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

[lowes123]

The one thing that really sticks out to me is the hairline. That sketch is dead on for the hairline. Now that his name is out there, it will be interesting to hear what people have to say. I wonder what Magi thinks seeing his picture, if she thinks he is the one that she saw. I also wonder about the DNA, supposedly the police have DNA, but Sumner's DNA was tested a while ago. I hope that Early puts out more information soon. There have been so many people of interest in this case!

 

[somequestions]

I wasn't arguing Im sorry if it came off like that, I should've clarified, all are protected and presumed innocent until proven guilty, however what i meant was that theres no way to stop the name from being released to the public after they are indicted. I wasn't saying they're innocent until they are indicted. Sorry for the confusion.

From time to time, in cold cases, you'll see a random individual pop up from time to time, sometimes its due to a new look at the case, sometimes, its because someone "suddenly" remembered something , sometimes, its simply because someone decided to take a flier at someone they think could be responsible .

Theres an old dichotomy on the behavioral realm, that there are 2 points of view , the psychological, and the behavioral. (Ill show how this ties in later)

The Psychological looks at potential actions through a diagnoses, or group of diagnoses, and projects potential outward from there, for example if you have an individual who is schizophrenic, who has committed violent acts , you can surmise that this individual is certainly capable of commiting murder (for ex) but that individual may not have at all, but they could be capable of it.

The Behavioral looks at the actions themselves, of an individual and projects a personality "profile" from there. Though an individual may have a clinical diagnoses, we are looking at what was done at the crime scene, and inferring a personaily from there. For EX, If we see a crime scene where an individual was blugeoned about the face and neck beyond what was needed to kill the victim , we can infer rage etc..

Now that reason I mentioned that is because in some cases, in an investigation, and im sure we have all seen this , a potential suspect will pop up because LE or whomever feels, this individual "Could" be responsible, because they have a criminal past etc.. Even if the criminal acts themselves are similar, in many cases, it turns out not to be the individual responsible

In Mollys case, could a guy who held a held a young girl captive in his home, and raped here be responsible ?.... Absolutely , is it probable?, that depends on the evidence

Sometimes, a new suspect shakes up the case, new things come forward , new eyes look at it , perhaps someone decides, they have been sitting on info long enough, and they want to clear their conscience

And sadly, in some cases, I feel the agency is just anxious to close a case for the family, these cases, haunt people, the mystery surrounding them leads to fear and uncertainty, its the not knowing that is the worst, not only for the victims family, but for the general public as well

The Adam Walsh case, is a good example of that , many experts feel Otis Toole, (who falsely claimed to have committed hundreds or murders) was not responsible for the boys death. Even though he admitted to it, there was little to no physical evidence to suggest Toole was responsible, it seems like LE , and John Walsh rolled with it because its a form of closure .

It would be great if this was the guy and the case, could finally be closed

This new information about the POI or suspect in the Molly Bish case who is now deceased is very confusing.

Let me get this straight. He was tipped in by a member of his family after he died, but now the family wants the DA to stop discussing him unless the DA has actual proof that he is indeed a suspect in Molly Bish's case? Isn't this yet another reason why a family member may hesitate to contact and tip LE about a possible POI, especially someone in their own family?

Would LE actually name someone without any sort of evidence, to close a case? Is that not almost the same thing as guessing? What evidence does LE have that actually points to this man being involved in Molly Bish's murder? Why would they wait to release any information to confirm his involvement since how can the case be jeopardized if this man is dead?

I did not know about Adam Walsh. I assumed that LE had solved that case, not that they had accepted someone's confession, without evidence??? Don't people confess to crimes sometimes for their own personal attention?

In my opinion, unless there is actual physical evidence that ties this man to Molly Bish's murder, LE is guessing at his involvement. And they are doing it for closure???? But would they really do that???

 

[Vern]

RSBM
...
In my opinion, unless there is actual physical evidence that ties this man to Molly Bish's murder, LE is guessing at his involvement. And they are doing it for closure???? But would they really do that???

The articles detail that there is DNA evidence that connects him.

I suppose too that the family members that you are hearing from who are saying shut up about him, are not composed of the actual individual family member of his who tipped him in to LE.

So, at least one family member of his actually suspected him of the crime; good on them for sending that tip in as it has resulted in a DNA linkeage (so, that familymember was right in their suspicion). If the other family members don't like that then, IMHO ... 'meh'.

 

[somequestions]

The articles detail that there is DNA evidence that connects him.

I suppose too that the family members that you are hearing from who are saying shut up about him, are not composed of the actual individual family member of his who tipped him in to LE.

So, at least one family member of his actually suspected him of the crime; good on them for sending that tip in as it has resulted in a DNA linkeage (so, that familymember was right in their suspicion). If the other family members don't like that then, IMHO ... 'meh'.

I did not know that there was DNA evidence that connects this man to Molly Bish's murder.

