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

[somequestions]

First a little clarity , I was not involved in the investigation, I've just followed her (and many others) for years .

To say WHOM i feel is responsible would be impossible without actual case info , but what I can do is lay out what I feel the offender was like , and whomever fits it Id be digging into

In Molly's case, youre looking most likely at a local who knew that area, I cant say for sure whether or not the man Molly's mom saw was her killer, its a strong possibility , but we just don't know.

A victimology assessment needs to be done to clear Molly's background to see if perhaps someone may have been stalking her or if she had enemies etc....You always start close and work out .

Though most abduction homicides of children are by chance (the offender just happens to come upon the victim) , I feel certain saying this individual planned this at lest partially.

There was no way to know she was alone there unless he survelied the area prior to, or he already knew the schedule, its a high risk offense if he walks down there and theres more than one person, unless hes supposed to be there.

I feel he has most likely been in prison before, probably has a history of sexual offenses, though I feel this was probably his first murder, It might have not been his last though. There a EXTREMELY high propensity for abduction murders to become serial offenders.

NOBODY wakes up one day and suddenly decides to abduct. rape and murder a girl , theres always a path that leads up to it, and in many cases, that path keeps going into the dark, with more victims, though they may not kill all of them

And Im certain SOMEONE knows or strongly suspects someone they know, but just never came forward.

I also feel he was most likely interviewed by police, but theres something that keeps his name on the back burner.

But ill say again i feel whomever it was parked in the Cemetery nearby and walked her out of there , either by ruse, or con such as brandishing a badge, a weapon, or saying someone up near the cemetery needed help .

I do not feel she was dragged out physically , or incapacitated and carried .

Now here's another possibility , .....Its also possible it was someone she was familiar with , kids are abducted only slightly more by strangers than acquaintances, it was a long way to get that girl out of there, if a stranger approaches with a ruse, and she doesn't go with him, he stands the risk that someone may interrupt.

Which brings up another question was Molly a specific target, or was she just a victim of opportunity? was the offender there lying in wait for any girl that happened to be there alone?

Could be either, but I feel he absolutely knew there would be a young girl there alone that day.

SO doing a victimology assessment would tell us more about Molly, was she the type of person that would simply go off with a stranger?, was she a risk taker? , was she altruistic? perhaps to help a stranger in distress? was she cautious? would she go with someone who brandished a badge?, would she fight back against a physical assault ? , was she naive? was she trusting? was she big hearted? would she attempt to help someone she thought needed aid? was she distrustful of people, whoud she refuse to go anywhere with someone she didnt know? what about some "harmless presence" shes seen there and perhaps talked to there before ? what about a co-worker ?

What we want to know is what made her a good target that day?, how would she respond, what elevated her risk?. We want to know what made her a victim.

Now depending on that :

If it were a stranger, I feel whatever the method used was it would most likely have to be something he could abandon had anyone else happened upon the scene, a stranger might know she was there, but not what time anyone else might happen upon the pond area.

An Acquaintance, would have to provide less info, could know who was there, and how much time they would have to get her out of there unseen.

Ruse/Con is also most often used to abduct teenage victims.

In most abduction/murders of children, the offender lives, works, or traverses that area of the abduction regularly, IE they are usually in that area for a legitimate reason.

The mean age of the abduction murder of children is 27, but id put it at slightly older early to mid 30's with this offender, there was some criminal sophistication only gained with experience here.

Though they usually live nearby, there is usually a stronger tie to the offender and where the victim is recovered. They usually know the body recovery area very well as that's where they stand the risk of being caught either raping, killing , or with a deceased victim.

The body recovery site (I hate the term "dump site") is usually within 200 feet from where the murder actually occurred, in many cases, its one and the same.

We never want a suspect list when we do an analysis, because well invariably start to tailor it to whomever is on the list.

But again, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility, shes seen his face before .

I had a question about criminal psychology. If a killer puts a body in an area like Whiskey Hill, and they realize that nobody has discovered the body there for 3 years, is it strange there would be no other victims whose remains would be discovered in that area or close to it? Or would that suggest the killer stopped for at least 3 years?

 

[Kell1]

I had a question about criminal psychology. If a killer puts a body in an area like Whiskey Hill, and they realize that nobody has discovered the body there for 3 years, is it strange there would be no other victims whose remains would be discovered in that area or close to it? Or would that suggest the killer stopped for at least 3 years?

What you have to remember in dealing with psychology is that there are no absolutes.

Years ago everything was done more concretely via typologies, they were like little boxes we put behavior into categories, and we focused on the little bits we knew of, but the problem there was that some behaviors just didnt fit into the typological model, and that lead investigations in many different directions.

Eventually, we saw that behavior (like life) in many ways does not follow a a set plan, it overlaps, it adds and subtracts , it changes and for any variety of reasons.

Therefore behavior began being looked at throughout the investigative and psychological community through a continuum.

Behaviors were now viewed in "clusters" , and those clusters do not have a boundaries, or limts, the behaviors of one cluster can have traits of the others, they blend, they mingle and they breed the psyche of the individual in question.

In a case like Mollys, that garnered a huge media following, its not unheard of for this type so slip away , they usually have a history of moving around quite a bit , as a matter of fact most have moved to the area only a year prior to the offense .

