Ok, according to the news piece it was 13 minutes from when Molly Bish was dropped off to when she was abducted. I thought it was 3 minutes. This is the problem with information from the media and pictures of the "crime scene". What is the right information?Jun 26, 2024
We take a look at the evidence that remains in storage more than two decades after 16-year-old Molly Bish was killed.
Gerald Battistoni, Rodney Stanger, Robert Bruno were also looked at and publicly mentioned as suspects.I admit ,I have not visited in a minute,but what happen to Michael Nicholaou being a suspect? It seems he is no longer a suspect and not mentioned anymore regarding this case.
Michelle is still missing as well and he was a suspected serial killer so I assume he was ruled out in this case for a reason? Anyone?
Since the crime happened at a public place, it could be anyone including one the numerous possible POI's listed by police over the years. Or it could be a graveyard worker, or it could be someone who lived on Commins Pond Road or it could be one of Molly Bish's teachers, coaches, or lifeguard instructors. Or it could be a family friend, or it could be someone she only met once. Or it could be a fisherman or a hunter or a jogger or someone who visited St. Paul's cemetery.I admit ,I have not visited in a minute,but what happen to Michael Nicholaou being a suspect? It seems he is no longer a suspect and not mentioned anymore regarding this case.
Michelle is still missing as well and he was a suspected serial killer so I assume he was ruled out in this case for a reason? Anyone?
The 3 most current listed suspects. I just thought someone might know something about why Nicholaou has(apparently?) been dropped from the list . ?Gerald Battistoni, Rodney Stanger, Robert Bruno were also looked at and publicly mentioned as suspects.
I would tend to agree that the work supervisor has nothing to do with it. In addition to what you mention above, there are a few reasons for this:One person suspected of Molly Bish's abduction was her work supervisor. I think there is a reason why it is not her work supervisor.
According to the lifeguard procedure at Commins Pond Beach, Molly Bish had to pick up a two-way radio to be able to communicate with the police while at the beach. Then from what I understand, she makes a radio call in to police once at the beach to check to make sure the two-way radio is working. On the day of her abduction, the police radio check-in call was never made after Molly Bish arrived at Commins Pond.
If it was her work supervisor and if he knew the lifeguard procedure, I think he would have waited until after the two-way radio call had been made to police, especially if he was observing her. The work supervisor would have no way to know when someone might notify the police of the lifeguard's absence.
One question I wondered about the two-way radio check=in call was did Molly Bish's work supervisor ask the police if she ever made the two-way radio check-in call that day? That would have helped establish a timeline. On previous days when did Molly Bish usually make this two-way radio call? When did her brother train her to make the two-way radio call?
Maybe the two-way radio check-in call to police was not that important? Even when Molly Bish did not make the radio check-in from Commins Pond, it did not seem to raise any alarm with the police as it took parents at the beach to first notify Molly Bish's work supervisor that she was missing. Then it took the work supervisor being able to notify the police that she was not there, which he did using her two-way radio at 11:44am.
Maybe the work supervisor had to turn on the two-way radio to make the call to police at 11:44am and assumed the check-in call to police had not been made because the two-way radio was still off when he went to use it?
I think people like having a law enforcement perspective concerning this case.I would tend to agree that the work supervisor has nothing to do with it. In addition to what you mention above, there are a few reasons for this:
Firstly, abducting Bish at the pond is very clearly a high risk tactic. All it would have taken is for someone to arrive at the pond early for a swim, and this would have interrupted the crime. Similarly, the pond is an extremely isolated area, surrounded by an expanse of trees on all sides. This means that the suspect had to transport Bish from the lifeguard's point back to a vehicle. Had it been the work supervisor this wouldn't make sense. As her supervisor, he could easily have got her to walk back to his car with him on the premise of getting something from his vehicle, helping him carry something etc., but this wasn't the case. Her shoes were still present at the lifeguard's station - so she did not walk back to a vehicle. In summary, if her supervisor was the suspect, there were many easier ways he could have gone about it.
Secondly, the first aid kit was open. Is this relevant? Some people suggest not on the basis that she may just have been checking the kit. That doesn't make sense to me. She would have had the first aid kit the day before when she was at work...she would have known what was in it as she would likely have checked in then, or at the very least know what she used out of it (if anything). In my opinion, she opened the kit to administer first aid to someone (i.e. the suspect) who likely used this as a rouse to get up close to her). Again, her supervisor would not have needed to do this.
On another note, I would be interested if anybody knows the area well at all? I have a few questions in relation to this case.
So, your last couple of (great) posts have got me thinking about the abduction phase of this case. I'll respond to a few points below:If I were in Warren, Massachusetts at Commins Pond and I was trying an amateur web sleuth experiment concerning this case, this is what I would try to do. It does not prove anything, but sometimes running scenarios through can help lead to questions that need to be answered.
You get at least 5 or 6 officers and tell them to position themselves on the hillside behind where Commins Pond beach is as if they were the abductor waiting for Molly Bish. The reason you need 5 or 6 is because you have no idea where the abductor is going to be located on the hillside waiting for Molly Bish. You also have no idea what part of the beach Molly Bish will choose to stop and set up her lifeguard station. At the time of the abduction there was not a big lifeguard chair there at Commins Pond(according to old video).
