home intruder killing of Russell and Shirley Dermond touch DNA RDI JonBenet Ramsey

The murders of Russell and Shirley Dermond occurred in early May 2014 in Putnam County, Georgia, United States. The decapitated body of Russell Dermond (age 88) was found on May 6, 2014, in the garage of the house he owned on Lake Oconee. Neither his head nor his wife, Shirley (age 87), could be located in the house. Over a week later, Shirley's body was discovered floating in Lake Oconee, her body having been weighted down with concrete blocks. As of 2022, the murders remain unsolved and Russell's head has not been found.[1]
Background

Russell Joseph Dermond, a native of Hackensack, New Jersey, served in the United States Navy during World War II.[2] He married Shirley Wilcox on December 15, 1950. They went on to have four children and nine grandchildren. After working in the fast food industry, including owning several Hardee's locations in Atlanta, Russell retired in 1994. The Dermonds went on to move into Great Waters Reynolds at Lake Oconee, a gated community located about twelve miles northeast of Eatonton.[1][3] In 2000, their oldest son Mark was murdered in Atlanta while attempting to purchase crack cocaine. Investigators believe that there is no connection between this crime and the murder of Mark's parents.[2]

Russell was last seen alive on May 1, 2014, as he was running errands in Eatonton. Along with Shirley, he spoke with his son Brad over the phone later that day. The Dermonds were expected to attend a party for the 2014 Kentucky Derby the following weekend with their neighbors, who grew concerned when the couple did not show up. On May 6, one neighbor went to the Dermonds' house to check on them.[3] The neighbor found the door unlocked and entered the house. Russell's decapitated body was found on the floor of his two-car garage, lying in a small pool of blood.[1] When police were unable to locate Shirley inside the house, they initially suspected that she had been kidnapped.[4] Ten days later, Shirley's body was found by fishermen on Lake Oconee. An autopsy found that she had died from either two or three deep wounds to the head from a blunt object.[5]

Investigations

Initially, investigators were pursuing multiple potential leads to find the perpetrator(s) and their motive for killing the Dermonds. However, this eventually led nowhere, and over time the leads gradually declined in frequency.[4] Although the perpetrator(s) and motive remain unknown, Putnam County sheriff Howard Sills has said he is convinced that multiple people were involved. Because gunshot residue was found on Russell's collar,[5] Sills believes he was decapitated after having been shot in the head in an attempt to prevent police from finding the bullet,[6] and that the perpetrator(s) went to the Dermonds' home intending to obtain money, despite the fact that nothing in the home was stolen.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Russell_and_Shirley_Dermond

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

As owner, I do my best to stay out of actual discussions about a crime.

The JBR case is the one expection.

Websleuths is a leader in true crime information as well as discussion. People come here to get information. It is imperative we deal with the facts. Not fantasy.

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

delmar england wrote:
Letter to Boulder Colorado District Attorney, Mary Keenan

The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.

Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.

delmar wrote:
Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

delmar england wrote:
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related


The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

The murders were especially gruesome. Back in May 2014, Russell Dermond was found dead in his carport at his home in the Greater Waters subdivision of Lake Oconee. His head was severed from his body. His wife Shirley was located 10 days later. Someone tossed her body into the lake miles away. Concrete blocks weighed her down. Ten years later, investigators have few leads on who committed the grisly crimes. "They’re still out there and they’re more likely going to do something again if they haven’t already," Sills said.

On Tuesday, Sills got news of a possible break. Crime labs tested clothing from the scenes. Sills says the labs found new DNA evidence that does not belong to the victims. "It’s not Shirley or Russell Dermond and that it’s, hopefully, the DNA of the perpetrator or perpetrators of this crime," Sills said.

Sills says investigators are looking into whether the killer or killers left behind evidence without knowing it, what Sills called touch DNA. "That’s the DNA that you leave behind when you touch something."

Sills says the couple had no known enemies. So far, no suspects and no clear motive have been established. Sills says the labs need to do more testing.

reference

https://www.aol.com/news/decade-old-dermond-murder-mystery-032814455.html

In 2014, Shirley and Russell Dermond were murdered at their home on Lake Oconee, GA. Russell was decapitated, and his head has never been found; police theorize that the killer may have taken the head because he was unable to retrieve the bullet inside. Shirley's body was removed from the home, weighted with cement blocks, and submerged in the nearby lake, where it was found ten days later. After exhaustive investigation, law enforcement has not been able to identify any potential suspects or a motive.

Putnam County police announced today that several months ago, they sent Russell's shirt to Othram Labs and Sorensen Forensics, both of which located trace DNA that belongs to an "unknown individual". The news writeups are a bit unclear as to whether the sample is enough to check against DNA databases and do genealogical testing, but the sheriff says, "It’s the best evidence we have developed in 10 years."