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

[Kell1]

Yeah, but either it is this current suspect who committed the crime or this case is probably going to go on for years and never get solved. This is the type of case that I would be impressed if it got solved, even with DNA or some type of other physical evidence.

The current suspect does raise some interesting questions. If I understand correctly, he was already in prison before Molly Bish's disappearance and murder.

On the day before the abduction, the story goes that Molly and her mother drove into the Commins Pond parking lot and parked next to this man in the white car. Mrs. Bish did not like him staring at her daughter so she left the car and followed Molly onto the beach to talk for a while.

Meanwhile, the guy in the white car could have left or gotten out of his car to get the license plate of the Bish car. Instead he stayed around and continued to glare at Mrs. Bish when she got back to the car. Then, instead of waiting a few days so that maybe her memory of him would be a little more faded, he decided to put his abduction plan into action the next day.

Whoever the person in the white car was, that person was definitely very confident in not getting caught, especially if they had already been in prison. But that is what I think, and I cannot prove anything about any of it. And because of that you end up right back where you began in a case like this, starting over.

2 things science has taught us is to never say NEVER and to never say ALWAYS.

Years ago no one would've dreamt that your cousin looking for his family tree a world away could lead you to life in prison.

Or because how you approach a victim, we could identify something like a speech impediment, or that DNA that has been exposed to the elements for decades con be rendered usable in some cases.

You don't know what tomorrow will bring, were still waiting for flying cars, but hey progress is slow sometimes

We don't know if the man in the car Magi saw was indeed who was responsible for her murder, I personally think it is , I mean no one has ever come forward to rebut it

I personally would like to sit down and talk with him whoever he is (or was) but we cant say if indeed that was who killed Molly, it may be all an odd coincidence, stranger things have happened

We don't even know if DNA was obtained

Just know this, its SOMEONE, that's the beauty of John Doe warrants, and having no no statute of limitations on murder.

Oh and don't shun starting over, that's how cold cases, are solved , someone comes in and starts over, and finds something that wasn't connected

 

[dotr]

Molly Bish family shown person of interest photo with stark resemblance to suspect sketches
"Investigators had previously looked at other potential suspects, including the convicted killer Rodney Stranger, who was living in Southbridge, Mass., around the time of the girl’s disappearance and soon moved to Summerfield, Fla. He is already in prison serving a 25-year sentence for stabbing his ex-girlfriend in 2008.''

Left: This sketch, made available by the Bish family, shows the alleged abductor of Warren, Mass., lifeguard Molly Bish, was released during a news conference in Worcester, Mass., Monday March 19, 2001. Right: A photograph of her potential killer Frank Sumner released by the district attorney's office earlier this month. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)/(Worcester County District Attorney's Office)

 

[Kell1]

GB was a much better suspect in this case, IMO,

I just typed up an entire breakdown as to why, and hit the back button by mistake so its gone

sorry

I haven't seen enough on the new suspect to render a decision on him, from what I read, the items returned to Mollys family were items taken from Mollys home, none of which were anything from the crime scene(s)

hopefully this is the guy

 

[somequestions]

Since there does not seem to be much evidence that is known to the public in the Molly Bish case all you can do is theorize.

I try to look at things from the perspective of what I would have done even though I know that is not what Molly Bish may have done. For example, I was thinking about the times that I have gone to the beach and the one thing I have never done is taken off my shoes before I was fully set up to go swimming, to remove my outer clothes. And we know Molly Bish was not fully setup that day because of the whistle not being around her neck. She still had on her outer clothes. She still had to walk back to the bookbag to get the whistle.

Hot sand and sticks are the main reasons I never took my shoes off until I was ready to go swimming. I remember one time getting a stick stuck in my foot when I was walking in the sand where it was closer to where the tree line was. That hurt because I had to pull that out of my foot. If someone did force her to walk up that area behind Commins Pond, I guarantee you that either she has very hard soles on the bottom of her feet or it probably hurt to walk without shoes on. But I cannot say that the area behind Commins Pond is the same as the beach area I walked around in either.

I admit that if I were a detective in this case other people would probably be looking at me and wondering why I am walking around without my shoes on. And we know Molly Bish took her sandals off because of the water bottle sitting in one of them. But you never know.

