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

[ForensicMass]

You are right there. Things can't be dismissed because too little is known . Not enough facts.

I have to weigh in on this. I am constantly seeing this quote on this website. That things cannot be dismissed because we don't have enough facts. While it is true that the facts are the facts and what we are doing is purely speculating, that's what this whole investigative process is all about. It is an exercise in probability. We can't say that anything is impossible but we can say whether it was probable or extremely probable. This is in fact how deductive reasoning works and it is how the facts become known. You always have to start with very little or nothing. And you expand the possibilities based on probability.

We can rule things out beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have ruled out that she was abducted by aliens. We have ruled out that she actually committed suicide with the help of old Joe from town because she hated her dream job at Google and thought it paid too much.

If you opened up a puzzle box and dumped out the contents, you couldn't be certain in the beginning whether each puzzle piece in the box actually went to that puzzle or got mixed up from some other puzzle. As you start to build the puzzle your ability to discriminate against the foreign puzzle pieces improves. If there was also a domino in the box, or a cheez-it, you could rule it out immediately- even though you don't know whether all the pieces are there or whether the rest of the pieces fit together. You can remove things from the equation based on extremely low probability.

The idea that this was a pre-arranged meeting with someone, that's a cheez-it. The idea that someone would go back to the abduction scene to dump the body as part of a cover up, that's a cheez-it. That is literally about the worst place to go to bring the body. Pretty much any other place would be better.
The idea of that a killer followed her up here from New York, that's a cheez-it.

Don't get me wrong every one in 1 million times a cheez-it was the murderer. But the other 999,999 times the answer was much simpler than that. So you have to decide if you are for cheez-its or against them.

WE CAN IN FACT RULE THINGS OUT WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS.

 

[ForensicMass]

How do you explain how he knew her route, knew she's be out that day, and timed it right, if he was from out of town? I know you are trying to make the SUV fit here, as I am, but I am having trouble.
And yes I will dig up the quotes. I don't keep a notebook, so it will take a few

He would have had to follow her from the store one hour or less before she started running. If we are talking about somebody that stalks women, even more specifically, joggers, he might well be able to see that she is about to go running based on what she is wearing and the fact that she has not yet sweating, and The fact that she is hydrating. And the possibility that by luck he actually directly heard her reference something about running To the clerk or someone else, maybe even to him, who knows. But for an out-of-town her to know where she would be he would have had to have seen her at the store.
Similarly the best time for a local to learn that she was in town and about to run was also at the store. many of the different possibilities converge at the store, no matter where the perp was from.

 

[Kickoff61]

I disagree. There is speculation for a case like this, but speculation from the facts is what leads to the truth. I do not believe anything can be definite without the facts to back it up.

 

[Kickoff61]

I have to weigh in on this. I am constantly seeing this quote on this website. That things cannot be dismissed because we don't have enough facts. While it is true that the facts are the facts and what we are doing is purely speculating, that's what this whole investigative process is all about. It is an exercise in probability. We can't say that anything is impossible but we can say whether it was probable or extremely probable. This is in fact how deductive reasoning works and it is how the facts become known. You always have to start with very little or nothing. And you expand the possibilities based on probability.

We can rule things out beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have ruled out that she was abducted by aliens. We have ruled out that she actually committed suicide with the help of old Joe from town because she hated her dream job at Google and thought it paid too much.

If you opened up a puzzle box and dumped out the contents, you couldn't be certain in the beginning whether each puzzle piece in the box actually went to that puzzle or got mixed up from some other puzzle. As you start to build the puzzle your ability to discriminate against the foreign puzzle pieces improves. If there was also a domino in the box, or a cheez-it, you could rule it out immediately- even though you don't know whether all the pieces are there or whether the rest of the pieces fit together. You can remove things from the equation based on extremely low probability.

The idea that this was a pre-arranged meeting with someone, that's a cheez-it. The idea that someone would go back to the abduction scene to dump the body as part of a cover up, that's a cheez-it. That is literally about the worst place to go to bring the body. Pretty much any other place would be better.
The idea of that a killer followed her up here from New York, that's a cheez-it.

