MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #2

[Kateinfl]

I just made my first post to Web Sleuth's on page 2. Can someone please confirm that it worked? I am freaked out about this. I literally drove down Brook Station Road with my kids at 2:40 on that day. It gives me chills that I was so close to something so horrible. I have racked my brain and talked to my kids about what they saw and we have come up with nothing. No Jogger, Struggle, or anything strange. Can't recall if their was a car in that area. If have friends and family in Princeton and we all love the outdoors. He needs to be caught soon.

So...if you didn't see or smell smoke around that time....maybe it was after that time she was killed. I know this is terrible to write or think about....but a fire , even small fire...would send smoke smell. JMO

 

[x_files]

<modsnip>

Maybe he's NOT that bright and thought he'd get away with it.

 

[Tempura]

Maybe he's NOT that bright and thought he'd get away with it.

So far a lot of clues point to him not really planning well/not being all that bright.

 

[Camerabug]

So far a lot of clues point to him not really planning well/not being all that bright.

A crime of opportunity

 

[x_files]

So far a lot of clues point to him not really planning well/not being all that bright.

He could be a disorganized killer that acts on impulse.
Not sure the burning of the body sounds calculated rather done in panic?
Obviously, going on not many details.
There's been other caes I followed where the killer lived down the street so rapists/murders aren't always organized or think it through.

 

[Camerabug]

Do the police usually try to protect the identity of of the POI's?

We will have a better idea when there is an arrest or search warrants get issued (if the public gets to see them)

 

[Tempura]

We will have a better idea when there is an arrest or search warrants get issued (if the public gets to see them)

I just hope it gets to that point.

 

[Mevadus]

<modsnip> Did they test the DNA from the scene against a database, or did a POI agree to give a sample?

Police can't get a DNA sample from a suspect unless the suspect agrees to provide one or they have a warrant. Maybe they had a warrant, but in order to get a warrant police have to have probable cause.

 

[twbcpa89]

I think the perp made a fatal mistake by burning her.
Rather than destroying evidence it probably introduced evidence easily traceable to him (in my opinion).

Running on the theory of an escalating perp, here are a few assaults/ attempted abductions of female runners in the surrounding areas:
Does anyone want to opine about a possible link to these attacks?

Westborough, MA, 6/23/16 (22mi. away):
http://www.masslive.com/news/worcester/index.ssf/2016/06/men_try_to_abduct_women_in_sep.html

Avon, CT, 6/26/15 (79mi. away):
http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-avon-runner-sexual-assault-investigation-0626-2-20150625-story.html

Springettsbury Township, PA, 5/12/16 (300+ mi. away) (far away, but similar, and there is a sketch):
http://www.ydr.com/story/news/crime/2016/05/11/police-man-assaults-woman-18-rocky-ridge/84220786/
http://www.ydr.com/story/news/crime/2016/05/12/sketch-rocky-ridge-attack-suspect-released/84276180/

 

[colette]

<modsnip>Did they test the DNA from the scene against a database, or did a POI agree to give a sample?

Police can't get a DNA sample from a suspect unless the suspect agrees to provide one or they have a warrant. Maybe they had a warrant, but in order to get a warrant police have to have probable cause.

Totally untrue. LE can follow a suspect and take something like a cigarette butt or drink cup thrown away by a suspect just to rule him in or out.

 

[Marie A]

I heard the same thing this morning on GMA.

IMHO

According to a cold case detective I spoke with who worked for a police force in a major US city, once a DNA "hit" or "match" occurs (for a murder) they test a second time to reconfirm the "hit" or "match" before issuing an arrest warrant.
I'm not sure if this is standard procedure or not but during a murder trial, the jury can hear that testing (which is amazingly accurate) was performed twice before an arrest- basically ruling out any margin for error or chance that DNA was "misappropriated" during testing - i.e. mixed up with another specimen.
I think in a case that is this serious and important there would be a second "confirmation" DNA test before an actual arrest.
My thought is that even if Massachusetts detectives find their guy, they will remain "tight lipped" until a second testing is confirmed and an actual arrest takes place.

