Russell And Shirley Dermond: When Intelligence Gaps Impair Analysis

BLUF | There may be a point where there are simply too many intelligence gaps to conduct an analysis. In such times, you may need to work with investigators to build a stronger data set before beginning or proceeding in your work.

---

Details

On 6 May 2014, neighbors conducting a welfare check on Russell and Shirley Dermond, 88 and 87 years of age, respectively, who lived in the exclusive gated community of Great Waters, Reynolds Lake Oconee, Eatonton, Georgia, found Mr. Dermond deceased in the garage of his home and his wife, Shirley, missing.

Investigators responding to the location soon found nothing about the case was straightforward. For a start, the home was immaculate, but for an unmade bed, with no sign of a struggle, let alone the physical evidence one might expect at the scene of a violent crime. Valuables, which included wallets, a purse, keys, a cell phone, and other items, were visible and untouched.

As reported to the 911 operator, the decedent, Mr. Dermond, was in the garage, placed at the back end of and between the two family cars. He had been posthumously decapitated. Like the house, the garage was “pristine,” but for a “puddle” of blood around the area of the decapitated head, and a few towels from the bathroom placed around the body.¹ A table lamp, with its shade removed, had been brought from the living room into the garage and placed on the trunk of one of the Dermonds’ cars.²

As the investigation began, 70 investigators and 10 FBI agents conducted a widespread search for the missing woman as they waited for the presumed kidnappers to submit a ransom demand, but none came. Neither had activity occurred on any of the Dermonds’ accounts. Luminol sweeps found no evidence of blood in the home, but for the garage, and while there was a small amount of gun powder residue on the back on Mr. Dermond’s T-shirt, no bullet casings, bullet holes, or blood spray was present. Because the victim’s head had been physically removed from the scene, investigators could not even definitively state a gunshot was the cause of death.³ The sheriff began to wonder whether the crime had occurred in a secondary location and Mr. Dermond’s body had been returned to the scene.⁴ But where? And why?

Finally, on 16 May 2014, 10 days after Mr. Dermond’s death had been reported, fishermen on Lake Oconee encountered a body caught in debris nearly six miles from the Dermond home. It was later confirmed to be Shirley Dermond. Her body had been weighed down with two 30-pound cement blocks encased in a mesh bag tied to the victim’s ankles with paracord, but over time, gases caused her body to rise to the surface. Mrs. Dermond had died of blunt force impact to the head in the form of two to three blows from an instrument that resembled a hammer.

Victimology:

By all accounts, the Dermonds were unlikely victims, universally described as productive and respected members of the community. They originally hailed from New Jersey and relocated to Georgia in the late 1980s in conjunction with Mr. Dermond’s job. The couple retired to the Lake Oconee area about 10 years later.

Russell Dermond, the son of an auto mechanic, was a self-made man who graduated university in three years. He joined the U.S. Navy and served in WWII. A former executive with General Time Corporation, Mr. Dermond later took an early retirement to run a series of Hardee’s fast-food restaurants. His sons took over the operation in the late 1990s and the Dermonds retired to their lakeside home. A former avid golfer, Mr. Dermond quit the game a few years before his passing, but continued daily walks.

Mrs. Dermond was a Barnard College graduate who largely took on the role of homemaker after her marriage. Crossword puzzles and bridge were among her favorite activities, along with gardening and needlepoint. She loved talking about family, didn’t gossip, and she and her husband had no outside help maintaining their 3,200 square foot home.

Family:

The couple had four children. One son, Mark Dermond, was killed in 2000, reportedly in a high-crime area known as “The Bluff,” in Atlanta, Georgia, in the course of a crack cocaine purchase gone wrong.⁵ The Dermonds did not attend the trial of Mark’s killer, who was convicted and is currently serving a life sentence.⁶ The three living children were located in North Carolina and Florida at the time of their parents’ deaths. They were investigated and cleared of possible involvement, and the sheriff found no ties between the murders of the Dermonds and the circumstances surrounding the death of their son, Mark.

The Investigation

Shortly after the discovery of Mrs. Dermond’s body, detectives and FBI agents conducted interviews of 200 residents of the Great Waters community, an exercise described as “productive,” but which yielded no major breakthroughs.⁷ All logical questions in the case continued to be unanswered. Investigators managed to narrow the timeframe⁸ of the crime to between late Friday afternoon, 2 May 2014, and late Saturday afternoon, 3 May 2014, but there were few clues that could help reconstruct the series of events that took place in between.

