MA MA - Molly Bish, 16, Warren, 27 Jun 2000

[OldSteve]

I think her mother said it was her 8th day at work (June 27, 2000). I do not know whether she is including weekends and non-work days, but I think she is. So Molly Bish's first day at work as lifeguard would have been June 20, 2000.

But then you have her brother who said he was training her, him being the previous lifeguard, so I am guessing June 20, 2000 was the first day she was out on Commins Pond beach working alone.

Thanks for that info - makes you wonder who in those 8 days must have seen her and realized she was vulnerable. Wonder how many other swimming locations are like this in New England - remote, no surveillance, employing a lone female lifeguard; and how busy are they in early season when weather might not be all that warm..

 

[jaejae]

MSP Unresolved Case Unit bringing new hope to families of murder victims

Here is another recent report about this case:

https://popularcrime.com/2019/10/03...o-before-new-state-police-unsolved-case-unit/

Another one on the same subject:

Molly Bish slaying to go before new State Police Unsolved Case Unit

 

[Crazyjster]

I think it was someone from the area, familiar with the area. Whoever it was parked nearby to drive up the hill. She either went quietly by force of a weapon or even worse she knew the person or believed the person was that in authority (maybe told mom was just in an accident after leaving her at the pond and she needed to come with them) and used some sort of rouse to go with them, or thought she would be gone only a couple of minutes (familiar person rouse whatever it was)...I believe they knew her schedule and have been involved in her investigation in some capacity this entire time. Just my thoughts.

 

[Richard]

Sketches of unidentified suspect in Molly Bish abduction and murder.

 

[PayrollNerd]

Snips of article which includes video:

Sister of Molly Bish behind bill to allow police to hunt for violent criminals on DNA databases

Updated: January 20, 2020 - 5:30 PM
BOSTON — For Heather Bish, her sister, Molly Bish, is never far away.

This June, it will be 20 years since Molly was abducted and murdered. Her killer has never been found.

“I miss her as much as I did the day she left. That never changes,” Heather Bish said.

Today, she continues advocating for victim’s rights.

Now, working with State Sen. Anne Gobi, Heather Bish is behind a new bill, just filed, allowing law enforcement to hunt for violent criminals on DNA databases, using familial searches.

In other words, when there’s no DNA match, using a DNA sample to find a family member, pointing detectives in the right direction.

“The beauty of familial testing is, it’s science. It doesn’t wrongly convict anyone,” Heather Bish said.

Snip:
The system is advocated by the Bish family because of the tragedy they faced two decades ago, which may have saved a life.

“I think about, ‘What a difference Molly has made. What a difference.’ We are all safer in Massachusetts because of Molly," her sister said.

And with this new legislation just filed, Heather Bish hopes we will be safer still.

 

[somequestions]

It is difficult to discuss much about Molly Bish's case without knowing who has been eliminated as a possible suspect in this case. And there is always the possibility it was a stranger driving a white car.

It looks like the only piece of real evidence at the crime scene was the open first aid kit which may have a very good explanation for why it was open. One question I had was once Molly's work supervisor closed the open first aid kit, did he ask the woman who had taken over Molly's position that day if anyone, including Molly, had been injured? I am guessing the answer is yes since he would have wondered why someone else was doing Molly's job even though Molly's stuff was out on the beach proving that most likely she had arrived to start her shift. And obviously he saw the 2 way radio that he probably would think she would have used to call the police about her possible injury or someone else's.

 

[somequestions]

The first aid kit might not even be that good of a piece of evidence to theorize about either. Molly Bish's brother said he trained her to check the first aid kit. So she could very well have been checking her first aid supplies when someone approached her, pulled a weapon, and forced her to walk out of the beach area.

Other than missing person's cases where the victim still has not been found, I cannot think of a tougher case to try and solve. At least in some cases there is some sort of direction or a good suspect to follow. This one has none of that.

The general case synopsis is a lifeguard named Molly Bish disappeared from Commins Pond Beach area on June 27, 2000. The crime scene(if the pictures are correct) gives the impression that there was not much of a struggle. A dog scent trail led to a cemetery behind Commins Pond called St. Paul's Cemetery where it is theorized the victim was transported away in the abductor's vehicle. Nearly 3 years later a hunter found her remains in an area off Ware Road called Whiskey Hill in Palmer, MA.