Then you get 2 other officers pretending to be Molly Bish and her mother. In order to get the timing as accurate as possible, it would help to have her mother's input, but nonetheless you can still run the experiment. The officer pretending to be Molly Bish would get out and do the same things as Molly Bish and start walking towards the beach area.
The scenarios to be tested out:
1. First ask each of the officers on the hillside if they can see Molly Bish's car when it arrives and when it leaves? Second, tell each of the officers to start walking down the hill the moment the officer pretending to be Molly Bish comes into their view? Have the officer pretending to be Molly Bish go through the same motions and set up the lifeguard stuff up until the point the officer coming down the hill arrives at the spot on the beach the lifeguard stuff was set up. Was everything able to be set up by the time the officer from the top of the hill arrives at the lifeguard location?
2. Run the same experiment, but this time tell the officers on the hillside to wait to move until the lawn chair is set up by the officer pretending to be Molly Bish. Then see how far into the lifeguard setup the officer pretending to be Molly Bish gets before someone arrives at the lifeguard station.
The one question to ask the officer pretending to be Molly Bish afterwards is when could you spot someone coming down the hill out of your peripheral vision?
I know that the answer to all of this could be that the abductor simply watched and waited for some reason, maybe because they thought Molly Bish's mother might still be there and come out onto the beach after what happened the day before.
But if it were the person in the white car that was seen the day before in the Commins Pond parking lot wouldn't they have taken that into consideration? Why not setup the abduction to happen at 10:15am instead of 10am to arrive at the path in the cemetery to make sure her mother is gone, and Molly Bish is sitting facing towards the water?
I absolutely think the suspect had been to the location before. They clearly knew the area well and were confident with the entry/exit routes, as well as with Molly's routine.I can't remember if this has been discussed or stated or not. Did they ask for beach goers in the days preceding her abduction to come forward and ask them if they noticed anyone hanging around repeatedly and/or acting suspiciously? Besides the guy in the white car her mom mentioned. I doubt someone would show up to Commins Pond that day for the first time ever and decide to abduct. I feel that is nearly impossible because of the timing. What brought them to Commins Pond to begin with? How often had they visited before to figure out her routine?
I guess it's possible they watched from a distance, but I wouldn't rule out them actually visiting the beach as well and trying to blend in as a beach goer. How busy did this beach typically get on a summer day? Would someone stick out or would it be easy to blend in? I guess they could have also had a family and/or kids and/or someone else they visited the beach with as an outing, saw Molly and then decided they'd come back on another day alone.
I will try and provide some perspective from what I have read or seen in various photos and videos about the case.So, your last couple of (great) posts have got me thinking about the abduction phase of this case. I'll respond to a few points below:
1 - In terms of why the offender would need a rouse (such as feigning an injury), I think it simply comes down to getting access to Bish. There would always be a risk that she would see him approaching and be spooked. If the suspect was the same male who her mother saw the day before, we have to bear in mind he doesn't know what conversation Bish and her mother had about him, but we do know he noticed her mother staring back at him. He was likely on guard and didn't want to spook Bish. Feigning injury would likely cause Bish to be a little more open to allowing him to approach her and get up close. It could even be something as simple as it's just what the offender planned to do.
2 - I don't believe the offender parked in the main car park for Commis Pond. If the suspect was the same male as the day before (which IMO it was), he knows that he risks being spotted by Bish's mother again. Or, indeed, anybody else who may arrive early. Bish's mother did not report seeing anybody strange in the car park on the day of the abduction, or on the journey to and from the pool. Given the incident the day before, had she seen the same vehicle or male, I think she would have noticed this. I think it makes sense that the suspect parked in the cemetery car park.
3 - From satellite view, the pond seems to have 3 distinct beach areas in and around where Bish was abducted from. It would make sense for her to sit one of the 2 beaches to the right. These are the largest areas and also have the best view of the pond. If she was sat here, then she would almost certainly have had a view of anybody approaching from the cemetery path. This takes me back to point 1 and the need for the suspect to have some kind of rouse.
For what it's worth, I've listened to a few podcasts about this case now and read quite a bit about it. The below is just my own opinion on what may have happened. It would be interesting to hear anybody's thoughts.
For the reasons I've outlined above I think the offender approached from the cemetery path. He approaches Bish, who by now has just sat down in her chair and is relaxing before families start to arrive. He approaches her pretending to have a medical problem, causing her to bend down and open the first aid kit. She was not attacked there - there were no signs of a disturbance and no blood etc., but I do believe that he likely pulled out a gun (or another weapon, but most likely a firearm), and threatened her with it. It would have been completely impractical for her to be carried up the path, and also risky, so I think he made her walk there under the threat of violence/being shot. Once at his vehicle, I believe he likely restrained her using some form of binding - to not do so would be very risky as she would have been able to assault him or try to exit the vehicle whilst he was driving. Therefore, it makes sense to me that she was bound and places in the trunk of the vehicle or the rear seats. She was then transported to Whiskey Hill where she was likely sexually assaulted and murdered.
I would be interested to know anybody's thoughts on the above