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

[Kittybunny]

I can’t copy and paste because I’m on a phone.

in May of 2018 Sills was interviewed by channel 11 in Atlanta about his refusal to use the resources of the GBI. His response was nonsensical. Then he added his distaste for the Georgia State Patrol (state police). He said that the GSP is not allowed to use the Putman County station or jail for any reason.

Those things are prima fascia evidence why elected sheriffs are counterproductive. Years ago I had to drive up into the wilds of Virginia to a very rural county to interview someone in a murder case. The newly elected sheriff gave me the use of his interview room. What I’ll never forget is that the sheriff had been a tow truck driver before he ran for sheriff.

And you wonder why the Dermond case is still open?

I 100% agree. To me, his professional and/or personal arrogance that he doesn't need any help is rather appalling. He's pulled others in, but who knows what bits and pieces he's shared with them? If another agency or group doesn't have the whole picture, it's just him - and where has that gotten us in 5 1/2 years? Nowhere, that's where.

 

[deugirtni]

If a case is being investigated in a large city, there would be a head investigator and a team working on it.. and that would mean several voices, inputs, viewpoints, etc.. not just that of one man. Then as time went on and no resolve, and with officers changing positions within the force, etc., new faces would constantly be having a look. In this case.. it WAS one man, and it continues to be just that same one man, who says that even if he retires or is not in the job and this case remains unresolved, he still wants to be involved. Maybe time to 'let go and let god', so to speak. Let someone else have a crack at this most interesting and bizarre case. Let someone else have free reign to look at ALL the files, photos, interviews, test results, etc. At least THEN he would be able to say he'd done everything he could. Just getting a band of buddies from a different state together to look at stuff and pat him on the back for having done stuff that maybe even themselves wouldn't have thought to have done.. just isn't cutting it. I find SS a little endearing.. but yet I don't think I've ever encountered a larger ego than his. Not good if there may have been something in the beginning which wasn't perhaps done quite right, nobody to do checks and balances. Nobody to say, jeez this was missed, and then nobody knew about it since SS is the only guy who has access to it all. Very scary. I'd be freaking if I was a family member, that's for sure. jmo.

 

[fred&edna]

To this point, it doesn't seem that anyone close to the Dermonds has expressed interest in seeking additional LE support in solving this case.

It's puzzling as to why some people appear to prefer the case just disappear - as if it never happened. Jmo

 

[deugirtni]

To this point, it doesn't seem that anyone close to the Dermonds has expressed interest in seeking additional LE support in solving this case.

It's puzzling as to why some people appear to prefer the case just disappear - as if it never happened. Jmo

Agreed. Puzzling to the point of causing suspicion, imho.

 

[fred&edna]

Agreed. Puzzling to the point of causing suspicion, imho.

I'm torn.... Suspicion or fear?

 

[deugirtni]

I'm torn.... Suspicion or fear?

I mean.. it is puzzling for 'us', so much as to cause suspicion about 'them', imho. Somehow I'm just not getting a feeling of 'fear' from them, but rather just a going-about-their-regular-lives, no matter if nothing is ever resolved, hoping it'll just go away, and people will stop even talking about it. Sad.

 

[fred&edna]

I mean.. it is puzzling for 'us', so much as to cause suspicion about 'them', imho. Somehow I'm just not getting a feeling of 'fear' from them, but rather just a going-about-their-regular-lives, no matter if nothing is ever resolved, hoping it'll just go away, and people will stop even talking about it. Sad.

I agree. It is sad and very difficult for us to understand. So many questions.

 

[dancinunderthemoon]

it's not puzzling actually...........sad though, the whole thing, for all involved, it wont likely change........yeah 5 1/2 yrs later, why change now

 

[Nadal]

OH, thanks for reminder!

I wonder how a guy seen on the lawn on Saturday can refuse a polygraph if he's considered a suspect and seems LOGICAL he would be a suspect or POI ! That should be enough to get a warrant or whatever is needed to force a polygraph?? OR since they arent allowed in court, can that even be forced!?

No one should ever take a polygraph because they aren't reliable, they are pseudoscience. Ask any lawyer they'll tell you refuse polygraphs no matter what, innocent or guilty don't touch them they do absolutely nothing for you, if LE believe you are involved or know something (even if you aren't) they aren't going to change their mind because you pass a polygraph it's not the 1960s LE are fully aware guilty people can pass polygraphs and innocent people can fail them which is why they aren't allowed in court. LE usually just offer you one to see if you're willing to take one and you shouldn't be under any circumstances.

