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

[Kickoff61]

I agree, Sticking to the facts is a good idea. Stories grow wings rather quick, and the way something is said, means a lot. It may not be hard to weigh through it all here if someone is keeping up on the threads, but, for someone that just checks in every so often, they may read something that doesn't have "IMO," or "JMO," or "I could be wrong but.." after it, and read it as a fact. I'll give a few examples.
LE stated this.

Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr. said Wednesday police are seeking a dark-colored SUV seen by witnesses parked on Brooks Station Road around the time Marcotte was killed. It was parked near where the woman’s body was found, Early said. No further details of the SUV have been provided.

That story has now grown here that it is a fact that that SUV was involved in this murder, when LE has not said that, and somehow everyone is supposed to put the blinders on, and only focus on that. Nothing could be further from the truth.
LE may just be trying to following up on a clue that may have nothing at all to do with this.
www.cbsnews.com/news/vanessa-marcotte-cops-search-for-suv-in-case-of-jogger-slain-in-massachusetts/

We have been discussing her jogging/walking and her routine. I will use your posts as an example. Don't take it wrong because I know everyone is thinking things out loud and may post just a thought, and we all do it, so not pointing fingers by any means.

Although it was in the high 80s that day, Data showing her walking in hot weather and not jogging, your own experience that it's not fun running in weather that hot, because it is oppressive, followed by your last post, saying that she may not have always ran before her return trip home to NY, is now fact that she was "definitely wearing jogging clothes and jogging that day," reading a few of your previous posts.
I know you typed that because you believe that to be true and were posting your opinion, but because there was no "IMO" etc, someone new may read that into being a fact.
MSM does the same thing, so it's not just here, and by no means am I trying to be the hall monitor.
We all have our theory, and I think it's great to throw them out here, and I also know that us as people tend to put the blinders on the more focused we become on one thought.

Good points Rocky.

 

[Kickoff61]

Someone's behavior can change not only over time , a year, 6 months due to factors, but even hours or within minutes. Someone can be running a planned route and not feel well, stop , turn around change behavior for numerous reasons. There is no way to assume or pinpoint actions of someone with any certainty without being there. Without witness accounts, photos, evidence, family speaking, etc, God knows what she was wearing as well.

 

[Sheila Terranova]

Aren't most of these serial killer types mad because they can't get attention from girls? The guy in your scenario sounds like a player who can rack up notches in the bedpost so to speak. If he's that suave and he's getting attention from women he must only be motivated by power and not sex.

I agree with you, Forensic Mass. Also imho if you pick up a girl in a bar you get caught. Witnesses galore. Just my take.

 

[Kickoff61]

I think the speculation is running wild here, without the facts being known and that can get into some really rough water. I have tried to say that nothing can fully be determined speculating without facts to speculate (piece together). There is too much lacking for any certainty.

 

[ForensicMass]

No one said LE stated that is fact. I can't speak for others but I can tell you what I said and that is that I personally believe that because LE has given us so little info AND because they waiting 4 month to release that info...that they did not do so lightly...that that info was thoroughly vetted and that I feel we should take that to mean LE has very very strong evidence that a dark SUV was involved.

To me it's ridiculous to say it could have really been a police vehicle, or just coincidently parked...they waited three months...they clearly vetted this info very carefully before making it public and their reason for doing so were obviously deliberate.

Pointing out facts and emphasizing why I think we should keep them in mind is hardly the same thing as saying that LE has stated the SUV was in fact involved.

Have to say, Rocky you make some good points here. But with respect to the tip, I do think the police feel extremely confident that it is involved. Obviously they don't necessarily know that for fact but the strength of their assertion that it is involved lead them to ask us about it. I think that's about as strong and indicator to us as we have with any actual facts in the case.

You're definitely right technically, that it is not an absolute FACT that the SUV is involved. But it is SO likely, that we have to treat it as a truth and see where that leads.

Same I believe is true for many pieces of evidence in the case.

To Me it is certainly bizarre that she stopped tracking her runs publicly immediately after running that same stretch of BSR, and, in fact, turning around at the intersection and heading back home even though her other routes were longer and did not do this. Yes, it could well be coincidence. Or there could be something there. To me, that is several out of the ordinary things occurring at once, and that gets my attention. A shorter out and back route versus the usual longer loop, then a change in the privacy settings before her next run. ODD. IMO

 

[Rocky1]

Absolutely not. But I can make an educated guess about what type of clothes she would have worn to dinner just the same. The clothing is context based. A trip to the store to hydrate within a half hour or hour of a run on a hot day, to me that can be grouped with the event. In fact, given her known passion for yoga. She likely stretched before her run, perhaps even before the trip to the store. So yes, exercise clothing is highly appropriate and likely at that time IMO. Similarly exercise clothing is completely inappropriate for dinner at the chophouse and I can guarantee you she wasn't wearing it (IMO)

So after the reasons you gave as to why she wouldn't run that day, you think she went running? I am not saying she didn't, but why do you think she did?

