Patrick Mullins disappeared from his fishing boat, a week later he was found tied to an anchor with a bullet wound to the side of his head. Police have been unable to determine if it was a suicide or if he was murdered.

What are everyone's thoughts with this one? From the episode I'm evenly split down the middle, like detectives said, both sides have their equal questions.

I don’t have a definitive opinion on this case one way or the other. A lot of stuff happens on the water down in Florida. It could have been any number of things that happened to him. I’m going to have to take a deep dive on this one for sure.

I definitely don't buy the idea that he stumbled on drug runners or something illicit on the water. The idea that they'd tie him to that anchor with so much slack as to leave him permanently floating there is absurd if you're trying to conceal a crime.

If (and granted it's a big "if") the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment can be taken verbatim, there is no other option here other than homicide. It's actually a pretty straightforward case in my opinion although made all that much more difficult to solve given that the key witness to the homicide is now himself deceased.

Patrick is out on the water at dusk and happens upon Damon in his rather distinctive boat with the red trim down the side. It was stated in the segment that Patrick was the type of person if he saw a boat that appeared to be stranded or docked on the water he would stop and see if he could help. He would allegedly do this for strangers and given that he knew Damon it would be a forgone conclusion that he would've stopped to check in on Damon if he saw his boat docked on the water.

As detailed in the segment Damon had issues with drugs, so it's not a far stretch to assume that he was involved with individuals in that world and could've been out on the water on the evening in question trying to make a score. The open water at that time of night is probably a good place to do so as you are likely out of sight of those people who you would not want to be a party to that type of transaction. Anyhow, Patrick happens upon Damon and this other boat docked on the water and approaches them. As soon as the drug supplier notices a third party is approaching the scene of the transaction he becomes paranoid and either shoots Patrick on the spot or quite possibly shoots him once Patrick is able to suss out the transaction. Either way the murder takes place in the dealer's boat which is why no forensic evidence is found in either Patrick's or Damon's boat.

The dealer then either strong arms or threatens Damon into remaining silent and Damon agrees having seen Patrick just get blown away obviously realizes that there isn't much difference between disposing one body or potentially disposing of two. I believe in his haste to get away from the scene, Damon's boat bumps up against Patrick's causing the transfer of red paint onto Patrick's boat. I believe that Damon takes possession of Patrick's body and holds onto it for a period of time during which he ties the ropes around the body in the intricate manner that was later observed by Patrick's family during the Fourth of July celebration and then takes the body out into open water where is it is deposited later to be found by the fishermen.

Damon's rapid mental deterioration was a callback to me to Johnny Fish from the Jeremy Bright segment where it has been alleged that Johnny's mental breakdown was heavily tied to a theory where he likely witnessed Jeremy's murder. I believe the same thing happened here whereas Damon was not directly responsible for Patrick's death, he certainly witnessed it and indirectly facilitated it leading to him living out the rest of his life wracked by paranoia and guilt.

This was a murder facilitated by a party simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I definitely don't buy the idea that he stumbled on drug runners or something illicit on the water. The idea that they'd tie him to that anchor with so much slack as to leave him permanently floating there is absurd if you're trying to conceal a crime.
Don't underestimate the mental state of a meth addict. The delusions it causes can make them choose the most illogical decisions.

Don't underestimate the mental state of a meth addict. The delusions it causes can make them choose the most illogical decisions.

They can't be that delusional though if they're running a drug empire and getting away with it, as that theory would have people believe. They're surely not the customers of their product :D

If (and granted it's a big "if") the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment can be taken verbatim, there is no other option here other than homicide. It's actually a pretty straightforward case in my opinion although made all that much more difficult to solve given that the key witness to the homicide is now himself deceased.

Patrick is out on the water at dusk and happens upon Damon in his rather distinctive boat with the red trim down the side. It was stated in the segment that Patrick was the type of person if he saw a boat that appeared to be stranded or docked on the water he would stop and see if he could help. He would allegedly do this for strangers and given that he knew Damon it would be a forgone conclusion that he would've stopped to check in on Damon if he saw his boat docked on the water.

As detailed in the segment Damon had issues with drugs, so it's not a far stretch to assume that he was involved with individuals in that world and could've been out on the water on the evening in question trying to make a score. The open water at that time of night is probably a good place to do so as you are likely out of sight of those people who you would not want to be a party to that type of transaction. Anyhow, Patrick happens upon Damon and this other boat docked on the water and approaches them. As soon as the drug supplier notices a third party is approaching the scene of the transaction he becomes paranoid and either shoots Patrick on the spot or quite possibly shoots him once Patrick is able to suss out the transaction. Either way the murder takes place in the dealer's boat which is why no forensic evidence is found in either Patrick's or Damon's boat.