Please don't believe someone is guilty based on them refusing a polygraph, polygraphs have played a major role in wrongful convictions and it's because there's a culture surrounding them where people believe if you refuse one you're guilty so people take them and if they fail or the polygraph turns up any signs of deception (which is very easy to do under the circumstances you take polygraphs since it monitors stress levels) LE uses it as a basis to build a case against the person that fails it. I don't think people are aware of how good certain prosecutors are at presenting flimsy circumstantial cases and how society inherently trusts them because they are authority figures meaning most juries are tainted before the trial even begins. Also that in America after conviction you need to produce new evidence for an appeal to be effective, disputing the evidence against you is not enough because you were convicted by a jury of your peers, meaning appeals are extremely difficult and your best shot is waiting decades until technology advances. Read about Kristine Bunch for example who was convicted of setting a fire that killed her kids she had to wait until arson investigation improved to prove she didn't do it, it was known by everyone following her case (including prosecutors since they used a witness they knew was lying) immediately that she was innocent yet she spent 16 years in prison because she couldn't produce new evidence, disputing the existing evidence wasn't enough.

Anyway, sorry i went on a tangent my point is please don't believe someone is guilty purely based on them refusing a polygraph, everyone should refuse them they should be abolished. I understand the logic behind believing it but doing so indirectly contributes to wrongful convictions. I'm not that familiar with this case so if there's other good reasons to suspect this person then fair enough but please do not factor polygraphs into your decision.

 

[TJtennispro]

Fair enough about polygraphs but if I was the guy seen on the Dermond's lawn the day of the murders and refused a polygraph that would probably be bad.

If they asked me to take one when I rode my jet ski up to the back of their lake house this past July 4th I definitely would!

No one should ever take a polygraph because they aren't reliable, they are pseudoscience. Ask any lawyer they'll tell you refuse polygraphs no matter what, innocent or guilty don't touch them they do absolutely nothing for you, if LE believe you are involved or know something (even if you aren't) they aren't going to change their mind because you pass a polygraph it's not the 1960s LE are fully aware guilty people can pass polygraphs and innocent people can fail them which is why they aren't allowed in court. LE usually just offer you one to see if you're willing to take one and you shouldn't be under any circumstances.

Please don't believe someone is guilty based on them refusing a polygraph, polygraphs have played a major role in wrongful convictions and it's because there's a culture surrounding them where people believe if you refuse one you're guilty so people take them and if they fail or the polygraph turns up any signs of deception (which is very easy to do under the circumstances you take polygraphs since it monitors stress levels) LE uses it as a basis to build a case against the person that fails it. I don't think people are aware of how good certain prosecutors are at presenting flimsy circumstantial cases and how society inherently trusts them because they are authority figures meaning most juries are tainted before the trial even begins. Also that in America after conviction you need to produce new evidence for an appeal to be effective, disputing the evidence against you is not enough because you were convicted by a jury of your peers, meaning appeals are extremely difficult and your best shot is waiting decades until technology advances. Read about Kristine Bunch for example who was convicted of setting a fire that killed her kids she had to wait until arson investigation improved to prove she didn't do it, it was known by everyone following her case (including prosecutors since they used a witness they knew was lying) immediately that she was innocent yet she spent 16 years in prison because she couldn't produce new evidence, disputing the existing evidence wasn't enough.

Anyway, sorry i went on a tangent my point is please don't believe someone is guilty purely based on them refusing a polygraph, everyone should refuse them they should be abolished. I understand the logic behind believing it but doing so indirectly contributes to wrongful convictions. I'm not that familiar with this case so if there's other good reasons to suspect this person then fair enough but please do not factor polygraphs into your decision.

 

[Nadal]

Fair enough about polygraphs but if I was the guy seen on the Dermond's lawn the day of the murders and refused a polygraph that would probably be bad.

If they asked me to take one when I rode my jet ski up to the back of their lake house this past July 4th I definitely would!

It shouldn't be bad though because they are pseudoscience, they aren't reliable, they aren't allowed in court for a reason. I'm not defending this person, suspecting them for other reasons is fine i just wish people would leave polygraphs out of it, by factoring them in you are giving them credence which keeps them in use and they have played a major role in wrongful convictions which means you are indirectly playing a role in wrongful convictions. IMO LE should not be allowed to use one unless a 100% lie detector is invented which would abolish trials entirely.

Please don't ever take a polygraph if you are ever offered one, you gain absolutely nothing from them whether you are innocent or not, taking one is stupid frankly.

 

[Valiant]

Georgia sheriffs are elected. Maybe enough people will tire of the way SS runs the department and a new one elected.

