PA PA - Carol Dougherty, 9, Bristol, 22 Oct 1962

[bessie]

Yes, stabbed the victim 51 times in "self defense", but he never saw the gun he (Schrader) alleged the victim was pulling out of his pocket. Pfftt!

Nice find, skeet.

And then there was the priest who buried records of his crimes in a cemetery.

Baltimore City detectives investigating sex abuse allegations against a Roman Catholic priest dug up a van load of confidential records yesterday the priest had ordered buried four years ago in Brooklyn's Holy Cross Cemetery.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-08-10/news/1994222133_1_maskell-priest-holy-cross

You can read more about him in this thread. Sr. Catherine was murdered shortly after a student allegedly told her of being abused by the priest.

MD MD - Sr Catherine Ann Cesnik, 26, Baltimore, Nov 1969 -- Roman Catholic Nun Murdered - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Robin Hood]

From Bessie's post 2 or 3 up above -

'The coroner's examination of the semen left in the girl's body gave police another clue -- their killer was either very young, very old or impotent...'

The simplest thing would be to get a blood group sample from that semen and then decide if it matches with the hospital records of Sabadish, if it does, then let's have him removed from his resting place and check DNA.
If the blood group does match I'd be willing to take a spade myself.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

From Bessie's post 2 or 3 up above -

'The coroner's examination of the semen left in the girl's body gave police another clue -- their killer was either very young, very old or impotent...'

The simplest thing would be to get a blood group sample from that semen and then decide if it matches with the hospital records of Sabadish, if it does, then let's have him removed from his resting place and check DNA.
If the blood group does match I'd be willing to take a spade myself.

That would be awesome..

I wonder where he is buried...

I wonder if the DNA has lasted all these years or if they even still have the evidence.

 

[bessie]

From Bessie's post 2 or 3 up above -

'The coroner's examination of the semen left in the girl's body gave police another clue -- their killer was either very young, very old or impotent...'

The simplest thing would be to get a blood group sample from that semen and then decide if it matches with the hospital records of Sabadish, if it does, then let's have him removed from his resting place and check DNA.
If the blood group does match I'd be willing to take a spade myself.

Or, they could take a cue from LE in the Boston Strangler case. In short, they tailed DeSalvo's nephew, and when he tossed a water bottle in the trash, they scooped it up. From saliva in the water bottle, a lab was able to develop a familial DNA profile which matched DNA from semen found on a victim with a 99% certainty ratio. The results led to the exhumation of DeSalvo's remains (again), and proved (to the satisfaction of most) that DeSalvo did indeed kill Mary Sullivan.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MA MA - The Boston Strangler, Albert DeSalvo, 1960's


So I wonder if the priest has any living male relatives. As for the evidence from CA's body, I have a feeling it's still around. JMO

 

[Veidt]

I just read all of the pages of this thread straight. Please bear with me if this post is a little long - what's with me making all these long posts lately? :scared: - but I have a lot of things to reply to and bring up.

I'll put up a post with replies to specific posts, and then do a different one for more general replies and such.

Now, I don't know about this because I'm an atheist but she may have stopped to pray or use the facilites there (assuming you can)

Snipped by me. I believe I've read in a few articles previously linked here that she stopped to pray at the church, the explanation being that the nuns at her school encouraged kids to take a few moments to pray whenever they were near a church.

I don't know if the church would have had facilities. When I was a kid the churches I went to didn't have them (we had to ask shops and cafes in the area instead) and the ones I visit from time to time don't have them either. It might be because they're very old churches so there isn't much room to create a bathroom from scratch.

Also, could anybody who's familiar with Catholic services/ burials, please tell me about what happens to the body the day before the funeral. When does the body go to the church in the evening, who closes it if it's an open casket and do the family stay overnight with the person in the church ? Anything along these lines would help. Thanking in advance.

I don't know if there's a norm over when the body is moved to the church the evening before. In my experience it depends on less spiritual factors, such as the availability of the funeral house where it was prepped to move it there as well as local regulations and schedules.

If it's an open casket, in my experience it's not closed the day before. In all viewings and vigils I've been to, the casket has always been open. Maybe at an hour after I've left them it was closed? I'm pretty sure it's not. In all funerals I've been to, the casket only gets closed on the day of the funeral as they move it to be buried.

And yes, the tradition is for someone to stay overnight with the body. This is usually the family, mainly the adults of course. Friends and less close relatives may also stay if they wish. They often also offer to stay there specifically so the close family members can take a break and get some rest. Mostly, the family members stay there at all times. Allowing friends to take their place for a bit seems more common (in the early-ish evening) when the close relatives have children who need to be calmed down and who need some hugs during such a tough time. Usually there's at least two people there to make sure there really is someone in the room at all times if one needs to go to the restrooms and because doing so alone would be more harrowing, I'd imagine.

This might depend on local regulations also, however since this case happened in the 1960s and at a very traditional church I'd say that 99% chance is that there was an all-night vigil.

I hope this helps.