 

[ForensicMass]

So after the reasons you gave as to why she wouldn't run that day, you think she went running? I am not saying she didn't, but why do you think she did?

She would be wearing running clothes even if out for a "walk". The point is to get your body moving to the degree that conditions allow. My girlfriend does the exact same thing. And if she goes to the gym she still wears what I am referring to as "running clothes" even if her intention is to lift a few 10 pound weights and then go home. I think you are getting a little too hung up on the word "running". Workout clothing is like multibillion dollar industry these days. It is highly unlikely that she would be wearing khaki shorts. Running shorts, or workout shorts if we should call them that, are far more comfortable to be in if you are physically active, especially if it's hot. Plus they give you a chance to show off the body that you have been working so hard for, which is half the reason people work out in the first place. JMO

 

[Kickoff61]

I am confused at what the issue is with her clothes. What is this trying to prove?

 

[Kickoff61]

I think what Rocky is trying to point out is contradictions. Contradictions can be very confusing as well.

 

[Rocky1]

No one said LE stated that is fact. I can't speak for others but I can tell you what I said and that is that I personally believe that because LE has given us so little info AND because they waiting 4 month to release that info...that they did not do so lightly...that that info was thoroughly vetted and that I feel we should take that to mean LE has very very strong evidence that a dark SUV was involved.

To me it's ridiculous to say it could have really been a police vehicle, or just coincidently parked...they waited three months...they clearly vetted this info very carefully before making it public and their reason for doing so were obviously deliberate.

Pointing out facts and emphasizing why I think we should keep them in mind is hardly the same thing as saying that LE has stated the SUV was in fact involved.

Right.. never said anyone here said that LE said it was fact.
I also never said the SUV isn't involved.
I do believe it was vetted, and I do believe as I said before, that, many people saw an SUV parked there that day.
I also doubt that everyone rode by, looked at their watch and logged the time, so yes I do believe that being that LE showed up so quickly, some may have got the time wrong. Eye witnesses are not always right. How many people saw this SUV?,It could have been two.
I also don't think it's ridiculous to have a car pull over on a road for a minute. I can give you a whole list of reasons why someone may do that.
And I agree, I think we should keep every idea in mind, as long as we don't call them facts.

 

[ThinkHard]

Let me guess, Wikipedia? You get the point about the wealth. Those stats vary depending on your source and definition of wealth. Per capita income is one comparitive measure.

Milford is a bit of a tale of two cities. On One side, apparently near where this attack reportedly happened, It is beside Holliston, which is considerbly wealthy. In fact it's weathier than Princeton by a good margin. Much area within these towns remains undeveloped, and many houses have large lots like Princeton.

I'm familiar with the towns, I just don't consider Milford near Sherborne anymore then I'd consider Princeton near Sturbridge...so I guess I just don't see how statistics about Dover /Sherborne, apply to a crime in Milford. Or how Milford compares to Princeton...just seems like a stretch to tie Milford to Princeton via Sherborn/Dover. Perhaps I missed something.

 

[ThinkHard]

Absolutely not. But I can make an educated guess about what type of clothes she would have worn to dinner just the same. The clothing is context based. A trip to the store to hydrate within a half hour or hour of a run on a hot day, to me that can be grouped with the event. In fact, given her known passion for yoga. She likely stretched before her run, perhaps even before the trip to the store. So yes, exercise clothing is highly appropriate and likely at that time IMO. Similarly exercise clothing is completely inappropriate for dinner at the chophouse and I can guarantee you she wasn't wearing it (IMO)

I think regarding wearing work out clothes to the store it's really a hot of 50/50 given the time gap btw the store errand and her run time, and the distance btw the store and her moms. She could have dressed an hour or so before her run or she could have changed btw the store errand and the run. I don't think we really have any indication of what she would have been more likely to do. But I do think when she set out on her run it's reasonable to assume she was wearing athletic clothing.

 

[ForensicMass]

I think what Rocky is trying to point out is contradictions. Contradictions can be very confusing as well.

He's trying to demonstrate that while at the store, she was in "walking" clothes not "running" clothes.