Don't get me wrong every one in 1 million times a cheez-it was the murderer. But the other 999,999 times the answer was much simpler than that. So you have to decide if you are for cheez-its or against them.

WE CAN IN FACT RULE THINGS OUT WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS.

The puzzle pieces are the facts. Speculation involved in solving this is based on facts. Ask... LE

 

[Kickoff61]

Let's see where the advanced testing leads that was mentioned by media...to get a facial photo from the DNA.

They have the means to solve this.

 

[ThinkHard]

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

Respectfully but just because we are not privy to an electronic footprint doesn't mean that one doesn't exist at all. It just means we aren't in the know to have that kind of information.

 

[ThinkHard]

If you looked at a 24 hour clock on BSR the fraction of time that someone is parked on the shoulder would be in the 98th percentile of improbability. I understand people park on the side of the road "all the time". The odds of someone parking there coincidentally at that exact moment when the crime was occurring in that exact place is astronomically small. on the Google street view image you can see that this is not a well-worn dirt pull off. Yes perhaps people have pulled off at the spot but not regularly by any means.

I think you missed my point...I was only pointing out that it wouldn't stand out to see a car parked on the side of the road.

I know you aren't meaning too, and perhaps it's my fault for not being more clear....but you are twisting my words in ways I am not intending them at all.

Above you have assumed I meant that the car could be anyone but that's not what I meant I just meant someone might not have been as concerned about hiding it, as a car on the side of the road wouldn't be something that stood out to a passing car. Not that a car would be there at that time not connected to the crime.

Also previously you twisted my scenario in a way I did not intend it either, I certainly do not think he killed her in his car on the side of BSR...but it seems futile to hash out the same thing all over again only to have it twisted around.

It also feels like you complete gaslighted my experience of being followed, emphasizing that your experience gave you better info on what she would or wouldn't do, making assumption after assumption which I corrected more then once.

I am not saying this stuff to argu or fight with you, but the way you are coming across I don't think is likely the way you are intending too, but it does feel a bit like you are twisting my words and moving forward I would kindly request you ask for clarity rather then just to make assumptions...please and thank you.

 

[ForensicMass]

Respectfully but just because we are not privy to an electronic footprint doesn't mean that one doesn't exist at all. It just means we aren't in the know to have that kind of information.

Yes, law-enforcement has continued to insinuate that they do not know if this crime was random. If they had an electronic footprint they would know whether the crime was random or the attack was by someone who knew her

 

[Rocky1]

What Was their exact wording? Did they say they think he is a local/familiar? Did they say out right he is. Can we get a couple of quotes up in here ?

I understand your dilemma it's my dilemma too. If he's a local I don't understand the car and vice versa.

http://www.**************/3674400/v...weighs-in-on-massachusetts-slain-jogger-case/[FONT=&quot]Most importantly, O’Toole says that she believes that the killer is still in the area, knows Princeton, and has gone back to his everyday life.
Here is one quote, There was another from a professor in criminaloloy from a boston college that said the same thing, if I remember right, but I can't find the link.
[/FONT]

 

[ThinkHard]

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



I did just reread that and you're correct. If you post on Twitter or Facebook to encourage people to go skiing, it's fair to infer that you yourself are a skier. I'll grant you that there is no proof she ever took such a class but it seems pretty likely. She obviously had done some kind of reading about self-defense or had some exposure to it to have posted something like that in the first place. The fact I gave about getting into the car with someone is literally on the first page of self-defense 101. Do a quick Google search on self-defense and abduction

There was an article with a quote from the people who ran the class and they said her name wasn't on the registration for the class. I have no idea what article it was though as it was very early on.

 

[Kickoff61]

I have to weigh in on this. I am constantly seeing this quote on this website. That things cannot be dismissed because we don't have enough facts. While it is true that the facts are the facts and what we are doing is purely speculating, that's what this whole investigative process is all about. It is an exercise in probability. We can't say that anything is impossible but we can say whether it was probable or extremely probable. This is in fact how deductive reasoning works and it is how the facts become known. You always have to start with very little or nothing. And you expand the possibilities based on probability.

We can rule things out beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have ruled out that she was abducted by aliens. We have ruled out that she actually committed suicide with the help of old Joe from town because she hated her dream job at Google and thought it paid too much.