This may have been answered if it has ignore me. But I read that she said she was going to return some books to the library, did anyone ask if she made it to the library and returned the books? If not were the books found? Either in the church or by the bike? Did the killer take them as a trophy?

I believe what's been said is that she didn't make it to the library, which is why she was found relatively quickly. Her friends noticed she was very late so they went looking for her. They saw the bike and stopped at the church. They didn't go in - I'm confused as to whether it was because they didn't have head coverings as a 70s article said, or if it was because the door was locked - so they left.

I don't know if she was going to the library to return some books specifically or just to meet up with friends. Maybe they were on her bike, maybe even in the church, but they weren't deemed important.

Now, how would he know that ?

The inoffensive reply would be that perhaps he had a medical condition - so a doctor could have told him.

I think that's the reply in general, unless he was trying for a baby with a secret mistress long enough, he'd have no real reason to even start thinking about whether he was sterile.

Another alternative is that he was making that up entirely.

As usual, it's JMO.

 

[Veidt]

At the time, the priest would have appeared to be the likely suspect.
Unless they had planned to meet at the church doesn't seem to be premeditated. So the priest would have to had made a decision quickly to do what had been done before she left after praying. This would be the first case of a catholic priest raping and murdering a child in there church that I can recall. As you go in through the door, would you have went forward towards a alter to kneel and pray?

Ill read more about the priest, for now I have not read anything about him. His alibi, if he was there, where he was in the church at the time etc etc.

Was she a member of this church?
And this occurred on a Monday. So not many would have been inside at the time I assume.

I am not convinced you needed a key at the time to lock the door from the inside. Some one could have been in there setting by the door when she came in, she went to the alter to kneel and pray and the demon got up and lock the door by sliding a bolt or something similar went to the alter where she was and grab her twisted her arm around her back his other hand on her mouth and dragged her to where she was found and raped and murdered her there.

I forgot to add this post to the ones I wanted to reply to.

Maybe he could have thought about raping and murdering a kid at the church, even had it all planned out in his head, and finding himself alone with her he decided to do it. I don't know. It doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility to me that a priest could do such things in a church, after all, many priests (including this guy, apparently) also abuse kids using their authority to keep them quiet and get closer to them. So a priest who already doesn't take seriously his vows, isn't going to necessarily have any scruples about killing someone in a church. :twocents:

I don't think she would have gone to the altar to kneel and pray. I was a Catholic for over half of my life and still routinely visit Catholic churches and that sounds odd to me. Of course, Carol Ann lived in the USA in the early 60s so there may be a regional difference.

That's not to say you can't go up to the altar and pray, I guess you can, but it's not the only way or place to pray in a Catholic church. You can also just sit on the pews and pray there, or wander around to the side chapels or shrines (if there are any) and light candles at those. I've certainly never seen anyone who was just casually popping in for a prayer because they were in the area kneel at the altar specifically, just kneeling at the pews (facing the altar but in the pews).

However if she went up to the altar she may have genuflected (Genuflection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) making it easier for the killer to sneak up to her.

 

[Veidt]

Now, for more general things I'd like to point out.

1. The priest sounds like the prime suspect IMO. However, something I've considered is that maybe he was hiding something else he was doing at the time. He goes into that shop, asks the clerk what time it is even though his watch has the right time. Then he asks the clerk (at a shoe shop) if they sell lingerie there.

It's entirely possible he was trying to get an alibi for Carol's murder - he could have assumed it would have taken longer for someone to find her, maybe he panicked and didn't think clearly. Then later, when he was brought in for questioning and he knew what time she was found, he decided to not use that alibi and use another one (visiting parishioners) instead.

However, if his original plan was to use the shop as his alibi, why would he ask about lingerie? Yes, asking about something else other than shoes at a shoe shop would be weird and by itself is suspicious. However, why lingerie specifically? If he was planning to direct LE to the shop to show he had been there at a certain time, why not ask for something more generic, even if it wasn't shoes - like books or something? Even if he used that alibi from the start the cops would KNOW he had asked about lingerie... which wouldn't look good.

Maybe he was very disoriented, maybe he wasn't very clever and decided to do a bit of shopping for his own purposes while he was at it. :facepalm:

It still strikes me as weird though. So, what if he was hiding something else? Another crime he thought he'd need an alibi for, maybe. Or maybe he wasn't after an alibi - he was still going to commit a crime or meet someone he was having an affair with, and decided to double check on the time, and took the opportunity to ask about lingerie for what he'd be doing next.

2. I assume the police still has the samples of pubic hair taken from the suspects, no? Would it be possible to run a DNA comparison between those and the ones found at the scene? And why is it that some of the articles like the 1994 one have a hopeful tone that a breakthrough might be possible and that the case is to be reopened... then the crime is reopened, from what I understand they even get a new suspect, and... nothing? And suddenly they're so uninterested in the case? I'm not saying they're covering up for someone but at the very least, it seems unprofessional to reopen the case with such high hopes and suddenly drop it.