Investigators were even confounded by the mode of transportation the perpetrators might have used. Great Waters was a gated community with an on-duty guard. Theoretically, visitors needed to check in at the gate and security would call the resident to confirm the visitor was expected. Residents had car stickers and were waved through. Cameras recorded gate activity, but a storm had knocked out service, a circumstance that wasn’t noticed until investigators sought video footage.

After Mrs. Dermond’s body surfaced, investigators began to consider the possibility the perpetrators approached the home by boat, and then disposed of her body using the same. As can be seen on the map below, the Dermonds’ home was located at the head of a cove and had its own dock, although the Dermonds no longer owned a boat. But, there was no evidence to confirm which of the possibilities–boat, land-based vehicle, or else a hybrid of the two–it might be.

Despite the focused efforts of law enforcement,⁹ years passed with the most elementary questions of the case remaining partly or completely unanswered: (1) Why were the Dermonds killed? (2) Who killed the Dermonds? (3) Where were the Dermonds killed? (4) When were the Dermonds killed? (5) How were the Dermonds killed?

The Hypotheses

1. Professional paid hit (experienced contractor)–hired disciplined operator(s) sent to kill with intent to minimize trace;
2. Paid hit (non-professional contractor)–hired but inexperienced actors; some planning, but sloppy execution;
3. Proxy/message killing (retaliation)–kill intended as communication to a third party (not merely revenge); symbolic brutality to convey a message;
4. Family vendetta (relatives/close associates)–motivated by long-standing grievance;
5. Vendetta (non-family, personal/business grudge)–a non-family individual or group with long-standing grievance (legal/business dispute, humiliation);
6. One primary target + witness disposal–attack aimed primarily at Mr. Dermond; Mrs. Dermond only killed because she witnessed or could identify attackers;
7. Cover-up of separate crime/staged scene–the murders served to obscure a different criminal act (i.e., theft, secret removal of records);
8. Symbolic/ritualistic or cult-related killing–motivated by symbolism/ritual rather than personal grievance;
9. Mistaken identity/wrong house–attackers had the right plan but the wrong address or the wrong people;
10. Envy/affluence-based targeting–target chosen due to perceived wealth/status, but not focused on theft (punitive);
11. Inspirational/copycat–actor inspired by media/true-crime or dark Web instructions;
12. Insider/inside access (guard/contractor/service provider)–a person with legitimate access used that access to commit/enable murders;
13. Random/opportunistic attack (thrill or transient)–no prior relationship, opportunistic violence;
14. Psychotic/delusional lone actor–individual with severe mental illness acting on beliefs, not a plan;
15. Attempted burglary (gone wrong)–perpetrators entered to steal; victims surprised them; violence escalated.

The Evidence

Next, a list of evidence was compiled. (Analyst note: During the first pass at the matrix, it was found the compiled data offered little diagnostic value, so, with the help of ChatGPT, the list was revised. The following is a streamlined version of the evidence with some of the wording shaped by ChatGPT.)

1. Bodies found in two locations: one in home’s garage; the second in the lake, approximately six miles distant (home was lakeside);
2. Victims’ bodies handled in two different ways: one, decapitated, left to be found (method of death unknown); the second, blunt force trauma to head and submerged in lake;
3. Mr. Dermond decapitated in fairly clean cut;
4. Mr. Dermond’s head was never found;
5. No forced entry into house; neighbors found house unlocked; son said parents always locked their doors;
6. Cash, jewelry, laptop, cell phone left out in open, not taken;
7. Mrs. Dermond’s body was weighed down with cinder blocks tied to her ankles with paracord;
8. Mr. Dermond’s shirt reportedly contained gunshot residue around the back of the neck; small amount;
9. No indications of a struggle inside house (overturned furniture, forensic evidence); 
10. Interior of home was “cleanest” sheriff had ever been in–no reports of dirt tracked in, footprints;
11. Mr. Dermond had defensive wounds (per coroner’s report); 
12. Mrs. Dermond did not have defensive wounds (per coroner’s report).