 

[dancinunderthemoon]

You are right, yet SS Is doing just that, saying family is innocent because they passed a poly and they APPEARED TO HIM to be telling the truth

Polygraphs are not allowed to be used in a court of law.........

Agents use them in hopes to HELP their case and know what direction to take like what SS is doing with the family polygraphs

ALSO, the fact someone might refuse could imply guilt of something

Psychopaths and extreme narcissists who lie to themselves everyday have been known to pass polygraphs, no conscience, lies flow easily as if truth

JMO

No one should ever take a polygraph because they aren't reliable, they are pseudoscience. Ask any lawyer they'll tell you refuse polygraphs no matter what, innocent or guilty don't touch them they do absolutely nothing for you, if LE believe you are involved or know something (even if you aren't) they aren't going to change their mind because you pass a polygraph it's not the 1960s LE are fully aware guilty people can pass polygraphs and innocent people can fail them which is why they aren't allowed in court. LE usually just offer you one to see if you're willing to take one and you shouldn't be under any circumstances.

Please don't believe someone is guilty based on them refusing a polygraph, polygraphs have played a major role in wrongful convictions and it's because there's a culture surrounding them where people believe if you refuse one you're guilty so people take them and if they fail or the polygraph turns up any signs of deception (which is very easy to do under the circumstances you take polygraphs since it monitors stress levels) LE uses it as a basis to build a case against the person that fails it. I don't think people are aware of how good certain prosecutors are at presenting flimsy circumstantial cases and how society inherently trusts them because they are authority figures meaning most juries are tainted before the trial even begins. Also that in America after conviction you need to produce new evidence for an appeal to be effective, disputing the evidence against you is not enough because you were convicted by a jury of your peers, meaning appeals are extremely difficult and your best shot is waiting decades until technology advances. Read about Kristine Bunch for example who was convicted of setting a fire that killed her kids she had to wait until arson investigation improved to prove she didn't do it, it was known by everyone following her case (including prosecutors since they used a witness they knew was lying) immediately that she was innocent yet she spent 16 years in prison because she couldn't produce new evidence, disputing the existing evidence wasn't enough.

Anyway, sorry i went on a tangent my point is please don't believe someone is guilty purely based on them refusing a polygraph, everyone should refuse them they should be abolished. I understand the logic behind believing it but doing so indirectly contributes to wrongful convictions. I'm not that familiar with this case so if there's other good reasons to suspect this person then fair enough but please do not factor polygraphs into your decision.

 

[JnRyan]

No one should ever take a polygraph because they aren't reliable, they are pseudoscience. Ask any lawyer they'll tell you refuse polygraphs no matter what, innocent or guilty don't touch them they do absolutely nothing for you, if LE believe you are involved or know something (even if you aren't) they aren't going to change their mind because you pass a polygraph it's not the 1960s LE are fully aware guilty people can pass polygraphs and innocent people can fail them which is why they aren't allowed in court. LE usually just offer you one to see if you're willing to take one and you shouldn't be under any circumstances.

Please don't believe someone is guilty based on them refusing a polygraph, polygraphs have played a major role in wrongful convictions and it's because there's a culture surrounding them where people believe if you refuse one you're guilty so people take them and if they fail or the polygraph turns up any signs of deception (which is very easy to do under the circumstances you take polygraphs since it monitors stress levels) LE uses it as a basis to build a case against the person that fails it. I don't think people are aware of how good certain prosecutors are at presenting flimsy circumstantial cases and how society inherently trusts them because they are authority figures meaning most juries are tainted before the trial even begins. Also that in America after conviction you need to produce new evidence for an appeal to be effective, disputing the evidence against you is not enough because you were convicted by a jury of your peers, meaning appeals are extremely difficult and your best shot is waiting decades until technology advances. Read about Kristine Bunch for example who was convicted of setting a fire that killed her kids she had to wait until arson investigation improved to prove she didn't do it, it was known by everyone following her case (including prosecutors since they used a witness they knew was lying) immediately that she was innocent yet she spent 16 years in prison because she couldn't produce new evidence, disputing the existing evidence wasn't enough.

Anyway, sorry i went on a tangent my point is please don't believe someone is guilty purely based on them refusing a polygraph, everyone should refuse them they should be abolished. I understand the logic behind believing it but doing so indirectly contributes to wrongful convictions. I'm not that familiar with this case so if there's other good reasons to suspect this person then fair enough but please do not factor polygraphs into your decision.

Good points. If I'm innocent, but LE is questioning me, no matter what their questions are, I wouldn't take one.