*side note- Not sure of the actual cost per DNA test but I know it's expensive. It would be wonderful if someone came up with a low-cost accurate test so that ALL of the old rape kits and any other properly preserved samples of DNA from old violent crimes could be tested and entered into CODIS. I wish that private foundations would fund old "rape kit testing" / DNA evidence testing too. Undoubtedly some of the cases discussed on this blog would be cleared up if the cost of testing was lowered and more easily available.

 

[Steleheart]

Totally untrue. LE can follow a suspect and take something like a cigarette butt or drink cup thrown away by a suspect just to rule him in or out.

That's not legal at all and only happens on TV. It doesn't matter if it's discarded trash, they can't use it against someone because it cannot be handled properly before collecting it.

 

[Inthedetails]

That's not legal at all and only happens on TV. It doesn't matter if it's discarded trash, they can't use it against someone because it cannot be handled properly before collecting it.

In the fire case in Washington DC - that horrific case where the family was killed, LE collected DNA from a discarded pizza crust.

I'm guessing a defense lawyer would try to fight it, but that's a case I do recall it happening, FWIW.

 

[Mevadus]

Totally untrue. LE can follow a suspect and take something like a cigarette butt or drink cup thrown away by a suspect just to rule him in or out.

Not if they want to use the evidence in court.
That would be a total violation of the 4th Amendment.

 

[Inthedetails]

Not if they want to use the evidence in court.
That would be a total violation of the 4th Amendment.

Here's a Boston Globe article about it (note, it's dated 2013)

"The DNA in your garbage: up for grabs"
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...e-for-grabs/sU12MtVLkoypL1qu2iF6IL/story.html

 

[carbuff]

None of that applies, because as far as I can tell they're talking about asking one or more people to voluntarily provide a sample so they can be eliminated from consideration, similar to the way they fingerprint everybody in the house to rule out prints that would be in a victim's room normally. My cop friend wouldn't speculate as to who that might be in this case, but he feels it's normally done early in a case like this, and as part of normal procedure.

 

[Mevadus]

In the fire case in Washington DC - that horrific case where the family was killed, LE collected DNA from a discarded pizza crust.

I'm guessing a defense lawyer would try to fight it, but that's a case I do recall it happening, FWIW.

I believe that DNA sample was collected during a warranted search.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mansion-fire-dna-pizza-crust-led-authorities-dc/story?id=31199895

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

Not if they want to use the evidence in court.
That would be a total violation of the 4th Amendment.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled six to three that "police are allowed to use some deception, including ruses, for the purpose of investigating criminal activity."

"No recognized privacy interest exists in voluntarily discarded saliva," the court found.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17098608

The DNA in your garbage: up for grabs

Drop a hair? Anyone can legally sequence your genetic material—and privacy experts want to close that gap

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...e-for-grabs/sU12MtVLkoypL1qu2iF6IL/story.html

The United States Supreme Court has yet to address whether there are constitutional limits on the covert collection of DNA. But with a few exceptions, lower court judges in over a dozen recent cases have ruled that DNA clinging to water bottles left in interrogation rooms, on restaurant glassware and on those ubiquitous cigarette butts are fair game for police inspection

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/0.../2008/04/03/discarded-dna-fair-game-for-cops/

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Inthedetails]

I believe that DNA sample was collected during a warranted search.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mansion-fire-dna-pizza-crust-led-authorities-dc/story?id=31199895

Aha - that does make a difference. Thanks for following up.

Edited to put a note here that we're talking about another case, not Vanessa's.

 

[Mevadus]

The Washington Supreme Court ruled six to three that "police are allowed to use some deception, including ruses, for the purpose of investigating criminal activity."

"No recognized privacy interest exists in voluntarily discarded saliva," the court found.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17098608

The DNA in your garbage: up for grabs

Drop a hair? Anyone can legally sequence your genetic material—and privacy experts want to close that gap

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2...e-for-grabs/sU12MtVLkoypL1qu2iF6IL/story.html

The United States Supreme Court has yet to address whether there are constitutional limits on the covert collection of DNA. But with a few exceptions, lower court judges in over a dozen recent cases have ruled that DNA clinging to water bottles left in interrogation rooms, on restaurant glassware and on those ubiquitous cigarette butts are fair game for police inspection

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/04/0.../2008/04/03/discarded-dna-fair-game-for-cops/

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Very interesting. Thanks for schooling me up.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1495639.html