MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #3

[Crimeblocker]

At the moment I am confused about the just posted comment about a deceased man in Rutland?

In the meantime, I have been thinking about the physical condition of the monster who took VM's life...especially his hands, hair, eyebrows...had he used a significant means of fire. Unless a person is used to working with fire, he or she typically ends up burning themselves somehow, often causing significant injury. My sister was a burn unit nurse for a long time, and oh the stories of stupidity!

Of course, we have heard from LE about the killer having bruises and scratches, but I think it's logical he would have some 2nd degree or even 3rd degree burns had he used fire in the commission of his crime. Why hasn't LE mentioned this? Burns/blistering would likely be more discernable (and alarming) than scratches and bruising. This speaks to, IMO, the lack of a significant fire. Whether that outcome was planned, who knows.

I have always "seen" this murderer as being disorganized, confused and stressed during the commission of the attack and murder. I don't think the killer put in a lot of planning. For whatever reason, I feel there is some kind of cognitive problem, low intelligence at play, or at least a delusional belief that he is pretty clever, but in reality fails to tic a lot of boxes. For what it's worth, I think the fire aspect (though we really know nothing about the extent of it...could be something as small as the use of a cigarette lighter in a futile attempt to erase DNA or else to try to scare her, etc.) was part of a very loosely planned act, or IMO a manifestation of panic and confusion. I think he has seen her before, but is not meaningfully acquianted. He could have said hello at the small store, noticed her in months prior, etc., and in his own mind felt rebuffed or offended by her lack of attention.

But what do I know? He needs to be caught not only for justice and for what's owed to VM and her family, but that entire community needs to stop living in fear and start experiencing some seedlings of healing. From birth to 30, I lived in Sterling and surrounding areas. I went to Worcester Academy, and had many friends (and even a few teachers) in the Holden, Princeton area. What happened to Vanessa will hurt the town and its residents forever. Children hearing about this monstrous act will never forget how it made them feel. Women will have a hard time feeling safe. No matter the identity of the killer, the effects on residents will be steep and interminable.

I am so very sorry for all of this, and am so concerned for the mental health of all going forward. I think PTSD is sorely underestimated, and can be experienced as a community just as likely as by one person.


All here is my opinion. I know only what has been printed in mainstream media.

You're right the murder will effect the community and surrounding communities for a very long time. The woods no longer are quite as peaceful as they once were. In time the memory isn't quite as disruptive but there will be inevitable traumatic reminders when you see the lone runner or young women aimlessly chatting on their phones are prime examples of triggers. We live in a very tough world with peace and tranquilly consistently overshadowed by violence. My experience with PTSD is such that its roots are planted in the recall of a trauma and the " loss of control " that overwhelms you at the time. Individuals need to release the idea that they can control life, they can't. Yes, I do realize this is anxiety producing in its own right " but " there are things you can do to empower yourself and remove that sense of helplessness. Empower yourself by knowing that you have decided to become proactive, be vigilant in awareness of what you see around you, lock your doors, get some mace. But more importantly than all of that " release" this, know that this is not the norm in a small community. Respect that her death, or any death, is not in vain, horrific things do happen but don't allow that thought to control you. I doubt Venessa Marcotte or any victim would want that for you. By all accounts she loved life, honor that by taking care of yourself and others.

 

[Madeleine74]

The reality is the woods weren't safe the day before Vanessa's murder. See, this is a fallacy that everything is hunky dory and safe until the moment the perp grabs the victim. Obviously it wasn't safe or there wouldn't have been a victim at all.

There is no 100% assurance of safety. Everyone needs to have a standard set of good common sense behaviors that they use every day. A young woman off jogging/walking by herself and not in sight of people or at least in ear shot might be at an increased risk. I'd say probably but I don't really know the stats.

 

[OldSteve]

The reality is the woods weren't safe the day before Vanessa's murder. See, this is a fallacy that everything is hunky dory and safe until the moment the perp grabs the victim. Obviously it wasn't safe or there wouldn't have been a victim at all.

There is no 100% assurance of safety. Everyone needs to have a standard set of good common sense behaviors that they use every day. A young woman off jogging/walking by herself and not in sight of people or at least in ear shot might be at an increased risk. I'd say probably but I don't really know the stats.

I can't help but think of the recent murder of Sierah Joughin, 20, Fulton County, Ohio who was simply riding her bicycle late afternoon on a road along a corn field when she was attacked and taken. It's seems so unfair....
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ghin-20-Fulton-County-19-July-2016-8-*Arrest*

ETA: will we eventually reach the point that any woman who is alone and out of earshot has to have a can of mace or pepper spray in their hand, finger on the trigger?
Sadly, maybe we have....