The dealer then either strong arms or threatens Damon into remaining silent and Damon agrees having seen Patrick just get blown away obviously realizes that there isn't much difference between disposing one body or potentially disposing of two. I believe in his haste to get away from the scene, Damon's boat bumps up against Patrick's causing the transfer of red paint onto Patrick's boat. I believe that Damon takes possession of Patrick's body and holds onto it for a period of time during which he ties the ropes around the body in the intricate manner that was later observed by Patrick's family during the Fourth of July celebration and then takes the body out into open water where is it is deposited later to be found by the fishermen.

Damon's rapid mental deterioration was a callback to me to Johnny Fish from the Jeremy Bright segment where it has been alleged that Johnny's mental breakdown was heavily tied to a theory where he likely witnessed Jeremy's murder. I believe the same thing happened here whereas Damon was not directly responsible for Patrick's death, he certainly witnessed it and indirectly facilitated it leading to him living out the rest of his life wracked by paranoia and guilt.

This was a murder facilitated by a party simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's certainly possible, could explain why the body was left like a buoy to find because he wanted it to be found.

But on the flip side, if he had possession of the body for a time then there'd surely be biological evidence on his boat from the disposal. And it's worth pointing out that the red paint can't be tired directly to the brother because of how widely used it was.

This appears to be the first of the new iteration to question suicide vs murder where there is no real giant push towards suicide -- at least that I can find online.

LOL, in fact I can't even find the typical "What Unsolved Mysteries Left Out.." link that typically comes up in these cases.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that he was depressed or had a reason to kill himself and they don't have any proof that he had a gun or acquired one on the down low.

The story about the drug addict friend is compelling and could lead somewhere but IDK what proof they could get at this point without someone else coming forward. That sucks for the family.

If (and granted it's a big "if") the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment can be taken verbatim, there is no other option here other than homicide.

Well we know that it cannot be taken verbatim. A man leaves on a tiny boat for an undetermined, but presumably short fishing/boating trip. He brings multiple gas containers with him. His neighbors see him leaving on his boat alone. His body is found with an anchor found tied around his waist but his hands are not bound. Family and friends think this is suspicious and evidence that he was killed elsewhere before being dumped back into the water. Oh, and the CSX Railroad is also in on the conspiracy to help cover up this obvious murder. "But he didn't own a shotgun!" Did he have access to one? We'll never know, because the "Solved But in Denial" reboot didn't tell us. This guy clearly committed suicide and his family is in denial. Very telling that his older son wasn't interviewed, just like Tiffany Valiante's siblings didn't appear on the show. They know what happened and have accepted it.

Well we know that it cannot be taken verbatim. A man leaves on a tiny boat for an undetermined, but presumably short fishing/boating trip. He brings multiple gas containers with him. His neighbors see him leaving on his boat alone. His body is found with an anchor found tied around his waist but his hands are not bound. Family and friends think this is suspicious and evidence that he was killed elsewhere before being dumped back into the water. Oh, and the CSX Railroad is also in on the conspiracy to help cover up this obvious murder. "But he didn't own a shotgun!" Did he have access to one? We'll never know, because the "Solved But in Denial" reboot didn't tell us. This guy clearly committed suicide and his family is in denial. Very telling that his older son wasn't interviewed, just like Tiffany Valiante's siblings didn't appear on the show. They know what happened and have accepted it.

Several things:

-As I mentioned above, every other case that UM mis represents is pretty much torn to shreds online -- the Tiffany Valiante case is the most recent example. Where are those articles for this case?

-Why do his hands have to be bound? Something happens, someone shoots him and then they tie the anchor to his dead body. It all probably happened very quickly. Perfectly simple and reasonable explanation.

-Why kill himself? No one has offered even a speculative reason.

-It's not like every case had every family member every time. I always point to the Ethel Kidd case -- she was married with children and the only single family member that appeared on camera was her son in law. There are a million reasons why someone wouldnt want to go on camera.

They can't be that delusional though if they're running a drug empire and getting away with it, as that theory would have people believe. They're surely not the customers of their product :D

Well, many are assuming he came up on a deal. It could just have been Damon and maybe someone else were out using on the water that time. Many low level dealers are also customers though as it makes them easy to control. This one just has me leaning either way. If it was suicide, why tie himself to the anchor and where's the rifle? If it was murder, why make the body and boat so easy to find?

