theshadow45
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 5,081
- Reaction score
- 10,674
Dermot has been missing for 51 years today.
IL IL - Dermot Kelly, 16, Oglesby, Jan 1972
- Thread starter Satch
- Start date
spartanx
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2021
- Messages
- 963
- Reaction score
- 819
I have the impression that he ran away from home but perhaps he had to make a quick decision and that was to start over if he left all his things behind but also left his parents anguished for him... it shows that being so intelligent decreases happiness .. maybe he didn't want to disappoint them how many things went through his head or in a more strange case he found out he was homosexual and didn't want to or couldn't find a way to tell his parents...
whatever it is rest in peace
whatever it is rest in peace
My feeling goes with LE who reopened the case a few years ago and that reporter who worked on the case. Dermot took off his shows and jacket near the river's edge so that he would sink to the bottom as quickly as possible. Than walked to the edge of the river and shot himself in the head or heart to get it over with as fast as possible.
In our view, Dermot left home that day, after fighting with his Dad, because tensions were beyond repair. He wanted to kill himself in water to make sure that his body would never be found. When the barge went through later that week, it would have made finding him almost impossible, which is exactly what Dermot wanted.
Being a minor, and living with an abusive father, Dermot knew that he had no other choice, and back in 1972 with his father's law and legal connections, Dermot just could not take his father's authoritarian rules anymore. Dermot killed himself to find peace. To end his suffering. For him, it was the only way that he could get the abuse to stop.
Satch
In our view, Dermot left home that day, after fighting with his Dad, because tensions were beyond repair. He wanted to kill himself in water to make sure that his body would never be found. When the barge went through later that week, it would have made finding him almost impossible, which is exactly what Dermot wanted.
Being a minor, and living with an abusive father, Dermot knew that he had no other choice, and back in 1972 with his father's law and legal connections, Dermot just could not take his father's authoritarian rules anymore. Dermot killed himself to find peace. To end his suffering. For him, it was the only way that he could get the abuse to stop.
Satch
theshadow45
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 5,081
- Reaction score
- 10,674
Bumping, today is Dermot’s birthday.
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
Hi everyone. I came to this thread originally because I thought Dermot could be one of the Wilmington Does (kraft victims in CA) but all of your amazing work and dedication got me hooked. I've just finished the whole thread so its fresh in my mind. Many of you have concluded on what happened to Dermot and your arguments are all very compelling but I've picked up on a few things I wanted to mention. (Some have already been mentioned...but I'm mentioning again anyway.) And I should say, I don't yet have a favoured theory, I think they all have problematic issues)
The first thing I wanted to get out of the way. I may have missed it, but I've not seen anywhere mentioned officially that Dermot went for psychological treatment, only unspecified "medical treatment". I tried to figure out what that might be, something LE and the family didn't want mentioning, that wasn't psychiatric, but I couldn't. Usually if a person has had hospital treatment or was depressed its mentioned as relevant in their case. I came to the possibility that in Fall 71 Dermot tried to commit suicide. After his life was saved he was probably committed to a sanitarium for some weeks for analysis and treatment. I don't necessarily see any evidence either way for him having been gay, but he was despondent and possibly suicidal.
Now, you might say that this IS relevant to the case so LE would have mentioned it. Correct, except....Dermot's father is a high up attorney and heavily involved with the Republican party. In 1972 that's not gonna go down well at all! A suicidal hippie communist for a son! I believe this information was blocked by his father. Only later have elements of his family life and home problems filtered out. Ok...
The Gun
The very first thing I noticed was that he had a 22 calibre rifle. Now, unless he had super weird long arms it would almost impossible for him to shoot himself with such a gun. The distance between the trigger and muzzle is just too long. He could have rested it on the ice and pulled the trigger with his toes. However, since no blood was found on the ice this is most unlikely. In fact, I don't think it's at all likely he shot himself as there would have been frozen blood on the ice, clearly visible.
It has been pointed out that if he had shot himself, the gun would have still had the spent shell casing inside. This is absolutely right. In the early 70s it's most likely it was a pump action rifle and you would need to manually eject the shell. I believe that LE didn't find a spent shell in the gun or it would have pointed to suicide, where in fact they seemed to always favour accidental drowning.