 

[DutchTreat]

possible but that would mean they'd have to have access to one. Now i've never seen a blow torch in my life but i sure know lot of kids who do the flamethrower trick with an aerosol can and a lighter

What about a bottle of liquor, something that contains a lot of alcohol and a lighter. That would fit more with what someone might be carrying around in the woulds while drinking and hanging out (with or without another person).
That would fit with a person/persons haressing a pretty female jogger.

If that were the case, next question would be if it was a coincidence or if someone was waiting for her.

 

[kirus]

I would really like to know the extent of the trail system where Vanessa was found. Do any locals know if it it is a dead end or part of a larger network of trails.? Perhaps all the way to the Mountain Barn or cemetery?

 

[Madeleine74]

will we eventually reach the point that any woman who is alone and out of earshot has to have a can of mace or pepper spray in their hand, finger on the trigger?
Sadly, maybe we have....

It would serve young women well to be prepared for such a thing. Obviously the first order of business is to not put oneself in a dangerous situation in the first place and to be aware of such things and then avoid them. But yes, even doing something as innocuous as riding a bike within a mile of home can endanger one *if there is a monster lurking nearby waiting for his prey AND the environment is conducive to him striking*. Alone + isolated (even for a few minutes) can = tragedy.

 

[carbuff]

I think you misunderstood the question, if the suspect is dead, would it still go to court? If not, do the police/district attorney even have to say anything? Assuming they have solved the crime, but their is not one persecute as they are dead.

Absolutely no. In the US legal system, you have to be able to defend yourself, and you can't do that if you're dead. (Hm. That might make a good horror novel.)

There could be a civil action against the estate, but not a criminal action.

 

[marble]

It would serve young women well to be prepared for such a thing. Obviously the first order of business is to not put oneself in a dangerous situation in the first place and to be aware of such things and then avoid them. But yes, even doing something as innocuous as riding a bike within a mile of home can endanger one *if there is a monster lurking nearby waiting for his prey AND the environment is conducive to him striking*. Alone + isolated (even for a few minutes) can = tragedy.

Again, I know these types of sentiments I keep seeing expressed come from a place of concern, but this kind of lecturing to women, as though women don't hear how they must be responsible every moment of their time in order to be "responsible" so as not to be victimized implies that any woman who isn't in the company of others at all times is partially responsible for any bad thing that happens,
I'm sorry- no. If women followed this advice fully they'd never have any kind of life of their own outside of their homes or work. besides which, how do the logistics of this even work? Are women no longer allowed to be seen as responsible and blameless if they take a walk in their own neighborhood by themselves? Or hike in nature? Or walk their dog? Should a man always accompany them to and from their cars and doorsteps? But not just any man, a SAFE man (to be defined I guess).

That's fine I guess for people who aren't interested in moving about the outside world without someone else always attached to their side, but not all women feel like that's any kind of life to be living. In addition, it's likely a completely impractical order for most women - not everyone has a partner able and willing to accompany them everywhere/the financial resources to never need to walk or live in anything other than a gated community/social or family structure, So IMO the best advice for Men and Women is to be aware of your surroundings, listen to your instincts (if something feels "off" better to be safe than sorry) and be aware of risks. Other than that, let's not infantilize women and allow them to use their own best judgements and take risks according to their own comfort level.

Rapes and murders perpetrated by strangers are very rare. Rapes and murders by family, "friends" and partners less rare (rapes are way too common regardless) but still unlikely to happen to a majority of women. Car accidents though? Much less rare. Maybe we should instead be advising women to never be around motor vehicles if at all possible. Or not to date seriously or get married?

(Not to mention- rape and murder are not analogous to property crimes- where leaving possessions out in the open invites someone who might otherwise have not stolen your stuff to walk off with it. "Leaving yourself out in the open" isn't an invitation to be attacked, unless you are a possession and not a human being.)

 

[Crimeblocker]

Why would it go to court? You can't prosecute a dead person. No, that would be the end of it.

I apologize were you referencing the murderer as dead ! Then of course there would be no trial.

 

[Crimeblocker]

Absolutely no. In the US legal system, you have to be able to defend yourself, and you can't do that if you're dead. (Hm. That might make a good horror novel.)

There could be a civil action against the estate, but not a criminal action.

Yes there could be a " wrongful death" civil suit as is what happened in the Nicole Simpson murder. No of course there wouldn't be a criminal trial against a dead perpetrator. I wasn't aware that the websleuth site was heading in that direction.

 

[carbuff]

Yes there could be a " wrongful death" civil suit as is what happened in the Nicole Simpson murder. No of course there wouldn't be a criminal trial against a dead perpetrator. I wasn't aware that the websleuth site was heading in that direction.

