MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tempura said:
I have to agree. I feel as though a theory is thrown out, but then any fact or evidence that is or may be is then used as an attempt to prove that theory. And you're right that being selective with information is in a way deceiving.
Click to expand...
Actually, the DA's response is up for interpretation, when he said he wasn't going to discuss her relationships. It did not sound like a cut and dried, "no, she wasn't in one." These forums aren't for saying only things that are known. They are also for thinking of other possibilities. They are for sleuthing a murder. No one is intimating that VM was anything but a fine young woman, but it is not slander to wonder if she may not have told her parents everything. Lots of times people are surprised by what comes out in an investigation.
 
Tempura said:
I have to agree. I feel as though a theory is thrown out, but then any fact or evidence that is or may be is then used as an attempt to prove that theory. And you're right that being selective with information is in a way deceiving.
Click to expand...

What facts are you looking for? I merely said I share a lot of the same demographics as VM, right down to physical appearance and only child status, and said if I try to put myself in her shoes I can see myself doing this....

I very clearly said I can't speak to what she would or wouldn't have done. I can only speculate on what I would or wouldn't have done being of a very similar type. I don't understand how proposing that perhaps she could have gone to speak to a friend is victim blaming. I don't exactly think she lied or was deceitful, I know you've made it clear plenty times you do, so we will just have to agree to disagree on that. Nor do I think she somehow deserved to die or brought this on herself. Not in the least. I think she was a good kind person who was trusting someone she thought she could. Nothing more.

Btw suggesting that perhaps her phone app settings changing because her running plans changed, is no more speculative then proposing they were changed because she had a stalker. We have evidence of neither.

It's ok if we have differing ideas and viewpoints and we can disagree about those. But I don't think we have to start accusing each other of victim blaming, when no such thing has occurred.

When you do that, you completely shut down room to theorize various angles. If you object i'd kindly ask you to scroll by or alert a mod if you feel it's innapropriate, rather then getting edgy with each other. Please & Thank you.
 
Just throwing this out there - the first reference I can find to the FBI is on August 16 (correct me if I'm wrong). They would have done an initial investigation then, an autopsy, interviews and probably gotten DNA tests back. The FBI very rarely gets involved in local murders.
 
Speculating that the victim lied to friends/family about her intentions that day when heading out for a run is probably hurtful to them. It would be different if she told people she was going out for a run and video existed showing she was somewhere else doing something other. But that is not the case here. She was found along the route she has been reported to have run in the past. She was witnessed on that run. She was reportedly seen on her cell phone during that run, happy and in an animated conversation. No evidence anywhere of her having lied.

Maybe the call she was reported to have been on during her run was from someone she knew who arranged to meet her somewhere along her route. Maybe she met with someone she knew. MAYBE.

In other words, the theory that a person known to her arranged to meet up with her does not necessarily have to indicate that the assignation was planned prior to her telling others she was off for a run or that she was secretive or lied about going for a run. She went on her run. She did not lie. She was witnessed running. She ran. Period.

Websleuths is a victim friendly site, however, speculating that the victim met up with someone known to her on her run does not necessarily equate with victim blaming. Speculating there was certain information that a grown woman omitted from conversations with her parents about her personal life and every move is not victim blaming.

She may have planned to meet with someone either before, during or after her run and her not specifically mentioning such a plan to her parents does not make her deceptive or lying.

That said, I urge you all not to go too far down the track of a planned assignation. It is ONE theory among many possibles, that is not supported thus far by anything aside from speculation, a change in her settings on her run app that occurred well before the day of her murder and a phone call she took during her run. Maybe connected. maybe not.

maybe she knew her killer, maybe she did not.
 
Thanks for clarifying how the forum works. I should have read the guidelines.
 
I sincerely hope police find her killer and her parents can gain some satisfaction from that.
 
I wonder if perhaps more then one person is involved?

Maybe they have an idea of who one person is but have DNA from two people?
 
Btw I don't know if this is ok to say, so if it's not mods please remove. I don't live in Princeton, but I have heard from town residents that LE has been going around town asking for voluntary DNA samples.
 
Per UI Sock Guy in his interview LE asked him for DNA so I would not be surprised if they have asked others. Seems reasonable.
 
He reverts back to the original 1-4 timeframe on second interview, 8/16. Seems like that may tell us something.