 

[Kell1]

Since there does not seem to be much evidence that is known to the public in the Molly Bish case all you can do is theorize.

I try to look at things from the perspective of what I would have done even though I know that is not what Molly Bish may have done. For example, I was thinking about the times that I have gone to the beach and the one thing I have never done is taken off my shoes before I was fully set up to go swimming, to remove my outer clothes. And we know Molly Bish was not fully setup that day because of the whistle not being around her neck. She still had on her outer clothes. She still had to walk back to the bookbag to get the whistle.

Hot sand and sticks are the main reasons I never took my shoes off until I was ready to go swimming. I remember one time getting a stick stuck in my foot when I was walking in the sand where it was closer to where the tree line was. That hurt because I had to pull that out of my foot. If someone did force her to walk up that area behind Commins Pond, I guarantee you that either she has very hard soles on the bottom of her feet or it probably hurt to walk without shoes on. But I cannot say that the area behind Commins Pond is the same as the beach area I walked around in either.

I admit that if I were a detective in this case other people would probably be looking at me and wondering why I am walking around without my shoes on. And we know Molly Bish took her sandals off because of the water bottle sitting in one of them. But you never know.

You'd be stunned at what a person will do at the business end of a weapon, especially a scared kid alone, who is accosted, possibly initially physically assaulted, by an unknown male, perhaps in police gear, being ordered to move under threat, which may or may not have included injury or death.

The fact the victim was marched barefoot through rough terrain only strengthens the notion that she was most likely taken by force, not so much con, even if it hurt he needed to get her out of there, it could've been broken glass, or a damn minefield , he was going to march her across that and to his car.

Someone in fear of their life, will do almost anything to prevent getting hurt.

The victim had to be out of sight quickly in case someone else came along, oddly however, he moved her from one wooded area to another, (important to note) he could've assaulted her in the cemetery if he wanted to , but he was nervous , he had to move her to another location, he knew people would be looking for her , so he took her to a new area , one he was most familiar with, where he knew he could do what he wanted to with little chance of being seen or heard.

 

[somequestions]

You'd be stunned at what a person will do at the business end of a weapon, especially a scared kid alone, who is accosted, possibly initially physically assaulted, by an unknown male, perhaps in police gear, being ordered to move under threat, which may or may not have included injury or death.

The fact the victim was marched barefoot through rough terrain only strengthens the notion that she was most likely taken by force, not so much con, even if it hurt he needed to get her out of there, it could've been broken glass, or a damn minefield , he was going to march her across that and to his car.

Someone in fear of their life, will do almost anything to prevent getting hurt.

The victim had to be out of sight quickly in case someone else came along, oddly however, he moved her from one wooded area to another, (important to note) he could've assaulted her in the cemetery if he wanted to , but he was nervous , he had to move her to another location, he knew people would be looking for her , so he took her to a new area , one he was most familiar with, where he knew he could do what he wanted to with little chance of being seen or heard.

Did they ever find Molly Bish's shorts and tank top she was wearing over her blue bathing suit? Were the sandals Molly wore loose or were they secured tightly to her foot?

I do not know the answers to these questions so what I am about to write may be nothing. But I wondered if maybe she was carried up the hill to the cemetery out of the Commins Pond beach area?

According to what I read, when the blue bathing suit was located on Whiskey Hill in Palmer, MA, the police launched a massive search looking for any new evidence. But the only clothing they found was the blue bathing suit(as far as I know). If the abductor forced her to walk up or around the Whiskey Hill area, what happened to her shorts and tank top she was wearing?

I thought maybe the abductor had already murdered her and left her shorts and tank top somewhere else before he carried her body up Whiskey Hill. This is if the person responsible had time to think ahead about what they might do.

The question is, after Molly Bish was abducted from Commins Pond wearing her shorts and tank top over her blue bathing suit, what happened to those missing items of clothing?

 

[Kell1]

Did they ever find Molly Bish's shorts and tank top she was wearing over her blue bathing suit? Were the sandals Molly wore loose or were they secured tightly to her foot?