I am surprised they were able to retrieve DNA evidence from, I am assuming, a bathing suit that sat outside for what appears to have been a very long time. That does appear to be evidence pointing towards his involvement, especially if Molly Bish and this man were complete strangers to each other.

 

[Vern]

I did not know that there was DNA evidence that connects this man to Molly Bish's murder.

I am surprised they were able to retrieve DNA evidence from, I am assuming, a bathing suit that sat outside for what appears to have been a very long time. That does appear to be evidence pointing towards his involvement, especially if Molly Bish and this man were complete strangers to each other.

I don't know if it's from the swimsuit, but one article mentions that they sent in 50 plus items for enhanced DNA testing last year as they weren't able to get a usuable profile in their earlier attempts, but advances in DNA have helped. He dies a few years ago, family member tips him in after his death, family then asked 2 years ago to provide DA samples and at least two do, evidence sent for enhaced DNA testing at some point last year and "new information received" a couple of months ago. He wouldn't confirm to the reporter that the "new info" was a successful enhancement on the DNA he submitted last year, but IMO, the timing is right.

The use of the word "enhancement" by LE tells me that they had perp's DNA .... just needed it to be usable for comparison purposes.

 

[helpfulcharlie]

I have to say kudos to the family member(s) who sent in the tip and/or provided DNA. It's a bold step to be willing to attach your family to a horrific crime. Whether their motives were altruistic, I can't say, but I like to think if I had a family member I suspected of a crime like this, living or dead, I would do the same, even though it brings pain on the family. You can't move forward and heal until you acknowledge.

 

[Kell1]

This new information about the POI or suspect in the Molly Bish case who is now deceased is very confusing.

Let me get this straight. He was tipped in by a member of his family after he died, but now the family wants the DA to stop discussing him unless the DA has actual proof that he is indeed a suspect in Molly Bish's case? Isn't this yet another reason why a family member may hesitate to contact and tip LE about a possible POI, especially someone in their own family?

Would LE actually name someone without any sort of evidence, to close a case? Is that not almost the same thing as guessing? What evidence does LE have that actually points to this man being involved in Molly Bish's murder? Why would they wait to release any information to confirm his involvement since how can the case be jeopardized if this man is dead?

I did not know about Adam Walsh. I assumed that LE had solved that case, not that they had accepted someone's confession, without evidence??? Don't people confess to crimes sometimes for their own personal attention?

In my opinion, unless there is actual physical evidence that ties this man to Molly Bish's murder, LE is guessing at his involvement. And they are doing it for closure???? But would they really do that???

Its been done before, only to have it later rescinded when a true perpetrator was discovered via DNA or some new evidence, so lets hope they have DNA

Many times family members have turned in family members before which caused a rift , much more common after the suspect has died however, often you'll find that the suspicions were held by many in the family.

If they indeed have DNA that's huge in this case, hopefully they do

As for the Walsh case John Walsh himself for many years had doubts about Toole. Otis Toole was a well known BS artist, tho admitted to crimes, LE knew he didnt commit, in order to simply harass LE, some believe he may have not killed anyone at all.

There was no physical evidence to link Toole to Adam Walsh's murder, and a deathbed confession is what they went with , now this is barring any other evidence that wasn't made public, but I know some in LE down there that were confused as well .

Im not sure why John all the sudden changed course, unless there was something Toole revealed that only a killer would know, but as far as Im aware of he only recanted what was already known

Again, im hoping this is the beginning of the end for this case, if they have DNA then great, they may be trying to compare it genealogically.

It seems this new suspect has a long criminal history involving kidnapping and rape

 

[helpfulcharlie]

Its been done before, only to have it later rescinded when a true perpetrator was discovered via DNA or some new evidence, so lets hope they have DNA

Many times family members have turned in family members before which caused a rift , much more common after the suspect has died however, often you'll find that the suspicions were held by many in the family.

If they indeed have DNA that's huge in this case, hopefully they do

As for the Walsh case John Walsh himself for many years had doubts about Toole. Otis Toole was a well known BS artist, tho admitted to crimes, LE knew he didnt commit, in order to simply harass LE, some believe he may have not killed anyone at all.

There was no physical evidence to link Toole to Adam Walsh's murder, and a deathbed confession is what they went with , now this is barring any other evidence that wasn't made public, but I know some in LE down there that were confused as well .

Im not sure why John all the sudden changed course, unless there was something Toole revealed that only a killer would know, but as far as Im aware of he only recanted what was already known

Again, im hoping this is the beginning of the end for this case, if they have DNA then great, they may be trying to compare it genealogically.

Toole specifically seemed to have a particularly well-practiced skill of regurgitating bits of information he picked up during interviews and interrogations and feeding it back in a way that maybe seemed like it came from him. At least that's what it seemed like from the snippets I've seen. Maybe he was just perceptive enough to see where they were leading without actually saying it, and then he said it.