3. People have brought up the fact that the church has 3 doors. There's quite a few churches with that same design where I live. I believe it's meant to be symbolic (of the Trinity) and also out of practicality. In my experience, sometimes they're just locked on most days and unlocked when there are special occasions where many people are expected. Sometimes they also seem to lead to other areas of the church and not just the main one, like side chapels for example.

I don't think that - as someone has mentioned before - there's necessarily anything unusually esoteric about the church's design. A lot of designs in churches have been around since around the time Masonry started or even longer and are still used for other reasons. The 3 doors thing for example is just normal church symbology.

4. Regarding head coverings, confirmation ages, and whether that priest could have encouraged Carol Ann to go to church without a head covering.

As others have said, they were extremely common and something pretty much required back in the 60s. Nowadays, where I live at least, it's more acceptable for women to go to Mass and especially to just drop by and pray without wearing anything on their heads. It's mostly older people who do because that's how they were taught or people who are more conservative. In my parents time though it was still common.

Confirmation ages also depend on the area. It's usually done when people are at least seven years old (age of reason according to the Church) but it can also be done later, even in their teens. Nowadays it's usually left at the discretion of each parish or bishops to decide. However, I think it used to be much more uniform, most people I know in my parents' generation were also around 7, maybe only 1-2 years older at most.

Now... I don't think that priest encouraged Carol to go to church without a head covering. She seems to have been surrounded by Catholicism, her friends, her own mother, etc. knew about head coverings and from what I understand she went to a Catholic school. So I think she would know it was wrong. Even if he had said something like that to her and she had believed it, it seems likely that she would have mentioned it at some point - like her mother or her friends trying to get her to wear a head covering, and her saying the priest told her it wasn't necessary.

The only thing I can think of is if he told her to keep it a secret and that he was making an exception for her. BUT that seems rather pointless... unless he had an obsession with her hair and couldn't find a less risky way of getting her to remove the head covering in church, I don't see why he would do that. I doubt it would have encouraged her to go by the church more often.

I also don't think he encouraged her to drop by more often or something... most articles I've read that mention it state the nuns at her school encouraged children to go inside and pray if they went past a church. The fact that she kept in mind to do it, to me, indicates she would have done it and wouldn't be put off by the extra work of wearing a head covering.

I wonder if maybe she just didn't wear one since she was just stopping for a few moments? That would have been a norm but maybe she thought something along the lines of this: the nuns say people should stop by and go inside when they go past a church and have some spare time, people don't always randomly carry head scarves or anything when they're not going specifically to church, therefore maybe it's ok. Who knows? When I was a kid I often got confused by possible loopholes in the rules and such, and I was a kid at a time when there were much fewer rules.

Maybe she did have one - they just didn't deem it necessary to report on it. Reporting on her clothes would have been useful in getting witness accounts for passersby - she would only have put on the head covering inside the church. The hair beret was what led to her being found. Her shoes were misplaced and a sock was used as a gag so that was unusual and important about the crime scene. Maybe it was even only discovered later, who knows.

I'm confused about what a beret is. Are we talking about a hair clip or those soft hats that sit on your head? If it's the latter she may have counted it as a head covering.

(I don't think the nuns encouraging the kids to pray in the church is necessarily suspicious by the way - even when I was a kid we were also encouraged to stop by and pray whenever we could.)

5. I'm still wondering about the 12 thing. I don't believe it's referring to something obscure or esoteric, I think it's more likely something mundane. If it's meant to be religious then I agree with what someone (Robin Hood?) said - something like a reference to the 12 apostles to point to the priest.

Maybe it's even a red herring, someone who knows about the case messing with the reporter.

Something I've thought about the cryptic messages and the lack of a follow up is that, beyond the person being a fake or backing out, is that maybe the person couldn't do it for some reason. I'd look into people connected to the area, especially the church, who had major life events during that time. Death, prison, stuff like that that would prevent a follow up. Maybe even something like a last-minute move or a sick relative. I'd also look into major weird events in the area, maybe vandalism, etc. - even if it seems unrelated it could perhaps have been a message intended to frighten that person.

6. I wonder about the fact that the monsignor closed ranks when LE started asking many questions. Maybe the priests had something to hide, maybe something not related to Carol's death. Maybe the monsignor didn't even know about it and only suspected - of the other priest abusing children for example - and didn't want that to come to light. I also wonder how the word spread among the non-Catholic community that the priest did it. Could it be about another priest, maybe? Or even someone else who also worked at the church or went there often?

He seems the most likely suspect IMO however, I'm just bringing up other perspectives. It seems very strange to me that someone people have spoken out about as abusing kids seems to always be in town when strangely similar crimes, mostly connected to churches, happen.

:twocents:, :moo:, etc.

 

[dotr]

Hi, Pirplegrl. You posted in the right place. :thumb: You're right, there is no other thread for Carol Ann on WS.

I'd not heard of this case, either. Google turned up several news links. Carol Ann suffered a horrible sexual assault and murder. Her father discovered her body on the stairs leading to the choir loft of St. Mark's Roman Catholic Church in Bristol, PA.