I do not know the answers to these questions so what I am about to write may be nothing. But I wondered if maybe she was carried up the hill to the cemetery out of the Commins Pond beach area?

According to what I read, when the blue bathing suit was located on Whiskey Hill in Palmer, MA, the police launched a massive search looking for any new evidence. But the only clothing they found was the blue bathing suit(as far as I know). If the abductor forced her to walk up or around the Whiskey Hill area, what happened to her shorts and tank top she was wearing?

I thought maybe the abductor had already murdered her and left her shorts and tank top somewhere else before he carried her body up Whiskey Hill. This is if the person responsible had time to think ahead about what they might do.

The question is, after Molly Bish was abducted from Commins Pond wearing her shorts and tank top over her blue bathing suit, what happened to those missing items of clothing?

It would be pure speculation to say what happened to her clothes, as i understand only something like 13 bones were ever found.

They could've been kept as a trophy, they may have been discarded elsewhere or destroyed. In child abduction murder cases where the victim is found is usually very close to where they were killed.

Its been my experience in studying these cases, that it is often inside the offenders vehicle, sometimes it happens outside a vehicle , but they are usually in a very isolated location , where outcry wont be heard, and in some cases, the location has been pre-selected by the offender, in other words, he was there before thought this would be a good place to commit a rape/murder.

Now this may change depending on how they plan to dispatch the victim, if a means is goin go to ensure transfer of evidence (stabbing , shooting etc) they will usually take the victim out of the vehicle.

But once they sexual assault is over they usually kill the victim either right there or very close by . Their body may be moved a few feet to place where the offender feels that they wont be found easily , but its usually not far .

After they abduct the victim, they usually take them somewhere they feel they wont be interrupted, or seen. That means they have to feel comfortable there and if you are going to commit a crime of that nature, its best if they know ways in and out of there,

Once they get to what they feel is secure location, the victim is usually assaulted in the a vehicle, then if not killed then they are taken out of the vehicle and killed nearby .

In some cases, the victim is killed during the sexual assault.

Most abducted kids who are murdered are hidden to avoid detection as long as possible . Its rare that they are simply discarded somewhere they will be found , even more so openly displayed to ensure shock when found .

But because these events are usually unplanned, (this case, i feel there was at least rudimentary planning ) most often in my experience the majority of the assault occurs in the suspects vehicle , that gives the offender the most control, and a means of escape, it muffles sound, they can move the body elsewhere if they need to.

Sometimes they even outfit the vehicle with a rape kit (Restraints, etc..)

The sad part is that the entire event usually takes about 30-60 minutes, most kids are killed within an hour to an hour and a half after being abducted, and what really tears at your heart is that in these cases, most missing kids aren't even reported for 2-4 hours after they have been abducted, meaning, they are usually dead before the family even knows they are missing .

One thing I will mention and I hope anyone who reads this who is from the area takes note of

IN THESE CASES AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF OFFENDERS RETURN TO THE VICTIMS BODY WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THEM BEING LEFT THERE AND SUBSEQUENTLY AFTERWARD!!

If ANYONE saw ANYONE in the area where her remains were recovered, in the days following Molly's disappearance , they should report it to Police

If anyone ever saw a lone male in the area where her body was found at ANY TIME before her body was discovered , I IMPLORE YOU TO GO TO THE POLICE!

These types return to their victims more than any other type of killer (barring some serial killer types ) , but on that note these types often become serial killers .

Ill say it again, SOMEONE OUT THERE KNOWS SOMETHING .

 

[Gruffin]

I suppose it would be difficult and unusual for a killer to carry a victim up a hill while she is alive and likely resisting, say with kicks or screams, but I would be hesitant to discount it, because it is also unusual for a killer to carry a body up a hill. Perhaps the killer was trying to relive the physical feeling of getting Molly up the hill from the pond to the cemetery when he was taking her body up Whiskey Hill? If so, this makes me think getting her up the hill from the pond was much more of a physical experience for him than following her with a gun as they walked up the hill. Maybe he was powerful enough to brutally bearhug her while lifting her off the ground and carrying her up the hill to the getaway car in the cemetery (possibly putting her down for a few short bits along the way to relieve exhaustion). If that's what he did, the trip up to the cemetery would have, for instance, caused him to feel his heart strongly beating and much power being exerted by his leg muscles--the whole morally degenerate physical experience of the trip would be hard to recreate later with her body without simultaneously going up a hill, which could explain her remains being up a hill.