 

[Kell1]

Toole specifically seemed to have a particularly well-practiced skill of regurgitating bits of information he picked up during interviews and interrogations and feeding it back in a way that maybe seemed like it came from him. At least that's what it seemed like from the snippets I've seen. Maybe he was just perceptive enough to see where they were leading without actually saying it, and then he said it.

Exactly, Otis said that he would look at crime scene photos he was shown or from info he was able to glean and hed just spin a story from there.

Lucas, was the same way, in one case, LE fabricated a story about a murder, and Lucas admitted to it.

Toole by his own admission liked to toy with detectives.

Though he was an accomplished arsonist, some feel he may have not killed anyone at all.

 

[Vern]

Exactly, Otis said that he would look at crime scene photos he was shown or from info he was able to glean and hed just spin a story from there.

Lucas, was the same way, in one case, LE fabricated a story about a murder, and Lucas admitted to it.

Toole by his own admission liked to toy with detectives.

Though he was an accomplished arsonist, some feel he may have not killed anyone at all.

Toole confessed twice and then recanted each time. John Walsh long suspected Toole, but the fact he kept recanting caused him to have doubts when combined with all the other crimes he was confessing to. The carpet was cut out of Toole's car as evidence, but the police botched the case ... the carpet was lost and the vehicle was destroyed leaving not much to corraborate anything.

Around 2007ish IIRC, and post Toole's death, a Cold Case detective was going through Adam's case files and discovered undeveloped rolls of film of crime scene photos that had been taken of Toole's car back in the day. He had them developed and one photo showed the bloody outlines of a child's face on the backseat of the car. In Toole's recanted confessions he had detailed the crime with some differing details, but in each description of the abduction and murder he also detailed how he had decapitated Adam and thrown his head onto his back seat prior to tossing it in the canal. That information was on point with the newly found and developed crime scene evidence photos taken of his car. Those photos were of Toole's own car and had not been seen by him as they were found and developed after his death.

That is the stuff that managed to convince the case detectives, the cold case guys and John Walsh that Otis Toole was indeed responsible for Adam's murder and close the case.

IMO, if that carpet ever is found in a lost evidence box somewhere, DNA tests on that blood will be Adam's.

 

[helpfulcharlie]

He had them developed and one photo showed the bloody outlines of a child's face on the backseat of the car. In Toole's recanted confessions he had detailed the crime with some differing details, but in each description of the abduction and murder he also detailed how he had decapitated Adam and thrown his head onto his back seat prior to tossing it in the canal.

(snipped for focus)

Congratulations. I thought I had long seen the worst that the Lucas/Toole duo had to offer. Kudos to you for showing me something worse than everything I've ever read about either of them.

 

[somequestions]

Its been done before, only to have it later rescinded when a true perpetrator was discovered via DNA or some new evidence, so lets hope they have DNA

Many times family members have turned in family members before which caused a rift , much more common after the suspect has died however, often you'll find that the suspicions were held by many in the family.

If they indeed have DNA that's huge in this case, hopefully they do

As for the Walsh case John Walsh himself for many years had doubts about Toole. Otis Toole was a well known BS artist, tho admitted to crimes, LE knew he didnt commit, in order to simply harass LE, some believe he may have not killed anyone at all.

There was no physical evidence to link Toole to Adam Walsh's murder, and a deathbed confession is what they went with , now this is barring any other evidence that wasn't made public, but I know some in LE down there that were confused as well .

Im not sure why John all the sudden changed course, unless there was something Toole revealed that only a killer would know, but as far as Im aware of he only recanted what was already known

Again, im hoping this is the beginning of the end for this case, if they have DNA then great, they may be trying to compare it genealogically.

It seems this new suspect has a long criminal history involving kidnapping and rape

The new suspect does seem to fit the type of person who would commit this type of crime.

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.

Then I think it is safe to assume that if it was the same man in the white car who came back the next day, Tuesday, June 27, 2000, he planned the crime. So if the suspect did have a job he probably took the day off.

I definitely do not think he had seen Molly Bish before Monday June 26, 2000. If he had seen Molly Bish before then and was planning on abducting her, would he really then sit in the Commins Pond parking lot to stare down her mother?

He must have known Commins Pond and the connecting cemetery well too. All the towns he lived in were east of Warren, MA so he would have to go back to his residence in one of those towns to think about how he was going to pull off the abduction the next day. Then he came back and simply assumed from the day before that Molly Bish was the lifeguard that worked there who started at 10 am. I say assumed because I keep forgetting she was wearing a tank top and shorts and you could not see the lifeguard uniform until she took off those outer clothes. And her lifeguard swimsuit was blue. And yet the outer clothing was not recovered at the crime scene out at the beach. That indicates to me she was still wearing her outer clothes when she was abducted. I have looked at the gas station surveillance video. I could not tell she was a lifeguard from the clothing.