Gun found but no body
This bothers me. When a dead body enters water it sinks, 99.99% it sinks. In colder water it sinks faster. In colder water decomposition doesn't start so it won't float up until the warmer months. Now, a body is heavier than a gun. If the gun was found then a body should have been found not far away. Some have mentioned that the body may have been dragged by the current. Again...in that case so should have the gun.
I did a bit of research on this placement where the Vermilion joins the Illinois. The current here is not very strong, even in winter. Also, there is a very large sandbank along the riverbank where Dermot was. In summer it becomes a small beach when the water is low. This is where silt and other detritus end up before the water ends up in the Illinois. This is where Dermot should have ended up. I firmly believe that if Dermot entered that water there then he would have been found nearby. I think a week long underwater search should've found him.
Telescopic lens
This is so suspicious to me! These things don't just fall off! They're designed to stay on while a person is hunting in pretty rough terrain. This needed to be physically removed by Dermot. Why? I had wondered if I rolled in the river and he went to fetch it, dying in the freezing water.
But I've also considered...if a young man was staging his disappearance then for what reason might he keep the telescopic lens but not the gun. To watch people! The people looking for him perhaps....
Hypothermia & Paradoxical undressing
I don't buy this at all. It just wasn't that cold. I know it WAS cold, but not that cold. I've played outside as a kid in those temperatures many times, usually in a similar outfit to Dermot. Jeans are surprisingly warm and he had layers on which is fine. Since we know he had walked a fair distance, I think he would have been fine. Especially as he'd only been out in it for 90 mins. This wasn't the first time he'd been in out in Illinois in winter, he was used to this weather and I'm certain he knew what was appropriate clothing for himself.
Paradoxical undressing to explain the boots and jacket. No, I don't think so. This usually occurs after long exposure to extremely low temperatures when a person is inactive. It usually results in a disordered and chaotic removal of most clothes. Usually the clothes are literally ripped off the body because a person by this point has already lost motor function and feeling in their fingers and toes. Orderly removal of coat and boots doesn't fit. Neither does picking up the rifle after it's been placed in the snow. No, I don't buy this one.
90 min wait to report him missing
Makes no sense at all. I cannot believe the police even accepted a report, let alone launched a manhunt, after 90 mins of a 16 year old being missing out hunting in the woods. Even I'd have given it more time!
It only came to light relatively recently that Dermot and his dad had an argument before he left. That puts a new spin on things. Imagine if this was a huge argument and Dermot stormed out with the gun, not, as his father said, to do target practice. And his dad really tell him to "wear warm boots" or was that just to put him in a good light?
Did the family actually panic because Dermot was a suicide risk and had run off with a gun? Does this explain LEs immediate jump to action; because instead of a kid out hunting they actually had an angry and/or suicidal kid running around with a gun?
Again, I feel like LE and his father suppressed this information.
"Don't forget to wear warm boots"+ "he went out to do target practice"
It struck me as a bit odd tbh. Was he not wearing boots at the time? Did he not know what to wear, had he never been out in the snow before!? Also, Dermot didn't strike me as the kind of kid who'd go hunting or use a gun. Doesn't that go directly against all of the principles he was supposed to espouse? Were there many gun toting hippies advocating for peace and justice while out shooting targets?!
In all honesty I think its coincidental that he apparently goes out with a rifle and his dad tells him to wear warm boots and lo and behold the gun and the boots are then found on a riverbank, backing up this apparently caring dads story.
I just found it...suspicious. make of that what you will.
I also can't believe his family knew the exact amount of money he had on him right down to the cents! Odd...
Footprints
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have never once read in official accounts of his socks being found with the boots. Perhaps an oversight...perhaps...
It's also possible that these footprints were not even Dermots. They may have been one of the locals who originally helped the family search? Or someone who came upon the scene. Ice and snow distorts footprints alot there's no way to prove they were barefoot. Icy footprints made by boots can often distort to look like big foot or yeti footprints! Let alone prove they were Dermot's!
I'm erring towards 2 scenarios .
1)Believing that Dermot had stashed some stuff closeby, including shoes and a coat., but perhaps he forgot socks. I think he took his shoes and jacket off. Left them, threw the gun away (perhaps he hated the gun, it wasn't representative of his ideals), but he kept the telescopic lens. Either to sell, or because it was useful somehow. Puts his other clothes on and off he goes to start a new life on his own, all by himself...as he said he would. The lack of any other footprints...he walked in socks, they don't really leave much prints in snow!