 

[somequestions]

I suppose it would be difficult and unusual for a killer to carry a victim up a hill while she is alive and likely resisting, say with kicks or screams, but I would be hesitant to discount it, because it is also unusual for a killer to carry a body up a hill. Perhaps the killer was trying to relive the physical feeling of getting Molly up the hill from the pond to the cemetery when he was taking her body up Whiskey Hill? If so, this makes me think getting her up the hill from the pond was much more of a physical experience for him than following her with a gun as they walked up the hill. Maybe he was powerful enough to brutally bearhug her while lifting her off the ground and carrying her up the hill to the getaway car in the cemetery (possibly putting her down for a few short bits along the way to relieve exhaustion). If that's what he did, the trip up to the cemetery would have, for instance, caused him to feel his heart strongly beating and much power being exerted by his leg muscles--the whole morally degenerate physical experience of the trip would be hard to recreate later with her body without simultaneously going up a hill, which could explain her remains being up a hill.

Whether or not she was carried up the hill behind Commins Pond to the cemetery is speculation. That is a guess.

I think because of the missing clothes at Whiskey Hill that it is likely she was already dead when placed at that location. However since her remains were not found for three years I guess you could argue that, like many of her bones, her shorts and tank top were not found because animals scattered those items too far for searchers to find them.

I considered the idea that carrying someone might be something the person has done in the past. I think there is actually a picture of Molly Bish being carried at a party. I do not know who the men in the picture are, but I saw it in a video on the case. But that is hardly proof of anything. I linked the video with the picture in it below.

 

[weepingangel]

Watch UNRESOLVED: The Detective Finding Molly Bish's Killer

 

[bearfossils]

The one thing I wonder about him is why was he smoking at the beach at 10 am on Monday, June 26, 2000? He was there before Molly Bish. I can only guess that during this time he was not working and this is a place he went often to have a smoke. Maybe police were able to match up DNA evidence to a discarded cigarette near where the white car was parked in the Commins Pond parking lot.

…

It must have been the first aid kit that gave it away that she was a lifeguard. He saw the kit with the cross on it as he watched Molly walk to the beach on Monday, June 26, 2000. Then he knew and planned to abduct the lifeguard the next day.

If he has a long history of predatory and violent behavior, being “on the prowl” for possible victims, so to speak, is probably wired into his DNA. Instead of daydreaming or going through the details of the previous days, he’s scanning his surroundings and looking for prey. It’s possible that he was out at that location, having a cigarette alone, just watching. Once he saw Molly, he probably fixated on her, indifferent to the fact that her mother was right beside her. Or maybe he’s just a creep and wanted to skeeve out her mother. Some men just enjoy making women around them uncomfortable.

I’m not sure if he realized that day that she was a lifeguard, and then later planned the abduction for the next day, or if he simply showed up again the next day and hoped he’d see her again, and then carried out an impulsive crime. Her being a lifeguard might be irrelevant; he saw a young girl and she appealed to him for whatever deviant reason. Once he saw that there were possible victims in the area, he decided it would be a good place to carry out his crimes, and he returned the next day ready to attack. Molly happened to be there, and she was alone, so he took advantage of the circumstances. Maybe he surprised her with a blitz attack while she was distracted with something else, or he feigned an injury and attacked her while she looked through her first aid kid to help him. Whatever happened, it happened quick, and this guy knew exactly what he was doing. I’m certain Molly isn’t his only victim.

I really hope there is some kind of resolution to this case soon. It feels like there are all these loose threads of speculation, circumstantial evidence, and creepy characters, but nothing solid or convincing enough for me to say, yeah, that’s definitely the guy. Molly’s case was one of the first unsolved cases I ever really heard about and dove deep into. I think about her from time to time and it makes me so angry to think that her killer isn’t rotting away in a dank cell for the rest of eternity.