From what I've read so far, the case involves a false confession, a variety of suspects, cryptic messages, and suspicions about a parish priest. It's hard to believe we missed this case.

October 23, 1962
Girl, 9, Slain by Strangler

Other articles state her age as 10-years-old.

October 23, 1962
Reading man quizzed in death of Bristol girl, 10

October 25, 1962
Man admits rape-slaying of littlegirl

October 27, 1962
Release man after saying he killed girl

A couple of early suspects:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...7,6645738&dq=carol+ann+dougherty+murder&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...1,7098233&dq=carol+ann+dougherty+murder&hl=en

Additional links:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZU...a=X&ei=yz0DUfKwPJTa8wSnv4GoBQ&ved=0CHsQ6AEwDw

Four page 1994 article here:

Killing made town a different place

More recent articles:

50 years later a murder unsolved in Bristol

http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/ne...cle_40e64d30-a3be-5a40-a5a7-3024fc64191e.html

http://www.bishop-accountability.or...yCourierTimes_HauntedBy_Joseph_Sabadish_1.htm

http://articles.philly.com/1994-04-12/news/25864576_1_grand-jury-mystery-bike

Bumping this case with this great list of news links. The more recent one entitled "50 years later" is where the following was taken
http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/ne...2-4fcf-5197-9306-be0506fe9b72.html?mode=story


"To date, the samples tested against the hairs found in Carol’s hand either don’t match or are inconclusive. But some of the original investigators I spoke with 20 years ago said they had doubts about the hair evidence. The stairwell landing where Carol had been attacked was dusty, and there were lots of hairs on the landing. It was possible that in the struggle with her killer, Carol had picked up some of those hairs.

Zuchero died in 1984. Wayne Roach’s whereabouts are unknown. Sabadish died in 1999. I spoke with him in 1992 about the murder. He denied any role in it. In 2005, his name appeared on a list with 63 priests in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia who were alleged to have molested children.

Schrader is dead, too, as are Chief Faragalli and most of the investigators who spent thousands of hours on the Dougherty case.

The Dougherty family, who no longer live in Bucks County, has not discussed the case publicly since 1994, citing the trauma of reliving it.

No one can say for sure who killed Carol. It remains a compelling case, and an eerie crime, appalling because of its setting and its victim, a sweet-natured 9-year-old girl.

There was one more suspect, one that the police never interviewed. It was a man who made taunting phone calls to Chief Faragalli in the days immediately following the murder. The man said more children would die, but he never stayed on the line long enough for the calls to be traced.

Cryptic messages about the murder were also left in envelopes at the police station. Faragalli told me he thought they probably were from that caller.

When the Dougherty series was published in 1992, I received several taunting messages from a man who said the case would never be solved. An envelope with a cryptic message arrived in the newsroom, and another was left under the windshield wiper of my car. Then, nothing.

Earlier this year, as the 50th anniversary approached, I and several editors began receiving odd emails, cryptic in tone, from an anonymous writer who said Carol’s killer would be revealed at least.

The last email message came last summer and said I would be contacted by phone but, so far, nothing.

J.D. Mullane can be reached at 215-949-5745 or at [email protected]".



Wondering if the killer placed the pubic hairs himself in the girl's hand??
Thinking person must have been fairly fit to bother dragging CA up to the choir area, but being lazy and disrespectful,he pulled her up by her feet instead of carrying her.
Guessing that the culprit was possibly a victim of sex abuse by clergy, maybe was even assaulted just prior to Carol Ann, perhaps explaining the priest's strange behaviour at the shops and the anger of an emasculated victim projected onto little Carol Ann.
Sounds like they had several "wonky" potential suspects near the church that day and probably several more freak jobs around there that have not yet come to anyone's attention.
Wondering if the light in the church was very dim or not and if the light was reasonably bright at the stained glass window where CA was found...
Thinking that perhaps the culprit could not see very well, or even took pictures? jmo.

 

[dotr]

A few more random thoughts, was there any significance to Carol Ann being assaulted and left by that particular stained glass window?
For that matter, did anyone else in the past usually stand near that spot and possibly "inspire" the wicked deed?
Are there any photos of people in the church, perhaps photographed near that window in the year or so before and after the murder, not as poi, but as potential victims of the perp?

Just to add to previous post made concerning the perp being strong because he pulled CA up the stairs, I now wonder if perp was actually weak because she was pulled by her legs. jmo, for now.

 

[Veidt]

Do we know that she was dragged after being dead? I wonder if perhaps she was alive - maybe unconscious - when she was dragged or if she was alive but her hands were bound in a way that didn't leave marks.

I also think that dragging her was much less impersonal than picking her up and carrying her (like you'd carry a child basically) up to the choir area. Maybe the killer wanted to distance himself. Or maybe it was for a more practical reason. He may have been afraid that picking her up would get evidence (blood stains, fibers, etc.) on his clothes that could have been found if he was investigated, and perhaps more importantly, people would notice blood stains on his shirt.