 

[dancinunderthemoon]

Georgia sheriffs are elected. Maybe enough people will tire of the way SS runs the department and a new one elected.

alot of them are part timers so won't vote....its the old timers that want him........he defeated the last guy that ran against him in 2015 I think it was.....

 

[Nadal]

ALSO, the fact someone might refuse could imply guilt of something

My entire point was this shouldn't be our thinking even though it's tempting because it contributes to wrongful convictions and keeps polygraphs relevant when they shouldn't be. If polygraphs had any real merit they'd be allowed in court and they'd be mandatory, they aren't for a reason. It's not just psycopaths who pass them regular people who are lying do to and innocent people fail them.

Anyway my post wasn't really about this specific case it was about polygraphs in general, i agree that person is suspicious but polygraphs are irrelevant to me always. Just like Clint in the Brian Schaffer case rejecting one is not part of the equation for me. Think Clint probably has the same thinking as me regardless of what he knows about Brian's disappearance being a medical student, plus he lawyered up right away, no doubt he would've told him to reject one whether he knew nothing or not any good lawyer would say that.

 

[dancinunderthemoon]

My entire point was this shouldn't be our thinking even though it's tempting because it contributes to wrongful convictions and keeps polygraphs relevant when they shouldn't be. If polygraphs had any real merit they'd be allowed in court and they'd be mandatory, they aren't for a reason. It's not just psycopaths who pass them regular people who are lying do to and innocent people fail them.

Anyway my post wasn't really about this specific case it was about polygraphs in general, i agree that person is suspicious but polygraphs are irrelevant to me always. Just like Clint in the Brian Schaffer case rejecting one is not part of the equation for me. Think Clint probably has the same thinking as me regardless of what he knows about Brian's disappearance being a medical student, plus he lawyered up right away, no doubt he would've told him to reject one whether he knew nothing or not any good lawyer would say that.

Probably right! Good point about innocent people failing, becuase they're nervous.

But What do the Miranda Rights read? Anything you say CAN AND WILL BE used against you.

And they will !

Thanks!

 

[Nadal]

Probably right! Good point about innocent people failing, becuase they're nervous.

But What do the Miranda Rights read? Anything you say CAN AND WILL BE used against you.

And they will !

Thanks!

Innocent people don't just fail because they are nervous, they fail because the machines aren't reliable, they are pseudoscience. They typically operate slightly above the level of chance which is nowhere near enough to be useful in any way for what they are designed for. They are fine for a silly curiosity thing just like psychics are fine if you see one on a night out for like 3 dollars and they tell you vague silly things, but when you bring them into serious things like trials then they are a no go which is why they aren't allowed.

The Miranda Rights line (you left out "in court") doesn't apply to polygraphs because no judge would ever allow anything about polygraphs into a case, a prosecutor wouldn't even bother bringing it up to a judge because they know it would be a stern no.

 

[dancinunderthemoon]

I gotcha......thats why they arent allowed in court.....they arent reliable and neither are people is what Im saying

Yes Im sorry I didnt quot it verbatim, work with me here LOL.......the point IS>.......they WILL USE and WILLING TO Twist or use something against you!!!!

Innocent people don't just fail because they are nervous, they fail because the machines aren't reliable, they are pseudoscience. They typically operate slightly above the level of chance which is nowhere near enough to be useful in any way for what they are designed for. They are fine for a silly curiosity thing just like psychics are fine if you see one on a night out for like 3 dollars and they tell you vague silly things, but when you bring them into serious things like trials then they are a no go which is why they aren't allowed.

The Miranda Rights line (you left out "in court") doesn't apply to polygraphs because no judge would ever allow anything about polygraphs into a case, a prosecutor wouldn't even bother bringing it up to a judge because they know it would be a stern no.

 

[Razz]

For whatever reason, I got to thinking about this case and threw out all my preconceived notions ie:it was a hit, it was the family etc and landed on another scenario (which I'm sure has been previously considered) but what if it was someone slightly known to the Ds? Someone who periodically had access to their information: ages, address...and figured they'd be an easy mark.

Maybe this someone went to the door on the weekend with burglary in mind.
Things went South quickly and Mr. D. was shot in the head. I can see taking the head because of the bullet....burglary at this juncture was not an option as they/ he/whoever knew they were in way over their heads. And.... they didn't want to leave further evidence. They took Mrs. D and put her in the lake. I think that Mr D's head is somewhere in the vicinity of where Mrs D's body was found. This makes sense to me.

So who would be someone.......
stupid enough to try something like this and who would be vaguely familiar with the Ds?