According to the story of the day before the abduction, June 26th, 2000, when the man in the white car did not leave the Commins Pond Beach parking lot, Molly's mother walked out to the beach to talk with her daughter Molly for a while until she thought enough time had passed that the man in the white car would be gone. I have never heard a ballpark estimate of how long that was that she stayed with Molly out on the beach.
But the point is that it kind of surprised me the abductor planned the crime for 10 am the following day. Why not wait until at least 10:15 am to be sure her mother was gone?
So again I am completely confused as to whether this was a planned crime or just a crime of opportunity and the victim did not really matter as long as they were there. It looks planned, but I cannot say for sure.
I think you definitely have to consider that opportunity is one of the most important aspects of a crime. And when it comes to public places that are accessible to strangers the opportunity level tends to go up.
I think the reason Molly Bish's case is such a mystery is because of the white car. White cars seem to be driven by everyone and seen everywhere. It is almost symbolic. As long as the criminal is everyone, it will never be anyone. The timing could have been planned or it could have been pure luck that the abductor took Molly Bish before the first witness arrived that day. You just don't know.
Theres always the chance it was, but the evidence suggests otherwise
Most abductions are unplanned , as a matter of fact the victim appearance other than their gender , and them being without another adult around is usually the SOLE reason a child is targeted .
the offender is usually riding through the area for some reason, they have issues they see this child with no one around and their poor impulse control takes over , most kids are on their way to or from school when abducted, and are usually abducted less then a half mile from their home.
This case is different though, though he may have seen Molly initially by chance he knew he could access the pond area through the cemetery , which indicates familiarity, he could've found it by chance, but then the offender is taking a HUGE risk if he attempts to abduct a girl and there are other people there . Or if someone just happens to be in the cemetary etc..
He most likely knew she (or another female) was there alone , he didnt park in the lot , he parked in the cemetery and approached her from there if the dogs were correct, and speaking from experience the dogs are usually pretty accurate, I know our dogs arent even scent dogs, and they find A LOT of people, (given they are usually people runing from us and they get chomped...but hey... stop when we tell you)
Anyway,
The fact this occurred before the place was even open demonstrates that he knew when to show up, he was able to get a teenager to walk some 200 yards to a waiting vehicle, he got her out of there unnoticed.
I cant say why if it was the man in the car he wouldn't wait maybe 15 minutes to try to abduct her, I think it was probably because he didnt know when other people would be there, I feel he simply moved the car somewhere and waited to see how long it was before people started showing up .
He may have even drove over to the cemetery that day and found the path.
The chances of someone just walking through that area armed with something or with the gift of gab enough to get a reportedly extremely responsible teenager, to walk either voluntarily or by force some 200 yards to a adjacent area, are pretty slim.
From what I was once told the pond area isn't immediately visible from the cemetery, you have to walk a bit , therefore its not like someone could just see her by chance from that vantage point.
In MOST abduction murders physical characteristics had almost no bearing on the offenders decision to act, the child was chosen because they were alone. In this case we dont know, we can only base it on what we know about these types of crimes, and offenders.
But here's where it gets creepy
In cases, where a child was chosen because of a physical characteristic by an offender (hair color, dress etc..) the offender usually also committed multiple offenses either prior to or after.
Though this may have no bearing on Molly's case, but if she was chosen because perhaps she was a blonde, or because he liked young girls in bathing suits, or even young girls, the offender most often will become or is already a serial offender.
Those who abduct and murder children for sexual purposes, already have a much higher rate of becoming serial offenders as it is . But if youre dealing with an individual with fetishistic issues and a specific victim preference, particularly if their crime demonstrates planning and organization, youre getting into serial killer territory.
Im not sure if thats the case, here with Molly, but I can tell you those who abduct kids, dont usually plan the event the way this one was , they dont usually take as large a risk as this one did , they dont usually know how to control a victim the way this one did , get her out of there unseen and unheard the way this one did, kill and hide a victim in a place where she would most likely never be found the way this one did .
Again that doesnt mean he was at the point of Mollys murder, he couldve been, I feel this was possibly his first murder, there couldve been others or crimes like rape, but id stake my reputation, on saying he either did , or was certainly on his way to becoming a serial killer, after .
If Molly was grabbed walking home, were looking for a different type of individual.
The killer in this case, was either someone she knew vaguely enough to feel comfortable enough, to walk with him willingly
Or someone who threatened her in some form and forced her to walk out of there .
Both indicate some form of planning .