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.

 

[Kell1]

Toole confessed twice and then recanted each time. John Walsh long suspected Toole, but the fact he kept recanting caused him to have doubts when combined with all the other crimes he was confessing to. The carpet was cut out of Toole's car as evidence, but the police botched the case ... the carpet was lost and the vehicle was destroyed leaving not much to corraborate anything.

Around 2007ish IIRC, and post Toole's death, a Cold Case detective was going through Adam's case files and discovered undeveloped rolls of film of crime scene photos that had been taken of Toole's car back in the day. He had them developed and one photo showed the bloody outlines of a child's face on the backseat of the car. In Toole's recanted confessions he had detailed the crime with some differing details, but in each description of the abduction and murder he also detailed how he had decapitated Adam and thrown his head onto his back seat prior to tossing it in the canal. That information was on point with the newly found and developed crime scene evidence photos taken of his car. Those photos were of Toole's own car and had not been seen by him as they were found and developed after his death.

That is the stuff that managed to convince the case detectives, the cold case guys and John Walsh that Otis Toole was indeed responsible for Adam's murder and close the case.

IMO, if that carpet ever is found in a lost evidence box somewhere, DNA tests on that blood will be Adam's.

Walsh doubted it from the beginning not just because of Tolles waffling , and ever changing details, but because of the FBI, didnt feel Toole was responsible either, from what ive been told, there was never even a presumptive test (test done to determine if a substance is indeed blood at all) done on what some theorize was blood in the back of Toole's, car. It was as luminol test which combines with proteins , but will illuminate a lot of other things as well however.

Then of course , the car and the carpet and pictures were lost, and any physical evidence most likely destroyed, or in the eyes of the court, would now be inadmissible anyway.

The "face print" unfortunately is questionable at best (in terms of evidence) , as we all know our brains are hard wired to try to make sense of things that dont completely, thats why some people see Jesus in their oatmeal, or how we look at cloud formations and say "hey that looks like ..." .

How people process non definitive images can even be tested , through Rorschach or "ink blot " tests, again species is hard wired to recognize faces, at an early age though.

Now, Im not saying Toole wasn't responsible, I take it with a grain of salt, but theres quite a few who feel he wasn't, was he "capable" ? id say , an antisocial pyromaniac, with an extremely low IQ and impulse control issues, would be up on my list .

One important thing to remember however, is that ALL of his convictions were brought about due to confessions , and that there was almost no physical evidence to tie Toole to any of his supposed crimes.

Unless he was the craftiest criminal who ever lived, (with an IQ of 70 ) to leave NO evidence over the hundreds of crimes he confessed to , and to only be convicted on his own admissions, I find that to be too far a stretch.

 

[somequestions]

I could never figure out how the person who abducted Molly Bish knew she was a lifeguard.

Since you cannot see the beach from the Commins Pond parking lot, is it assumed that ponds usually have lifeguards in that area? The other idea I thought of was after the abductor left the Commins Pond parking lot on Monday, June 26th, they then went over to the cemetery. By the time they were able to observe Molly Bish from above the hill, she had taken off her outer clothes showing her blue lifeguard bathing suit. And by her other actions this is how the abductor knew she was the lifeguard. Having the police radio the next day only helped confirm this. Maybe the person who abducted Molly Bish assumed everything and even if she was not a lifeguard or did not show up on they were going to have another smoke? If she shows up at the same time, then they abduct her. Maybe they did not choose Monday, June 26th, for the abduction because there were a lot of people out on Commins Pond beach that day?

According to the Unsolved Mysteries episode about the case, on the day of the abduction, Tuesday, June 27, 2000, a truck was delivering sand when Molly and her mother arrived. The sand truck later stated that he saw a white car who had been in the Commins Pond parking lot moments before Molly and her mother arrived that day. I cannot figure out why the white car went to the Commins Pond parking lot that day before Molly and her mom arrived. What purpose did it serve?

In my opinion, because of the open first aid kit, everyone would have to assume that either Molly or another beach patron had been injured. Nobody would have known who opened the first aid kit. Since some woman had taken over Molly's job of lifeguarding that day by taking the whistle, maybe she had opened the first aid kit?

Maybe the best way for the abductor to find out if she was the lifeguard was to simply ask her face to face? This must be why police think she was not carried out of the Commins Pond beach area. If, for example, someone attacked Molly Bish from behind, it would be kind of difficult to theorize that this same person pretended to be injured and ask her for a band-aid. In order to do that, you have to be face-to-face speaking. Or they performed some awkward move when Molly looked down into the first aid kit, they quickly moved around behind her and when she got up with the band aid or whatever, they grabbed her from behind. It seems like a rather awkward move though without Molly noticing.

I only went through lifeguard training and became certified. I never actually worked a job as a lifeguard. Maybe if I had, I might look at this case differently and things might make more sense to me.