The fact that these types have the highest propensity to become serial offenders, also does not mean that they will solely prey on children .

There are killers who started out killing kids and graduated to adults later, (Shawcross) , we have also seen experienced, and accomplished killers of adults all the sudden change over to killing children, due to situational factors (Bundy)

So the fact that this individual abducted and killed a young woman, does not mean that he maybe has nor relocated, and killed adults, or other kids elsewhere, maybe even right there.

The MO (typically a dynamic) in these types of cases (abduction and murder of children for sexual purposes) usually remains static, if the victim preference remains the same.

If an offender grabs a kid and uses a knife to force compliance, he will most likely do the same in any future crimes involving kids, it may adjust for adult victims however, if a victim feels they can escape from someone holding a knife and driving, he may start restraining his victims, or even just switch to a firearm etc...

What will never change however is the WHY he is doing it , though sometimes they just stop doing it
There can be any number of possibilities why no other bodies ever turned up there, but there is also the possibility he never killed again, we used to think the only reasons they stop is because they were dead or in jail, but like we said before behavior doesn't follow any rules.

In some cases, they are dead or in jail, sometimes theyre not, sometimes they die and are just never linked,

Some people are programmed to just not see it due to peoples inability to suspect loved ones, for example a buddy of mine worked a suicide case, young male, the mother told the officer he was dealing with depression for a month or so, especially after his fiancee died in a fire she said he was heartbroken.

He later found out another little tidbit, they fire was labeled as suspicious, the victim was found lying on her bed, unusual, because most people will try to get out , they detected a possible accelerant and he had been began seeing a therapist prior to because because she had planned to leave him, he had made several statements, to the effect that if I cant have you nobody will prior to her death

But to a grieving mom, her son was just depressed, and the threats were just a declaration of his undying love for her.


In other cases, they may suspect, but cant be sure, that feeling of being watched , may make the offender behave differently, in others its just fear or perverted loyalty, they know but they wont say.

When a serial killer Arthur Bomar, was convicted of killing 2 women, and sentenced to death , despite the horrifying things he did to his victims, (i was at the scene of one) his mother came out of the courthouse swinging her cane art reporters, threatening and cursing them, her other son then began throwing punches at reporters and cameramen. Her "little boy" in her eyes was forever innocent, how dare anyone ever say otherwise.

You think that woman is going to tun in her baby?

They could also be incapacitated and not able to physically do what they used to, they could have gotten spooked because they felt the law was close, some feel they can atone for their sins, some find other outlets, like , some just lose interest in it.

Some have a life changing event like the birth of their own child, and some may have just changed over to other forms of crime

And again theres always the chance, he has become a serial offender and they're just not linked yet.

but as we know past behavior is the best predictor of future offenses, so hes certainly capable, and if whatever factors arose again, (and they often do because they usually slip back into whatever lifestyle they're used to) then he probably will again, if he hasn't already.

What i will say, with a fair amount of certainty , is is he probably returned to her body, they usually do within 48 hours and subsequently thereafter for a time, therefore its important to note any reports of people parked in that area up until the day she was found, particularly around the date of her anniversary.

When prostitutes began turning up dead in the Genesee river , Gregg McCrary of the FBI (One of the finest profilers alive) noticed that some of the bodies had the markings of post mortem activity/mutilation.

He suggested they surveil all the bridges in the area, and if they find a body, they set up on it for awhile, low and behold the chopper spotted another body under a bridge frozen in the water

As the chopper banked to get a better look , they a car pulled over almost directly over the body below, the passenger side door was open, they saw a man standing on the bridge, apparently masturbating (he would later claim he was urinating)

They took him into custody, and he confessed to a number of prostitute murders

Thats why its important to note anyone ever spotted particularly in that area where she was found.

Child murderers return more often than most killers.

 

[Kell1]

This is really helpful, especially for an amateur.

One thing continues to bug me. As I mentioned, I went back and read every article on this I could find. In every single reference, if a cemetery is named it is Pine Grove - i.e. the long-time St. Paul's caretaker said he was there and saw the car between 10 and 10:35 a.m. The time is in the Boston Globe archive - he told the reporter he was coming around the corner getting a sandwich when he saw the white car parked at the end of the trail. The Globe calls it Pine Grove, the adjoining cemetery. The Republican also quotes him as saying it was in Pine Grove. Here's the thing - it was not in Pine Grove but St. Paul's and he would have known that. I actually went and looked at property records, though it seems clear when you're there too. Did both reporters get it wrong? If not, how did he get that wrong?

Also, he's the caretaker. It's early in the morning and a car is parked where no car should be parked. There are no graves there and it's at the end of the trail. He told one reporter he saw the roof and two side windows. He told the Globe he saw the rear window. Reports of a scream appear in many stories - yet he was there at the time the car was parked and he heard nothing in a silent cemetery 150 paces (Globe) from the beach. He told the first reporter the car was empty because he saw no one in the front windows. Which implies the killer was on the trail. Yet he did not hear the killer get her into the car, or see the car leave and paid no attention to it, in a boring cemetery where nothing is going on.