 

[somequestions]

Watch UNRESOLVED: The Detective Finding Molly Bish's Killer

This was an interesting piece about how detectives go about solving unresolved cases, focusing on Molly Bish. The detective said that DNA evidence was recovered. That certainly makes it possible that someday this case will be solved. The new person of interest in this case could mean the case has been solved already.

I admit I always thought it was someone close to the crime scene (ex: sand truck driver or work supervisor), but you need more than what you think. I was wrong.

I think People magazine also did a story recently about this case if anyone is interested. It talks about the new developments in the case.

Tomorrow it will have been 21 years since Molly Bish was abducted and murdered. I know I cannot see a lifeguard out at a beach somewhere without at some point thinking about the one who was murdered after being abducted from Commins Pond.

 

[Kell1]

Some notes on these cases, (not specifically Molly's)

Remember in most abduction /murders of children the offender is NOT out actively looking for a victim, they usually come upon them by happenstance, and that's because they live or work nearby.

The statistics often reflect this in that the majority of victims are abducted within 1/2 mi from their home .

The SOLE factor for them acting and the victim being targeted , is that there is no adult presence around, the presence of another child particularly one of a similar age rarely dissuades the offender, and can result in more than 1 victim being abducted.

The lack of planning is usually reflected in many aspects of the crime, even the manner of killing which is often manual strangulation reflects an impulsive rather than a planned act

Most child victims are either grabbed physically (Which in my experience means they will not be found alive) or by ruse .

Unlike what we see with adult victims, in stereotypical child abduction murders a precipitating event "stressor" is not often a factor , however when planning is indicated its more common

In cases, that exhibit planning the offender has often re-offended following, or has offended prior , planning indicates a higher propensity toward psychopathic behavior, though they still exhibit impulsiveness (remember its very common to exhibit psychopathic tendencies while also possessing sociopathic tendencies, as they are very closely related)

Most sexual child murderers, at least early on, are acting on poor impulse control, they are often already attracted to kids for any variety of reasons, sexually frustrated, deeply involved in fantasy , and often they have already been thinking about abducting a victim, then by chance one day a victim appears before them all alone, then that victim becomes a outlet for their deviant urges.

They are often transient, usually having relocated several times, before the murder, and usually have withing a year before the abduction.

The victim in these "stereotypical" crimes, is usually murdered out of necessity to prevent them from being identified, this changes, in the presence of planning , ritual , sadism, or where other paraphilias are indicated.

Its extremely rare to see these types of cases, indicating planning , and thankfully so .

Planning is more a characteristic of the psychopath, the cliff notes on what a criminal psychopath is , is one who feeds a psychological need for self gratification through their criminal activities. IE they do what they do because they like it, they like it because they get something out of it .

Most of these cases, reflect a more sociopathic/ antisocial flavor, IE general displeasure , displaced emotions, anger, and impulsiveness.

Going back to the old FBI verbiage, Typically the organized offender (plans crime) is usually of slightly higher intelligence, whereas the disorganized (impulsive offender) is usually of lower intelligence .

One thing to make note of in these types of investigations is the use of binding , not just the presence of , but the nature of the materials used .

Binding a victim with their own clothes bears a slightly different psychological signature than binding with something the offender brought to the scene.

Child abduction murderers are more likely to bind their victims then adult killers on the whole, in cases, of teens and young adults, it may be absolutely necessary to control their victim, however when when victim is a younger weaker child, its not as necessary to control the victim

Binding is found in just under 40 % of abduction murders, however it was also found to be present in 80% of cases, that were part of a series

Now as I've stated earlier of all the criminal types those who abduct and murder children for sexual purposes, have the highest likelihood of ALL criminal types to repeat multiple times, and therefore become serial offenders.

However, in cases, where the victim is very young or small if theres the presence of binding , its less about control of the victim, and more about the bondage needs of the offender.

Therefore in cases, where binding is present with a very young , small or weak victim, theres a very high likelihood you are dealing with a serial killer .

That's why I often ask in cases, with very young victims if they were bound .

In Molly's case, this was at least planned enough that the offender knew to get her out of there by way of the cemetery, when no one was there, this was likely someone with at least, some criminal history, someone who either knew she was there alone, or wasn't afraid to approach her

 

[Cagle]

Family Of Molly Bish Seeks Justice 21 Years After Teenager's Disappearance

Sunday marks 21 years since the day Molly Bish disappeared, and her family continues searching for justice.