I don't know if the choir would have had any significance or if it's just because it was more 'hidden' part of the church. In most churches I've been to that have a separate area of the choir up some stairs, most people don't stare up at the choir, so someone who stepped into the church unaware wouldn't catch him in the act or find Carol's body earlier than the perp wanted. Unlike, for instance, leaving her body in the pews or a side chapel.

As to the hairs, maybe the perp planted them to incriminate someone else - maybe he didn't even know who they belonged to, just found them on the floor or the stairs and decided to use them to throw LE off track. And of course, I think it's very likely they just got stuck there by accident. This may sound macabre but I wonder what the posture of her hand was, if it was closed (and clutching the hairs specifically) or if it was just in such a way that they could have ended up there from the floor. I also wonder if this means she was half-unconscious and could have tried to clutch onto the floor or the steps.

:twocents:

 

[dotr]

http://articles.philly.com/1994-04-12/news/25864576_1_grand-jury-mystery-bike

"Carol Ann's killer threw her to the floor and dragged her, feet first, through the tiled church nave, then up the creaky wooden steps to the second- floor choir loft"

<<snip>>>

"Frank Dougherty, a printer at the Bristol Courier newspaper, combed the church while his wife and 3-year-old daughter waited in the car.

Carol's red plastic barrette was at the top of the winding staircase that leads to the choir loft. She was on her back, beneath the stained-glass

windows.

Her eyes were half-open, her blond hair a mass of tangles. Her right arm was twisted behind her back. Her left was straight out, her hand clenched. She clutched two dark pubic hairs, presumably those of her killer.

One foot was bare. Her shoe was nearby. Her white sock had been rolled into a ball. It was soggy with her own saliva, used as a gag".



Could the perp have something against the newspaper CA's father worked for, maybe an item involving the number 12?
Thinking that the priest would be more particular about the little girl's clothing than the mess of a rolled sock, barrette lying on the stair, tangled hair...
Either the perp was a slob, or the whole point of grabbing a neat, pony -tailed girl with the red barrette - is to mess it, and the little white socks to "sully" her mouth,... her right arm, presumably Carol Ann's writing hand, perhaps the one she also uses to turn the pages of her library books and her bible, is" twisted behind her back".

 

[bessie]

http://articles.philly.com/1994-04-12/news/25864576_1_grand-jury-mystery-bike

"Carol Ann's killer threw her to the floor and dragged her, feet first, through the tiled church nave, then up the creaky wooden steps to the second- floor choir loft"

<<snip>>>

"Frank Dougherty, a printer at the Bristol Courier newspaper, combed the church while his wife and 3-year-old daughter waited in the car.

Carol's red plastic barrette was at the top of the winding staircase that leads to the choir loft. She was on her back, beneath the stained-glass

windows.

Her eyes were half-open, her blond hair a mass of tangles. Her right arm was twisted behind her back. Her left was straight out, her hand clenched. She clutched two dark pubic hairs, presumably those of her killer.

One foot was bare. Her shoe was nearby. Her white sock had been rolled into a ball. It was soggy with her own saliva, used as a gag".

Could the perp have something against the newspaper CA's father worked for, maybe an item involving the number 12?
Thinking that the priest would be more particular about the little girl's clothing than the mess of a rolled sock, barrette lying on the stair, tangled hair...
Either the perp was a slob, or the whole point of grabbing a neat, pony -tailed girl with the red barrette - is to mess it, and the little white socks to "sully" her mouth,... her right arm, presumably Carol Ann's writing hand, perhaps the one she also uses to turn the pages of her library books and her bible, is" twisted behind her back".

Whoever killed Carol Ann reverted to being an animal at the time of the attack. He wasn't worried about neatness. His only concern was fulfilling an urge, and then hiding the body so he'd have time to cover his tracks before she was discovered. It probably never occurred to him that Carol Ann's father would look for her in the choir loft because he knew she liked to go up there to pray.

 

[Veidt]

Could the perp have something against the newspaper CA's father worked for, maybe an item involving the number 12?
Thinking that the priest would be more particular about the little girl's clothing than the mess of a rolled sock, barrette lying on the stair, tangled hair...
Either the perp was a slob, or the whole point of grabbing a neat, pony -tailed girl with the red barrette - is to mess it, and the little white socks to "sully" her mouth,... her right arm, presumably Carol Ann's writing hand, perhaps the one she also uses to turn the pages of her library books and her bible, is" twisted behind her back".

Snipped by me.

Thanks, but I was asking, not about her being dragged, but about her being dragged only after she was dead. Could she have been alive or unconscious at the time?

IMO there wasn't really a special significance to the sock being used as a gag or CA's dominant arm being twisted behind her back. Those sound more like they were done out of convenience by the perp.

He probably just wouldn't have a special gag on him unless he had been planning it in advance and leaving it at the crime scene would provide LE with another clue. In most cases it sounds like specifically tearing a piece of fabric off the victim's clothing that could be used for such a purpose seems more time-consuming and difficult, especially if the perp was himself nervous or not that meticulous. A sock, on the other hand, is easy to remove. Sorry if that sounds gruesome. There's at least one other cold case I've been reading about where a sock was also used as a gag.