In a recent article about the new suspect, Molly's sister said that even if she does not know what happened to Molly, knowing who did it is good enough. And it is good enough for me too.

Each of us processes information differently. I am only trying to explain why I thought what I did concerning Molly Bish's case.

 

[Kell1]

I could never figure out how the person who abducted Molly Bish knew she was a lifeguard.

Since you cannot see the beach from the Commins Pond parking lot, is it assumed that ponds usually have lifeguards in that area? The other idea I thought of was after the abductor left the Commins Pond parking lot on Monday, June 26th, they then went over to the cemetery. By the time they were able to observe Molly Bish from above the hill, she had taken off her outer clothes showing her blue lifeguard bathing suit. And by her other actions this is how the abductor knew she was the lifeguard. Having the police radio the next day only helped confirm this. Maybe the person who abducted Molly Bish assumed everything and even if she was not a lifeguard or did not show up on they were going to have another smoke? If she shows up at the same time, then they abduct her. Maybe they did not choose Monday, June 26th, for the abduction because there were a lot of people out on Commins Pond beach that day?

According to the Unsolved Mysteries episode about the case, on the day of the abduction, Tuesday, June 27, 2000, a truck was delivering sand when Molly and her mother arrived. The sand truck later stated that he saw a white car who had been in the Commins Pond parking lot moments before Molly and her mother arrived that day. I cannot figure out why the white car went to the Commins Pond parking lot that day before Molly and her mom arrived. What purpose did it serve?

In my opinion, because of the open first aid kit, everyone would have to assume that either Molly or another beach patron had been injured. Nobody would have known who opened the first aid kit. Since some woman had taken over Molly's job of lifeguarding that day by taking the whistle, maybe she had opened the first aid kit?

Maybe the best way for the abductor to find out if she was the lifeguard was to simply ask her face to face? This must be why police think she was not carried out of the Commins Pond beach area. If, for example, someone attacked Molly Bish from behind, it would be kind of difficult to theorize that this same person pretended to be injured and ask her for a band-aid. In order to do that, you have to be face-to-face speaking. Or they performed some awkward move when Molly looked down into the first aid kit, they quickly moved around behind her and when she got up with the band aid or whatever, they grabbed her from behind. It seems like a rather awkward move though without Molly noticing.

I only went through lifeguard training and became certified. I never actually worked a job as a lifeguard. Maybe if I had, I might look at this case differently and things might make more sense to me.

In a recent article about the new suspect, Molly's sister said that even if she does not know what happened to Molly, knowing who did it is good enough. And it is good enough for me too.

Each of us processes information differently. I am only trying to explain why I thought what I did concerning Molly Bish's case.

I was on a fishing boat years, ago in my teens , it was really early in season, we were heading out into the Atlantic , when the captain called our attention to an Atlantic gray seal low on a jetty , as we passed the animal we could see it was seriously injured, it had an enormous bite taken out of its rear quarter, the animal was likely dying.

The captain then said " This species is fairly common in our waters and....(as the injury comes into view)" And he said something I still say to this day, "where theres prey .....theres predators"

The same holds especially true for humans, where they is prey there is predators, where there are kids, there are those who look to prey upon them for whatever deviant reason.

That's why you hear so much about coaches, scout leaders, priests, teachers, etc.. preying upon children, they find their way around what they desire or create a means to have access to their desired victim type (Ex Jerry Sandusky)

Whether or not she was a lifeguard was of no consequence, he knew there were often young girls there often early, and often alone, I feel if it wasn't Molly, it would've been another unfortunate girl that would've suffered the same fate.

Like most abductions, The ALONE part is why she became a victim.

He knew that because hes familiar with that area, hes been there before, that's a bold crime to commit, without confidence enough to pull it off. That confidence comes from being there before.

He was most likely lying in wait , he knew a young girl may be there, hes watching her from a distance, saw her setting up and from there (this is completely my feeling) he either feigned an injury to allow him to approach her , or he crept up covertly and produced a weapon and force marched her to his vehicle, while she was checking her first aid kit.

He may also have claimed someone needed help near his vehicle in the cemetery when she responded , she was then accosted, and abducted.

The car pulling in prior to her abduction is most likely the offender simply checking out the area, i wouldn't doubt he was driving by repeatedly until he saw Molly being dropped off, then he drove into the cemetery, and proceeded from there.

 

[somequestions]

I was on a fishing boat years, ago in my teens , it was really early in season, we were heading out into the Atlantic , when the captain called our attention to an Atlantic gray seal low on a jetty , as we passed the animal we could see it was seriously injured, it had an enormous bite taken out of its rear quarter, the animal was likely dying.

The captain then said " This species is fairly common in our waters and....(as the injury comes into view)" And he said something I still say to this day, "where theres prey .....theres predators"

The same holds especially true for humans, where they is prey there is predators, where there are kids, there are those who look to prey upon them for whatever deviant reason.

