MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #5

[ThinkHard]

Yes I agree the likelihood of this scenario is so low that we might as well rule it out. I know anything is possible but we should stick to what is probable. This isn't probable.

Does crohns cause nausea? Could she have gotten sick to her stomach and gone into the woods to vomit?

 

[ForensicMass]

I drove down that road after the leaves fell, and you can see distance into the woods. You can see the driveway, and also the old Conners Lane extension. Maybe you can see the house at the end of Conners Lane, but I wasn't looking for it, so I didn't see it.
I don't see anyone returning in a vehicle either. Although I do believe that people saw an SUV parked, I am having trouble fitting it into the picture. wouldn't live near by, real stupid to expose himself like that, not well planned. All things I may be wrong about, but I don't think that vehicle had anything to do with this crime... someone pulled over to text, kids getting out of hand in the back seat, something dropped on the floor.. any number of things.
I don't see a need for tools either. what tools? Maybe rope and a bic lighter to start the fire. Hard to carry her and rope maybe without the rope being placed there in advance, but there may not have been rope involve. Her hands could have been bound with his belt. or shoe laces.

Agree, no tools save for maybe torch, lighter or restraining device.

Wholly disagree though that a car parked right there at the scene in the narrow window of the crime is unrelated. Three reasons : One, statistically its just generally unlikely because people don't pull over THAT often. I bet you could drive down that road and 95% a time no one would be parked on the shoulder.

Secondly : don't you think by now if this person have been on that road on the day of the crime incidentally, and had parked there in their black SUV, that they would have come forward to explain to the police why they were parked there if they had an innocent reason.

Thirdly, if this person was just an innocent Parker right at that spot, it seems like they would quite possibly have been a key witness and seen something. It would be lottery-winning odds that someone was parked there at that time and was not connected to the crime, in my opinion.

 

[ThinkHard]

It has been assumed that DNA was found on VM, but never confirmed, unlike the KV case.
The reason it was assumed, was because LE confirmed it was a male. Although I agree that it is more that likely LE does have the DNA, there are other ways to narrow it down to him being a male. Law of average says it was a male. He could have dropped a males watch, or glasses, or they may have a size 13 foot print etc.
Not positive his face was scratched or cut up either. If she did get his DNA under her fingernails, it could have come from his back,or his arm.
All not likely, but possible.

LE has given us very very very little info...but it seems most pieces they have given us you have decided to say or assume isn't real anyway...and I'm not sure how that is helping us here.

Personally I think LE has chosen what to tell us carefully and intentionally. So when LE says the perp was male and he likely had s scratches, or that he drove a dark SUV....things right from LE....you seem to just want to write them off as inconsequential or inaccurate....and I am not really understanding why.

But I think we have to all be at least be in agreement that while what LE has said might not be the whole story...I seriously don't think they have deliberately given us false information.

I guess I am just not sure how helpful it is to continue to pursue theories that directly conflict with FACTS LE has stated. JMO

 

[ForensicMass]

Does crohns cause nausea? Could she have gotten sick to her stomach and gone into the woods to vomit?

No one goes 100' into woods to vomit, maybe 3'. She didn't walk in there to pee or watch birds. She either ran in there in desperation or was forced there. We know that she took self-defense classes. One Of the first things they explain to you in these classes, is that the last thing you ever want to do is allow someone to put you in a vehicle or remove you from the scene. Chances of survival in an event like this decrease hugely if you are put into a vehicle. She knew this.

So if this guy was in a vehicle as has been reported by law-enforcement she either ran away from him into the woods or he forced her into the woods. But if he forced her into the woods that would imply that that was his initial plan, which in turn would imply that he planned to leave his vehicle along the side of the road where it could be seen.

Most likely this guy was trying to get her away from this place and failed.

 

[ThinkHard]

Still throwing out the torch theory. Who does a 4 foot long + test burn on a log, on multiple logs?
Once the torch is lit, it is at full temp, why a test burn?

Someone who enjoys playing with fire.

 

[ForensicMass]

LE has given us very very very little info...but it seems most pieces they have given us you have decided to say or assume isn't real anyway...and I'm not sure how that is helping us here.