The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

As with previous crime analyses presented on this site, the Dermond Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) was first run independently by the analyst, and then input into ChatGPT and Grok. There was agreement on several of the explanations that populated the upper and lower spectrum of rankings, but the orders differed, so ChatGPT was requested to perform a weighted fusion analysis. The process balanced the input from each of the three sources and resulted in the following single consensus ranking.¹⁰

1. One primary target + one witness to be disposed of: the attack was likely aimed primarily at Mr. Dermond; Mrs. Dermond only killed because she witnessed or could identify attackers;
2. Vendetta (non-family, personal/business grudge)–a non-family individual or group with long-standing grievance (legal/business dispute, humiliation);
3. (tie) Insider/inside access (guard/contractor/service provider)–a person with legitimate access used that access to commit/enable murders; Proxy/message killing (retaliation)–kill intended as communication to a third party (not merely revenge); symbolic brutality to convey message;
4. Family vendetta (relatives/close associates)–motivated by long-standing grievance;
5. Cover-up of separate crime/staged scene–the murders served to obscure a different criminal act (i.e., theft, secret removal of records);
6. Professional paid hit (experienced contractor)–hired disciplined operator(s) sent to kill with intent to minimize trace;
7. Paid hit (non-professional contractor)–hired but inexperienced actors; some planning, but sloppy execution;
8. Mistaken identity/wrong house–attackers had the right plan but the wrong address or the wrong people;
9. Envy/affluence-based targeting–target chosen due to perceived wealth/status, but not focused on theft (punitive);
10. Inspirational/copycat–actor inspired by media/true-crime or dark Web instructions; 
11. Symbolic/ritualistic or cult-related killing–motivated by symbolism/ritual rather than personal grievance;
12. Psychotic/delusional lone actor–individual with severe mental illness acting on beliefs, not a plan;
13. Random/opportunistic attacking (thrill or transient)–no prior relationship, opportunistic  violence;
14. Attempted burglary (gone wrong)–perpetrators entered to steal; victims surprised them; violence escalated.

Findings

The leading hypotheses focused on a grudge held specifically against Mr. Dermond and an overarching message intended to be conveyed by his death.

An investigation by law enforcement of Mr. Dermond’s past business and personal relationships was conducted and revealed no conflicts, although the scope and thoroughness of those interviews was not delineated in public sources. It was possible no conflicts existed. On the other hand, it could be that a problem laid undiscovered.

A grudge is complex and difficult to identify, rooted in perceived injustice, not necessarily actual injustice. A non-event to one person can thus become an unforgivable transgression to another. It can be closely held and nurtured privately for an extended period. If no grudge based on a significant, shared event has been found, it may be because it only carried significance to the aggrieved party. Given that the analysis appeared to show Russell Dermond as the primary target, and a grudge might have instigated the attack or played a role, a deeper look at victimology was warranted.

Victimology: Russell Dermond:

As previously stated, Mr. Dermond was a military and WWII veteran, who went on to work as an executive at General Time Corporation. He took an early retirement to own and operate a series of fast-food restaurants. This resumé correlated to a disciplined high-achiever who respected hierarchy, valued structure and predictability, and who held himself and others accountable for results.

His home was large, but not ostentatious, and it was located in an exclusive community, which denoted an individual who enjoyed the rewards of a lifetime of hard work, but who was also conservative and practiced fiscal restraint. The 3,200 square foot home was meticulously kept without outside help, so organization was likely a priority.

Golf was his most frequently-named pastime, a sport that required focus, self-control, and strategic thinking.

Mr. Dermond was described as a “disciplinarian,”¹¹ so he enforced rules and kept order. While family dynamics, specifically the relationship with Mark, who died in the course of a drug deal gone wrong, were private, Mark’s drug use appeared to be a source of friction, which ultimately led to distance between the Dermonds and their son.¹² They did not attend the trial of the person who was later convicted of Mark’s death.¹³

Throughout his professional career, Mr. Dermond held prominent, outward-facing positions. These jobs would have put him into regular contact with employees, customers, and community members, so he was likely well-known and easily recognizable in professional and social circles. Upon retirement, Mr. Dermond and his wife lived full-time in Great Waters, unlike seasonal residents, where they were active and engaged members of the community.

The possibility that Mr. Dermond was the target of the crime and that a grudge might have been the trigger was derived from a structured analytical method. However, the framework was based on the limited amount of evidence released to the public. Although this explanation proposes the Dermond murders might have originated in that unpredictable intersection between character and chance–i.e., a driven, meticulous man encountering a resentful personality and a perceived slight escalating into a devastating grudge–additional evidence could lead to a vastly different conclusion.