That's why you hear so much about coaches, scout leaders, priests, teachers, etc.. preying upon children, they find their way around what they desire or create a means to have access to their desired victim type (Ex Jerry Sandusky)

Whether or not she was a lifeguard was of no consequence, he knew there were often young girls there often early, and often alone, I feel if it wasn't Molly, it would've been another unfortunate girl that would've suffered the same fate.

Like most abductions, The ALONE part is why she became a victim.

He knew that because hes familiar with that area, hes been there before, that's a bold crime to commit, without confidence enough to pull it off. That confidence comes from being there before.

He was most likely lying in wait , he knew a young girl may be there, hes watching her from a distance, saw her setting up and from there (this is completely my feeling) he either feigned an injury to allow him to approach her , or he crept up covertly and produced a weapon and force marched her to his vehicle, while she was checking her first aid kit.

He may also have claimed someone needed help near his vehicle in the cemetery when she responded , she was then accosted, and abducted.

The car pulling in prior to her abduction is most likely the offender simply checking out the area, i wouldn't doubt he was driving by repeatedly until he saw Molly being dropped off, then he drove into the cemetery, and proceeded from there.

I agree that where there is prey, there is predators. The Delphi murder case is a great example of that.

As for Molly Bish's case there are numerous explanations for how someone might know she was the lifeguard. To go through a few: Maybe when she picked up her police radio each morning before her shift, a police officer saw her and decided to abduct her since they would know she was the lifeguard out at Commins Pond? Since it was Molly's eighth day of work, maybe the person who picks up the garbage at Commins Pond had saw her and decided to abduct her? Maybe a cemetery worker who might walk between the beach and the cemetery area was on a walk during that week leading up to her abduction, saw her, and decided to abduct her? Maybe a fisherman who had gone out there during the week had seen her? All these people, if they observed her, could probably easily determine she was the lifeguard on duty.

There is even a sign in the Commins Pond parking lot that says Warren Town Beach- Residents Only. The last item on the sign says, "Swim at own risk when lifeguard not on duty." This would indicate there is a lifeguard on duty sometime during the day.

I know that whether or not she was the lifeguard does not matter if she was alone and looked vulnerable to a predator.

The only thing that is sort of interesting is that if someone knew she was there before June 26, 2000, whether or not she was the lifeguard, would they really decide to get into that glaring stare down with her mother? She obviously drove to the beach with her mother. I think an abductor would have to take that into consideration that the mother might come along the next day as well.

I know the police are not going to share information about this case, but it would be interesting to know the alibi stories for each person connected to this case. She was dropped off at 10 am. The first parent arrived at 10:20 am and she was not there. So the alibi time for the abduction is 10 - 10:20 am. I know alibis only are relevant for people who are known in the case, not complete strangers in white cars. But being able to exclude people helps in a case like this.

My comments are only fodder for discussion. What if it was not the man in the white car?

 

[Kell1]

I agree that where there is prey, there is predators. The Delphi murder case is a great example of that.

As for Molly Bish's case there are numerous explanations for how someone might know she was the lifeguard. To go through a few: Maybe when she picked up her police radio each morning before her shift, a police officer saw her and decided to abduct her since they would know she was the lifeguard out at Commins Pond? Since it was Molly's eighth day of work, maybe the person who picks up the garbage at Commins Pond had saw her and decided to abduct her? Maybe a cemetery worker who might walk between the beach and the cemetery area was on a walk during that week leading up to her abduction, saw her, and decided to abduct her? Maybe a fisherman who had gone out there during the week had seen her? All these people, if they observed her, could probably easily determine she was the lifeguard on duty.

There is even a sign in the Commins Pond parking lot that says Warren Town Beach- Residents Only. The last item on the sign says, "Swim at own risk when lifeguard not on duty." This would indicate there is a lifeguard on duty sometime during the day.

I know that whether or not she was the lifeguard does not matter if she was alone and looked vulnerable to a predator.

The only thing that is sort of interesting is that if someone knew she was there before June 26, 2000, whether or not she was the lifeguard, would they really decide to get into that glaring stare down with her mother? She obviously drove to the beach with her mother. I think an abductor would have to take that into consideration that the mother might come along the next day as well.

I know the police are not going to share information about this case, but it would be interesting to know the alibi stories for each person connected to this case. She was dropped off at 10 am. The first parent arrived at 10:20 am and she was not there. So the alibi time for the abduction is 10 - 10:20 am. I know alibis only are relevant for people who are known in the case, not complete strangers in white cars. But being able to exclude people helps in a case like this.

My comments are only fodder for discussion. What if it was not the man in the white car?

There's an old saying in LE "Interview anyone with an alibi twice", you'd be stunned how much changes between interviews, even if they are not involved.

Even if its not the man in the white car, that doesn't change the type of individual who murdered Molly, that just gives us something to look at .