I guess there are a few questions that I would need credible answers to before I could accept a suicide finding in this case. To start with, how did Mullins kill himself with a shotgun without leaving ANY biological evidence on the boat? It was stated that the GSW wasn't a "contact wound", and as such, I need an explanation for how Mullins managed that while using a shotgun. And speaking of the shotgun...what happened to it?

Now with regards to the nature of the GSW, the best I can come up with is the old foot method. While that would certainly explain why one of his shoes was missing, this method still doesn't address the lack of a "contact wound" or the trajectory. As for the missing weapon, I suppose it's possible that it could have either been carried away with the current or became buried somehow in the silt/sediment of the river bottom. When it comes to the lack of any biological evidence in the boat, I got nothing quite frankly.

I guess there are a few questions that I would need credible answers to before I could accept a suicide finding in this case. To start with, how did Mullins kill himself with a shotgun without leaving ANY biological evidence on the boat? It was stated that the GSW wasn't a "contact wound", and as such, I need an explanation for how Mullins managed that while using a shotgun. And speaking of the shotgun...what happened to it?

Now with regards to the nature of the GSW, the best I can come up with is the old foot method. While that would certainly explain why one of his shoes was missing, this method still doesn't address the lack of a "contact wound" or the trajectory. As for the missing weapon, I suppose it's possible that it could have either been carried away with the current or became buried somehow in the silt/sediment of the river bottom. When it comes to the lack of any biological evidence in the boat, I got nothing quite frankly.

Old foot method?

re: suicide / murder, for me I too can't reconcile the lack of biological evidence on the boat.

Like investigators I can't move my needle beyond "undetermined". I can't imagine a reason he'd tie himself to the anchor and have it be an accidental drowning. It doesn't make sense that you could be anchored to the ocean floor and shoot yourself in the head on your boat and have zero splatter on the boat. I can't imagine murderers would intentionally leave a body floating at the end of an anchor rather than somewhere further up on the line, or to the anchor itself, so it wouldn't be an easily discovered buoy of a crime.

Old foot method?

re: suicide / murder, for me I too can't reconcile the lack of biological evidence on the boat.

Like investigators I can't move my needle beyond "undetermined". I can't imagine a reason he'd tie himself to the anchor and have it be an accidental drowning. It doesn't make sense that you could be anchored to the ocean floor and shoot yourself in the head on your boat and have zero splatter on the boat. I can't imagine murderers would intentionally leave a body floating at the end of an anchor rather than somewhere further up on the line, or to the anchor itself, so it wouldn't be an easily discovered buoy of a crime.

Yeah drew, there are other notable cases of shotgun/rifle deaths where the manner of death is in dispute. One of the confusing issues almost always becomes the difficulty a person would have reaching the trigger of a longer barrelled weapon. In those cases it's frequently argued that the victim somehow pulled the trigger with their foot/toe and I've started to think of that as the old foot method.

Yeah drew, there are other notable cases of shotgun/rifle deaths where the manner of death is in dispute. One of the confusing issues almost always becomes the difficulty a person would have reaching the trigger of a longer barrelled weapon. In those cases it's frequently argued that the victim somehow pulled the trigger with their foot/toe and I've started to think of that as the old foot method.

Ah ok. Had never heard it described that way before.

You'd think the anchor being tied around his legs would have worked against that though, right? Dangling over the side of the boat, presumably facing forward given how his body was found, weighed down, but legs up maneuvering a shot gun. And it was a side of head shot too, right?

Ah ok. Had never heard it described that way before.

You'd think the anchor being tied around his legs would have worked against that though, right? Dangling over the side of the boat, presumably facing forward given how his body was found, weighed down, but legs up maneuvering a shot gun. And it was a side of head shot too, right?

I know, right?? That's what I meant when I said the foot method doesn't address the wound type, at least not to my satisfaction. And then there's the whole face down thing, which is also a problem for me. So during the attempted recreation, the guy sat on the side of the boat and dumped the anchor behind himself, which is the only logical way I can see of doing it. When his body finally went slack, the anchor pulled him into the water facing UP. So how did Mullins end up face DOWN? I'm sure someone can come up with an explanation for this, but to me it's just one more inconsistent detail on a rapidly growing pile.

So I've been looking around a bit and found a few details that weren't included in the segment but that I found interesting all the same. Apparently during the initial investigation, a witness reported seeing a boat similar to Mullins's on the water around 6:10 p.m. that day with only one occupant on board. It is also stated in this same reddit post that in 2020 the FBI was able to have this case reclassified as a homicide. I also found an article on Mullins's death that stated forensic experts were unable to conclude if Mullins only sustained a single GSW or not.