I am not accusing anyone. And I know people remember things differently over time and reporters screw up. But something is not right with that story.

Its possible, its happened before , actually ive seen contradicting reports before thats why its hard to rely in the media.

Remember they are an competing entity with other news agencies, and they will do whatever it takes to make a story, in some cases, that may mean running without substantiated facts, twisting facts to make things appear a certain way (especially in the political realm) they will one up each other, and in some cases, they'll outright lie .

So take what you read with a grain of salt in the media, one of the best lessons I was ever told was to learn not only who and what to listen to , but what and who not to.

The best information we have comes from the evidence, and those involved in the investigation.

Unfortunately were not always privy to certain things .

 

[brontefan]

Its possible, its happened before , actually ive seen contradicting reports before thats why its hard to rely in the media.

Remember they are an competing entity with other news agencies, and they will do whatever it takes to make a story, in some cases, that may mean running without substantiated facts, twisting facts to make things appear a certain way (especially in the political realm) they will one up each other, and in some cases, they'll outright lie .

So take what you read with a grain of salt in the media, one of the best lessons I was ever told was to learn not only who and what to listen to , but what and who not to.

The best information we have comes from the evidence, and those involved in the investigation.

Unfortunately were not always privy to certain things .

I also think people are afraid of the police, especially in a high profile case like that. So maybe nobody tells the whole truth and police have to sort out which misstatements matter most.

 

[Kell1]

I also think people are afraid of the police, especially in a high profile case like that. So maybe nobody tells the whole truth and police have to sort out which misstatements matter most.

That's why some things are withheld from the public, it pi$$es the media off something fierce, but we need to know who is who

 

[Kell1]

Never forget how the mayor of San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein jeopardized the investigation for Richard Ramirez , by releasing unreleased critical info , such as the .22 caliber weapon, a sketch, and the size and type of sneakers that left a print at one of the scenes, that was the only lead they had , Ramirez then walked out and dropped the shoes off the Golden gate bridge, and that evidence was lost , and more people died because of it

Oddly enough the Chief of police never relayed to Feinstein not to release the info, though it was relayed to the media NOT to print the story.

 

[brontefan]

True. But I also think it's extraordinary how many cold cases amateur sleuths, reporters and podcasters are helping get solved. It's a symbiotic relationship and the contributions regular people have made have been pretty impressive over the past few years. Even drawing attention to these cases is important because it may lead to the tip that solves the case.

 

[somequestions]

What you have to remember in dealing with psychology is that there are no absolutes.

Years ago everything was done more concretely via typologies, they were like little boxes we put behavior into categories, and we focused on the little bits we knew of, but the problem there was that some behaviors just didnt fit into the typological model, and that lead investigations in many different directions.

Eventually, we saw that behavior (like life) in many ways does not follow a a set plan, it overlaps, it adds and subtracts , it changes and for any variety of reasons.

Therefore behavior began being looked at throughout the investigative and psychological community through a continuum.

Behaviors were now viewed in "clusters" , and those clusters do not have a boundaries, or limts, the behaviors of one cluster can have traits of the others, they blend, they mingle and they breed the psyche of the individual in question.

In a case like Mollys, that garnered a huge media following, its not unheard of for this type so slip away , they usually have a history of moving around quite a bit , as a matter of fact most have moved to the area only a year prior to the offense .

The fact that these types have the highest propensity to become serial offenders, also does not mean that they will solely prey on children .

There are killers who started out killing kids and graduated to adults later, (Shawcross) , we have also seen experienced, and accomplished killers of adults all the sudden change over to killing children, due to situational factors (Bundy)

So the fact that this individual abducted and killed a young woman, does not mean that he maybe has nor relocated, and killed adults, or other kids elsewhere, maybe even right there.

The MO (typically a dynamic) in these types of cases (abduction and murder of children for sexual purposes) usually remains static, if the victim preference remains the same.

If an offender grabs a kid and uses a knife to force compliance, he will most likely do the same in any future crimes involving kids, it may adjust for adult victims however, if a victim feels they can escape from someone holding a knife and driving, he may start restraining his victims, or even just switch to a firearm etc...

What will never change however is the WHY he is doing it , though sometimes they just stop doing it
There can be any number of possibilities why no other bodies ever turned up there, but there is also the possibility he never killed again, we used to think the only reasons they stop is because they were dead or in jail, but like we said before behavior doesn't follow any rules.

In some cases, they are dead or in jail, sometimes theyre not, sometimes they die and are just never linked,

Some people are programmed to just not see it due to peoples inability to suspect loved ones, for example a buddy of mine worked a suicide case, young male, the mother told the officer he was dealing with depression for a month or so, especially after his fiancee died in a fire she said he was heartbroken.

He later found out another little tidbit, they fire was labeled as suspicious, the victim was found lying on her bed, unusual, because most people will try to get out , they detected a possible accelerant and he had been began seeing a therapist prior to because because she had planned to leave him, he had made several statements, to the effect that if I cant have you nobody will prior to her death

But to a grieving mom, her son was just depressed, and the threats were just a declaration of his undying love for her.


In other cases, they may suspect, but cant be sure, that feeling of being watched , may make the offender behave differently, in others its just fear or perverted loyalty, they know but they wont say.

