“Body of Evidence” Episode on Brannon Triple Murder Case

Here is an episode from “Body of Evidence” where profiler Dayle Hinman summarizes the triple homicide case of 35-year-old Sherry Brannon, her 4-year-old daughter Cassidy, and her 7-year-old daughter Shelby. I found it on You Tube. While all the facts Hinman presented in the episode were correct, many of the officials and detectives involved directly in the investigation are anxious to “correct the record” about some confusing impressions the episode seems to leave.

“Body of Evidence” episode of Brannon Murders

Hinman’s use of the editorial “we” throughout the episode may have suggested to viewers that she played an active and ongoing role in the investigation. This was not the case. My colleague, retired sheriff Charlie Wells, says that when first approached, she declined his Office’s request to review the case. Later she changed her mind. Her involvement, however, was peripheral. She reviewed the notes and evidence the Sheriff’s Office had compiled and spoke with investigators, then offered her initial impressions. As is frequently the case with profilers, she did not prepare a written report; a Manatee County detective took detailed notes. Her other involvement was after the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office solved the case and made an arrest. She returned then with a crew to video record the episode you just saw above.

Profiling is a controversial tool for solving major crimes, especially murders. As I noted in another article I posted on this website (See “Profiling,” September 5, 2019), famous nonfiction author Malcolm Gladwell says that profilers do not record their predictions but leave it to the investigating organization to take notes. This was true in the Brannon case. Now-Captain Rick Gerken who is still actively employed at the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office and was in charge of the day-to-day Brannon investigation at the time, shared notes from that initial conference with Dayle Hinman. Her “profile” of the murderer said that the murder scene was consistent with domestic violence. She said that crimes of interpersonal violence most often occurred between people who knew each other. Next, she hypothesized that the remote location (the home was located in a new development in a rural area where only the Brannon’s house and the house next door owned by the VanvBalam family were occupied at the time. Also, the Balam family was not in their home at the time of the murders or their discovery) suggested that the attack was targeted. When the bodies were discovered, the front door had been locked. A stranger would have had no proprietary interest in locking the door. According to Hinman, it is expected that a liar will change his story while a truth-teller will remain consistent. In this case, she felt that Dewey Brannon had provided multiple and varied accounts of what had happened at the house, and provided irrelevant information to the dispatcher during the 911 call. Hinman said that the estranged husband’s emotional demeanor should have reflected the exigency of the situation and felt it had not. While none of us knows how we might react in the same situation, she felt that Brannon’s behavior was, in some ways, inconsistent with the actions of a grieving father.

Profilers do not all interpret the same set of facts in a consistent way. For example in the Brannon case, Dr. John T. Super, the PhD psychologist who the Sheriff’s Office routinely consulted, felt that based on the violence of the crime, the husband and father of the victims was unlikely to be the perpetrator.

Why did the Sheriff’s Office feel so strongly about correcting the record of Hinman’s involvement? They were deeply upset that her initial impressions could have encouraged investigators to develop tunnel vision, possibly causing them to ignore evidence that did not support Dewey Brannon as the murderer. Had the sheriff’s office not been so professional in following the evidence rather than unsubstantiated hunches, they may well have missed the details that led to eventual conviction. Just as important, Sheriff Wells is extraordinarily proud of the outstanding work Major Connie Shingledecker, Captain Rick Gerken, Unit Manager of the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab Dianna Taylor, Lieutenant Bill Evers, and legions of others on his team did to solve the crime and make an arrest in less than six weeks. He doesn’t want anyone else to seem to claim credit for their excellent work!

Writing True Crime: The Art of Balancing Accuracy and Kindness

From Shelby and Cassidy Brannon to their Daddy

Their lives were so much larger than their deaths. As an example, here was a picture Shelby and Cassidy Brannon signed, with love, to their father, Dewey Brannon. I found it among the crime investigation files available to the public. And that is the answer to the question Dewey asked me about why I had to use their real names instead of pseudonyms, why I was writing the story at all, 20 years later. “Nobody cares after all this time,” he said.

I told him I had to think about my answer. Until he asked, I had never considered using any names but the real ones. Charlie Wells and I are writing a book of non-fiction, and one of the reasons we are writing it is because we think there needs to be accountability for the crime and for how it was investigated. Charlie is extremely proud of the work his investigators and staff did to solve the crime quickly and he wants the world to know about it. He’s angry that a profiler led them down a wrong path and briefly delayed the progress of the investigation as a result.

He and his colleagues were especially affected by this crime because it involved children. I heard that over and over from the investigation team leader, Major Connie Shingledecker, from Captain Rick Gerken who led the day-to-day investigation, and from Dianna Taylor, the supervisor of the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office forensics unit that processed the crime scene. All of those investigators had young children, and I had three teen sons by the time the murders were committed in 1999. We all wanted the murderer to be held accountable in the strongest possible way for what he had done. Having the world know him and his crimes was one way to do that.

My interviewee’s queries brought me to some fundamental questions about what I was doing. I knew I was fascinated by this particular case, but could not tell you why, and using pseudonyms seemed dishonest somehow. We had unearthed tons of unflattering facts about people involved in the case, yet not all of them were relevant…or were they? It was not always possible to know.

After a lot of soul-searching, this is what I have concluded: the story we are writing is a story about a family. In it are births and deaths, joy and anguish, problems and solutions, facts, guesses, and conclusions. Those are the elements of all lives. We think we are unique, and in the details we are, but looking at the whole picture we are not so very different.

While some parts of life are unbearably cruel, it is not necessary to inject gratutitous detail into the story, thus adding pain to survivors who may decide to read the book. The lives of the victims, survivors, and perpetrator are much longer and more involved than what was revealed in the murders and their solution. That fullness, with its richness and beauty, needs to frame the story of the homicide.

Dewey Brannon told me he had spent the last 20 years of his life trying to forget what he had seen that day. We will tell the story as kindly as possible, as completely as we are able. I hope this will help Dewey and the other survivors of these tragic murders remember the girls’ energy and their sweetness.