So take all that for what it's worth. I would encourage however that all y'all take these tidbits with a grain of salt considering their respective sources.

I thought the widow came off rather cold from her interviews for UM. I realize that every person grieves differently, but her affect not what you would expect. Maybe the marriage was long over or perhaps he was closeted. It's none of my business, but I think it's possible that there's much more to family unrest than what was projected.

This was a big red flag for me: Patrick routinely stayed well beyond school hours to keep the high school library open until 7:30 or 8pm. It may sound innocent, but most schools have a policy that if the school has extra curricular activities that there needs to be a school administrator after hours to supervise. I have a feeling that school admin may have ignored that he routinely stayed late with his "club". It was stated that Patrick was there with a group of boys being a "father figure". This could be a cover for inappropriate adult-teenager relationships. It's easy to close one's eyes and believe that bad stuff never happens, but sometimes it does- and no one wants to believe it.

A big what if (pure speculation). What if a parent/guardian believed that he was molesting their child during this library club? Wouldn't that also be a motive to kill a low key, all around "good guy" as presented on UM?

It's also possible that he was purchasing drugs for himself or to distribute at school- a school librarian would be the perfect cover to sell drugs. Maybe his dealer killed him.


So because he's a "molester" in your theory he also has to be gay? You're presenting some gross stereotypes here.

I thought the widow came off rather cold from her interviews for UM. I realize that every person grieves differently, but her affect not what you would expect. Maybe the marriage was long over or perhaps he was closeted. It's none of my business, but I think it's possible that there's much more to family unrest than what was projected.

This was a big red flag for me: Patrick routinely stayed well beyond school hours to keep the high school library open until 7:30 or 8pm. It may sound innocent, but most schools have a policy that if the school has extra curricular activities that there needs to be a school administrator after hours to supervise. I have a feeling that school admin may have ignored that he routinely stayed late with his "club". It was stated that Patrick was there with a group of boys being a "father figure". This could be a cover for inappropriate adult-teenager relationships. It's easy to close one's eyes and believe that bad stuff never happens, but sometimes it does- and no one wants to believe it.

A big what if (pure speculation). What if a parent/guardian believed that he was molesting their child during this library club? Wouldn't that also be a motive to kill a low key, all around "good guy" as presented on UM?

It's also possible that he was purchasing drugs for himself or to distribute at school- a school librarian would be the perfect cover to sell drugs. Maybe his dealer killed him.

That's really a stretch. It's so common for teachers and media specialists to stay after school with kids so they can get work done or have a safe place to be. Some kids stay after waiting for sports practice or a game and a normal place to gather would be the library. When I was teaching I had kids in my room all the time after school working on projects.
What's more common is kids hanging out after school because they have insecure or no housing, or their parents can't pick them up right after school. I remember the custodians had to report a kid who was at school until 9 many days a week and the parent was found at one of the local bars.

As I mentioned above, every other case that UM mis represents is pretty much torn to shreds online -- the Tiffany Valiante case is the most recent example. Where are those articles for this case?

This (https://www.bradenton.com/living/article129187884.html) article mentions a gun show was being held in the same area as where his body was found. This (https://www.yourobserver.com/article/manatee-county-murder-patrick-mullins-reward) one notes that the detective on the case was a student of Patrick's wife when he was in high school. This (https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2013/09/01/for-sure/29196576007/) article states that one of the theories law enforcement developed was that he did it on a buoy that was a favorite of his when he was a kid. The problem with this case is that you have nothing concrete to tie it to suicide or murder, which is why they have ruled it undetermined. But Occam's Razor tells me that in the absence of any evidence one way or the other, if a man goes out on his boat, alone, and is later found dead from a shotgun blast in the middle of a river, it almost certainly was a suicide. Because there just isn't anything there in terms of anyone having a motive to want this man dead.

Why do his hands have to be bound? Something happens, someone shoots him and then they tie the anchor to his dead body. It all probably happened very quickly. Perfectly simple and reasonable explanation.

Because he can fight back or struggle if his hands are not bound. Why intricately tie the anchor around his waist and not bother to tie his hands together?

Why kill himself? No one has offered even a speculative reason.

Depression. Mental illness. Marriage troubles. No one has offered a plausible reason as to why someone would want to murder him. "He stumbled onto something he shouldn't have" doesn't cut it.

It's not like every case had every family member every time. I always point to the Ethel Kidd case -- she was married with children and the only single family member that appeared on camera was her son in law. There are a million reasons why someone wouldnt want to go on camera.

That was different. That was a clear cut murder where they were trying to find her killer. This was a murder/suicide segment.