[video=youtube;dfgfp0taR7w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfgfp0taR7w[/video]
 
ThinkHard said:
Btw I don't know if this is ok to say, so if it's not mods please remove. I don't live in Princeton, but I have heard from town residents that LE has been going around town asking for voluntary DNA samples.
Click to expand...

That is very interesting ThinkHard. I wonder if the targets of the their request share any common factor: Do they drive white trucks? Are they plumbers? Or did their cell phones show up in the area that afternoon?

Or perhaps they have a suspect, but not enough for a DNA warrant. They ask a bunch of guys, including their suspect, for voluntary samples and see what he does. He may be dumb enough or cocky enough to agree. If he objects, they keep looking at him until they get enough for a warrant.
 
tlcya said:
Speculating that the victim lied to friends/family about her intentions that day when heading out for a run is probably hurtful to them. It would be different if she told people she was going out for a run and video existed showing she was somewhere else doing something other. But that is not the case here. She was found along the route she has been reported to have run in the past. She was witnessed on that run. She was reportedly seen on her cell phone during that run, happy and in an animated conversation. No evidence anywhere of her having lied.

Maybe the call she was reported to have been on during her run was from someone she knew who arranged to meet her somewhere along her route. Maybe she met with someone she knew. MAYBE.

In other words, the theory that a person known to her arranged to meet up with her does not necessarily have to indicate that the assignation was planned prior to her telling others she was off for a run or that she was secretive or lied about going for a run. She went on her run. She did not lie. She was witnessed running. She ran. Period.

Websleuths is a victim friendly site, however, speculating that the victim met up with someone known to her on her run does not necessarily equate with victim blaming. Speculating there was certain information that a grown woman omitted from conversations with her parents about her personal life and every move is not victim blaming.

She may have planned to meet with someone either before, during or after her run and her not specifically mentioning such a plan to her parents does not make her deceptive or lying.

That said, I urge you all not to go too far down the track of a planned assignation. It is ONE theory among many possibles, that is not supported thus far by anything aside from speculation, a change in her settings on her run app that occurred well before the day of her murder and a phone call she took during her run. Maybe connected. maybe not.

maybe she knew her killer, maybe she did not.
Click to expand...

Thank you tlcya for putting it all in perspective. I tend to get lost on exact facts.Then I get sensitive toward the victim and family.

I still think that links can be very helpful in backing up theories.

MOO
 
tlcya said:
Per UI Sock Guy in his interview LE asked him for DNA so I would not be surprised if they have asked others. Seems reasonable.
Click to expand...

I believe that he 'offered' his DNA because his brother called him as a tip.


"he man says it all began last Monday, when his brother reported him missing after he skipped work for the day. Because Marcotte had been killed the day before, he says investigators were suspicious."
http://www.necn.com/news/new-englan...estioned-Him-in-Joggers-Murder-390360461.html

ETA - we know from so many cases they could not "take" his DNA without an affidavit and granted a warrant as a result unless he volunteered it.
 
I haven't read the other comments yet, but I've appreciated your posts and compassion, Thinkhard.
 
The Farm said:
I have to disagree slightly. Sometimes townies have an inside scoop. But I understand the process of this site and to adhere to facts then yes we would have to dismiss what is said.
Click to expand...

It's not necessary to dismiss anything that may be rumor. That's not really the point. Can't take it as fact is all. Can't discuss it as a topic publicly. But sleuthing always includes much behind the scenes fact finding and also SM involvement that just can't be included here. There is much to be gleaned privately in sleuthing a case that simply cannot be discussed publicly. We even have off-public forums like the parking lot where things can be discussed without public viewing.

Everyone in town knows very much, for sure. But here in discussion, only that which can be verified is allowed. None of that means to dismiss valuable information from your research. Not at all. Consider it all. But some things cannot be brought here in a public forum.

I suppose I have been here too long, LOL

MOO
 
Thank you everyone for sharing all your insights. It's proving very helpful in my amateur profiling theories.
I've honed in on my profile even tighter. I still would love to know if the mom had repair work done to her home within a couple weeks of the murder. Plumbing or roofing, but I'm pretty honed in on roofing.
 
and yes, there is speculation obviously, but productive speculation comes from the facts reported and known.
 
If there is some unknown certainty about something that has not been reported, then it should be reported to the tip line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 235 more.
Total: 2,056 (members: 236, guests: 1,820)

Online statistics

Members online
236
Guests online
1,820
Total visitors
2,056
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,594
Messages
18,097,222
Members
230,889
Latest member
Grumpie13
Back
Top