When a serial killer Arthur Bomar, was convicted of killing 2 women, and sentenced to death , despite the horrifying things he did to his victims, (i was at the scene of one) his mother came out of the courthouse swinging her cane art reporters, threatening and cursing them, her other son then began throwing punches at reporters and cameramen. Her "little boy" in her eyes was forever innocent, how dare anyone ever say otherwise.

You think that woman is going to tun in her baby?

They could also be incapacitated and not able to physically do what they used to, they could have gotten spooked because they felt the law was close, some feel they can atone for their sins, some find other outlets, like , some just lose interest in it.

Some have a life changing event like the birth of their own child, and some may have just changed over to other forms of crime

And again theres always the chance, he has become a serial offender and they're just not linked yet.

but as we know past behavior is the best predictor of future offenses, so hes certainly capable, and if whatever factors arose again, (and they often do because they usually slip back into whatever lifestyle they're used to) then he probably will again, if he hasn't already.

What i will say, with a fair amount of certainty , is is he probably returned to her body, they usually do within 48 hours and subsequently thereafter for a time, therefore its important to note any reports of people parked in that area up until the day she was found, particularly around the date of her anniversary.

When prostitutes began turning up dead in the Genesee river , Gregg McCrary of the FBI (One of the finest profilers alive) noticed that some of the bodies had the markings of post mortem activity/mutilation.

He suggested they surveil all the bridges in the area, and if they find a body, they set up on it for awhile, low and behold the chopper spotted another body under a bridge frozen in the water

As the chopper banked to get a better look , they a car pulled over almost directly over the body below, the passenger side door was open, they saw a man standing on the bridge, apparently masturbating (he would later claim he was urinating)

They took him into custody, and he confessed to a number of prostitute murders

Thats why its important to note anyone ever spotted particularly in that area where she was found.

Child murderers return more often than most killers.

I agree there are no absolutes in solving crime. About the only thing I would add is that sometimes our background helps determine how we think about a particular case. For example, this case is about a lifeguard named Molly Bish who ended up missing from Commins Pond.

I got my lifeguard certification. So this case was naturally interesting to me for that reason. I cannot remember exactly when I came across this case, but I do remember that at the very beginning before I had really had a chance to research the case I wanted to email her mother to ask about the whistle and whether there were any strange people in her lifeguarding class. Her mother directed me to the Unsolved Mysteries segment and said that is the correct information. A woman arrived at the beach and took the whistle out of Molly's bookbag. Molly never got a chance to put it on.

That part about the open first aid kit was always strange to me, even if not to others lifeguards. There is a rule in lifeguarding called "Call first" if you are the only lifeguard. I remembered that rule specifically when I read about this case. Now the rule is mostly for major injuries, not a tiny cut that can be cured with a band-aid, but that is not the point. I think we need to remember that for all anyone knows, a beach patron or Molly Bish could have been seriously injured. I really thought that putting myself in Molly Bish's shoes recreating the crime scene as they say, that if someone feigned an injury, no matter what that injury was, that it would have reminded me that I still needed to call in to check in with the police that day.

Maybe that is what happened? Right at that point she remembered the abductor pulled a gun and she was not able to get back to her bookbag to get out the radio or the whistle. I would assume the bookbag was open in order for this to make sense although I have never read whether it was open or closed. There is so much confusing information that I do not know what is right or wrong about Molly's stuff out on the beach, but I do believe the information about the whistle is correct. I come up with theories based on whether this or that information is maybe correct. And I know that the way I think may not have been the same way Molly Bish thought as a lifeguard.

I think what I am trying to say is that I would never have thought that way about the open first aid kit if I had not gotten lifeguard certification.

 

[Kell1]

I agree there are no absolutes in solving crime. About the only thing I would add is that sometimes our background helps determine how we think about a particular case. For example, this case is about a lifeguard named Molly Bish who ended up missing from Commins Pond.

I got my lifeguard certification. So this case was naturally interesting to me for that reason. I cannot remember exactly when I came across this case, but I do remember that at the very beginning before I had really had a chance to research the case I wanted to email her mother to ask about the whistle and whether there were any strange people in her lifeguarding class. Her mother directed me to the Unsolved Mysteries segment and said that is the correct information. A woman arrived at the beach and took the whistle out of Molly's bookbag. Molly never got a chance to put it on.

That part about the open first aid kit was always strange to me, even if not to others lifeguards. There is a rule in lifeguarding called "Call first" if you are the only lifeguard. I remembered that rule specifically when I read about this case. Now the rule is mostly for major injuries, not a tiny cut that can be cured with a band-aid, but that is not the point. I think we need to remember that for all anyone knows, a beach patron or Molly Bish could have been seriously injured. I really thought that putting myself in Molly Bish's shoes recreating the crime scene as they say, that if someone feigned an injury, no matter what that injury was, that it would have reminded me that I still needed to call in to check in with the police that day.

Maybe that is what happened? Right at that point she remembered the abductor pulled a gun and she was not able to get back to her bookbag to get out the radio or the whistle. I would assume the bookbag was open in order for this to make sense although I have never read whether it was open or closed. There is so much confusing information that I do not know what is right or wrong about Molly's stuff out on the beach, but I do believe the information about the whistle is correct. I come up with theories based on whether this or that information is maybe correct. And I know that the way I think may not have been the same way Molly Bish thought as a lifeguard.