Dermot was incredibly intelligent. I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't read some old murder mystery with exactly this scenario of footprints in the ice! Hed have been quite capabke of this. I think he headed to California since he had friends there already and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have someone helping him.
2) Dermot's dad gets rid of his embarrassment of a son. Either by locking him away in a sanitarium or by murdering him. His mum doesn't know about it. Father stages this odd scene at the riverbank which fits in with the stories he'd then tell to LE. This would explain the odd scene that doesnt make sense. Because it was staged. This family was clearly in a troubled place and it's interesting his sister suffered with mental problems all her life.
I know suicide seems like the most likely scenario here, and yes there are some signs which suggest he was despondent and suicidal. But im just not seeing it peesonally. I do belive that he was suicidal at a point, but I belive that with some therapy he realised that rather than kill himself he could escape the things that were causing him these feelings. The family and church.
If I had to put money on it, I'd say Dermot ended up in the Haight district of San Francisco.
Omg sorry long post, but I made alot of notes while reading this wonderful thread
but that's my take anyway
The first thing I wanted to get out of the way. I may have missed it, but I've not seen anywhere mentioned officially that Dermot went for psychological treatment, only unspecified "medical treatment". I tried to figure out what that might be, something LE and the family didn't want mentioning, that wasn't psychiatric, but I couldn't. Usually if a person has had hospital treatment or was depressed its mentioned as relevant in their case. I came to the possibility that in Fall 71 Dermot tried to commit suicide. After his life was saved he was probably committed to a sanitarium for some weeks for analysis and treatment. I don't necessarily see any evidence either way for him having been gay, but he was despondent and possibly suicidal.
Now, you might say that this IS relevant to the case so LE would have mentioned it. Correct, except....Dermot's father is a high up attorney and heavily involved with the Republican party. In 1972 that's not gonna go down well at all! A suicidal hippie communist for a son! I believe this information was blocked by his father. Only later have elements of his family life and home problems filtered out. Ok...
The Gun
The very first thing I noticed was that he had a 22 calibre rifle. Now, unless he had super weird long arms it would almost impossible for him to shoot himself with such a gun. The distance between the trigger and muzzle is just too long. He could have rested it on the ice and pulled the trigger with his toes. However, since no blood was found on the ice this is most unlikely. In fact, I don't think it's at all likely he shot himself as there would have been frozen blood on the ice, clearly visible.
It has been pointed out that if he had shot himself, the gun would have still had the spent shell casing inside. This is absolutely right. In the early 70s it's most likely it was a pump action rifle and you would need to manually eject the shell. I believe that LE didn't find a spent shell in the gun or it would have pointed to suicide, where in fact they seemed to always favour accidental drowning.
Gun found but no body
This bothers me. When a dead body enters water it sinks, 99.99% it sinks. In colder water it sinks faster. In colder water decomposition doesn't start so it won't float up until the warmer months. Now, a body is heavier than a gun. If the gun was found then a body should have been found not far away. Some have mentioned that the body may have been dragged by the current. Again...in that case so should have the gun.
I did a bit of research on this placement where the Vermilion joins the Illinois. The current here is not very strong, even in winter. Also, there is a very large sandbank along the riverbank where Dermot was. In summer it becomes a small beach when the water is low. This is where silt and other detritus end up before the water ends up in the Illinois. This is where Dermot should have ended up. I firmly believe that if Dermot entered that water there then he would have been found nearby. I think a week long underwater search should've found him.
Telescopic lens
This is so suspicious to me! These things don't just fall off! They're designed to stay on while a person is hunting in pretty rough terrain. This needed to be physically removed by Dermot. Why? I had wondered if I rolled in the river and he went to fetch it, dying in the freezing water.
But I've also considered...if a young man was staging his disappearance then for what reason might he keep the telescopic lens but not the gun. To watch people! The people looking for him perhaps....
Hypothermia & Paradoxical undressing
I don't buy this at all. It just wasn't that cold. I know it WAS cold, but not that cold. I've played outside as a kid in those temperatures many times, usually in a similar outfit to Dermot. Jeans are surprisingly warm and he had layers on which is fine. Since we know he had walked a fair distance, I think he would have been fine. Especially as he'd only been out in it for 90 mins. This wasn't the first time he'd been in out in Illinois in winter, he was used to this weather and I'm certain he knew what was appropriate clothing for himself.