...snipped by me

Molly’s family spent the weekend putting up signs in several towns, continuing their search for justice.

Investigators named Frank Sumner Sr. a person of interest in her kidnapping earlier this month. Sumner died in 2016.

Police are asking the public for any information about him in hopes of finding some answers.

 

[somequestions]

In the show, Unresolved: The Detective Finding Molly Bish's Killer, the detective says, "There is DNA."

I am guessing this case was solved and Frank Sumner Sr.'s DNA was found on Molly Bish's bathing suit? Otherwise, wouldn't police be able to say about anyone who is a suspect or person of interest, "Yes, this person may have been involved because their DNA was found on Molly Bish's bathing suit" or "No, this person was probably not involved because their DNA does not match the DNA sample" they have in this case?

This case is a great example of confirmation bias. Even hearing and reading that the case is probably solved or that police have DNA, I still think it has something to do with someone who was there at the pond that day. Either her abduction was well planned or it was spontaneous because someone saw an opportunity.

I would have thought the abductor's heart would be racing wanting to get the abduction done as quickly as possible. Yet it seemed like most or all of Molly's stuff was set up for lifeguarding. The only thing not set up that I can deduce was the police radio. On the 48 hours Mystery episode the first woman who arrived at the scene described everything being set up but not the police radio. Even though the police chief on the Unsolved Mysteries episode said the two way police radio was set up next to her other stuff, that could be because he arrived later after the work supervisor used it to call police. This two way radio call supposedly took place at 11:44 am that morning(according to show Disappeared) after he waited around and Molly did not show up. The work supervisor obviously knew the police radio could be used if he went in her backpack on the bench and grabbed it. He must not have put the two way radio back into her backpack. Or this is more confusing information that I am interpreting wrong.

About the only thing that anyone is sure of is that Molly Bish was abducted sometime between 10 am - 10:20 am on June 26, 2000, when the first witness arrived at the beach. And now we know there is DNA.

 

[I wonder]

Regarding the man in the white car, there seems to be an assumption that he was parked in the car park watching Molly. I have read a dismissal of this, stating it was impossible to see where Molly was sitting from the car park.

I don’t think he was watching Molly on the occasions he was seen nearby. He was studying the foot flow of people, what times were quiet and which weren’t.

My belief is that he reached Molly very soon after her arrival at the beach and told Molly that her mum was hurt and asked him to find Molly. He maybe said something like a cut on her head, so she grabbed a few bits (I don’t know specifically what was missing) and followed him. Somewhere towards the end of the path he may have put a knife or gun against her back and told her he had kidnapped her mum and if Molly made a scene, he would kill both of them.

He then forced her into the boot of the car.

Molly’s mum had warned her about the man with the white car. I
don’t know exactly what Molly was told, but I suspect the emphasis was on the white car as opposed to a physical description of the man. This explains why she willingly (IMO) followed the man. When Molly saw the white car she must have realised the extreme danger she was in.

I don’t know when he told her he was lying about her mum, or whether she had already realised that herself, but it must have been very bittersweet. Her mum was safe, but she wasn’t and she was alone with him.

 

[weepingangel]

Molly Bish investigation led police to suspect's son in Ohio prison

 

[somequestions]

Did anything ever come of the suspect DNA? If the DNA of someone Molly Bish has never met before, a stranger, was found on her clothing, that would definitely lead me to believe that person had something to do with her abduction and murder. Even though that might not conclusively solve the case, it would certainly be a conclusion.

I think this case should serve as a case study for why police or any investigator needs to collect as much evidence and witness statements at the time a case happens. This should be done based on the idea that it may take 20 or 30 years to solve a case or even bring it to a conclusion.

I know police and family were looking for Molly Bish within 3-4 hours after she was dropped off at Commin's Pond, but I wonder sometimes if they took the time to make sure they knew were everyone was located(alibi) for the period of 10:00 am - 10:20 am, the time it is thought Molly Bish was abducted.