I think what I am trying to say is that I would never have thought that way about the open first aid kit if I had not gotten lifeguard certification.

Of course we always view things from where we come from, thats one of the hot button issues between law enforcement and psychologists sometimes, we come from different ends of the spectrum.

I came from a forensic background before I got into EMS, then I got into law enforcement from there, i've seen things from several different angles.

There could've been a number of ways he got her out of there , that's why victimology is so important , that would give us the most likely reason Molly would leave.

Remember just because its standard practice for lifeguards to call for assistance, that doesn't mean she followed that rule that day, she was new to it and the shock of something could've lead her to get overloaded and react a certain way.

I know I did with my first emergency as a medic, I forgot everything .

One possibility, is that was someone she had seen there before and was comfortable with at least enough to possibly walk with him perhaps "Hey before you start wanna see something cool?"

another possibility is pulling a gun and saying "move"

Another is brandishing a badge, telling her he needs her to go with him, perhaps cuffing her. and leading her to a car.

Most teens that are abducted are done so by the use of a ruse

But its also possible that he just grabbed her arm told her not to scream and she wont get hurt and lead away much like Carlie Bruscia was .

It all depends on how Molly wouldve reacted to each that would give us a better idea of who was responsible .

 

[Kell1]

True. But I also think it's extraordinary how many cold cases amateur sleuths, reporters and podcasters are helping get solved. It's a symbiotic relationship and the contributions regular people have made have been pretty impressive over the past few years. Even drawing attention to these cases is important because it may lead to the tip that solves the case.

I've always been a fan of releasing as much information as needed to the public, (barring anything sensitive)

You never know what it may trigger from the public, but you have to remember theres another side to it, the Judiciary system.

We get ONE shot at it that's it, if we have a suspect we charge him , bring him before a judge, and for whatever reason hes found not guilty (that doesn't mean "innocent") a killer could walk free, that's why we have to make sure we know what we have.

That's why you want to hold off to make sure you have all the dots connected before you charge someone.

In smaller communities, sometimes, I feel departments with less experience , tend to panic a bit and they sit on as much info as they can, (The murders of 2 girls in Delphi is a good example).

Also information released, will almost certainly alter offender behavior and MO, so you have to be careful.

 

[Kell1]

I go to my original thoughts on this, i feel she was most likely abducted either under threat (most likely) , or she felt comfortable enough with whomever it was to walk with.

200 yards is a long time to chat up a victim, unless you know them, but again it depends on how Molly was, would she go with a stranger?. All indications were that she was a responsible individual, therefore its unlikely shed leave her post to wander off with someone.

I feel the man in the car is a solid lead, my feeling is he spent time finding ways in and out of that area without being seen, I wouldn't doubt he watched girls from that area before. I feel he moved fast, perhaps moving covertly from the woods till he was close enough to produce a weapon, then forced her to walk quietly to the cemetery area.

This leads me to believe feel you're dealing with an individual who has been in prison before, may or may not have done similar offenses to the point of murder, past sexual offenses, I wouldn't rule out voyeurism, in his past, he'd be slightly older Mid-late 30's I feel.

I feel he lived (lives) or worked near Comins pond, probably moved there not long before, he knew that area, he knew about the path from the cemetery, he knew young female lifeguards were there before opening.

Im not sure however if he specifically targeted Molly, or if he just knew female lifeguards were there i the AM, before it opened. In other words, if another girl was there that day, would they suffer the same fate?

In most child abduction/murder cases, theres no precipitate event prior to , but they also happen to be more opportunistic grabs, this case is different, there may have been something that triggered him in the days before the offense, its often legal, intimate, employment related, or financial.

There was at least a rudimentary amount of planning that went into this crime, concerning entrance and egress under cover. He knew the parking lot was to risky, too visible.

I feel he probably returned to her body and probably more than once, I also would not rule out the offender taking something from the victim as a memento.

Following the murder, there would be a decent amount of post offensive behavior, usually theres an unusual interest in the case, they may keep clippings, they may alter their appearance, "shed" items they have in their possession, especially if they had them on the day of her disappearance. The my increase, use of intoxicants, if they smoke they may increase their use, they may exhibit signs of anxiety, sleep issues, they'll talk about the case a lot, usually at length and at oddball times, they may offer theories, even confide in someone they trust. Sometimes they also inject themselves into the investigation.

Police may have interviewed him, but for some reason he fell through the cracks.

Once the heat of the investigation began to die down, I feel he'd move (again) like they almost always do. Sometimes that's at the behest of someone they confided in

I will say however that this individual is EXTREMELY dangerous, and highly likely to re-offend if he hasn't already.

 

[brontefan]

I agree there are no absolutes in solving crime. About the only thing I would add is that sometimes our background helps determine how we think about a particular case. For example, this case is about a lifeguard named Molly Bish who ended up missing from Commins Pond.

