the outside of the house. So maybe he just had Shirley run in and get the lamp. Because he knew she couldn't call anybody.

Edit- So I was just thinking about the dogs and what they can pick up. I know they can pick up the scent of death. So I guess, is the sheriff implying there was no scent of death there? I mean that would make sense for Shirley if she was taken somewhere else and killed. But what about Russell? Well he was clearly dead in the garage. See my theory is he died out in the yard. But that would not make sense if the dogs could not pick that up. Hmm. I might have to revise my theory slightly.

So this is how I will revise it. So after he was shot out in the yard, the perp must have quickly put him in the semi-inflated boat before he actually died. And then maybe dragged him over the grass on the boat, to like the side of the yard, so he was less visible from the road. Then he waited for a while before he did anything to him. Maybe because the perp was scared after the gunshot, that somebody heard it and might come over. So he hid for a while to make sure it was safe. And then came back like an hour later. So Russell was already dead for a while, that's why he did not bleed too much. But I don't know how that works for the scent. If Russell died in a container, outside, and did not touch the grass, does that still leave a scent for the cadaver dogs, if they come in days later? Not sure.

 

[Rational_Geographic]

Well in my theory, Shirley was killed later on where the body was dumped. And Russell was killed in the yard, after he tried to run away. And how are the dogs going to pick up their scent when they live there? I don't think that's going to work. The killer clearly got the lamp inside and Russell's body was in the garage, so we know they were in the house in some capacity. By the way, what type of phone did they have? A lot of older people just have landlines. So the perp could have cut the landline at the outside of the house. So maybe he just had Shirley run in and get the lamp. Because he knew she couldn't call anybody.

Edit- So I was just thinking about the dogs and what they can pick up. I know they can pick up the scent of death. So I guess, is the sheriff implying there was no scent of death there? I mean that would make sense for Shirley if she was taken somewhere else and killed. But what about Russell? Well he was clearly dead in the garage. See my theory is he died out in the yard. But that would not make sense if the dogs could not pick that up. Hmm. I might have to revise my theory slightly.

So this is how I will revise it. So after he was shot out in the yard, the perp must have quickly put him in the semi-inflated boat before he actually died. And then maybe dragged him over the grass on the boat, to like the side of the yard, so he was less visible from the road. Then he waited for a while before he did anything to him. Maybe because the perp was scared after the gunshot, that somebody heard it and might come over. So he hid for a while to make sure it was safe. And then came back like an hour later. So Russell was already dead for a while, that's why he did not bleed too much. But I don't know how that works for the scent. If Russell died in a container, outside, and did not touch the grass, does that still leave a scent for the cadaver dogs, if they come in days later? Not sure

Sills says, regrettably, they didn't use their cellphones very often. Russell's feet drag from the side garage door to the area where his body is ultimately found. Also from what I understand Sills has indicated Russell's body was placed against one of the cars at some point before its in the final position it's found in. To me that Indicates he was probably dead and slumped against the car while they tended to Shirley. They came back for the decapitation imo. I also don't believe they arrived with a boat nor did they leave via boat. That draws way too much attention. People notice boats docking there's just no way in hell anyone who is that calculating is going to risk coming in on a boat, that's like something out of a movie. That doesn't mean they didn't use a boat to dispose of Shirley, because they most certainly did and most likely did and at night imo.

 

[Rational_Geographic]

.