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

[1306kayaker]

Agree. Not random; this was a lay in wait murder. I keep thinking about the source of the fire. (Blowtorch?)
I'm sure the remains would give strong clues there.
If it's any consolation, I have no doubt this murder will be solved, and I don't think the suspect radius is that large geographically.

Do you think it's possible that he prepared the burn site? Possibly by wetting the area in order to ensure that the fire wouldn't spread? That level of premeditation sounds crazy but it's also strange that no one noticed the smoke and that the fire didn't spread, especially if an accelerant was used.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rosesfromangels]

Do you think it's possible that he prepared the burn site? Possibly by wetting the area in order to ensure that the fire wouldn't spread? That level of premeditation sounds crazy but it's also strange that no one noticed the smoke and that the fire didn't spread, especially if an accelerant was used.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, this is very possible. It seems he had this area well prepared in advance. Your theory seems quite probable.
As far fetched as this seems, I think supply stores that sell that type of accelerant (and I'm sure LE knows what it it), should have receipts and video examined. Who knows

 

[ThinkHard]

Just joined WS recently, and this is my debut post here. I was reading about the Vanessa Marcotte case earlier on the Web, and chanced upon the WS site.

The reason for my interest in this case is that a good friend of mine works at Google, and VM worked for my friend. She was his assistant in the advertising part of the company. My buddy is still torn up about it - says VM was the nicest person you could know, didn't have a mean bone in her body. Google bussed a whole bunch of employees to her funeral in MA.

This doesn't seem like a random attack to me. The NY/ Queens case seems more likely to be a random one. Random attacks are more likely in big cities like NY, where there's typically a larger number of whackos floating around, and you're more likely to run into one. Much less likely in a place like Princeton, with no murder history in decades. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome! And I agree I don't see a random crime here at all. I think the idea of a boogie man in the woods seems far fetched too, and think it's far more likely that someone was able to approach her/ get near her simply because she was kind and trusting. And I think someone who knew her, was able to get closer to her for this reason. JMO.

 

[ThinkHard]

Forager - I'm not sure if it means anything at all! I hesitate to elaborate too much since I don't have a link to MSM confirming where the additional evidence was found. I joined Websleuths to follow this case and began taking notes on relevant events in the investigation. I didn't realize it was common for MSM accounts to be scrubbed or else I would have done screenshots of some of these articles.

That said, according to my notes (along w a Link that no longer contains the reference) LE found evidence 1/2 mile south of the body on Thursday. 1/2 mile south is in the vicinity of Sam Cobb Lane / Cobb Brook.

According to the Landmark police logs someone on Sam Cobb Lane called in a disturbance in the woods at 10:xx on the Sunday night that VM was killed . My assumption is that it was the police searching the area but, as I run varying scenarios around in my head, I considered that the killer could be back in the area because he dropped something and was trying to find it. Super far fetched and the police logs are full of suspicious incidents after VMs death but I wanted to throw it out there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For one the PL is always filled with suspicious person sightings, or cars or what not. It's the most frequent calls next to loose livestock. If you look back before the murder you will see the same thing.

People are always calling about the dumbest things...including broken zippers on a child's snowsuit! It get batty.

Anyway I doubt the killer would have gone back out in the woods looking for something at 1043 at night....there would have been search parties all over since 3/4 that afternoon, plus blocked roads, and a clear police presence throughout the night.....it would have been highly risky to be in those woods then, and I just don't think the perp would still be around at that point.

 

[ThinkHard]

There may have very well been a blowtorch used, Many homeowners have small torches in their homes.
The only thing that steered me away from that, was the soot, and ash on the logs from the crime scene video. I would think that if the fire was that controlled, there wouldn't be any, or not as much anyway. JMO.

I saw dark on the trees but they didn't look like campfire flames in my opinion. They looked more like running a blow torch flame over dead wood and it leaves black markings behind. Almost like he was testing out the flame first. These marks were only up higher and not down low, a fire flame would be more evenly distributed.

And the circle in the ground could be where you took the flame to her clothing.

But it's hard to tell with certainly with the pictures we have seen and I believe some no longer exist.

 

[ThinkHard]

Do you think it's possible that he prepared the burn site? Possibly by wetting the area in order to ensure that the fire wouldn't spread? That level of premeditation sounds crazy but it's also strange that no one noticed the smoke and that the fire didn't spread, especially if an accelerant was used.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A blowtorch would easily explain why the fire didn't spread and why no one saw flames or smoke, and it even explains the controlled burning of hands, head, and feet.