This case is a great example how from an amateur online perspective(like this forum) you can literally overanalyze every little detail and end up right back where you started.

 

[Richard]

Even potential suspects who have "been eliminated" early on by investigators could be the perpetrator. A perfect example of this is Lloyd Lee Welch, Jr. who, in the case of the missing Lyon sisters in Maryland (1975) presented himself to the police a week after the girls disappeared. LE discounted him immediately and did not give him another thought for 4o years until he was finally looked at again, and eventually convicted of their abduction and murder.

There are many cases where an early suspect is eliminated for one reason or another and many years later identified as the perpetrator of a crime.

 

[PayrollNerd]

Even potential suspects who have "been eliminated" early on by investigators could be the perpetrator. A perfect example of this is Lloyd Lee Welch, Jr. who, in the case of the missing Lyon sisters in Maryland (1975) presented himself to the police a week after the girls disappeared. LE discounted him immediately and did not give him another for 4o years until he was finally looked at again, and eventually convicted of their abduction and murder.

There are many cases where an early suspect is eliminated for one reason or another and many years later identified as the perpetrator of a crime.

Like that saying "the perp always returns to the scene of the crime" but I don't know if that is actually true. It's just a saying I've always heard.

 

[Richard]

Like that saying "the perp always returns to the scene of the crime" but I don't know if that is actually true. It's just a saying I've always heard.

It is an oft repeated saying, but there is probably a lot of truth in it. Certainly the perpetrator "returns" to his crime(s) mentally over and over again. But in many cases, they do return to the places where crimes were committed.

With Welch, he did try to insert himself into the case by going to a Wheaton Plaza security guard a week after the girls' disappearance and offered to trade information for a $7,000 reward being offered in the newspapers that day. The problem was that he was such a congenital liar, police dismissed him as the idiot that he is and did not consider him a viable witness - let alone a perpetrator of what seemed to be a well thought out crime.

 

[somequestions]

Even potential suspects who have "been eliminated" early on by investigators could be the perpetrator. A perfect example of this is Lloyd Lee Welch, Jr. who, in the case of the missing Lyon sisters in Maryland (1975) presented himself to the police a week after the girls disappeared. LE discounted him immediately and did not give him another thought for 4o years until he was finally looked at again, and eventually convicted of their abduction and murder.

There are many cases where an early suspect is eliminated for one reason or another and many years later identified as the perpetrator of a crime.

This is one of the reasons I thought what I did about Molly Bish's work supervisor. On the Disappeared episode about her case, it said that he ran into Molly's brother at the hardware store and her brother said that he did not mention that she was missing. It also said that police considered this run-in with Molly's brother as a good alibi and therefore decided to move on to other suspects. Another poster on here said that the work supervisor was also painting a fence with another man which makes it even more unlikely the work supervisor committed the crime, but I am so confused by the alibi, but intrigued by it because it seems like the one alibi you can actually use to exclude someone as being involved in Molly Bish's murder.

It is very confusing because supposedly Molly Bish was dropped off to start her job at right around 10 am on June 27, 2000. The Disappeared episode said the work supervisor called the police from the beach using Molly's two way radio at 11:44 am. In order to know Molly Bish was missing the work supervisor would have to go the beach so he must have ran into Molly's brother after 11:44 am. Either way I found it very strange the police would eliminate a suspect through an alibi like that without thoroughly vetting it over a longer period of time.

There is one thing for sure when it comes to Molly Bish's work supervisor and that is that if he was indeed the kidnapper he would have had to kidnap Molly, put her somewhere, then come back to the beach. So that was basically my theory, that somehow Molly was subdued, and driven some place like his home. Then he comes back to the beach, sees the sandals, and maybe realizes no one is going to believe Molly was injured or left on her own without her shoes, and closes the first aid kit. It was like a subconscious guilt theory in case Molly Bish was carried out of the Commin's Pond area.

Since I tend to think the body was buried because the remains were not found for 3 yeras, this was another subconscious guilt theory of trying to hide location association. My theory would be the kidnapper/murderer lives somewhere near Whiskey Hill. So how long would it take to kidnap the lifeguard from Commin's Pond beach area, drive somewhere to the area around Whiskey Hill, then drive back to the Commin's Pond beach area? And yes I know that just because her remains were found on Whiskey Hill in Palmer, MA does not mean that is where the kidnapper/murderer lived.