Paradoxical undressing to explain the boots and jacket. No, I don't think so. This usually occurs after long exposure to extremely low temperatures when a person is inactive. It usually results in a disordered and chaotic removal of most clothes. Usually the clothes are literally ripped off the body because a person by this point has already lost motor function and feeling in their fingers and toes. Orderly removal of coat and boots doesn't fit. Neither does picking up the rifle after it's been placed in the snow. No, I don't buy this one.
90 min wait to report him missing
Makes no sense at all. I cannot believe the police even accepted a report, let alone launched a manhunt, after 90 mins of a 16 year old being missing out hunting in the woods. Even I'd have given it more time!
It only came to light relatively recently that Dermot and his dad had an argument before he left. That puts a new spin on things. Imagine if this was a huge argument and Dermot stormed out with the gun, not, as his father said, to do target practice. And his dad really tell him to "wear warm boots" or was that just to put him in a good light?
Did the family actually panic because Dermot was a suicide risk and had run off with a gun? Does this explain LEs immediate jump to action; because instead of a kid out hunting they actually had an angry and/or suicidal kid running around with a gun?
Again, I feel like LE and his father suppressed this information.
"Don't forget to wear warm boots"+ "he went out to do target practice"
It struck me as a bit odd tbh. Was he not wearing boots at the time? Did he not know what to wear, had he never been out in the snow before!? Also, Dermot didn't strike me as the kind of kid who'd go hunting or use a gun. Doesn't that go directly against all of the principles he was supposed to espouse? Were there many gun toting hippies advocating for peace and justice while out shooting targets?!
In all honesty I think its coincidental that he apparently goes out with a rifle and his dad tells him to wear warm boots and lo and behold the gun and the boots are then found on a riverbank, backing up this apparently caring dads story.
I just found it...suspicious. make of that what you will.
I also can't believe his family knew the exact amount of money he had on him right down to the cents! Odd...
Footprints
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have never once read in official accounts of his socks being found with the boots. Perhaps an oversight...perhaps...
It's also possible that these footprints were not even Dermots. They may have been one of the locals who originally helped the family search? Or someone who came upon the scene. Ice and snow distorts footprints alot there's no way to prove they were barefoot. Icy footprints made by boots can often distort to look like big foot or yeti footprints! Let alone prove they were Dermot's!
I'm erring towards 2 scenarios .
1)Believing that Dermot had stashed some stuff closeby, including shoes and a coat., but perhaps he forgot socks. I think he took his shoes and jacket off. Left them, threw the gun away (perhaps he hated the gun, it wasn't representative of his ideals), but he kept the telescopic lens. Either to sell, or because it was useful somehow. Puts his other clothes on and off he goes to start a new life on his own, all by himself...as he said he would. The lack of any other footprints...he walked in socks, they don't really leave much prints in snow!
Dermot was incredibly intelligent. I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't read some old murder mystery with exactly this scenario of footprints in the ice! Hed have been quite capabke of this. I think he headed to California since he had friends there already and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have someone helping him.
2) Dermot's dad gets rid of his embarrassment of a son. Either by locking him away in a sanitarium or by murdering him. His mum doesn't know about it. Father stages this odd scene at the riverbank which fits in with the stories he'd then tell to LE. This would explain the odd scene that doesnt make sense. Because it was staged. This family was clearly in a troubled place and it's interesting his sister suffered with mental problems all her life.
I know suicide seems like the most likely scenario here, and yes there are some signs which suggest he was despondent and suicidal. But im just not seeing it peesonally. I do belive that he was suicidal at a point, but I belive that with some therapy he realised that rather than kill himself he could escape the things that were causing him these feelings. The family and church.
If I had to put money on it, I'd say Dermot ended up in the Haight district of San Francisco.
Omg sorry long post, but I made alot of notes while reading this wonderful thread
but that's my take anyway
Laughing
Rarely Speechless
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 15,584
- Reaction score
- 60,537
@Ciriii57 , enjoyed reading your analysis & appreciate your input in Dermot Kelly's case, and agree with almost all of it!