To me it almost feel like one possibility is that he used the blowtorch almost as one would use an erases on a drawing. Like he tried to erase her identity. Which in my head feels more personal then just an attempt to cover DNA.

It almost seems to speak to shame or remorse, as if they couldn't stand to see what they had done, so they had to depersonalize her.

This is one of the reasons I really feel like the victim and perp were known to each other. I'm just not sure what the nature or acquaintanceship of that relationship would be.

 

[ThinkHard]

Yes, this is very possible. It seems he had this area well prepared in advance. Your theory seems quite probable.
As far fetched as this seems, I think supply stores that sell that type of accelerant (and I'm sure LE knows what it it), should have receipts and video examined. Who knows

Those things in sure could be bought at a wide range of places, from big box stores in
Leominster to Worcester, or smaller hardware stores, farm equipment stores, gas stations etc.....it's a long list of places they would have to check to track that down if think. None would be location in Princeton but many in the immediate radius, so it would be difficult to determine which direction on that radius to look.

 

[Kickoff61]

There are many ways to know someone or 'of someone' . Examples: Going to the store, neighbor in the area, activities, friend knowing friend, public events, etc.

 

[Rocky1]

snipped to save space...


I've followed a lot of cases over the last 2 decades and it's more common than not for investigators to say next to nothing about an active case. In my city they are very tight-lipped. Press conferences do not impart much information either.

This is not by accident; the public and Internet sleuthers don't solve cases, it's homicide investigators and LE and FBI who do so with the various tools and science and interviews they utilize. Yes, sometimes a tip will provide a direction, sometimes even a name. Outside of that, I've never personally witnessed speculation/rumoring helping solve a case--it often causes more pain and sometimes innocent people get accused of heinous crimes.

The investigator's sole focus is solving the case and not compromising the investigation so that when/if they do solve a case, the case can move forward and be litigated by the DA inside a courtroom. Assuaging the curious and lookyloos is not part of the equation.

LE always (100%) of the time know more than the general public and they never disclose most of what they know. A few pieces may come out, but that's generally it. If they have a video where they need an I.D. they'll ask for the public's help or a specific piece of info they need help with (like anyone who spotted a vehicle at the time).

Until a case is solved and taken to court it's often <crickets>.

I guess we'll just have to wait until there is something else to go on. I think most of the possibilities have been gone over many times now.
By the looks of your post count, you have been busy here. It's good to have so much imput.

 

[Kickoff61]

Just joined WS recently, and this is my debut post here. I was reading about the Vanessa Marcotte case earlier on the Web, and chanced upon the WS site.

The reason for my interest in this case is that a good friend of mine works at Google, and VM worked for my friend. She was his assistant in the advertising part of the company. My buddy is still torn up about it - says VM was the nicest person you could know, didn't have a mean bone in her body. Google bussed a whole bunch of employees to her funeral in MA.

This doesn't seem like a random attack to me. The NY/ Queens case seems more likely to be a random one. Random attacks are more likely in big cities like NY, where there's typically a larger number of whackos floating around, and you're more likely to run into one. Much less likely in a place like Princeton, with no murder history in decades. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

*Welcome. Thank you for your input.

 

[Kickoff61]

I guess we'll just have to wait until there is something else to go on. I think most of the possibilities have been gone over many times now.
By the looks of your post count, you have been busy here. It's good to have so much imput.

Yes. I agree. 'Patience'.

 

[Kickoff61]

snipped to save space...


I've followed a lot of cases over the last 2 decades and it's more common than not for investigators to say next to nothing about an active case. In my city they are very tight-lipped. Press conferences do not impart much information either.

This is not by accident; the public and Internet sleuthers don't solve cases, it's homicide investigators and LE and FBI who do so with the various tools and science and interviews they utilize. Yes, sometimes a tip will provide a direction, sometimes even a name. Outside of that, I've never personally witnessed speculation/rumoring helping solve a case--it often causes more pain and sometimes innocent people get accused of heinous crimes.

The investigator's sole focus is solving the case and not compromising the investigation so that when/if they do solve a case, the case can move forward and be litigated by the DA inside a courtroom. Assuaging the curious and lookyloos is not part of the equation.

LE always (100%) of the time know more than the general public and they never disclose most of what they know. A few pieces may come out, but that's generally it. If they have a video where they need an I.D. they'll ask for the public's help or a specific piece of info they need help with (like anyone who spotted a vehicle at the time).

Until a case is solved and taken to court it's often <crickets>.

True. Thank you.