Her dominant arm being twisted behind her back could be to make it harder for her to fight back against him or simply the way he was immobilizing her when he murdered her. Maybe she fell down on her side and was then rolled around and her arm got stuck under her (again, sorry if that sounds gruesome).

I don't think it's necessarily about the perp fantasizing about those details in particular.

I don't know if the scene not being orderly and neat excludes the priest or means the perp was slobby by nature. If he was trying to depersonalize her he may not have cared much. Someone else laid out a scenario that makes sense to me (I think it was Robin Hood who posted that upthread) - that maybe the perp was startled by people trying to get into the church so he left in a hurry, maybe even hoping CA's body wouldn't be found until later. Maybe he even expected he could go back and remove it. Maybe he was confident to not have left any clues behind - the only thing we have to go by are the hairs in CA's hand and those may not even belong to the perp.

Just my :twocents: only.

 

[bessie]

Now, for more general things I'd like to point out.

1. The priest sounds like the prime suspect IMO. However, something I've considered is that maybe he was hiding something else he was doing at the time. He goes into that shop, asks the clerk what time it is even though his watch has the right time. Then he asks the clerk (at a shoe shop) if they sell lingerie there.

It's entirely possible he was trying to get an alibi for Carol's murder - he could have assumed it would have taken longer for someone to find her, maybe he panicked and didn't think clearly. Then later, when he was brought in for questioning and he knew what time she was found, he decided to not use that alibi and use another one (visiting parishioners) instead.

However, if his original plan was to use the shop as his alibi, why would he ask about lingerie? Yes, asking about something else other than shoes at a shoe shop would be weird and by itself is suspicious. However, why lingerie specifically? If he was planning to direct LE to the shop to show he had been there at a certain time, why not ask for something more generic, even if it wasn't shoes - like books or something? Even if he used that alibi from the start the cops would KNOW he had asked about lingerie... which wouldn't look good.

Maybe he was very disoriented, maybe he wasn't very clever and decided to do a bit of shopping for his own purposes while he was at it. :facepalm:

It still strikes me as weird though. So, what if he was hiding something else? Another crime he thought he'd need an alibi for, maybe. Or maybe he wasn't after an alibi - he was still going to commit a crime or meet someone he was having an affair with, and decided to double check on the time, and took the opportunity to ask about lingerie for what he'd be doing next.

There's a discrepancy in that story. In the first version, the saleswoman says he'd bought women's things previously, but didn't make any purchases on that particular day. She doesn't specify which items he asked to see. The second version says he asked for the time in the shoe store. Is that incorrect? Or did he ask the time in both stores. What seems certain in all accounts is that his behavior was odd.

He asked to see some things, then turned around and said, "I guess I'm not in the mood." Then he asked what time it was.

Fourth column under "Second Story"

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9dpNu3jLO3tQ1V5SWxIY2I5VUk/edit?usp=sharing

Also, within minutes of Carol’s murder, eyewitnesses said they saw Sabadish acting oddly on Mill Street, the town’s shopping district. Sabadish went into Popkin’s shoe store and asked the clerk for the time, which the clerk found odd since Sabadish was wearing a wristwatch with the correct time.

Investigators also obtained a receipt for women’s lingerie from a shop in Hulmeville. The owner, Dorothy Binder, said Sabadish was a regular customer and told her he was purchasing the items for “my wife.”

http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/ne...2-4fcf-5197-9306-be0506fe9b72.html?mode=story

2. I assume the police still has the samples of pubic hair taken from the suspects, no? Would it be possible to run a DNA comparison between those and the ones found at the scene? And why is it that some of the articles like the 1994 one have a hopeful tone that a breakthrough might be possible and that the case is to be reopened... then the crime is reopened, from what I understand they even get a new suspect, and... nothing? And suddenly they're so uninterested in the case? I'm not saying they're covering up for someone but at the very least, it seems unprofessional to reopen the case with such high hopes and suddenly drop it.

That's not unusual in the least. It happens quite often.

4. Regarding head coverings, confirmation ages, and whether that priest could have encouraged Carol Ann to go to church without a head covering.

As others have said, they were extremely common and something pretty much required back in the 60s. Nowadays, where I live at least, it's more acceptable for women to go to Mass and especially to just drop by and pray without wearing anything on their heads. It's mostly older people who do because that's how they were taught or people who are more conservative. In my parents time though it was still common.

Confirmation ages also depend on the area. It's usually done when people are at least seven years old (age of reason according to the Church) but it can also be done later, even in their teens. Nowadays it's usually left at the discretion of each parish or bishops to decide. However, I think it used to be much more uniform, most people I know in my parents' generation were also around 7, maybe only 1-2 years older at most.

Now... I don't think that priest encouraged Carol to go to church without a head covering. She seems to have been surrounded by Catholicism, her friends, her own mother, etc. knew about head coverings and from what I understand she went to a Catholic school. So I think she would know it was wrong. Even if he had said something like that to her and she had believed it, it seems likely that she would have mentioned it at some point - like her mother or her friends trying to get her to wear a head covering, and her saying the priest told her it wasn't necessary.