Releasing a composite and details of the crime does a few things, it gets eyes, on and people thinking, but it also is a way for whomever the man in the white car was to clear himself if indeed he was not involved.

Usually the innocent will come forward and say "yeah I was there that day , I pulled in because ...." and will allow LE to check it out, but to my knowledge this never happened in this case.

Now the fact that Molly wasn't found for years after, could be a reason someone wouldn't want to say they were at Comins that morning, but if theres no forensic evidence that would link him to her disappearance then he would have nothing to worry about.

And even back then they were very good at finding trace evidence.

Im not saying anything you are considering is "wrong", you are thinking outside the box, which is good, its creative, it generates wider thinking, but its not how investigations generally work, the evidence is the MOST important thing in an investigation.

Its the only real physical link between criminal and victim, and that's where you have to focus, even if the evidence leads to a dead end you go back and re-examine it again and again.

You have to resist the urge to add to the story it tells and not what if everything to death. You base it upon what experience, you have, and the statistics.

IE, "what do we have, what do we know about these types of cases"

In something like 82% of these cases, LE has already interviewed the person responsible, but for some reason the dots don't connect, so while you are still looking for new leads, you have a cold case, team, review everyone interviewed before, "interview anyone with alibis twice"

You keep the facts in the face of the public , I cant stress this enough, sadly cases, go cold not only because LE's leads fizzle out, but because the public WANTS TO FORGET.

Someone knows who did this, even if they are not 100% on it, they know, outright or have a nagging feeling (a messenger of intuition) that they know who did this .

Why not come forward? theres a lot of reasons, fear, disloyalty, denial, love, apathy, in some cases, approval, but I have a really hard time swallowing, that NOBODY knows who did this .

To someone out there all the dots are connected, they're living with this terrible secret, for any of the reasons above, and my come forward after the individual dies, or maybe not at all, again remember, we as a species tend to want to forget horrible things, especially if someone we love was responsible.

How can they not ? I once watched a mom and her son come out swinging at reporters outside a courthouse when her other son was found guilty of 2 rape murders and subsequently sentenced to death. They were attacking everyone, spitting throwing things , trying to assault everyone

This woman sat in court, and saw with her own eyes, what her son did to her... You think as a mother, it would resonate that another mother lost her child , that her son destroyed (literally) a promising college athlete? and that prior to that he had also abducted raped and murdered another woman, and SHE KNEW.

You think that woman would ever turn in her baby even if she knew he was a serial killer ? , and trust me I saw what he did to one victim and the term "horrific" doesn't quite do her justice .

She was interviewed years later, (her son in now on death row) and she still hates the police for locking her son up

Some people just do not care about others the world is theirs, you are just in it , they take no responsibility, and accountability ' exist, they just don't care, and you'll never get them to do so.

 

[somequestions]

There's an old saying in LE "Interview anyone with an alibi twice", you'd be stunned how much changes between interviews, even if they are not involved.

Even if its not the man in the white car, that doesn't change the type of individual who murdered Molly, that just gives us something to look at .

Releasing a composite and details of the crime does a few things, it gets eyes, on and people thinking, but it also is a way for whomever the man in the white car was to clear himself if indeed he was not involved.

Usually the innocent will come forward and say "yeah I was there that day , I pulled in because ...." and will allow LE to check it out, but to my knowledge this never happened in this case.

Now the fact that Molly wasn't found for years after, could be a reason someone wouldn't want to say they were at Comins that morning, but if theres no forensic evidence that would link him to her disappearance then he would have nothing to worry about.

And even back then they were very good at finding trace evidence.

Im not saying anything you are considering is "wrong", you are thinking outside the box, which is good, its creative, it generates wider thinking, but its not how investigations generally work, the evidence is the MOST important thing in an investigation.

Its the only real physical link between criminal and victim, and that's where you have to focus, even if the evidence leads to a dead end you go back and re-examine it again and again.

You have to resist the urge to add to the story it tells and not what if everything to death. You base it upon what experience, you have, and the statistics.

IE, "what do we have, what do we know about these types of cases"

In something like 82% of these cases, LE has already interviewed the person responsible, but for some reason the dots don't connect, so while you are still looking for new leads, you have a cold case, team, review everyone interviewed before, "interview anyone with alibis twice"

You keep the facts in the face of the public , I cant stress this enough, sadly cases, go cold not only because LE's leads fizzle out, but because the public WANTS TO FORGET.

Someone knows who did this, even if they are not 100% on it, they know, outright or have a nagging feeling (a messenger of intuition) that they know who did this .

Why not come forward? theres a lot of reasons, fear, disloyalty, denial, love, apathy, in some cases, approval, but I have a really hard time swallowing, that NOBODY knows who did this .