I got my lifeguard certification. So this case was naturally interesting to me for that reason. I cannot remember exactly when I came across this case, but I do remember that at the very beginning before I had really had a chance to research the case I wanted to email her mother to ask about the whistle and whether there were any strange people in her lifeguarding class. Her mother directed me to the Unsolved Mysteries segment and said that is the correct information. A woman arrived at the beach and took the whistle out of Molly's bookbag. Molly never got a chance to put it on.

That part about the open first aid kit was always strange to me, even if not to others lifeguards. There is a rule in lifeguarding called "Call first" if you are the only lifeguard. I remembered that rule specifically when I read about this case. Now the rule is mostly for major injuries, not a tiny cut that can be cured with a band-aid, but that is not the point. I think we need to remember that for all anyone knows, a beach patron or Molly Bish could have been seriously injured. I really thought that putting myself in Molly Bish's shoes recreating the crime scene as they say, that if someone feigned an injury, no matter what that injury was, that it would have reminded me that I still needed to call in to check in with the police that day.

Maybe that is what happened? Right at that point she remembered the abductor pulled a gun and she was not able to get back to her bookbag to get out the radio or the whistle. I would assume the bookbag was open in order for this to make sense although I have never read whether it was open or closed. There is so much confusing information that I do not know what is right or wrong about Molly's stuff out on the beach, but I do believe the information about the whistle is correct. I come up with theories based on whether this or that information is maybe correct. And I know that the way I think may not have been the same way Molly Bish thought as a lifeguard.

I think what I am trying to say is that I would never have thought that way about the open first aid kit if I had not gotten lifeguard certification.

What you say makes sense. I agree that having knowledge others don't makes a difference when you think about the case. I never trained as a lifeguard so would never consider that type of thing. I also love that her mom replied to you and pointed you to that episode.

 

[brontefan]

I go to my original thoughts on this, i feel she was most likely abducted either under threat (most likely) , or she felt comfortable enough with whomever it was to walk with.

200 yards is a long time to chat up a victim, unless you know them, but again it depends on how Molly was, would she go with a stranger?. All indications were that she was a responsible individual, therefore its unlikely shed leave her post to wander off with someone.

I feel the man in the car is a solid lead, my feeling is he spent time finding ways in and out of that area without being seen, I wouldn't doubt he watched girls from that area before. I feel he moved fast, perhaps moving covertly from the woods till he was close enough to produce a weapon, then forced her to walk quietly to the cemetery area.

This leads me to believe feel you're dealing with an individual who has been in prison before, may or may not have done similar offenses to the point of murder, past sexual offenses, I wouldn't rule out voyeurism, in his past, he'd be slightly older Mid-late 30's I feel.

I feel he lived (lives) or worked near Comins pond, probably moved there not long before, he knew that area, he knew about the path from the cemetery, he knew young female lifeguards were there before opening.

Im not sure however if he specifically targeted Molly, or if he just knew female lifeguards were there i the AM, before it opened. In other words, if another girl was there that day, would they suffer the same fate?

In most child abduction/murder cases, theres no precipitate event prior to , but they also happen to be more opportunistic grabs, this case is different, there may have been something that triggered him in the days before the offense, its often legal, intimate, employment related, or financial.

There was at least a rudimentary amount of planning that went into this crime, concerning entrance and egress under cover. He knew the parking lot was to risky, too visible.

I feel he probably returned to her body and probably more than once, I also would not rule out the offender taking something from the victim as a memento.

Following the murder, there would be a decent amount of post offensive behavior, usually theres an unusual interest in the case, they may keep clippings, they may alter their appearance, "shed" items they have in their possession, especially if they had them on the day of her disappearance. The my increase, use of intoxicants, if they smoke they may increase their use, they may exhibit signs of anxiety, sleep issues, they'll talk about the case a lot, usually at length and at oddball times, they may offer theories, even confide in someone they trust. Sometimes they also inject themselves into the investigation.

Police may have interviewed him, but for some reason he fell through the cracks.

Once the heat of the investigation began to die down, I feel he'd move (again) like they almost always do. Sometimes that's at the behest of someone they confided in

I will say however that this individual is EXTREMELY dangerous, and highly likely to re-offend if he hasn't already.

I agree with much of what you say. But I also just finished writing about the Lisa Ziegert case. As you say, the guy was in the files from the beginning and worked with law enforcement-which I believe delayed his capture for decades. He had no record at all and was seen as a great guy. People were Shocked. Meanwhile, there was all this talk about the boyfriend/his friend and a guy at her health club everybody thought was stalking her.

I feel that's going to be the murderer in this case-somebody who never got caught and was viewed as a good guy. But that is intuition.

I think the guy in the white car is a solid lead and definitely should continue to be followed up on. I know there are some very convincing reasons for that. But I also think there are other possibilities.

 

[Kell1]

I agree with much of what you say. But I also just finished writing about the Lisa Ziegert case. As you say, the guy was in the files from the beginning and worked with law enforcement-which I believe delayed his capture for decades. He had no record at all and was seen as a great guy. People were Shocked. Meanwhile, there was all this talk about the boyfriend/his friend and a guy at her health club everybody thought was stalking her.

I feel that's going to be the murderer in this case-somebody who never got caught and was viewed as a good guy. But that is intuition.

I think the guy in the white car is a solid lead and definitely should continue to be followed up on. I know there are some very convincing reasons for that. But I also think there are other possibilities.

