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

[OEJ]

If it wasn't the Priest, I think it was a Parishioner. Somebody who was comfortable there in the church and was a generally accepted member of the town. If what the housekeeper said was true about seeing someone kneeling in the pews, that would be a parishioner. I don't think the priests kneel in the pews unless a priest were trying to hide his identity?

I think it odd another little girl was murdered in a similar fashion in another town while the Priest was there, though.

 

[TheDiva]

I'm wondering if the priest walked in on it and then became involved? I don't understand the lying for an alibi, unless he was covering up an affair? But the strange behavior after the murder - before the murder was public knowledge - doesn't make sense to me.

 

[dotr]

Not sure if this has already been posted or not, but it is interesting that the author of a book about the case has received odd messages, one even stating that the identity of the murderer will be revealed soon, see last few paragraphs...

http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/ne...882-4fcf-5197-9306-be0506fe9b72.html?mode=jqm

 

[fred&edna]

"The sexual abuse Joan McCrane endured from Father Joseph Sabadish began, she said, innocently. "Tickling," she said. "He'd put his hands on my shoulders. Then, on my chest. Then, down my pants." It was 1960. She was 7.

Sabadish, in his early 40s at the time, was a priest stationed at St. Michael the Archangel Church in Levittown, where McCrane attended grade school.

"He told me that it was our secret and that I was never to tell anyone or we'd both go to Hell. I never said anything because I was a little girl and I was scared to death," she recalled."

more at the link


Bucks County Courier Times
October 4, 2005

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

 

[fred&edna]

"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. Present-day detectives, working from well-worn police reports and yellowed newspaper clippings, piece together the clues that reconstruct the puzzle. But some pieces are missing.

St. Mark girls should stop to pray when passing the church. That's what the nuns had taught Carol Ann in the parish school. She was in fifth grade, a slim girl who kept her blond hair in a ponytail. She was well-liked, quiet. She liked books - especially mysteries.

That afternoon after school, Carol Ann changed into her play clothes. She was supposed to meet two friends at the Bristol Free Library, passing the church on her way. Two mystery books were inside her satchel, still strapped onto her bike's book carrier.

When Carol Ann didn't show up at the library, her friends rode their bikes to the church. Out front, they saw Carol Ann's new 26-inch bike, a three-speed Londoner. They waited on the steps, then left.

A few minutes later, a parishioner on her way home from work stopped at St. Mark to pray. The big doors were locked. The woman told detectives she grabbed the door handle and rattled it. Then she left.


<modsnip>

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

 

[bessie]

Bringing forward this list of linked articles.

Strangled body of girl, 10 found in church choir loft
October 23, 1962

Girl, 9, Slain by Strangler
October 23, 1962

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

Man admits rape-slaying of littlegirl
October 25, 1962

Release man after saying he killed girl
October 27, 1962

A couple of early suspects:
Bristol man held in attack, robbery
Jan 16, 1963

Suspect cleared of one murder
Sept 29, 1964

Excellent read:
Bucks County Courier Times February 7, 1977 Pt 1

Bucks County Courier Times February 7, 1977 Pt 2

Bucks County Courier Times February 8, 1977

Additional links:
Google books - The Murder Room

Four page 1994 article here:
Phillydotcom: Killing made town a different place
April 1994

More recent articles:
50 years later a murder unsolved in Bristol
October 21, 2012, Updated Oct 31, 2013.

Recomposer of the Decomposed
Aug 7, 2011, Updated Nov 7, 2013

Bishop Accountability: Haunted by Carol Ann Dougherty's murder
October 2005

 

[bessie]

If it wasn't the Priest, I think it was a Parishioner. Somebody who was comfortable there in the church and was a generally accepted member of the town. If what the housekeeper said was true about seeing someone kneeling in the pews, that would be a parishioner. I don't think the priests kneel in the pews unless a priest were trying to hide his identity?

I think it odd another little girl was murdered in a similar fashion in another town while the Priest was there, though.

Catholic priests are required to observe the Liturgy of the Hours, which means daily prayers said at particular times of the day. Vespers, or the evening prayer, is said between about 4 pm and 6 pm, generally. They don't have to say these prayers in church, but many do. Also, from what I've observed over the years, when priests pray in church, they often choose a pew in a quiet corner either off to the side, or in the very back of the church. It just seems like the housekeeper would have recognized the priest even in the semi-darkness, but perhaps she had poor eyesight. Or she lied. I wonder if the detectives asked her about the priest's routine.