A sleuther asked a specific question in reference to what would happen if the suspect was dead, and I answered, is all. No big deal

 

[Crimeblocker]

Was originally replying in response to if the killer was deceased, DNA match would only be needed to solve the case. There would be no need for other evidence to go to court with since the killer is dead (not saying he is, just saying in that scenario)

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Yes correct. I wasn't aware you were talking about the Perpetrator being deceased, my apologies. I'm aware of what you may be speaking about. Possibly building a case or simply tragic coincidence ?

 

[Crimeblocker]

A sleuther asked a specific question in reference to what would happen if the suspect was dead, and I answered, is all. No big deal

No I know that. I was the one that was confused. I didn't realize you were talking about a dead perpetrator. Our judicial system is designed so that every accused person has a right to face his accusers ( his day in court ) But that person has got to be able to get to court or court get to him and that isn't possible if a person is deceased. I think LE would inform the public if they had a case against the deceased describing him as a " suspect " not a convicted murderer. The reality is this too often happens in murder/ suicides but again " evidence " and DNA match have to be in place. Sorry about the confusion, that sarcastic undertone " no of course there wouldn't be a criminal trial if the suspect was dead " was directed at me for not realizing what you were asking.��

 

[Crimeblocker]

What about a bottle of liquor, something that contains a lot of alcohol and a lighter. That would fit more with what someone might be carrying around in the woulds while drinking and hanging out (with or without another person).
That would fit with a person/persons haressing a pretty female jogger.

If that were the case, next question would be if it was a coincidence or if someone was waiting for her.

It wouldn't be out of the question that someone was partying in the woods, harassment escalated to aggravated assault/ rape/ murder. More than one individual ( group mentality - you do what the group does ) - this is common place in gangs. Also as far as a woman being present at a rape/ murder isn't unheard of. If there were more than one individual, it is likely a woman - someone involved with this person, a family member or someone fearful of this individual. Even simply an accomplice after the fact- I need an alibi and you're it !

 

[spivey]

Perhaps socks didn't have any shoes because LE took them as evidence.

 

[DutchTreat]

It wouldn't be out of the question that someone was partying in the woods, harassment escalated to aggravated assault/ rape/ murder. More than one individual ( group mentality - you do what the group does ) - this is common place in gangs. Also as far as a woman being present at a rape/ murder isn't unheard of. If there were more than one individual, it is likely a woman - someone involved with this person, a family member or someone fearful of this individual. Even simply an accomplice after the fact- I need an alibi and you're it !

You know what I've been wondering about as well.
I live in Europe and I remember faintly having read something about a running app for smartphones that could give strangers insight into your running habits. So people could find out where you would be running/jogging and when.
Because I don't have a smartphone (I know, I know) and I don't go jogging, I didn't pay much attention to the article. But now that two young women that were on facebook/social media and that were joggers have been killed. I guess it could be possible that these murders weren't that random.

Maybe someone who DOES own a smartphone could shed some light on this possibility. Could this be why her phone is missing?

 

[Madeleine74]

Again, I know these types of sentiments I keep seeing expressed come from a place of concern, but this kind of lecturing to women, as though women don't hear how they must be responsible every moment of their time in order to be "responsible" so as not to be victimized implies that any woman who isn't in the company of others at all times is partially responsible for any bad thing that happens,

That's not what I said, and not what I meant. Twisting words and inflating meaning is disingenuous.

 

[Paulclapper]

Most murders are committed by people we know, so best to know no one! Also, avoid stairs and roads. I'm being sarcastic..... I can see both sides of the argument. Living life in a bubble is not living life, on the other hand their are some simple things you can do to improve your chances of living a long life, like wear a seat belt and don't smoke.

In Madeleine 74's defense though, I think women get hung up on the word "responsible". It's not about laying out the amount of responsibility, it's about safety. Take Vanessa whether she is 1% at fault or 0% at fault, either way she is dead. Will it make her feel any better to know she is at 0% responsibility? No it won't, because she's dead. And I think it is fair to ask the question in the future and for other women is it safe to go jogging in a secluded area alone. I think the answer is it is actually very safe. These cases are extremely rare. In fact in Vanessa's case, once the police come forward with what happen we we learn that the killer was targeting her and was going to get her one way or another.

That's not what I said, and not what I meant. Twisting words and inflating meaning is disingenuous.

 

[Madeleine74]

Safety is everyone's responsibility -- the community, society, law enforcement and individuals.

The only blame is on the perps who commit the crimes.

 

[femalejogger]

Amen Marble. You verbalized exactly what I have been feeling in response to these posts, but was unable to put into words.

VM did not put herself in an inherently dangerous situation when she set out that day. By all rights, she should have come home safely.