You could be right , There are anomalies, but those are exceedingly rare

Scahra's wife suspected him as early as a year after he killed Ziegert, he was brought to the attention of police that year as well, though he didnt have a criminal record, id be willing to bet there were attempts, and behaviors prior that someone just didnt put together, guy doesn't all the sudden decide his fascination with bondage is so powerful he just goes out abducts, rapes and murders some innocent victim.

No one goes from being a great guy to your own wife suspecting you of murder, there was something that was her +1 if you will.

Oh and confession letters, always take those with a grain of salt, one thing I find constant in cases, in many cases, (and is a HUGE red flag for guilt) is acknowledging an action, but denying the savage intent behind it.

"It was just rough sex"-Joseph Smith to his brother after he killed Carlie Bruscia
"Yeah I hugged him naked, but it was only because we were playing"-Jerry Sandusky

Hundreds of others

Theres a trail, its just hidden, why would his ex commit parental kidnapping to get away from him? because she was most likely scared ,

something most likely preceded Zifert's killing as well, I believe in the months prior Schara was in a heated custody battle with his ex, recently became a new father and had just got married .

I know everyone has opinions, as do I , but remember this is what we do .

Most abductions of children (those under the age of 18) are by family members, but in terms of stranger abductions, they are only slightly less than those by acquaintances.

Most of those have criminal records, but without doubt there was some behaviors that in their past caused alarm.

There have been numerous studies done on the topic .

 

[Deleted member 269000]

Granted, there are several tempting possibilities in this case and LE has played it close to the vest, but I’m particularly suspicious of RS.

He lives nearby, looks almost identical to one of the suspect sketches, drives the right car, visits the Pond regularly to fish. He stabbed his girlfriend to death. Her sister visits his house to collect some belongings and finds what appear to be trophies from young girls: hair scrunchies, barettes, etc. Things she knows didn’t belong to her sister and appear to belong to much younger girls. She also finds a video of a young blonde girl apparently being murdered by having her neck snapped after something is placed on her head.

Now in prison for the murder, RS looks like he has a Twitter account where he describes himself as a “Cold case suspect” and posts some fairly misogynistic and disgusting stuff.

He could certainly be trolling for attention, but then again....That being said, there are other POIs. But given what we know, I think he’s the best suspect at this time.

 

[Kell1]

Granted, there are several tempting possibilities in this case and LE has played it close to the vest, but I’m particularly suspicious of RS.

He lives nearby, looks almost identical to one of the suspect sketches, drives the right car, visits the Pond regularly to fish. He stabbed his girlfriend to death. Her sister visits his house to collect some belongings and finds what appear to be trophies from young girls: hair scrunchies, barettes, etc. Things she knows didn’t belong to her sister and appear to belong to much younger girls. She also finds a video of a young blonde girl apparently being murdered by having her neck snapped after something is placed on her head.

Now in prison for the murder, RS looks like he has a Twitter account where he describes himself as a “Cold case suspect” and posts some fairly misogynistic and disgusting stuff.

He could certainly be trolling for attention, but then again....That being said, there are other POIs. But given what we know, I think he’s the best suspect at this time.

Interesting suspect indeed, there are some things about him that would certainly raise eyebrows

The problem I have (if Im investigating this case) is he had literally NO criminal background I believe and was even able to obtain a firearms permit prior to Molly's disappearance.

Child killers usually have some type of history, its not impossible that he didnt, but that brings me to another point, his age

If he was involved, he would've been in his 50's at the time I believe, that would put him in an almost non existent fraction of the offenders who usually abduct kids under 18, something like 2%

Though he lived in the area, knew the areas well, and certainly became violent, im not sure this is the type of individual responsible, though dangerous nonetheless

RS seems more of an explosive type , that when mad lashes out at those around him, this doesnt seem evident earlier in his life as he didnt have any run ins with the law, the individual in Mollys case, would more likely lash out at someone violently away from those around him .

There was another suspect under consideration in her case that was arrested in 2011 that died in 2014, that was closer to the type of offender I beleive was responsible, history of sexual offenses, as well as others,

One report I saw stated he "collected underwear from young girls and had his wife wear them and act out rape fantasies" he was arrested and sentenced for raping his girlfriends daughter as she put it "probably over 100 times over the years"

He also knew the area well had been to Comins pond, and knew the area where her remains were recovered, and he would've been in his 30's at the time as well. He was once caught impersonating a police officer complete with handcuffs and a mag lite and a duty rig (belt) , he told the arresting officer he "liked" to pretend to be an officer, and "just because he liked it they had no right to confiscate the items" , he was later barred by court order from owning police style equipment. He also once shot up a house, and had a history of mental health issues dating back to age 11 with suicidal ideations. Then he also once had a restraining order filed against him for threats of violence .

There was also a mention of his sexual attraction to young blonde girls .

On top of that He even resembles the sketch

Add to that he could also be tied to the areas in the Holly Piiranien case it even gets more interesting (though im not certain the 2 cases, are related )

Though I cant say if he was responsible, I can say that the individual responsible was a lot like him.