What always sticks with me is the very short window of time in which the crime occurred. It's too short, imo, with the housekeeper, cat, bank teller, friends, and a praying man coming and going, for a perpetrator to have gone unnoticed. How did that praying man not see him? Or not see CA? Even if he didn't, if he were a parishioner, or just a local, wouldn't he have come forward to say he was in the church around the time of the crime? Yet, I've never read where LE identified him, or questioned him.

On the other hand, for some reason the man was moved to go to church on a weekday afternoon. The housekeeper said he was praying, on his knees in prayer. It's hard to picture this same man, in the middle of his prayers, suddenly being overtaken by an impulse to rape and strangle a little girl who wandered in. It's easier to imagine a less than devout priest, for whom daily prayers said over and over for years have become drudgery, so that even while going through the motions, his heart and mind are elsewhere. Also, the man must have seen the housekeeper. If were a local in this small community, wouldn't he have been concerned that the housekeeper would identify him?

Whoever was the attacker, I agree he had to be very familiar with the surroundings. A parishioner might be comfortable enough to latch the front door and follow CA up the stairs, but there was another door a parishioner couldn't secure, and that left him vulnerable. If someone walked in, there was no way he'd escape without being identified. I'd think to take such a tremendous risk, the man would have to be certain the priest would not enter through the sacristy, and no one could be that sure except the priest, himself.

ETA: Image of the church interior is from this link, http://www.pahrc.net/index.php/2011/04/

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

"The sexual abuse Joan McCrane endured from Father Joseph Sabadish began, she said, innocently. "Tickling," she said. "He'd put his hands on my shoulders. Then, on my chest. Then, down my pants." It was 1960. She was 7.

Sabadish, in his early 40s at the time, was a priest stationed at St. Michael the Archangel Church in Levittown, where McCrane attended grade school.

"He told me that it was our secret and that I was never to tell anyone or we'd both go to Hell. I never said anything because I was a little girl and I was scared to death," she recalled."

more at the link


Bucks County Courier Times
October 4, 2005

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

"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. Present-day detectives, working from well-worn police reports and yellowed newspaper clippings, piece together the clues that reconstruct the puzzle. But some pieces are missing.

St. Mark girls should stop to pray when passing the church. That's what the nuns had taught Carol Ann in the parish school. She was in fifth grade, a slim girl who kept her blond hair in a ponytail. She was well-liked, quiet. She liked books - especially mysteries.

That afternoon after school, Carol Ann changed into her play clothes. She was supposed to meet two friends at the Bristol Free Library, passing the church on her way. Two mystery books were inside her satchel, still strapped onto her bike's book carrier.

When Carol Ann didn't show up at the library, her friends rode their bikes to the church. Out front, they saw Carol Ann's new 26-inch bike, a three-speed Londoner. They waited on the steps, then left.

A few minutes later, a parishioner on her way home from work stopped at St. Mark to pray. The big doors were locked. The woman told detectives she grabbed the door handle and rattled it. Then she left.


<modsnip>

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

When you read the second account you can see it was not the priest. He was adept at convincing the girls to comply and stay silent. Grabbing her, dragging her up the stairs and killing her was not his thing nor did he need to do so to get his abuse going.

Priests are groomers and guilt inducing molesters. This was brutal attack. Something he would not assume he could cover up. My guess is that when he found out about it, He was flustered and wanted some kind of alibi because he thought his offenses would come up and they would blame him. But I don't think he did this. I think he was a monster. A predator.. But this in the middle of the day?? The murder in the Church? I don't think so.

 

[alliemay]

When you read the second account you can see it was not the priest. He was adept at convincing the girls to comply and stay silent. Grabbing her, dragging her up the stairs and killing her was not his thing nor did he need to do so to get his abuse going.

Priests are groomers and guilt inducing molesters. This was brutal attack. Something he would not assume he could cover up. My guess is that when he found out about it, He was flustered and wanted some kind of alibi because he thought his offenses would come up and they would blame him. But I don't think he did this. I think he was a monster. A predator.. But this in the middle of the day?? The murder in the Church? I don't think so.