If you opened up a puzzle box and dumped out the contents, you couldn't be certain in the beginning whether each puzzle piece in the box actually went to that puzzle or got mixed up from some other puzzle. As you start to build the puzzle your ability to discriminate against the foreign puzzle pieces improves. If there was also a domino in the box, or a cheez-it, you could rule it out immediately- even though you don't know whether all the pieces are there or whether the rest of the pieces fit together. You can remove things from the equation based on extremely low probability.

The idea that this was a pre-arranged meeting with someone, that's a cheez-it. The idea that someone would go back to the abduction scene to dump the body as part of a cover up, that's a cheez-it. That is literally about the worst place to go to bring the body. Pretty much any other place would be better.
The idea of that a killer followed her up here from New York, that's a cheez-it.

Don't get me wrong every one in 1 million times a cheez-it was the murderer. But the other 999,999 times the answer was much simpler than that. So you have to decide if you are for cheez-its or against them.

WE CAN IN FACT RULE THINGS OUT WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS.

I am not going to address the 'alien' example. However, the suicide was indeed ruled out by a fact. The FACT law enforcement reported it was a 'homicide' . This would be from their evaluation combined with medial examiner 'facts'.

I think you are missing my point. People can 'speculate' all day long , especially when there are so many options with nothing being ruled out by LE who have access to the evidence. But, an accurate definite answer comes from piecing together the facts and evidence.

 

[Rocky1]

If they

Yes, law-enforcement has continued to insinuate that they do not know if this crime was random. If they had an electronic footprint they would know whether the crime was random or the attack was by someone who knew her

If they had an electronic footprint, they would have had their man by now.

 

[ThinkHard]

So far there are 2 facts.One is he was a male. The other that people saw an SUV parked on BSR. Unless something has changed, they are trying to connect the two,but haven't yet.
It is not a fact that the perp was driving an SUV.
I haven't dismissed anything, and until more facts are given, it could have happened anyway. I am open to anything that makes sense.
Maybe you can explain why a local, that knows the area, would take his car and risk being caught?,

Well if he wasn't planning on killings her for one.

 

[ThinkHard]

Just throwing this out there but what if the SUV driver and perp aren't one and the same...but yet the police know SUV driver knows who perp is...say perhaps perp was on foot or on a bike and lived a bit away...if something happened and he killed VM either with intent or on impulse but she fought back....and he ends up with cuts .... so he calls a friend, a brother, and uncle, someone to come pick them up and weaves a story about some bike accident?

 

[ThinkHard]

I have to weigh in on this. I am constantly seeing this quote on this website. That things cannot be dismissed because we don't have enough facts. While it is true that the facts are the facts and what we are doing is purely speculating, that's what this whole investigative process is all about. It is an exercise in probability. We can't say that anything is impossible but we can say whether it was probable or extremely probable. This is in fact how deductive reasoning works and it is how the facts become known. You always have to start with very little or nothing. And you expand the possibilities based on probability.

We can rule things out beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have ruled out that she was abducted by aliens. We have ruled out that she actually committed suicide with the help of old Joe from town because she hated her dream job at Google and thought it paid too much.

If you opened up a puzzle box and dumped out the contents, you couldn't be certain in the beginning whether each puzzle piece in the box actually went to that puzzle or got mixed up from some other puzzle. As you start to build the puzzle your ability to discriminate against the foreign puzzle pieces improves. If there was also a domino in the box, or a cheez-it, you could rule it out immediately- even though you don't know whether all the pieces are there or whether the rest of the pieces fit together. You can remove things from the equation based on extremely low probability.

The idea that this was a pre-arranged meeting with someone, that's a cheez-it. The idea that someone would go back to the abduction scene to dump the body as part of a cover up, that's a cheez-it. That is literally about the worst place to go to bring the body. Pretty much any other place would be better.
The idea of that a killer followed her up here from New York, that's a cheez-it.

Don't get me wrong every one in 1 million times a cheez-it was the murderer. But the other 999,999 times the answer was much simpler than that. So you have to decide if you are for cheez-its or against them.

WE CAN IN FACT RULE THINGS OUT WITHOUT ALL THE FACTS.