To someone out there all the dots are connected, they're living with this terrible secret, for any of the reasons above, and my come forward after the individual dies, or maybe not at all, again remember, we as a species tend to want to forget horrible things, especially if someone we love was responsible.

How can they not ? I once watched a mom and her son come out swinging at reporters outside a courthouse when her other son was found guilty of 2 rape murders and subsequently sentenced to death. They were attacking everyone, spitting throwing things , trying to assault everyone

This woman sat in court, and saw with her own eyes, what her son did to her... You think as a mother, it would resonate that another mother lost her child , that her son destroyed (literally) a promising college athlete? and that prior to that he had also abducted raped and murdered another woman, and SHE KNEW.

You think that woman would ever turn in her baby even if she knew he was a serial killer ? , and trust me I saw what he did to one victim and the term "horrific" doesn't quite do her justice .

She was interviewed years later, (her son in now on death row) and she still hates the police for locking her son up

Some people just do not care about others the world is theirs, you are just in it , they take no responsibility, and accountability ' exist, they just don't care, and you'll never get them to do so.

I definitely agree with the last part about people not caring.

In Molly Bish's case there is not a lot that I know to be definitive. So theories are based on what I think. I do not know who murdered Molly Bish and certainly am not going to solve it without having the same information at LE.

I agree that I cannot explain away the white car theory. That person was there at Commins Pond for some reason, most likely to plan to abduct the young lifeguard named Molly Bish who was working alone.

But I think it is important to consider every possibility. I always wondered if the information that the work supervisor closed the first aid kit was true?

Or maybe the sand truck driver said a white car drove into the Commins Pond parking lot that morning, but it did not? Maybe the sand driver is making it up after hearing about Mrs. Bish's story of the man in the white car. A person to conveniently place blame would be his motive.

I admit that our minds go towards what we think as being possible in our own opinion. And unfortunately we formulate ideas and theories to fit what we think. When I heard the work supervisor say on the 48 hours mystery program, "I waited around. Nobody showed up. So I called the police." That cannot be what he actually did. He did not ask one of the women there if she was possibly in the bathroom? He did not ask if Molly or another beach patron was injured? Did he actually call the police first and then run into her brother later and not mention Molly was missing?

But that is the point. I probably do not know information about this known person in the investigation who was obviously looked at since they know who he is. Supposedly he had an alibi(ask twice, I know). He was painting a fence with another man and you cannot abduct someone while painting a fence.

Since we now know who committed the crime in this case, the questions do not mean much anyway. Molly Bish's case was always the perfect case to just brainstorm randomly about any little thing because, in my opinion, there seems to be so little evidence that it could literally have been anyone who knew she was out there that day, alone. I took lifeguarding class. She was a lifeguard so I found the story of her disappearance and murder interesting. I imagine that is the current suspect is indeed the person responsible the case is closed and it is time to move on to something else.

 

[Kell1]

I definitely agree with the last part about people not caring.

In Molly Bish's case there is not a lot that I know to be definitive. So theories are based on what I think. I do not know who murdered Molly Bish and certainly am not going to solve it without having the same information at LE.

I agree that I cannot explain away the white car theory. That person was there at Commins Pond for some reason, most likely to plan to abduct the young lifeguard named Molly Bish who was working alone.

But I think it is important to consider every possibility. I always wondered if the information that the work supervisor closed the first aid kit was true?

Or maybe the sand truck driver said a white car drove into the Commins Pond parking lot that morning, but it did not? Maybe the sand driver is making it up after hearing about Mrs. Bish's story of the man in the white car. A person to conveniently place blame would be his motive.

I admit that our minds go towards what we think as being possible in our own opinion. And unfortunately we formulate ideas and theories to fit what we think. When I heard the work supervisor say on the 48 hours mystery program, "I waited around. Nobody showed up. So I called the police." That cannot be what he actually did. He did not ask one of the women there if she was possibly in the bathroom? He did not ask if Molly or another beach patron was injured? Did he actually call the police first and then run into her brother later and not mention Molly was missing?

But that is the point. I probably do not know information about this known person in the investigation who was obviously looked at since they know who he is. Supposedly he had an alibi(ask twice, I know). He was painting a fence with another man and you cannot abduct someone while painting a fence.

Since we now know who committed the crime in this case, the questions do not mean much anyway. Molly Bish's case was always the perfect case to just brainstorm randomly about any little thing because, in my opinion, there seems to be so little evidence that it could literally have been anyone who knew she was out there that day, alone. I took lifeguarding class. She was a lifeguard so I found the story of her disappearance and murder interesting. I imagine that is the current suspect is indeed the person responsible the case is closed and it is time to move on to something else.

We know HOW the person is, not WHO he is until some type of definitive proof connects someone .

This case, has had its share of individuals that were good suspects, that never panned out

 

[somequestions]

We know HOW the person is, not WHO he is until some type of definitive proof connects someone .

This case, has had its share of individuals that were good suspects, that never panned out

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.