However, we are a family that owns firearms.
Not checking today, but following other questions about potential suicides, I have unlocked rifle & shotgun cases and measured trigger-to-muzzle with a tape measure. I'm 5'8", and could -- by measurement, I did not hold any unloaded firearm in this position -- push the trigger with my thumb.
As you say, though, Dermot Kelly's body should be right by that rifle.
You've certainly identified the moving parts!
I like the idea that young Mr. Kelly stashed shoes & clothes -- and walked off into a peaceful sunset & a different life.
jmho ymmv lrr
However, we are a family that owns firearms.
Not checking today, but following other questions about potential suicides, I have unlocked rifle & shotgun cases and measured trigger-to-muzzle with a tape measure. I'm 5'8", and could -- by measurement, I did not hold any unloaded firearm in this position -- push the trigger with my thumb.
As you say, though, Dermot Kelly's body should be right by that rifle.
You've certainly identified the moving parts!
I like the idea that young Mr. Kelly stashed shoes & clothes -- and walked off into a peaceful sunset & a different life.
jmho ymmv lrr
Cubby
fly the W!
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 77,225
- Reaction score
- 13,525
Welcome to WS Ciriii57.
Iirc, my conversation with the detective then assigned to Dermots case indicated there was only one set of footprints going to the river. No prints indicating a walk away from the river. I think it's possible the barge did a lot of damage to Dermot's body which could explain why it wasn't recovered. It's possible the barge carried the body an unknown distance.
I don't think we know where the barge was heading and where it may have made stops.
Iirc, my conversation with the detective then assigned to Dermots case indicated there was only one set of footprints going to the river. No prints indicating a walk away from the river. I think it's possible the barge did a lot of damage to Dermot's body which could explain why it wasn't recovered. It's possible the barge carried the body an unknown distance.
I don't think we know where the barge was heading and where it may have made stops.
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
Thanks for pointing this out! In this case then then I retract my statement, it seems Dermot would have been able to pull the trigger.
I still think that there would have been some evidence of blood spatter on the ice though and of course, I think his body should have been found near the gun. Not to be too graphic, but if his body had a bullet wound then it should have sunk even faster as water flooded into the wound.
Now, maybe someone can answer this (I dont know that much about guns). Since Dermot apparently went to do target practice, shouldn't he have had bullets with him? Somehow I don't imagine a hunting rifle in 1972 having a magazine to hold bullets. I imagine you would need to take a supply of bullets? It's never metioned any were found, so how does a lack of bullets affect his ability to shoot targets? (Please correct me if I am makin an incorrect assumotion with this). Also, is this something you would just put in your pocket or would you likely take a small bag to carry them in (Again, no bag was mentioned as being found in that case?)
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
Hi @Cubby and thanks!
You are right of course, no footprints can have been found leading away otherwise it would have been obvious it wasn't a suicide. And I must admit, this is a snafu in my thinking!
The thing is, not having a clue what that area of the riverbank looked like at the time we can't be sure that snow covered the entire ground, how big the footpath was, whether there was alot of undergrowth or leaf-litter. I think it's quite possible that if you wanted to leave the scene you could without leaving a trail. For instance by walking on the undergrowth. Equally, since the ground was frozen then if you were able to walk on areas which weren't snow covered, you wouldn't leave any footprints on frozen ground.
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
If you're anything like me, it is really helpful to see the area where it all happened. I have failed to find a photo of the specific area but I did manage to get some decent google earth and maps images of how the area is to give a general idea. We know it was around the area where the Vermilion flows into the Illinois:
This is looking towards the Vermilion from over the Illinois. The Illinois river flows West (to the right of the photo) and you can see the sand bank in the bottom right where I belive Dermot's body should have got caught up if he was in there (Of course in Januaty most of those trees would be without leaves, meaning there may have been more debris, leaflitter and branches in the river to snag a body):
View attachment 457621
This photo gives a better idea of where the silt build up is in relation to the flow of the river. I firmly believe anything large in the water would have ended up here:
I also wanted to measure how far his footprints actually extended into the river. Barely any distance at all, I think it would still be really shallow with things to get caught in (weeds, roots, branches etc) at this point. This is taken just a short way down from where the rivers meet. Due to the current and flow of the river anything like a body should have stayed close to the riverbank at the right rather than drifting into the middle course (It didn't though):
View attachment 457624
earth.google.com
This image was taken from google maps from a bridge across the Vermilion river not far from where Dermot disappeared from. The place the rivers meet can be seen in the middle distance (where the red crane protrudes into the water)
And finally, the below image gives a good idea of what the path was like along the riverbank:
www.google.com
Looking at all this, I see that the river is not particularly fast at this part and in January there should have been alot of foliage debris around. I can certainly understand why LE at the time believed that they would have found him if he was in there.