Respectfully much of this is YOUR opinion not fact. What we deem important and what might turn out to be important aren't always in line.

 

[Rocky1]

Just throwing this out there but what if the SUV driver and perp aren't one and the same...but yet the police know SUV driver knows who perp is...say perhaps perp was on foot or on a bike and lived a bit away...if something happened and he killed VM either with intent or on impulse but she fought back....and he ends up with cuts .... so he calls a friend, a brother, and uncle, someone to come pick them up and weaves a story about some bike accident?

That's the only way I see an SUV involved. Two perps. I don't think the guy was dumb enough to park for that long, but maybe dropped off and picked up. If he used his phone, unless they are both burners, they are busted because I would think that LE has checked out every ping from those towers.

 

[ThinkHard]

Yes, law-enforcement has continued to insinuate that they do not know if this crime was random. If they had an electronic footprint they would know whether the crime was random or the attack was by someone who knew her

Can you recall the most recent time they emphasized that?

I'm fairly certain in hasn't been in a while, and I feel strongly that they do not believe it was random, but can't remember if that was from media reported stuff, or town chatter.

 

[ForensicMass]

I think you missed my point...I was only pointing out that it wouldn't stand out to see a car parked on the side of the road.

I know you aren't meaning too, and perhaps it's my fault for not being more clear....but you are twisting my words in ways I am not intending them at all.

Above you have assumed I meant that the car could be anyone but that's not what I meant I just meant someone might not have been as concerned about hiding it, as a car on the side of the road wouldn't be something that stood out to a passing car. Not that a car would be there at that time not connected to the crime.

Also previously you twisted my scenario in a way I did not intend it either, I certainly do not think he killed her in his car on the side of BSR...but it seems futile to hash out the same thing all over again only to have it twisted around.

It also feels like you complete gaslighted my experience of being followed, emphasizing that your experience gave you better info on what she would or wouldn't do, making assumption after assumption which I corrected more then once.

I am not saying this stuff to argu or fight with you, but the way you are coming across I don't think is likely the way you are intending too, but it does feel a bit like you are twisting my words and moving forward I would kindly request you ask for clarity rather then just to make assumptions...please and thank you.

Sorry, my thoughts on the car were actually related to an earlier post by Rocky on page 44 or so where they stated "they understand car was seen there but do not believe it was connected to this crime".

I uunderstand your perspective, the assertion that the perps car wouldn't have seemed out of the ordinary. Also, I wasn't twisting your scenario- I never suggested that anyone said she was murdered in the car I merely posted that as a hypothetical situation.

Regarding your scary personal abduction attempt, I didn't twist anything. I did think you meant that it occurred in a foreign country because you explicitly stated that you were living in a foreign country, and only clarified that you were home visiting after I pointed out that difference ( I understand it wasn't a true difference but I was not aware of that until you clarified that you were home in the states). Guess I was confused as to why it would matter where you were returning from?

By no means do I intend to weigh your experiences as less than mine. I am a relatively capable male weighing 185 pounds. I did once get assaulted and pickpocketed in Switzerland at a train station at 3 o'clock in the morning but I was never in fear of my life. I don't know what that feels like.

But even being a capable person when I was faced with a threat of just some bees I wasn't making careful or rational decisions I was just a vector, trying to get away from an attack.

You have to understand I am not the one who is writing off the possibility of her running into the woods, you are. I am in fact accepting your possibility that she might have run down the road, AND the alternate possibility that she might be in the woods because she ran there.

 

[ForensicMass]

If theyIf they had an electronic footprint, they would have had their man by now.

Agree. There was NOT an electronic connection between VM and the perp immediately preceding this crime.

 

[ForensicMass]

Respectfully much of this is YOUR opinion not fact. What we deem important and what might turn out to be important aren't always in line.

I know people think she could have been brought back. And it is purely my opinion that she was NOT returned to the site. Of course I could be wrong but there is no evidence to back this up whatsoever and generically it just doesn't make any sense for this to happen in any case. Show me another case where the victim was transported back to the area of the abduction. As far as I know there is no precedence for this whatsoever. I've never heard of this, not even in Hollywood.