The only thing I can think of is if he told her to keep it a secret and that he was making an exception for her. BUT that seems rather pointless... unless he had an obsession with her hair and couldn't find a less risky way of getting her to remove the head covering in church, I don't see why he would do that. I doubt it would have encouraged her to go by the church more often.

I also don't think he encouraged her to drop by more often or something... most articles I've read that mention it state the nuns at her school encouraged children to go inside and pray if they went past a church. The fact that she kept in mind to do it, to me, indicates she would have done it and wouldn't be put off by the extra work of wearing a head covering.

I wonder if maybe she just didn't wear one since she was just stopping for a few moments? That would have been a norm but maybe she thought something along the lines of this: the nuns say people should stop by and go inside when they go past a church and have some spare time, people don't always randomly carry head scarves or anything when they're not going specifically to church, therefore maybe it's ok. Who knows? When I was a kid I often got confused by possible loopholes in the rules and such, and I was a kid at a time when there were much fewer rules.

Maybe she did have one - they just didn't deem it necessary to report on it. Reporting on her clothes would have been useful in getting witness accounts for passersby - she would only have put on the head covering inside the church. The hair beret was what led to her being found. Her shoes were misplaced and a sock was used as a gag so that was unusual and important about the crime scene. Maybe it was even only discovered later, who knows.

I'm confused about what a beret is. Are we talking about a hair clip or those soft hats that sit on your head? If it's the latter she may have counted it as a head covering.

(I don't think the nuns encouraging the kids to pray in the church is necessarily suspicious by the way - even when I was a kid we were also encouraged to stop by and pray whenever we could.)

I think you mean First Holy Communion, which is the time girls begin to wear head coverings, usually at age 7. Confirmation comes later.

The point about the head covering was not to suggest that he had previously encouraged CA to enter church without one. I posed the question of why there is no mention of whether CA was wearing something on her head, or whether she normally carried something, like a chapel veil. That stands out to me because there are various references to head coverings pertaining to the friends and CA's mother. They wouldn't enter church without one, and it's very unlikely CA would have, either. Someone suggested that perhaps she didn't have one with her, but on that particular day was lured into the church by the priest telling her it was okay. That's a possibility, I suppose, but I think she would have kept a chapel veil inside her bookbag, because that's what Catholic school girls did back in the day. So I find it very odd that we read about a hairband on the steps, and in a separate article, a barette (not a beret), yet nothing about a "head covering" that should have been found at the scene. If not, what happened to it? And why did no one mention its absence? It makes me wonder if the killer kept CA's chapel veil as a souvenir, and all the talk about "head coverings" was to taunt him. JMO

 

[Veidt]

There's a discrepancy in that story. In the first version, the saleswoman says he'd bought women's things previously, but didn't make any purchases on that particular day. She doesn't specify which items he asked to see. The second version says he asked for the time in the shoe store. Is that incorrect? Or did he ask the time in both stores. What seems certain in all accounts is that his behavior was odd.

Snipped by me.

Interesting, I wasn't aware these were all versions of the same story... from what I understood from other articles, those were separate incidents. He once went into a lingerie store. Then at a shoe store (on the day of CA's murder) he asked for the time and then asked if they sold lingerie (odd question, that!). I'll try to dig up from my web history the link to the article that gave me that impression.

(I'm not saying you're lying or that you're wrong - I'm just interested in figuring out what the correct accounts are, since I think that makes a difference on how we view the case and the priest's actions on that day.)

That's not unusual in the least. It happens quite often.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that LE were covering something up - just that it seemed weird to me that the case was dropped again, though not necessarily as a result of a cover up - just that they lost interest so fast after looking into it more recently.

I think you mean First Holy Communion, which is the time girls begin to wear head coverings, usually at age 7. Confirmation comes later.

No, I really meant Confirmation. FHC usually happens around 7 but Confirmation can happen at any time between 7 and one's teens. Back in those days the age for Confirmation was far more uniform and was usually on the early end of that. I've heard from older people I know that they didn't even remember their Confirmation because it was done at the same time as their First Communion.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-correct-age-for-confirmation

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Confirmation.htm

Those are just two of the links I found from a quick search. I can try to find more or better sources for that - I was talking off the top of my head from what I know from my experience with Catholicism. Although the first link has the relevant quote from the Code of Canon Law.

I didn't say or mean to imply that Confirmation was the point after which girls began to wear head coverings - I was addressing only what people asked a few pages ago about Confirmation. I just lumped up all the Catholic talk in one part of my post since it was more general. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear! That's what I get for lurking late at night.