It is also possible that there wasn't snow on the ground everywhere and that the riverbank being frozen ground would mean no footprints were left. I therefore think that IF Dermot had been in that river he would have been found easily by divers not far away from where that gun was found. I also think there is a remote possibility he left without leaving any evidence.
This is looking towards the Vermilion from over the Illinois. The Illinois river flows West (to the right of the photo) and you can see the sand bank in the bottom right where I belive Dermot's body should have got caught up if he was in there (Of course in Januaty most of those trees would be without leaves, meaning there may have been more debris, leaflitter and branches in the river to snag a body):
View attachment 457621
This photo gives a better idea of where the silt build up is in relation to the flow of the river. I firmly believe anything large in the water would have ended up here:
I also wanted to measure how far his footprints actually extended into the river. Barely any distance at all, I think it would still be really shallow with things to get caught in (weeds, roots, branches etc) at this point. This is taken just a short way down from where the rivers meet. Due to the current and flow of the river anything like a body should have stayed close to the riverbank at the right rather than drifting into the middle course (It didn't though):
View attachment 457624
Google Earth
This image was taken from google maps from a bridge across the Vermilion river not far from where Dermot disappeared from. The place the rivers meet can be seen in the middle distance (where the red crane protrudes into the water)
And finally, the below image gives a good idea of what the path was like along the riverbank:
Google Maps
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Looking at all this, I see that the river is not particularly fast at this part and in January there should have been alot of foliage debris around. I can certainly understand why LE at the time believed that they would have found him if he was in there.
It is also possible that there wasn't snow on the ground everywhere and that the riverbank being frozen ground would mean no footprints were left. I therefore think that IF Dermot had been in that river he would have been found easily by divers not far away from where that gun was found. I also think there is a remote possibility he left without leaving any evidence.
Attachments
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
Ok there are going to be multiple postings here (Sorry). I noticed some people wanted to see where Dermot lived in relation to where he disappeared. This was Dermot's house (with the red dot). Look at all that forest nearby:
and below shows his house (RED DOT) in relation to where he vanished (PINK DOT). There's ALOT of woodland and fields in between, I think he probably went straight down to the river and walked along it until he reached the end...
and below shows his house (RED DOT) in relation to where he vanished (PINK DOT). There's ALOT of woodland and fields in between, I think he probably went straight down to the river and walked along it until he reached the end...
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
And finally, because a few people wanted to see more photos of Dermot, here they are:
This is Dermot as a Freshman in the 1970 Yearbook (photo probably taken about September 1969):
Dermot in a religious education class in the 1971 yearbook:
This is really weird...in the 1971 yearbook class photo...his photo has been blacked out!! What would the reason be for that? Also his name was spelled wrong):
(I know it looks like his name relates to the other kid, but the names aren't next to the rows of photos which start further up. The blacked out one refers to Dermot!!) It kind of looks like they just stuck something over his face!
Here's the whole page for perspective see where something has been stuck over his face!
Dermot doesn't appear at all in the 1972 yearbook, even though he could have still been for photo day in September 71. I guess he was away in Chicago for his "medical treatment". But not even his name, not even a mention of their missing classmate! It's like he has been wiped from the history of the school! Very odd
And of course we have all seen the below photo, but I thought I would try and colorize it. Unfortunately I can't seem to get the blonde hair and blue eyes very well (I must admit...even in black and white photos his hair looks brown to me, not strawberry blone..but what do I know!). Here's a few for you all:
Hope you like
This is Dermot as a Freshman in the 1970 Yearbook (photo probably taken about September 1969):
Dermot in a religious education class in the 1971 yearbook:
This is really weird...in the 1971 yearbook class photo...his photo has been blacked out!! What would the reason be for that? Also his name was spelled wrong):
(I know it looks like his name relates to the other kid, but the names aren't next to the rows of photos which start further up. The blacked out one refers to Dermot!!) It kind of looks like they just stuck something over his face!