Unless the little girl said she was going to tell on him. This really boggles the mind. I would think this little girl had made some noise, I am assuming she tried to run, considering the fact that she was dragged up the steps by her feet. Before he was able to take her shoe off and gag her with her own sock, I would think she would have been crying and making some sort of ruckus. It's possible this person didn't mean to kill her, but if she had threatened to tell on him, the strangulation could have been in the heat of the moment. It wouldn't have taken much strength for him to do this. Maybe with the priests other victims, who he had "groomed" none of them used the words, "I'm going to tell on you".

 

[alliemay]

I'm wondering if the priest walked in on it and then became involved? I don't understand the lying for an alibi, unless he was covering up an affair? But the strange behavior after the murder - before the murder was public knowledge - doesn't make sense to me.

If it wasn't the priest, and the priest knew who did it, could be he wouldn't say anything if the killer knew about the sins of the priest. Kind of like, you tell on me I'm going to expose you for what you are.

I can't remember, do they have DNA from the crime? If so why not exhume the priest's body, and Schreider's body, the two that passed the lie detector tests.

 

[fred&edna]

When you read the second account you can see it was not the priest. He was adept at convincing the girls to comply and stay silent. Grabbing her, dragging her up the stairs and killing her was not his thing nor did he need to do so to get his abuse going.

Priests are groomers and guilt inducing molesters. This was brutal attack. Something he would not assume he could cover up. My guess is that when he found out about it, He was flustered and wanted some kind of alibi because he thought his offenses would come up and they would blame him. But I don't think he did this. I think he was a monster. A predator.. But this in the middle of the day?? The murder in the Church? I don't think so.

This was my thinking as well. While it seems an easy leap from pedophile to murderer... I'm just not convinced the priest was Carol Ann's killer. And, one would think someone heard something during the attack.

 

[TheDiva]

If it wasn't the priest, and the priest knew who did it, could be he wouldn't say anything if the killer knew about the sins of the priest. Kind of like, you tell on me I'm going to expose you for what you are.

I can't remember, do they have DNA from the crime? If so why not exhume the priest's body, and Schreider's body, the two that passed the lie detector tests.

I read that they took DNA samples from just about everyone, but they never said what the results were for the priest - at least not that I could find.

For what it's worth, I know he was a severe diabetic and spent a lot of time back and forth at hospitals - as a patient and a chaplain. I don't know what kind of records area hospitals would have or even if they could tell us if they did. :banghead:

This seems to be a crime of rage and not premeditated, so behaving out of the norm, even for a predator, wouldn't be unheard of. But I hear what Scarlett is saying. It seems to me to be a leap between being a pedophile and a murderer, but I could be wrong!

 

[bessie]

I read that they took DNA samples from just about everyone, but they never said what the results were for the priest - at least not that I could find.

For what it's worth, I know he was a severe diabetic and spent a lot of time back and forth at hospitals - as a patient and a chaplain. I don't know what kind of records area hospitals would have or even if they could tell us if they did. :banghead:

This seems to be a crime of rage and not premeditated, so behaving out of the norm, even for a predator, wouldn't be unheard of. But I hear what Scarlett is saying. It seems to me to be a leap between being a pedophile and a murderer, but I could be wrong!

Certainly not all pedophiles are killers, but for many there's that one time something went wrong. For the best insight, I suggest reading the 1977 articles and Faragalli's thoughts on how the crime went down. He suggests the perp was inexperienced and scared.


Bucks County Courier Times February 7, 1977 Pt 1

Bucks County Courier Times February 7, 1977 Pt 2

Bucks County Courier Times February 8, 1977

Regarding DNA, the tests on hair samples were inconclusive.

Cops took pubic hairs from dozens of males, including the three St. Mark parish priests and the boys at St. Mark school. None matched the hairs in Carol's grip. Even modern tests analyzing DNA in the hairs have been inconclusive.

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

 

[alliemay]

I guess there were no sperm samples. I know this is a sci-fi idea but, did they swab the inside of the little girls mouth, could he have put his fingers in her mouth when he crammed the sock in, possible leaving skin cells. I know they would not have had the tech to check this then. But they would have now. I know....grasping for straws here.

 

[bessie]

I guess there were no sperm samples. I know this is a sci-fi idea but, did they swab the inside of the little girls mouth, could he have put his fingers in her mouth when he crammed the sock in, possible leaving skin cells. I know they would not have had the tech to check this then. But they would have now. I know....grasping for straws here.

A semen sample was collected, but this was long before the era of DNA. I don't know if the semen evidence was preserved. If so, it's possible a DNA profile could be developed even now. That's happening in LE agencies all over the country these days.