So I find it very odd that we read about a hairband on the steps, and in a separate article, a barette (not a beret), yet nothing about a "head covering" that should have been found at the scene. If not, what happened to it? And why did no one mention its absence? It makes me wonder if the killer kept CA's chapel veil as a souvenir, and all the talk about "head coverings" was to taunt him. JMO

Thank you for clarifying; I thought the suggestion was that he had previously encouraged her to drop by the church without a head covering. If it was only on that day then I think it's possible. However, I also think that scenario could pose some problems - CA was on her bike so if she didn't have a head covering, I can't imagine she'd stop by the church. If she had stopped outside for some reason then it sounds reckless of the priest (if he's the perp) to open the door and talk to her and encourage her to go inside. The only other option I can think of would be if CA took a peek into the church - but she doesn't strike me as the type to go in if she didn't have a head covering, not even her friends would do that, and from the different reports the impression I get is that she was a very well-behaved child.

I agree that maybe the talk was to taunt him or that the perp took it as a trophy. Although I also wonder if head coverings were only mentioned in later articles because they would have been so normal and unremarkable in the early 1960s.

But it does sound like the kind of item a perp like this would take as a trophy, IMO.

:twocents:, :moo:, etc.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Just a bump up for this sweet girl. I hope someday some one cares enough to open this case back up and solve it.

 

[morf13]

My 1st thought before I read anything about the suspects in this case, was that a handyman type of guy may be responsible. Alot of churches use handymen for odd jobs, and they are many times, older,or 'slow',etc, so I was not surprised when I read that a handyman was the one that confessed. Also, churches also in many situations, will give meals,handouts to people down on their luck,homeless,etc, so I also think a person the church was helping(if there was such a person),should be looked at-maybe a person that stopped coming around,or changed their habits or routines after the murder.

Forgive me if I missed it, what was the status of any DNA evidence in this case?

Bristol is a quiet little town,about 30 minutes from my house. It borders the Delaware River, and is a minute's drive from NJ. But it borders highways that lead to more busy and populated areas,so we cant dismiss an out of towner either

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not far myself. The roads were different then but the Burlington bristol bridge is 3 mins from this town. I am not sure how completed 95 was then? It says that it was constructed between 1959 and nearly completed in pa by 1979...

I have to ask some relatives.

I keep thinking it was someone living in that town. Someone that was just on the fringe. Someone that did not stick out. But someone from there.

 

[morf13]

The murder of this little girl, is most foul! When I read about her going into a church to say a prayer, it makes me think of my own little Daughter saying her prayers at night,and it turns my stomach. It takes a truly evil kind of monster to do this to a little girl inside a church, absolutely awful. When my Daughter is scared of monsters at night, I always tell her they don't exist, but every time i read about a case like this,I remember that they actually do

 

[TheDiva]

First of all - I want to thank all of you for keeping this thread - and case! - alive for so long. I'm not a detective, but I do have first hand information about Sabadish. (I'll not refer to him as 'Father'. In my opinion, he does NOT deserve that title)

I tried to block this man out of my memory, but a recent message from a family member telling me what he did to her made me want to find out more about the person I was forced to see on a daily basis for many years. I apologize if this is rambling, but there is so much I've processed about him over the past few days that my head is spinning.

He spent the better part of 3 years stationed at my home parish, but this isn't listed in his files. It was Sacred Heart in Bethlehem, PA. My mother took to him and the man was at my house EVERY DAY. I know my father didn't agree with it because they fought about it constantly. If you look at the files of where he was stationed, there are several different versions and they don't match up. From what I can recall - and I have a message in to the Diocese of Allentown because I want the exact dates - he was stationed in Bethlehem - the Miller Heights section - from 1976 - 1979, but I think he was there longer. There is a suspension listed in his years of service from 76 - 79, so that could be it, but like I said, I thought it was longer than that.

In those years, my family got to know his family. Just to address some of the questions I saw floating in this thread: I believe they were from Minersville or Branchdale and the sisters lived in an old row home there. I can't remember if it was Minersville or Branchdale. I apologize!! He had 2 sisters that I know of and met: Peggy and Agnella. Agnella had some kind of deformity in one of her hands. For some reason, I thought Peggy had married, but her husband passed away at a young age, but again, the details are a bit foggy right now.

I do remember that he wasn't a very nice man. He would yell at me and my friends a lot and didn't seem to like children. I remember once when I was caught smoking when I was about 10. It was the first time I tried it. My mother made me go to confession and it was him hearing confessions. He knew it was me because he was at my house when I got caught. (This would have been 1977) He yelled at me in the confessional and said he would shove 10 cigarettes in my mouth and make me smoke them all at once and see how I liked it then. I just thought it was a strange thing for a priest to say during a confession!

His records show that there were credible allegations of molestation against him and that he was sued. I don't think I was a victim, at least not that I remember, but have found out that another family member was.

He died in 1999 and is buried in St. Mary's Star of the Sea in Branch Township, PA.

If you have other questions, I'd be happy to answer what I can remember. I'm currently trying to find out all I can about him. My father died in 2000 and my mother is in a nursing home battling Parkinsons. I'm trying to figure out how to ask her what she really knew about him, but I don't know if I will ever get the truth.

Again - THANK YOU. If nothing else, I feel like I can get this out here, because I don't know who to talk to about this. When I found out all of the skeletons in his closet. I was sick to my stomach!!