Here's the whole page for perspective see where something has been stuck over his face!
Dermot doesn't appear at all in the 1972 yearbook, even though he could have still been for photo day in September 71. I guess he was away in Chicago for his "medical treatment". But not even his name, not even a mention of their missing classmate! It's like he has been wiped from the history of the school! Very odd
And of course we have all seen the below photo, but I thought I would try and colorize it. Unfortunately I can't seem to get the blonde hair and blue eyes very well (I must admit...even in black and white photos his hair looks brown to me, not strawberry blone..but what do I know!). Here's a few for you all
:Hope you like
You post some interesting and thoughtful comments on this cold case.
It would be important to know the exact make and model rifle that he had. Most .22 rifles back then would probably have been the bolt action type. Semi automatic models were also popular, with lever action and pump actions less so. Any type of rifle other than a semi automatic would have retained the shell casing after firing, while a semi automatic would have ejected the spent shell and chambered a new round.
Any type of .22 rifle, if not a single shot model, could have had either a tubular magazine or clip type magazine to hold the cartridges, but proper procedure for anyone going out target shooting would be to carry the rifle empty to the range, separate from the cartridges. Cartridges for .22 rimfire rifles are small and could be carried in their box, or loose in the pockets, or in a special belt with loops.
While suicide is a definite possibility, another equally possible scenario should be considered as well. This was in January and it was below freezing that day as evidenced by the ice and snow. It is possible that Dermot was actually out target shooting and fired at a tree. If so, it is possible that his bullet riccoched off the tree and struck him accidentally. If not initially fatal, he could have walked away from that area, perhaps behaving in an irrational manner, dropping his rifle and other items along the way.
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
Thank you, I am learning about guns haha When I looked (briefly) at rifles of this time I only really found the bolt action and lever action ones. I had thought that maybe semi-automatic ones were less popular? But it is good to learn that these things were readily available.
One thing I haven't thought of (I am not from the US so I am unsure on laws etc). Would Dermot, aged 16, have been legally allowed to take out a gun unsupervised and do target practice in 1972? Also, what does target practice actuallt involve? What would he have been shooting at? I guess not game at that time of year?
Good idea about an accidental shooting injury. There was never any mention of a trail of blood or blood on his coat though? I think there would have been?
Each US state has its own laws regarding hunting seasons, legal firearms, minimum age, etc. I am not sure what Illinois hunting laws and seasons were in 1972, but it is possible that rabbit season was still open in January.
It is mainly state and local laws which pertain to the purchase and ownership of firearms. Typically, a person would have to be a certain age (usually 18) to purchase a rifle or shotgun, and older (between 18 and 21) to purchase a pistol. This would be from a licensed gun dealer. However, purchases from an individual or purchases by a parent or guardian for a minor is/was common.
Nothing that I know of would have been illegal for Dermot to go out target shooting - unless he was in violation of some local ordinance or law such as shooting within a certain distance from a home, road, or building.
The term "target shooting" could mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean. Normally, one places paper targets at a given distance from the shooting line, and has a safe back stop behind it to absorb the bullets. Established shooting ranges go by standard safety rules when it comes to firearms. But to some folks, just going outside to shoot at tin cans might be referred to as "target shooting" (perhaps meaning anything other than hunting).
Some where there is a report which identifies the specific rifle in question. Knowing the exact make and model would be important in forming a theory of a possible scenario. Regarding the telescopic sight - .22 rifles prior to 1972 all had iron sights on the barrel, although some might also have been sold with an attached scope. They usually attached to the receiver with a sort of clamp which engaged a cut or rail milled into the receiver. Detaching a scope could be done with the use of a screw driver. If a scope became fogged up or damaged, it could be removed and the shooter would still have the iron sights to use.
Laughing
Rarely Speechless
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 15,584
- Reaction score
- 60,537
Wow Dermot Kelley looks so very sad in that freshman picture! Happier in Religion class, nice to see him smile.
Thanks, @Richard , appreciate your input!
And @Ciriii57 , keep asking questions.