Personally I think LE has chosen what to tell us carefully and intentionally. So when LE says the perp was male and he likely had s scratches, or that he drove a dark SUV....things right from LE....you seem to just want to write them off as inconsequential or inaccurate....and I am not really understanding why.

But I think we have to all be at least be in agreement that while what LE has said might not be the whole story...I seriously don't think they have deliberately given us false information.

I guess I am just not sure how helpful it is to continue to pursue theories that directly conflict with FACTS LE has stated. JMO

I am on the same page. Dark SUV is involved. Killer is a male.

One thing that doesn't quite fit for me though is that LE also alluded to the fact that the killer was familiar with the area. Would like to go back and review their exact wording on this- They make a declarative statement or do they say "we believe". If they made a declarative statement that means they know something that proves the killer was aware of the area/cart path etc. That doesn't jive too well with leaving a car on BSR, a behavior that would seem to be only conducted by someone who didn't know where to hide a car or didn't have another means of committing the crime without a vehicle.

But for the purposes of advancing the case I certainly think the facts as shared by LE are just that! Facts!

 

[ForensicMass]

Someone who enjoys playing with fire.

I never saw anything about a 4' test burn. Small circular Burns at a height of approximately two or 3 feet on a vertical half dead tree looked to me like they could be test burns. that doesn't mean that the torch wasn't then used to put fire to the victim and the ground around her which lead to additional burns to the surrounding ground and downed branches and trees.

 

[Rocky1]

LE has given us very very very little info...but it seems most pieces they have given us you have decided to say or assume isn't real anyway...and I'm not sure how that is helping us here.

Personally I think LE has chosen what to tell us carefully and intentionally. So when LE says the perp was male and he likely had s scratches, or that he drove a dark SUV....things right from LE....you seem to just want to write them off as inconsequential or inaccurate....and I am not really understanding why.

But I think we have to all be at least be in agreement that while what LE has said might not be the whole story...I seriously don't think they have deliberately given us false information.

I guess I am just not sure how helpful it is to continue to pursue theories that directly conflict with FACTS LE has stated. JMO

When did I say that I don't believe LE believes there was an SUV parked along BSR?
When did I say I don't believe the perp has scratches?

 

[ForensicMass]

When did I say that I don't believe LE believes there was an SUV parked along BSR?
When did I say I don't believe the perp has scratches?

It's that you think the LE is mistaken about the importance of the SUV. People have been dedicating thousands of collective hours to figuring this out.

 

[ThinkHard]

The Princeton Worcester connection (both ways) is certainly intriguing. Person you describe sounds like a good candidate. Where were they on the day? See if you can figure it out !

OK I understand you don't think she ran into the woods. What is your highest ranking Theory on how she got to be 100' in the woods in the "killer with car on BSR" scenario?

I don't know but one theory I lean too is that whoever killed her that day was trying to meat with her but not murderer her. Perhaps he happen to be driving by and spotted her, pulled over...maybe they talked perhaps they pulled over there...it was hot she could have gotten in the car because it had AC...perhaps they talked there perhaps they drove somewhere else. When I use to come home from grad school some of my guy friends would come pick me up and we'd go find one of these spots to sit and talk and smoke weed. Not suggesting she was smoking...just saying I don't find it that weird to hang out in a car on the side of the road to have a conversation with someone, especially when you live at home with your parents....anyway....say things escalated and he snapped...she's dead and he now has to figure out how to cover his tracks...so he stages it to look like a random crime of opportunity...he tries to make it look like the work of a deranged serial killer but with only a Hollywood idea of crimes.

This theory could explain why he wouldn't have been concerned about his car being seen ...because he didn't realize he was going to commit murder...

He returns her to that spot because it gives him sort of a place to hide her and lines of sight to know he could get her out of the car and down the path without being spotted.

 

[ForensicMass]

I agree the SUV is difficult to fit into the logistics of this case. To me that suggests that we are just missing something. What are we missing ?!

 

[Rocky1]

Agree, no tools save for maybe torch, lighter or restraining device.