 

[ThinkHard]

There are many ways to know someone or 'of someone' . Examples: Going to the store, neighbor in the area, activities, friend knowing friend, public events, etc.

Of course there are. Have I ever said otherwise?

 

[Kickoff61]

Of course there are. Have I ever said otherwise?

I was posting a general comment - not directed at anyone in particular.

 

[JEF]

Do any pictures/videos of that still exist or have they been scrubbed? I've spent hours going through the feeds trying to find them. Thanks in advance.

I saw dark on the trees but they didn't look like campfire flames in my opinion. They looked more like running a blow torch flame over dead wood and it leaves black markings behind. Almost like he was testing out the flame first. These marks were only up higher and not down low, a fire flame would be more evenly distributed.

And the circle in the ground could be where you took the flame to her clothing.

But it's hard to tell with certainly with the pictures we have seen and I believe some no longer exist.

 

[ThinkHard]

Do any pictures/videos of that still exist or have they been scrubbed? I've spent hours going through the feeds trying to find them. Thanks in advance.

I think a lot of those pictures have been scrubbed unfortunately. But if someone knows otherwise please bring them forward. Thanks!

 

[1306kayaker]

I think a lot of those pictures have been scrubbed unfortunately. But if someone knows otherwise please bring them forward. Thanks!

Rocky linked to a video clip awhile back with a brief image - that's the only one I know of.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Kickoff61]

I haven't seen that image before and I'm not sure where it's from. Do you have any ideas?

I tried to post the link too and it doesn't work.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

State Police searched the woods off Boylston Avenue in Princeton Monday for evidence in the death of Vanessa Marcotte.
By Michael Levenson and Travis Andersen Globe Staff August 11, 2016

It could be from this later search - **not certain**

 

[Forager]

Forager - I'm not sure if it means anything at all! I hesitate to elaborate too much since I don't have a link to MSM confirming where the additional evidence was found. I joined Websleuths to follow this case and began taking notes on relevant events in the investigation. I didn't realize it was common for MSM accounts to be scrubbed or else I would have done screenshots of some of these articles.

That said, according to my notes (along w a Link that no longer contains the reference) LE found evidence 1/2 mile south of the body on Thursday. 1/2 mile south is in the vicinity of Sam Cobb Lane / Cobb Brook.

According to the Landmark police logs someone on Sam Cobb Lane called in a disturbance in the woods at 10:xx on the Sunday night that VM was killed . My assumption is that it was the police searching the area but, as I run varying scenarios around in my head, I considered that the killer could be back in the area because he dropped something and was trying to find it. Super far fetched and the police logs are full of suspicious incidents after VMs death but I wanted to throw it out there.

Thanks for the additional info. I'm understanding better now and have updated the map marker. As to your comment that "I'm not sure if it means anything at all!" that's fine. I wouldn't have much to map if I had to be sure to stick to facts proven to be relevant. I like to think of the map as a "white board" that helps put our discussions into geographic context.

 

[tlcya]

Some questions have been posed about how far speculation and sleuthing can go. I will answer the main ones now:

1) Regarding an automobile crash fatality that occurred not long after Vanessa was murdered: Until or unless LE connects the wreck/suicide to Vanessa's case it is not open for speculation/theorizing as related to this murder. Happening in the same general time frame as this murder and social media or other internet rumors are not enough to warrant it's entry into this discussion.

2) Regarding police blotter reports in the days before and after Vanessa was killed: UPDATE: Per Tricia on 10-2-16 the police blotters are up for discussion. Make sure you provide a main stream link and please, avoid tunnel vision by getting too invested in any one call being tied to this case. It is entirely possible that none are. But on the off chance one is, you may link and discuss them.

If anyone has a question about what is or what is not allowed please private message a mod or an admin. If anyone feels the discussion has entered an area that is not allowed please alert on the post or posts so a moderator can evaluate the situation.

Finally, part of what makes this one of the largest true crime forums on the web is that a certain level of respect can be expected from fellow members. Lots of differing life experiences, professions, opinions and skills come to the table here from all walks of life. That makes for a lot of varied viewpoints and ideas. This is a good thing and makes for a lively discussion enabling all of us to see things from other perspectives than our own. Turning the case over and viewing it from all angles.

It should be expected that not everyone will agree. What a boring conversation that would be if we all sat around agreeing all day. That said - Disagree respectfully. Agree to disagree when you must.

On those rare occasions where someone simply rubs you wrong no matter what scroll and roll or make use of your ignore feature accessed via your settings.

thank you for caring about Vanessa,

tlcya