Haven't been out shooting in a while, but at a range with paper targets I want to shoot in several positions -- prone, sitting, kneeling, standing, maybe from the bench. Now in the snow, I am not likely to shoot prone -- laying down.
For any position, pants pockets are not an easy place for bullets/shells/ammo.
As @Richard points out, for .22 you're likely carrying the box. If you're part of my family, you're probably wearing a heavy flannel shirt or shirt-jac like this:
bootleggersfootwear.net
Not promoting any brand, this is just a good representation.
I'm right handed & fire right handed. Shell box is in the left shirt pocket. I can reach into it prone, sitting, kneeling, or standing. My son is so strongly left handed that he owns left-handed firearms (not all -- but these exist.) Sometimes, his ammo box is in the right shirt pocket. I don't do that -- you nestle the rifle butt into your shoulder, the pocket with the box can be in the way.
Dermot may have felt this type of shirt-jac would be enough that day?
And -- in many places, you don't need a paper target. People leave trash -- cans & food wrappers -- in the woods. Today, many people who go hike/walk in wooded areas carry bags & take trash out.
Other people use the trash for target practice, sometimes called plinking. Sometimes in place, sometimes setting up a can on a fallen log until someone knocks it off.
I don't know the habits of the Kelley family -- did family members go out plinking? Did Dermot? Was Hunting an Acceptable Activity to Mr. Kelley, causing Dermt to grab the most visible prop -- the rifle -- and leave for Target Practice in order to take a walk by the river?
Thanks for showing us the woods so close to the Kelley house.
Did someone else dump the rifle, sight removed, and invent the story about Dermot?
So many unanswered questions!
jmho ymmv lrr
Thanks, @Richard , appreciate your input!
And @Ciriii57 , keep asking questions.
Haven't been out shooting in a while, but at a range with paper targets I want to shoot in several positions -- prone, sitting, kneeling, standing, maybe from the bench. Now in the snow, I am not likely to shoot prone -- laying down.
For any position, pants pockets are not an easy place for bullets/shells/ammo.
As @Richard points out, for .22 you're likely carrying the box. If you're part of my family, you're probably wearing a heavy flannel shirt or shirt-jac like this:
Carhartt Relaxed Fit Flannel Sherpa-Lined Shirt Jac (Men's) - Bootleggers
When the cold weather rolls around, you'll want to wear this men's shirt jac on repeat. It's sherpa-lined for warmth.
Not promoting any brand, this is just a good representation.
I'm right handed & fire right handed. Shell box is in the left shirt pocket. I can reach into it prone, sitting, kneeling, or standing. My son is so strongly left handed that he owns left-handed firearms (not all -- but these exist.) Sometimes, his ammo box is in the right shirt pocket. I don't do that -- you nestle the rifle butt into your shoulder, the pocket with the box can be in the way.
Dermot may have felt this type of shirt-jac would be enough that day?
And -- in many places, you don't need a paper target. People leave trash -- cans & food wrappers -- in the woods. Today, many people who go hike/walk in wooded areas carry bags & take trash out.
Other people use the trash for target practice, sometimes called plinking. Sometimes in place, sometimes setting up a can on a fallen log until someone knocks it off.
I don't know the habits of the Kelley family -- did family members go out plinking? Did Dermot? Was Hunting an Acceptable Activity to Mr. Kelley, causing Dermt to grab the most visible prop -- the rifle -- and leave for Target Practice in order to take a walk by the river?
Thanks for showing us the woods so close to the Kelley house.
Did someone else dump the rifle, sight removed, and invent the story about Dermot?
So many unanswered questions!
jmho ymmv lrr
Ciriii57
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2023
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 3,070
Yes it's quite frustrating that they've never released the make and model. I wonder if this was intentional. I'd like to know it's specs.
Very interesting regarding the telescopic sight. From everything I've read it was indeed a telescopic lens rather than the iron sights. Someone had previously mentioned that it needed to be unscrewed, though I wondered if it could just un-clip, which I doubt as it needed to be fixed firmly in a hunting situation, right? These things don't fall off!
I had wondered if he took it off and it fell in the river and he went to retrieve it...but that doesn't make any sense.
So that raises an important point, did Dermot have a screwdriver in his pocket? It seems unlikely (though not impossible) that it fell off and rolled into the river. So why would you detach a telescopic sight? To see in the distance I guess lol??