I was always intrigued by how police vetted known suspects alibi's in this case. And then if it is the man in the white car, there is no alibi to vet since no one knows who he is.

There are so many theories you could make in this case. Many times the last person to see the victim alive is the perpetrator. In this case I think that would be the sand truck driver. How was the sand truck driver's alibi vetted? And that is the problem with this case. None of us knows who police have included or excluded in their investigation based on alibis.

But your statement is very true. Often times police speak with the person who committed the crime early in their investigation, but just do not realize that person is the perpetrator.

 

[somequestions]

FYI: There is a youtube video of the Unsolved Mysteries episode about Molly Bish's case Season 12 Episode 10. Her story is the last one so you have to scroll to around 31:53 in the video. It was the first time I got to see it.

The most interesting aspect of the segment was that Molly's mom thought it was ok to drop her off on the morning of June 27, 2000 because a sand truck was dropping sand and she knew they were local businessmen. So she felt Molly would be safe. The sand truck driver also said he saw the white car in the parking lot a few minutes before Molly and her mother arrived that morning. Even I have to admit with the white car being sighted so much that it probably was involved in this crime. It is hard to imagine only because of the layout of Commins Pond and St. Paul's Cemetery. It really looks like someone would have to rehearse the crime in order to know the layout. But a cemetery worker also saw the white car too.

I think my theory was that the work supervisor might be responsible. I based that solely on the first aid kit. My theory was that maybe he was using latex gloves while painting the fence so there was no paint on his hands when he touched things later. So he takes off the latex gloves when he is done painting the fence. Then he goes to the beach. Realizing latex gloves would be useful he remembers first aid kits have them. So he takes a pair and commits the kidnapping, drives Molly Bish somewhere near the Whiskey Hill area, puts her someplace, then goes back to "arrive" at Commin's Pond. Realizing the first aid kit is open, he instinctively closes it and does not ask anyone about a possible injury(because lifeguards are supposed to wear gloves when dealing with an injury). Then again, that could all be complete speculation because maybe Molly Bish was checking the first aid kit like her brother trained her to do. Theory goes poof. But I thought it was a good theory even if it was complete guesswork.

 

[Boston Corbett]

It really looks like someone would have to rehearse the crime in order to know the layout.

No rehearsing necessary. Just be local, know your prey. The simple answer is usually correct.

 

[somequestions]

No rehearsing necessary. Just be local, know your prey. The simple answer is usually correct.

If someone asked me whether I think most criminals planned their crimes, my response would be no. But you have to take into consideration what Molly's mother saw, the white car with the man smoking the cigarette. Even though he did not take Molly on the first day her mother saw him, the fact that he waited till the second day requires at least some sort of planning.

You wrote that the simple answer is usually correct. This case seems very complicated. I have come up with a theory for everyone known to the case, but I would not be confident in any theory as being the simple answer. That is why I try to use work titles and not any names because there is no proof anyone did anything in this case.

What suspect would you consider to be the simple answer? Many people think the "white car suspect" is the simple answer and with as many witnesses who saw the white car it is hard to argue. I think this case is very complicated and does not have a simple answer.

 

[Boston Corbett]

If someone asked me whether I think most criminals planned their crimes, my response would be no. But you have to take into consideration what Molly's mother saw, the white car with the man smoking the cigarette. Even though he did not take Molly on the first day her mother saw him, the fact that he waited till the second day requires at least some sort of planning.

You wrote that the simple answer is usually correct. This case seems very complicated. I have come up with a theory for everyone known to the case, but I would not be confident in any theory as being the simple answer. That is why I try to use work titles and not any names because there is no proof anyone did anything in this case.

What suspect would you consider to be the simple answer? Many people think the "white car suspect" is the simple answer and with as many witnesses who saw the white car it is hard to argue. I think this case is very complicated and does not have a simple answer.

I have no suspect - no dog in this fight, so to speak. Generally speaking, though, the answer which requires fewest deviations from a straight line - Occam's Razor - is the correct answer, and one can bet the odds and come out far ahead that this will be the case. Now, here? I have no idea who did this, don't know the facts to any great extent, etc. But I would bet on it: supply the simplest solution which meets objective criteria, and it is more likely than more complicated varieties.

 

[somequestions]

I agree that the simplest answer is probably correct. However, the problem with a lot of cases is when you do not know information. What sand truck company was it? Where was it located? Where did Molly's supervisor live? I like to know about locations because Molly Bish's body was located on Whiskey Hill off of Ware Road.

