Its really hard to say. Unfortunately, crimes are committed even in broad daylight on a busy street and the case is never solved because no one saw or heard a thing. And the police were left with a case that had no evidence or very little. There are plenty of cases where victims were found murdered in their home and LE doesn't have evidence to show them who did it. These type of cases haunt LE and I am sure this one does for Sills as well.
The Dermond property was a perfect place to commit a murder with it having two avenues to come or leave plus it sat way on the backside of the subdivion. Really I would think the only ones that were in that area much would have been someone coming to see them or their neighbors or maybe the landscapers who cut the grass. The problem though these homes don't sit real close together so it was rather isolated. I believe I remember there is a thicket of trees that obstructs the home from being seen by the neighbors. Now those that fish may come into that slew from time to time but I would say the overall property was probably pretty quiet with no one around much except an occasional fisherman and those who lived close by them.
The land/boat dock gave the murderer/s more options. Their home was very open from the front side and the backside on the lake. People passing by on a boat would easily know their layout of the land overall property and adjoining properties. They would even be able to know the layout of the home to get in and out choosing the one that would be less seen. They could assess all of that before even stepping on land.
Since one of the neighbors who was outside saw a man in the back the property the day it happened its my opinion they used a boat and took Shirley with them. They didn't pull it up where it could be seen from the home but I think they turned a John boat were it was parallel the seawall making it unseen by the Dermonds.
I cant remember all facets of this case but I don't think they ever narrowed down the exact time when the murders happened. So the perp, and I do think it is one lone perp, who used Shirley to get control of her husband. He/she/they ruled and controlled Shirley through fear and intimidation. I think they threatened to kill Russ if she didn't do as they demanded which imo it meant being tied up. Once tied up and bound they killed Russ and forced her to go down to the boat dock and leave with them. I don't think she was killed at the home. I think whoever this was had her hands tied and mouth gagged and then they proceeded to bludgeon her to death and after dropped her body in the deep part of the water thinking it would stay hidden.
Over the years as disheartening as it gets it seems so many times the luck is on the side of the killer/s. That is why so many cases including this one don't get solved right away. When there isn't any familiar link between the victim/s and suspect its a harder case to solve.
I think murders like this are a combination of luck and having the right opportunity and seizing upon it when it comes along.
There have been many murders even gruesome ones where the suspect was able to pull off the heinous crime of someone they didn't even know and in some cases had never even been to the particular home of the victim/s involved. Yet, they were able to make all the dominoes fall into place...sight unseen and leaving no evidence or not enough evidence behind.
The Dermond couple may not even been the targets. It could be a home invasion that went wrong when they found them both on the property. I do agree with Sills about taking the head. We have seen other decapitations done even by killers who didn't know the victim. Some killers just love the thrill of being able to do something so horrific and gruesome. In some cases desecrating a body is part of the thrill. They don't have to decapitate both victims. I think why they decapitated Russ' head was trying to slow down the police investigation. And it worked. LE spent most of the time at first at the crime scene they had doing the thorough forensic evaluation concerning Russ since his torso was left there. They also may have thought by removing Russ' head with no Shirley to be found anywhere (at the time) that it would make LE think this may implicate her in the murder of her husband. And for awhile until Shirley was found Sills did include her as a possibility. Unfortunately we have seen much older men and women murder their spouse in the later years.
So its really not a whole lot of difference in this case and another case where the police lacked evidence to even begin to show them who did it. I remember when Sarah Walker was bludgeoned, stabbed, beaten and murdered LE was sure she was targeted by someone she knew. They said the same thing. How did the suspect know she would be where she was? How would they know she would be alone? ETC. No one saw anyone around the model home. In the end the suspect didn't know anything before going in. He saw her go from her car into the model home. He saw no one else around and he walked in and cold bloodedly murdered a woman who was a complete stranger to him.
We see often where police say they just don't have the evidence they need to solve a particular case one way or another. So a lot of murder cases remained unsolved due to the lack of evidence. I think this is one of those cases.
I don't think this was a hit. In fact other than the brother who was murdered when he was buying drugs, I don't think any of these family members are anything but good people who had devoted parents they knew loved them. I certainly don't think the elderly couple was connected to the Mafia and Sills had to shake his head at that theory it was so unreasonable. Me too.
Just bouncing off your post dancin.....
People theorize quite often that there must be family involvement due to them inheriting a large amount of assets from parents who were murdered. While I understand that way of thinking it does not always hold weight. Sadly, people of wealth have been murdered by an acquaintance, neighbor, coworker,stranger, etc. So even though the Dermond children inherited their parents assets doesn't mean they had anything to do with what happened to their mom and dad. Nor does the 'who had the most to gain.' People kill for many motives even absolutely ridiculous and trivial ones but even those motives are enough in the mind of the killer.
Until the motive is known there isn't evidence to support the ones who financially gained the most are the suspects.
Wealthy people have even been murdered by a complete stranger. Their children, of course, and rightfully so were given all the assets the wealthy parent/s had even though they had nothing to do with them being murdered. All that means is the wishes of the parents were carried out in case something should happened to them.
Sorry for the very long post. I don't get to come here as often as I would like to post. So I have to do them all in one!
IMO