Two Additional Hypotheses Identified

As the first phase of the analysis was concluding, two additional hypotheses were identified: the false perception the Dermonds had access to a financial asset the perpetrators sought; and an extortion/ransom plan gone wrong. This began a new cascade of analytical tests.

A partial matrix was rerun, a process that merged the new possibilities with five from the original ACH, along with added evidence to support or dismiss the new entries. This time, the analyst, ChatGPT, and Grok results were unanimous: a four-way tie between one primary target + one witness to be disposed of, insider access, proxy message, and non-family vendetta. In second place was a professional paid hit; in third place, false perception of wealth; and in last place, extortion.

However, because this was such a unique and complicated case, a final corroborative test was performed. This time, the full matrix–17 hypotheses against 18 pieces of evidence was input into two additional AI systems, Claude (Anthropic’s AI assistant) and Gemini. The results largely supported the previous findings, but also (on the part of Claude) led to some illuminating commentary, parts of which are included below.

Claude’s ACH ranking:

1. Professional paid hit (possibly combined with inside access)
2. Personal/business vendetta (sophisticated perpetrator)
3. One primary target + witness disposal (modifier to #1 or #2)
4. Insider/inside access (method for #1, #2, or #7)
5. Proxy/message killing
6. Family vendetta
7. Non-professional hit (hired but inexperienced)
8. False perception of wealth
9. Cover-up of separate crime
10. Envy/affluence-based
11. Extortion/ransom gone wrong
12. Mistaken identity
13. Attempted burglary gone wrong
14. Random/opportunistic attack
15. Psychotic/delusional lone actor
16. Symbolic/ritualistic
17. Inspirational copycat

Claude’s commentary:

“Most likely scenario: Professional hit OR sophisticated personal vendetta, with Russell as the primary target and Shirley as witness elimination. Perpetrator(s) likely had inside knowledge or access. The missing head remains the most anomalous element–suggesting either evidence destruction (identification/forensics) or personal significance to the killer.”

When pressed, Claude expanded on the professional hit angle. Was it truly a paid professional, or could it be a “sophisticated amateur,” one who researched, planned, conducted reconnaissance, and “practiced” (to the extent such a scenario could be practiced)? Claude considered both sides and concluded with 60-40 confidence the evidence leaned toward a sophisticated amateur rather than a true professional.

Claude wrote:

1. The contradictions matter: The paracord/cinder blocks + kept head are hard to square with professional training, but fit an obsessive planner using available materials.
2. The GSR is telling: Professionals avoid guns in close-quarters murders (noise, evidence). This suggests improvisation or poor tactical choice.
3. The missing head’s significance: This seems personal rather than professional.

Claude found the most likely profile was a perpetrator with:

1. Strong personal motive (vendetta against Russell)
2. Relevant background skills (military/LE, hunting, or trades)
3. Months of obsessive planning
4. Intelligence and discipline to research and prepare
5. But NOT professional homicide experience.

Gemini’s ACH results:

1. One primary target + witness disposal
2. Insider/inside access
3. Non-professional hit (hired but inexperienced)
4. Professional paid hit
5. Proxy/message killing
6. Vendetta (non-family, personal/business)
7. Family vendetta
8. Cover-up of separate crime/staged
9. Mistaken identity/wrong house
10. False perception of wealth
11. Envy-affluence-based
12. Attempted burglary gone wrong
13. Extortion/ransom gone wrong
14. Random/opportunistic attack
15. Inspirational/copycat
16. Psychotic/delusional lone actor
17. Symbolic/ritualistic

Binary Hypothesis Testing

The next step was to consider questions that lent themselves to binary answers. It was hoped that by choosing specific, diagnostic evidence these questions might be answered, thus leading to forward movement in the case.

Question: Were the perpetrators locals or outsiders?

The analyst/ChatGPT/Grok analyses all tilted toward “locals.” The perpetrators appeared to have a solid understanding of local waterways and disposal suitability. They seemed to know Russell and Shirley’s routine, and they must have some idea of neighborhood dynamics, which would have taken time to learn through repeated visits and surveillance.

However, the results were not definitive and there was plenty of room for interpretation/misinterpretation. While the perpetrators could indeed have planned the crime by using knowledge gained from living in the area, it was equally possible they were outsiders who conducted meticulous research and whose reconnaissance trips to the area, possibly in conjunction with work or leisure, gave them the information they needed to facilitate the crime.

Question: Did the perpetrators primarily use a boat or land-based vehicle (car, van, truck) to access the property in the commission of the crime?