What are people's associations with that place(Whiskey Hill)? One of the main suspects from Sturbridge, MA used to hunt in the Whiskey Hill area. Was he the man in the white car?

And that is the problem with the Molly Bish case. You cannot include or exclude anyone, even from an amateur online perspective. Twenty years ago everyone was a suspect in the Molly Bish case. And it seems, at least to me, that twenty years later everyone is still a suspect in the Molly Bish case.

 

[Boston Corbett]

I agree that the simplest answer is probably correct. However, the problem with a lot of cases is when you do not know information. What sand truck company was it? Where was it located? Where did Molly's supervisor live? I like to know about locations because Molly Bish's body was located on Whiskey Hill off of Ware Road.

What are people's associations with that place(Whiskey Hill)? One of the main suspects from Sturbridge, MA used to hunt in the Whiskey Hill area. Was he the man in the white car?

And that is the problem with the Molly Bish case. You cannot include or exclude anyone, even from an amateur online perspective. Twenty years ago everyone was a suspect in the Molly Bish case. And it seems, at least to me, that twenty years later everyone is still a suspect in the Molly Bish case.

This always serves well, when determing a broad outline of what to look for:

Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
Clarice Starling: He kills women...
Lecter: No! That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
Starling: Anger ... social acceptance .... and ... sexual frustrations...
Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? ...We begin by coveting what we see every day.
​

 

[Richard]

Hannibal Lecter - or rather author Thomas Harris - does seem to have a good insight into the mind of the predator type criminal. Whether he carefully plans out an abduction or attack - or simply attacks on the spur of the moment an "opportunity" is presented is an academic question. It is one that most investigators ask and attempt to answer early in any investigation.

When dealing with a possible predator, one must consider that they are constantly thinking about their earlier crimes and planning or thinking about new ones. It is the circumstances of each individual case that point to the kind of criminal one is trying to find.

When the facts in the case indicate that a victim is on a totally random schedule, going to different places, seeing different people, doing random things with no thought of any regular time, and that person disappears or is known to have been abducted, then the likelyhood of it being a well thought out abduction with the victim as a specific target is much less than an abduction of a victim that is always at a certain place at a given time, when there are no witnesses around.

Either scenario could be the work of a serial predator. The latter could indicate that the perpetrator actually knew the victim or had observed him/her at times prior to the abduction, while the totally random abduction would tend to indicate that the victim was just one of "opportunity".

All that said, the thought process behind the abduction and the preparation for the crime could well be the same. Most psychopaths have no feeling whatsoever for their victims, so how they abduct them is probably only a small incidental part of their overall crime.

 

[Boston Corbett]

Hannibal Lecter - or rather author Thomas Harris - does seem to have a good insight into the mind of the predator type criminal. Whether he carefully plans out an abduction or attack - or simply attacks on the spur of the moment an "opportunity" is presented is an academic question. It is one that most investigators ask and attempt to answer early in any investigation.

When dealing with a possible predator, one must consider that they are constantly thinking about their earlier crimes and planning or thinking about new ones. It is the circumstances of each individual case that point to the kind of criminal one is trying to find.

When the facts in the case indicate that a victim is on a totally random schedule, going to different places, seeing different people, doing random things with no thought of any regular time, and that person disappears or is known to have been abducted, then the likelyhood of it being a well thought out abduction with the victim as a specific target is much less than an abduction of a victim that is always at a certain place at a given time, when there are no witnesses around.

Either scenario could be the work of a serial predator. The latter could indicate that the perpetrator actually knew the victim or had observed him/her at times prior to the abduction, while the totally random abduction would tend to indicate that the victim was just one of "opportunity".

All that said, the thought process behind the abduction and the preparation for the crime could well be the same. Most psychopaths have no feeling whatsoever for their victims, so how they abduct them is probably only a small incidental part of their overall crime.

Quite true. In this case I do feel it was a person either familiar to Molly Bish, or very familiar with her.

I'm quoting the screenplay by Ted Tally, not the novel by Harris - same gist, though.

 

[Richard]

It is quite possible that the perpetrator could have known Molly or may have seen her on past occasions before abducting and killing her. At least, given the situation and possible clues, that is one possibility.

I do like your Hannibal Lecter quote. Here is one I like:

"I do wish we could chat longer, but I'm having an old friend for dinner. Bye."