 

[Deleted member 269000]

Interesting suspect indeed, there are some things about him that would certainly raise eyebrows

The problem I have (if Im investigating this case) is he had literally NO criminal background I believe and was even able to obtain a firearms permit prior to Molly's disappearance.

Child killers usually have some type of history, its not impossible that he didnt, but that brings me to another point, his age

If he was involved, he would've been in his 50's at the time I believe, that would put him in an almost non existent fraction of the offenders who usually abduct kids under 18, something like 2%

Though he lived in the area, knew the areas well, and certainly became violent, im not sure this is the type of individual responsible, though dangerous nonetheless

RS seems more of an explosive type , that when mad lashes out at those around him, this doesnt seem evident earlier in his life as he didnt have any run ins with the law, the individual in Mollys case, would more likely lash out at someone violently away from those around him .

There was another suspect under consideration in her case that was arrested in 2011 that died in 2014, that was closer to the type of offender I beleive was responsible, history of sexual offenses, as well as others, knew the area well where her remains were recovered, and he would've been in his 30's at the time as well.

Though I cant say if he was responsible, I can say that the individual responsible was a lot like him.

I get that, and I think GB is interesting as well (I really want to know why the PI investigating the child custody issue thought he might be connected to Molly’s murder).

But if we buy into the theory that the mustached man in the car was connected, he appears from the witness sketches to be an older or middle-aged man, not one in his 30s. See the attached photo.

And I wouldn’t have been surprised if RS had acted on his instincts before. You don’t buy/make snuff videos and keep trophies of young girls if you can control your impulses.

 

[Kell1]

I get that, and I think GB is interesting as well (I really want to know why the PI investigating the child custody issue thought he might be connected to Molly’s murder).

But if we buy into the theory that the mustached man in the car was connected, he appears from the witness sketches to be an older or middle-aged man, not one in his 30s. See the attached photo.

And I wouldn’t have been surprised if RS had acted on his instincts before. You don’t buy/make snuff videos and keep trophies of young girls if you can control your impulses.

Actually sometimes they do , if that alone fullfills their fantasies, there are such things as odd as this sounds as Pedophiles who dont molest.

They usually seek out ways around it short of offending, such as hiring yong looking prostitutes , or odd masturbatory practices etc..

Its rare, but they do exist, they even have support groups for ach other .

Thats an extreme, but i mentioned that to give you an idea that it can be done .

Something like 94% of offenders in sexual abduction murders of kids, have a history, and this offender seems to have some criminal experience to the point of planning.

Im not saying you are wrong, Im saying that speaking from a LE perspective, Im taking a REALLY long hard look at suspect #2 (now deceased)

 

[somequestions]

What you say makes sense. I agree that having knowledge others don't makes a difference when you think about the case. I never trained as a lifeguard so would never consider that type of thing. I also love that her mom replied to you and pointed you to that episode.

When I emailed Molly's mom it had to be like 8 or 9 years ago. The reason is I thought I had discovered some huge CLUE! I figured Molly would have blown her whistle if someone tried to abduct her. But her mother wrote me back that she never had the whistle on to begin with and suggested I find and watch the Unsolved Mysteries clip about the case.

Mrs. Bish seems like a nice woman. She seems like she would be a teacher. I remember she thanked me for training to be a lifeguard too.

I think the family probably has the best information about Molly's case. It could very well be the man in the white car that abducted and murdered Molly Bish. But I think we all like to think we have some type of information that would help solve this case.

 

[somequestions]

Of course we always view things from where we come from, thats one of the hot button issues between law enforcement and psychologists sometimes, we come from different ends of the spectrum.

I came from a forensic background before I got into EMS, then I got into law enforcement from there, i've seen things from several different angles.

There could've been a number of ways he got her out of there , that's why victimology is so important , that would give us the most likely reason Molly would leave.

Remember just because its standard practice for lifeguards to call for assistance, that doesn't mean she followed that rule that day, she was new to it and the shock of something could've lead her to get overloaded and react a certain way.

I know I did with my first emergency as a medic, I forgot everything .

One possibility, is that was someone she had seen there before and was comfortable with at least enough to possibly walk with him perhaps "Hey before you start wanna see something cool?"

another possibility is pulling a gun and saying "move"

Another is brandishing a badge, telling her he needs her to go with him, perhaps cuffing her. and leading her to a car.

Most teens that are abducted are done so by the use of a ruse

But its also possible that he just grabbed her arm told her not to scream and she wont get hurt and lead away much like Carlie Bruscia was .

It all depends on how Molly wouldve reacted to each that would give us a better idea of who was responsible .

I know I cannot trust any of these "photos" of the crime scene like 48 hours or Disappeared or Unsolved Mysteries because I cannot ever seem to figure out where the open first aid kit is in the photo. I am guessing the large black bag next to her lawn chair in the 48 hours mystery photo is the first aid kit, but it just looks like a big bag to me.

So you thought I was referring to Molly Bish's reaction out on the beach? I can only guess as to what Molly Bish would have done. She had to make quick decisions. I got my lifeguard certification through the American Red Cross. I think this is where Molly got her certification, but I don't know. And I wonder if they keep records too because they give you these little paper cards to keep in your wallet to prove you have certification.

Anybody can get lifeguard certification.