The binary hypothesis testing brought no clarity. The analyst/ChatGPT/Grok models each reached near 50-50 conclusions of whether a boat or land-based vehicle was involved. The evidence fell equally both ways. For example, the couple lived at the head of a cove, so if the perpetrators used a boat, they would likely be spotted by neighbors in other cove-side homes. On the other hand, the Dermonds lived at the end of a cul-de-sac, which would lead to the same problem but from a land perspective. (Analyst note: Access to information in the case files and/or analysts or investigators with greater local knowledge might be able to resolve aspects of this question more effectively, for example, understanding boat customs [i.e., visiting “semi-private” coves], on-site inspection of tree and vegetation cover, and knowing the occupation status of nearby homes.)

Unconventional analysis:

As a final option, an unorthodox¹⁴ technique was tried, this time in an effort to determine what types of jobs the perpetrator(s) may occupy. Theoretically, this could help narrow the suspect pool. Evidence was examined and then assessed in terms of what qualities, traits, or characteristics a person who behaved that way may hold.(Analyst’s Note: This method shifted away from intelligence analysis, per se, and into the field of behavioral analysis.)

Two examples:

(1) The bodies were found in two locations, one in the home’s garage, and the second, submerged in Lake Oconee (approximately six miles from the house). This might suggest someone efficient at logistics and having time management skills.

(2) Nothing was taken from the home, despite valuables being left in the open. This could indicate a person who was mature, focused, and had self-control.

The full list of 23¹⁵ traits was input into Grok, which returned a variety of jobs the perpetrator(s) might hold or might have held in the past, or what type of learned experience the perpetrator(s) might have gleaned through study. As with the previous method, it was an interesting exercise, but one which yielded a low confidence outcome and few actionable results.

1. Logistics or operations manager;
2. Contractor or landscaper;
3. First responder or medical technician (i.e., paramedic, coroner’s assistant, butcher);
4. Military or law enforcement (retired or non-active); or,
5. A criminal with experience (i.e., low level or local offender).

Alternative Analysis

In an alternative analysis, one hypothesis that ranked consistently toward the top was “proxy/message killing,” which suggested a novel possibility. After 11 years of investigation with little forward movement, could it be the Dermonds were never the central focus of the attack, but instead, were “incidental” victims?

In a proxy scenario, the perpetrators would have sought to send a warning or to exact retribution indirectly for the purpose of inflicting punishment, asserting control, or delivering a warning to another party. It was plausible the perpetrators’ true targets were not Russell and Shirley at all, but instead, someone connected to the extended family through kinship, past family conflict, or personal ties. In this scenario, the couple’s death would have been a symbolic stand-in to deliver a message or to settle a score.

Investigators have looked into and cleared all members of the Dermond family as perpetrators, but certain aspects of the crime, such as its calculated brutality, appear to suggest a motive beyond personal animosity aimed solely at Russell and Shirley Dermond.

---

Final Thoughts

Analysis helped clarify some of the circumstances of the Dermond murders: Russell Dermond was likely the primary target, and the crime may have been committed to settle a grudge or vendetta. There was evidence, although weak, the perpetrators were locals. One atypical approach indicated the perpetrators may have gained some of the expertise needed to accomplish the crime through current or past employment (i.e., military or law enforcement training), and/or past-times or hobbies that lent him/them the relevant background skills to carry out such a calculated and audacious crime.

As this post shows, analysis is an ongoing process, but investigative work continues too. The current iteration gave us few actionable results, but it did offer insight into the circumstances of the crime. Along the way, new evidence will lead to new matrices, which, in turn, will continue to refine our understanding of the matter. Intelligence gaps are an ever-confounding aspect of intelligence analysis, but tenacity and rigorously applied analytical techniques–both conventional and improvised–will eventually bring clarity to even the most perplexing case.