I look at this case and realize that you can come up with theories and speculation all day, but the fact of the matter is that with Commin's Pond being a public beach anyone could access, it could literally be anyone who knew about Commin's Pond and the surrounding area either from living in the area at the time of the crime or from past experience. Beachgoers, fisherman, parents with kids, other lifeguards, cemetery workers from the nearby cemetery, people who have walked along the cemetery path, residents who live in the Commin's Pond area, older residents over the decades who have visited the pond, and high school and college students who have gone there to hang out are just some of the potential persons of interest. That is a lot of people.

 

[Yemelyan]

Did anything ever come of the suspect DNA? If the DNA of someone Molly Bish has never met before, a stranger, was found on her clothing, that would definitely lead me to believe that person had something to do with her abduction and murder. Even though that might not conclusively solve the case, it would certainly be a conclusion.

I think this case should serve as a case study for why police or any investigator needs to collect as much evidence and witness statements at the time a case happens. This should be done based on the idea that it may take 20 or 30 years to solve a case or even bring it to a conclusion.

I know police and family were looking for Molly Bish within 3-4 hours after she was dropped off at Commin's Pond, but I wonder sometimes if they took the time to make sure they knew were everyone was located(alibi) for the period of 10:00 am - 10:20 am, the time it is thought Molly Bish was abducted.

I look at this case and realize that you can come up with theories and speculation all day, but the fact of the matter is that with Commin's Pond being a public beach anyone could access, it could literally be anyone who knew about Commin's Pond and the surrounding area either from living in the area at the time of the crime or from past experience. Beachgoers, fisherman, parents with kids, other lifeguards, cemetery workers from the nearby cemetery, people who have walked along the cemetery path, residents who live in the Commin's Pond area, older residents over the decades who have visited the pond, and high school and college students who have gone there to hang out are just some of the potential persons of interest. That is a lot of people.

Evidently they are still working the DNA angle. They must have something pretty concrete, though, if they are publicly naming Sumner as a suspect in the case and if they went to Ohio to collect DNA from his biological son.

The Bish family says that Sumner is entirely unknown to them: Convicted Rapist Who Died in 2016 Named Suspect in Molly Bish Case

LE haven't said exactly which item led them to the DNA evidence. But they have revealed to the Bish family some of the items that they have been able to analyze:

"What I've gathered over 21 years is that they have cigarette butts from the crime scene where she was taken from. There's possibly some duct tape. And of course, they have pieces of the bathing suit. So we are hopeful that one of those materials will have something just enough for us to identify who could have done this to Molly," Bish said. Molly Bish investigation led police to suspect's son in Ohio prison

 

[somequestions]

If there is a DNA profile to help identify a potential suspect in Molly Bish's case, then that also probably means that there is a DNA profile to help exclude possible persons of interest known to the investigation. People like the sand truck driver, the work supervisor, and other potential persons of interest that have come up during the course of the investigation could be excluded based on this DNA evidence. I am guessing they probably already have been.

The only thing I really ever came to any sort of personal conclusion about in this case was the possible location of a suspect. When Molly Bish's bathing suit was found by the hunter and the ex-police officer detective, they said they went to the town of Ware to get the police and report it. That is where I would have thought her killer lived at the time because it seems like it is the closest residential area. Whiskey Hill does not seem like the type of place someone would just happen upon to place a body, in my opinion. The news said this new main suspect Sumner lived in Spencer, MA although maybe he did not live in Spencer at the time of the crime.

I was always a little suspicious of the work supervisor, but mainly because of the story of him first learning of Molly Bish's disappearance at the pond. He then radioed the police with Molly Bish's two way radio at 11:44 am from the pond area. Then he must have left and ran into her brother at the hardware store without mentioning Molly was missing?

My theory was that the work supervisor drove to somewhere near Ware, Palmer area to drop off the lifeguard, then drove back to the pond, but stopped at the hardware store in case anyone noticed he was not painting the fence.

When you do not have all the information regarding facts and sequences it is so hard to correctly understand a story. A person's reaction to a given situation is not evidence. At least now in this case people that may have been suspected for a long time can be cleared.

Hopefully this is the year Molly Bish's case comes to a conclusion.