This (https://www.bradenton.com/living/article129187884.html) article mentions a gun show was being held in the same area as where his body was found. This (https://www.yourobserver.com/article/manatee-county-murder-patrick-mullins-reward) one notes that the detective on the case was a student of Patrick's wife when he was in high school. This (https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2013/09/01/for-sure/29196576007/) article states that one of the theories law enforcement developed was that he did it on a buoy that was a favorite of his when he was a kid. The problem with this case is that you have nothing concrete to tie it to suicide or murder, which is why they have ruled it undetermined. But Occam's Razor tells me that in the absence of any evidence one way or the other, if a man goes out on his boat, alone, and is later found dead from a shotgun blast in the middle of a river, it almost certainly was a suicide. Because there just isn't anything there in terms of anyone having a motive to want this man dead.



Because he can fight back or struggle if his hands are not bound. Why intricately tie the anchor around his waist and not bother to tie his hands together?



Depression. Mental illness. Marriage troubles. No one has offered a plausible reason as to why someone would want to murder him. "He stumbled onto something he shouldn't have" doesn't cut it.



That was different. That was a clear cut murder where they were trying to find her killer. This was a murder/suicide segment.

Although we ultimately disagree about this case TC, I DO appreciate your reasonable and well stated opinions. It's always nice to be able to discuss such sensitive subject matter like the rational adults we are supposed to be. And thank you for the tidbit about LE's "buoy theory", I hadn't heard that one yet.

I guess now that I've had time to process, I'm not as upset about the undetermined ruling as I was initially during my knee-jerk reaction. I feel like I can better understand now why LE has apparently struggled with this one. With regards to what seems like the lack of a clear motive for murder here, I feel that this particular coin is double sided in that there seems to be the same lack of a clear suicide motive. No, I don't necessarily go in for "the phantom drug dealer theory" on this one, but ultimately I'm just not sure how important the lack of a motive is anyway...in either case. I personally believe that suicides AND homicides occur every day for reasons that may never be clear to outsiders looking in.

Overall, I'm still in the same position here. Until I get credible answers to my numerous questions stated up thread, I just can't accept a finding of suicide. And just like the interrupted crime theory doesn't cut it for you TC, arguments like the buoy theory aren't cutting it for me.

Because he can fight back or struggle if his hands are not bound. Why intricately tie the anchor around his waist and not bother to tie his hands together?




What if they tied the anchor to his body after he was already dead? No need to tie his hands.



Depression. Mental illness. Marriage troubles. No one has offered a plausible reason as to why someone would want to murder him. "He stumbled onto something he shouldn't have" doesn't cut it.




There is no plausible explanation for depression or mental illness in this case and there is often not a plausible reason for a lot of murders.

What if they tied the anchor to his body after he was already dead? No need to tie his hands.

So the theory is that he went out for a boat ride alone on a Sunday afternoon and stumbled upon something he shouldn't have, like a drug deal. These people then managed to get him off of his boat at gunpoint, and let his boat go off still running, but before they do, they also take his anchor from his boat. Then they eventually kill him with a shotgun blast to the face and tie his anchor around his waist with the hopes that the cops will think this was a suicide. It's just so farfetched. Ruthless drug dealers aren't going to care how your death is perceived. They aren't going to take the time to stage his death to look like a suicide.

There is no plausible explanation for depression or mental illness in this case and there is often not a plausible reason for a lot of murders.

Depression and/or mental illness would absolutely be a plausible explanation if this was a suicide. Most murders, however, require a motive. Also need a suspect. You have neither with this case.

They aren't going to take the time to stage his death to look like a suicide.



This doesnt even look like a staged suicide. Guy with a bullet hole in his head found in the ocean with something heavy tied to his body. That's like a murder trope.

This doesnt even look like a staged suicide. Guy with a bullet hole in his head found in the ocean with something heavy tied to his body. That's like a murder trope.

I completely agree with you here GH, and this is one of the reasons I'm so baffled about LE's theories of this case. As far as I can tell, LE determined that Mullins did this to himself due to a couple of things. His wallet was seemingly untouched, he presumably went missing while boating solo, and he was eventually found tied to his own boat anchor in a somewhat unusual way. And while I understand that these circumstances are confusing, IMO this seems like an exceptionally low threshold for determining suicide. Especially when I take into consideration that the weapon has never been found, traditional indicators of suicide aren't present, the scene of death has never been conclusively identified, and forensic experts can't even say if there was only a single GSW or not. I have to wonder if LE would have reached the same conclusion if it had been a pretty little blonde coed that was found tied to that anchor rather than Mullins. I also have to wonder if this is one of those situations where LE knows something that we don't.