---

Intelligence Gaps

1. Did the perpetrators use a boat, land-based vehicle, or both to perpetrate the crime? If a boat, what type? Did it belong to the perpetrators, or was rented/borrowed? How did the perpetrators account for the overboard disposal of a 177-pound body (per the coroner’s report) bound with 60 pounds of weights, 237 pounds total, without tipping the boat? Were two persons involved, or a more reasonable three?
2. Where was the crime scene? Were the Dermonds killed in two different locations? To what purpose?
3. How did the perpetrators gain entry to the Dermond home? A ruse? Were they known to the victims? The Dermonds appeared to be awake and about their day. How did the time of the attack factor into the perpetrators’ plans?
4. If indeed Mr. Dermond was targeted, why? Or, was Mrs. Dermond the primary target?
5. What was the message conveyed by Mr. Dermond’s manner of death? Was he “placed” in that specific location in the garage? Was the position in which his body was situated part of the message? Why were both bodies not disposed of in Lake Oconee, or else left in the garage?
6. Did the perpetrators not want it to be known how Mr. and Mrs. Dermond were killed? The sheriff postulated the reason for taking the decapitated head from the scene was to hide ballistics evidence, but would it not be easier to simply get rid of the gun? Or to kill him/them in a way that might offer less forensic evidence?
7. It appeared Mrs. Dermond was not meant to be found, why? Was the emergence of her body a mistake, a miscalculation, or was it only ever intended as a temporary concealment?
8. If the perpetrators arrived by land-based vehicle (car, van, truck), did they know the security camera was malfunctioning, or did they get lucky? Did they have insider help/knowledge?
9. How might the victims’ ages have factored into the scenario?
10. What grievance could lead to such a vengeful plot?

Case files may hold the answers to some of these questions. The limited details released to the public highlight the challenges of relying on OSINT when exploring open and active investigations.

---

Footnotes

1. Joe Kovac, Jr., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Inside the hunt for clues in decade-old killings – Lake Oconee double homocide [sic] still confounds and frustrates the Putnam County sheriff,” 25 May 2024. ↩︎
2. Billy Hobbs, The Union Recorder, “Sills still pursuing leads in unsolved double-murder case,” 7 May 2022. ↩︎
3. The sheriff believed the head had been removed to conceal evidence. ↩︎
4. Joe Kovac, Jr., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Inside the hunt for clues in decade-old killings – Lake Oconee double homocide [sic] still confounds and frustrates the Putnam County sheriff,” 25 May 2024. ↩︎
5. Christian Boone, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “AJC Cold Case Files – Beheading mystery still confounds Georgia sheriff – Couple found dead in upscale community over three years ago,” 6 August 2017. ↩︎
6. Christian Boone, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Murder Mystery – Missing mom’s son fears the worst – Cameras off during Eatonton slaying,” 16 May 2014. ↩︎
7. Amy Leigh Womack, The Macon Telegraph, “Detectives interview lake subdivision residents in Putnam murder investigation,” 18 May 2014. ↩︎
8. While the timeframe of the crime has not been formally stated, Mr. Dermond was found in his night clothes, a state in which he sometimes remained past the morning assuming he had no commitments. Mrs. Dermond was dressed for the day. The home was meticulous, but the bed was unmade, which seemed like a contradiction. According to the coroner’s report, Mr. Dermond had a bit of tan liquid in his stomach; Mrs. Dermond had nothing. Based on these facts, it appears the crime may have occurred shortly after the Dermonds awoke and began their day. ↩︎
9. One law enforcement agency with limited contribution to the case was the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). Some persons questioned the sheriff’s insistence on working the case without help from the GBI. The sheriff cited the importance of his department maintaining autonomy and visibility, and the constitutional duty of the sheriff’s office to protect the citizens of the county. He further cited his commitment toward safeguarding against state-level consolidation of law enforcement resources. ↩︎
10. Per Chat GPT: “A weighted fusion analysis was conducted using structured rank aggregation across three analytic sources (primary analyst, OpenAI GPT-5, and xAI Grok). Rankings were converted to inverse-rank weights and normalized to produce a consensus probability distribution for the top hypotheses. Lower ranks represent stronger assessed plausibility.” ↩︎
11. Jessica Noll, 11Alive, “Gone Cold | A lake with no leads: Who killed the Dermonds,” 9 May 2018. ↩︎
12. Christian Boone, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Murder Mystery — Missing mom’s son fears the worst,” 16 May 2014. ↩︎
13. Christian Boone, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Murder Mystery — Missing mom’s son fears the worst,” 16 May 2014. ↩︎
14. Caveat: The purpose of including this unorthodox method is to encourage”out-of-the-box” thinking. It is to showcase how analysis can be broadly and creatively applied.  ↩︎
15. planner, calculated, confident, experienced, situationally-aware, meticulous but fallible, overconfident, time manager, logistically-minded, controlled, in charge, strategist, efficient, practical, mature, focused, methodical, dexterous, clever, facile, comfortable with “gore,” vindictive, malevolent ↩︎