Wholly disagree though that a car parked right there at the scene in the narrow window of the crime is unrelated. Three reasons : One, statistically its just generally unlikely because people don't pull over THAT often. I bet you could drive down that road and 95% a time no one would be parked on the shoulder.

Secondly : don't you think by now if this person have been on that road on the day of the crime incidentally, and had parked there in their black SUV, that they would have come forward to explain to the police why they were parked there if they had an innocent reason.

Thirdly, if this person was just an innocent Parker right at that spot, it seems like they would quite possibly have been a key witness and seen something. It would be lottery-winning odds that someone was parked there at that time and was not connected to the crime, in my opinion.

#1 I maybe wrong about the SUV, for the reasons stated before, to me it doesn't fit.
#2 The person that may have pulled over, may not be from the area, and may not know a crime happened.
3# Maybe, but if he/she wasn't looking for that, maybe not, and also they may not have pulled over at the exact spot.

 

[ThinkHard]

No one goes 100' into woods to vomit, maybe 3'. She didn't walk in there to pee or watch birds. She either ran in there in desperation or was forced there. We know that she took self-defense classes. One Of the first things they explain to you in these classes, is that the last thing you ever want to do is allow someone to put you in a vehicle or remove you from the scene. Chances of survival in an event like this decrease hugely if you are put into a vehicle. She knew this.

So if this guy was in a vehicle as has been reported by law-enforcement she either ran away from him into the woods or he forced her into the woods. But if he forced her into the woods that would imply that that was his initial plan, which in turn would imply that he planned to leave his vehicle along the side of the road where it could be seen.

Most likely this guy was trying to get her away from this place and failed.

We do not know she took self defense classes we know she sent one tweet about a self defense class...no indication by the class givers themselves though that she actually went to self defense class.

 

[Rocky1]

It's that you think the LE is mistaken about the importance of the SUV. People have been dedicating thousands of collective hours to figuring this out.

I agree, and LE still hasn't said for sure if that SUV was involved. Just that it was parked on the road.

 

[ThinkHard]

I am on the same page. Dark SUV is involved. Killer is a male.

One thing that doesn't quite fit for me though is that LE also alluded to the fact that the killer was familiar with the area. Would like to go back and review their exact wording on this- They make a declarative statement or do they say "we believe". If they made a declarative statement that means they know something that proves the killer was aware of the area/cart path etc. That doesn't jive too well with leaving a car on BSR, a behavior that would seem to be only conducted by someone who didn't know where to hide a car or didn't have another means of committing the crime without a vehicle.

But for the purposes of advancing the case I certainly think the facts as shared by LE are just that! Facts!

Cars are parked quite frequently on the side of road where little paths head into the woods, i see them all the time and never think anything of it. If the person is local they might have the same idea too, such a sighting is just so normal it wouldn't really grab anyone's attention.

 

[ThinkHard]

When did I say that I don't believe LE believes there was an SUV parked along BSR?
When did I say I don't believe the perp has scratches?

You have said you do not believe a car was involved and have insisted it couldn't possible be a car but would have to be a bycicle.

And you have also said you aren't convinced the perp is male and that you aren't convinced his face was scratched.

Despite LE saying the perp had access to a dark SUV that day, the perp was male, and that the perp had scratches Andy likely an eye injury.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but continuing to question the gender and the involvement of an SUV seems to be in direct conflict with the facts LE has given. And I'm just not sure how exploring theories that outright deny the facts is helpful.

 

[Rocky1]

I am on the same page. Dark SUV is involved. Killer is a male.

One thing that doesn't quite fit for me though is that LE also alluded to the fact that the killer was familiar with the area. Would like to go back and review their exact wording on this- They make a declarative statement or do they say "we believe". If they made a declarative statement that means they know something that proves the killer was aware of the area/cart path etc. That doesn't jive too well with leaving a car on BSR, a behavior that would seem to be only conducted by someone who didn't know where to hide a car or didn't have another means of committing the crime without a vehicle.

But for the purposes of advancing the case I certainly think the facts as shared by LE are just that! Facts!

More than one "expert" has said He is familiar with the area and is a local. So,if that is the case,why the car? After thousands of hours are they wrong about him being local?