The scant clues left at the crime scene suggested the assailant was neither Black or Hispanic, and that he was either very old, very young, or impotent.

http://crimsonshadows.net/index2.php...do_pdf=1&id=68

"The only solid evidence was a few pubic hairs left on the little girl's leg. Analysis of those hairs indicated the killer probably was not black or Hispanic.

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...

"We had tape recordings of him and his girlfriend. The thing that excited everybody was when we heard he told the girlfriend he was sterile. That fit."

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9dp...it?usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9dp...it?usp=sharing

 

[OEJ]

Catholic priests are required to observe the Liturgy of the Hours, which means daily prayers said at particular times of the day. Vespers, or the evening prayer, is said between about 4 pm and 6 pm, generally. They don't have to say these prayers in church, but many do. Also, from what I've observed over the years, when priests pray in church, they often choose a pew in a quiet corner either off to the side, or in the very back of the church. It just seems like the housekeeper would have recognized the priest even in the semi-darkness, but perhaps she had poor eyesight. Or she lied. I wonder if the detectives asked her about the priest's routine.

What always sticks with me is the very short window of time in which the crime occurred. It's too short, imo, with the housekeeper, cat, bank teller, friends, and a praying man coming and going, for a perpetrator to have gone unnoticed. How did that praying man not see him? Or not see CA? Even if he didn't, if he were a parishioner, or just a local, wouldn't he have come forward to say he was in the church around the time of the crime? Yet, I've never read where LE identified him, or questioned him.

On the other hand, for some reason the man was moved to go to church on a weekday afternoon. The housekeeper said he was praying, on his knees in prayer. It's hard to picture this same man, in the middle of his prayers, suddenly being overtaken by an impulse to rape and strangle a little girl who wandered in. It's easier to imagine a less than devout priest, for whom daily prayers said over and over for years have become drudgery, so that even while going through the motions, his heart and mind are elsewhere. Also, the man must have seen the housekeeper. If were a local in this small community, wouldn't he have been concerned that the housekeeper would identify him?

Whoever was the attacker, I agree he had to be very familiar with the surroundings. A parishioner might be comfortable enough to latch the front door and follow CA up the stairs, but there was another door a parishioner couldn't secure, and that left him vulnerable. If someone walked in, there was no way he'd escape without being identified. I'd think to take such a tremendous risk, the man would have to be certain the priest would not enter through the sacristy, and no one could be that sure except the priest, himself.

ETA: Image of the church interior is from this link, http://www.pahrc.net/index.php/2011/04/

I agree about the time and the familiarity. You would think someone off the street would be concerned a priest might catch him. A priest might feel the community would find him beyond reproach even if the housekeeper did say she saw him which she didn't.

 

[OEJ]

When you read the second account you can see it was not the priest. He was adept at convincing the girls to comply and stay silent. Grabbing her, dragging her up the stairs and killing her was not his thing nor did he need to do so to get his abuse going.

Priests are groomers and guilt inducing molesters. This was brutal attack. Something he would not assume he could cover up. My guess is that when he found out about it, He was flustered and wanted some kind of alibi because he thought his offenses would come up and they would blame him. But I don't think he did this. I think he was a monster. A predator.. But this in the middle of the day?? The murder in the Church? I don't think so.

Not all little girls are quite so compliant. Imagine you're a priest with a screaming kicking little girl who is on her way out the doors to tell the neighborhood.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not all little girls are quite so compliant. Imagine you're a priest with a screaming kicking little girl who is on her way out the doors to tell the neighborhood.

But that is not who he chose as victims. Groomers know exactly how to groom and who is a good target. They can tell whether someone is a good subject or not. He would have just pulled back. I just don't see it happening in the church with open doors to the street.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[bessie]

I can't see anyone doing such a horrible thing anywhere, least of all in church! But the sad truth is that it did happen, behind latched doors.

 

[OEJ]

There are different approaches to pedophile grooming. Some pick one child who they are "in love" with and shower them with attention and are careful and cautious with sex. Some groom several children in a "nice" way. Others are walking demons who grab ahold of any moment alone with a child and do what they want and threaten the child with death to themselves and/or the child's family. Both methods tend to work quite well with most children. Some of these people will have molested 100's of children in their lifetimes and will have killed a few, too, while cloaking themselves in respectability.