Don't ask me to be specific but some of what has been written is asserted (off-site) to be of questionable validity and was itself hearsay since it was not personally known by the poster. Since I don't have contrary first hand information and I won't identify the poster. This is purely a FYI and my personal take. Treat as hearsay if you wish.
However, I can speak to the good friend of Sherrill. We have almost been on speed dial and he provided some very valuable information. According to him, Sherrill was not into dealing or having anything to do with drugs. To say that Suzie was is highly unlikely. So if that is true, drug dealing is not the motive unless it is the KNOWLEDGE of drug dealing that resulted in their demise. I have seen it asserted that Suzie would not have been called to the witness stand about the crypt vandalism. I rather doubt that. A mere statement that is unidentified is to my understanding not admissible at trial. So, I am advocating for the very strong probability that unless her statement was NOT going to be entered into evidence that she HAD to testify.
If anyone has contrary legal understanding, please so state. I was called to trial one time in my life, in a civil matter, and that was to authenticate a document. Since I had never seen it, it was dismissed as hearsay.