 

[ThinkHard]

#1 I maybe wrong about the SUV, for the reasons stated before, to me it doesn't fit.
#2 The person that may have pulled over, may not be from the area, and may not know a crime happened.
3# Maybe, but if he/she wasn't looking for that, maybe not, and also they may not have pulled over at the exact spot.

The statement on the SUV though didn't just say they saw a dark SUV at that spot at that time....it asked for info on any males in the area that would have had access to a dark SUV that day....to me that is saying that are connecting a dark SUV in a much much much bigger way then just someone seeing it on the side of the road for a brief period of time.

I think LE has conclusive reason for knowing the perp was driving around Princeton in a dark SUV on Sunday Aug 7.

I don't find continuing to dismiss this helpful, I find it actually harmful. When we stick to one theory and evidence comes forward that conflicts with our theory perhaps it's not the info that is incorrect but the theory being clung to despite conflicting info that needs to be reassessed..

.I guess I don't understand why you don't look at the facts and say what makes sense given the facts....rather then well I think this theory should fit so I will just dismiss any facts that don't support it. But perhaps that's just me.

 

[ThinkHard]

More than one "expert" has said He is familiar with the area and is a local. So,if that is the case,why the car? After thousands of hours are they wrong about him being local?

Why would being local make him not need a car? He could be a town resident but live on the other side of town, he could be a former resident...I mean local doesn't mean walkable.

 

[ForensicMass]

I don't know but one theory I lean too is that whoever killed her that day was trying to meat with her but not murderer her. Perhaps he happen to be driving by and spotted her, pulled over...maybe they talked perhaps they pulled over there...it was hot she could have gotten in the car because it had AC...perhaps they talked there perhaps they drove somewhere else. When I use to come home from grad school some of my guy friends would come pick me up and we'd go find one of these spots to sit and talk and smoke weed. Not suggesting she was smoking...just saying I don't find it that weird to hang out in a car on the side of the road to have a conversation with someone, especially when you live at home with your parents....anyway....say things escalated and he snapped...she's dead and he now has to figure out how to cover his tracks...so he stages it to look like a random crime of opportunity...he tries to make it look like the work of a deranged serial killer but with only a Hollywood idea of crimes.

This theory could explain why he wouldn't have been concerned about his car being seen ...because he didn't realize he was going to commit murder...

He returns her to that spot because it gives him sort of a place to hide her and lines of sight to know he could get her out of the car and down the path without being spotted.

All of that seems more likely to you than just a poor split-second decision by someone who was in a state of sheer terror?

I'm not saying that what you suggest is impossible, but it doesn't seem more probable.

I know exactly what you mean about her possibly hopping in the car with someone, but here's why I don't think that happened in this case:

If she did get in the car with someone it wasn't a plan to meet up because her electronic footprint would have revealed this by now to LE. ( Facebook chat, texts and cell phone).

So that leaves only the possibility of somebody driving by and happening upon her (maybe this person was a really good guesser, and he times it right somehow, which is unlikely and difficult in and of itself).

She has just left her moms only five minutes previous. (she is possibly seen walking and talking on the phone at this point by the witness) law-enforcement can easily figure out who was on the other end of that call. most likely that call ended normally. She continued walking.

Joe Schmoe from Leominster pulls up beside her. She hasn't seen the old Joe for a couple years maybe. Hey let's catch up, hop in.

At this point she either gets in or refuses.

Let's take the gets in route.

She could just stand there beside his vehicle and speak with him but let's say She gets in because he's in the AC
but he is in the road at this point with his foot on the brake.
He pulls over to the shoulder near the path. Likely more than one car drives by them while they are sitting there on the side of the road. somehow things go wrong and he kills her right along the road. He takes her out of the car and drags her back in the woods. His car has been there the whole time they were chatting, and now the additional time that he is in the woods with her. He knows people saw it there. If he kills her in the car, I think he drives elsewhere- NOT THAT FAR, because he has a body in his car, but he drives elsewhere in Princeton. To a more secluded place. And dumps her there.

If they drive off together, with her still alive, he does not try to throw the case by going back to the abduction/meeting scene. That is riskier than any other alternative in terms of him possibly being identified.


So I just can't see it