 

[ForensicMass]

I'm familiar with the towns, I just don't consider Milford near Sherborne anymore then I'd consider Princeton near Sturbridge...so I guess I just don't see how statistics about Dover /Sherborne, apply to a crime in Milford. Or how Milford compares to Princeton...just seems like a stretch to tie Milford to Princeton via Sherborn/Dover. Perhaps I missed something.

This attack happened by the holliston line, this town neighbors the others mentioned, but most people don't know the town of Holliston. Holliston is wealthy and has large house lots and much wooded land. Neighboring towns are wealthy and do not typically see this type of crime. And it's Sherborn, no e at the end.

 

[ThinkHard]

I agree with you, Forensic Mass. Also imho if you pick up a girl in a bar you get caught. Witnesses galore. Just my take.

Yes but if you just give her your number by typing it in yourself but really install an app to track her....and don't actually take her home that night...then all you were was some random guy in a bar a few weeks or months prior....meaning minimal to no chance of witnesses.

 

[ThinkHard]

Right.. never said anyone here said that LE said it was fact.
I also never said the SUV isn't involved.
I do believe it was vetted, and I do believe as I said before, that, many people saw an SUV parked there that day.
I also doubt that everyone rode by, looked at their watch and logged the time, so yes I do believe that being that LE showed up so quickly, some may have got the time wrong. Eye witnesses are not always right. How many people saw this SUV?,It could have been two.
I also don't think it's ridiculous to have a car pull over on a road for a minute. I can give you a whole list of reasons why someone may do that.
And I agree, I think we should keep every idea in mind, as long as we don't call them facts.

You don't think LE thought of those exact same questions and issues and worked through them? I certainly do...so I don't take what they chose to selectively release three months later as some error in witness statement. It sort of feels like you aren't given LE enough credit.

If they had let a lot slip all along I can see questioning what they release this way...but in this case they have kept so much close...I think it puts more weight on what they do tell us.

 

[ThinkHard]

This attack happened by the holliston line, this town neighbors the others mentioned, but most people don't know the town of Holliston. Holliston is wealthy and has large house lots and much wooded land. Neighboring towns are wealthy and do not typically see this type of crime. And it's Sherborn, no e at the end.

It's also right off two major highways and rt 9, making it far more traveled.

 

[Rocky1]

Have to say, Rocky you make some good points here. But with respect to the tip, I do think the police feel extremely confident that it is involved. Obviously they don't necessarily know that for fact but the strength of their assertion that it is involved lead them to ask us about it. I think that's about as strong and indicator to us as we have with any actual facts in the case.

You're definitely right technically, that it is not an absolute FACT that the SUV is involved. But it is SO likely, that we have to treat it as a truth and see where that leads.

Same I believe is true for many pieces of evidence in the case.

To Me it is certainly bizarre that she stopped tracking her runs publicly immediately after running that same stretch of BSR, and, in fact, turning around at the intersection and heading back home even though her other routes were longer and did not do this. Yes, it could well be coincidence. Or there could be something there. To me, that is several out of the ordinary things occurring at once, and that gets my attention. A shorter out and back route versus the usual longer loop, then a change in the privacy settings before her next run. ODD. IMO

Fair enough. I am open to the SUV theory.
If he was driving that day, where does he live? in that area? If so, why take the car?
Why would he take the chance of being caught with his car parked there the whole time?
Most seem to thing this wasn't random. Why the poor plan?
If he was in a car, and doesn't live near her house, how did he know her routine, if this wasn't random and it was planned?
If we believe someone saw her at the store, for a few minutes, followed her back to her house in his car, how did that happen? Think shewas on foot when she went to the store?
If not, did he follow in a car she was driving, and where did he wait for her to start her run/walk?

 

[ForensicMass]

Yes but if you just give her your number by typing it in yourself but really install an app to track her....and don't actually take her home that night...then all you were was some random guy in a bar a few weeks or months prior....meaning minimal to no chance of witnesses.

This is really really really a stretch. I mean that approach is SO PARTICULAR. I'm not aware of how that could be done discretely for a couple of reasons. In order to download an application you have to sign into the App Store on the phone.

Furthermore,people are very protective of their phones. If a girl Hands a "random" guy her phone, he isn't going to have a lot of "private" time with the phone to commit that act, even if he somehow has her login password for the App Store. She is going to pay close attention to what he is doing, as she undoubtedly has private things on there. He isn't going to have the freedom to just start messing around with a relative strangers phone, IMO.

This seems soooo much further far fetched than using actual data from Vanessa, IMO.

 

[Rocky1]

You don't think LE thought of those exact same questions and issues and worked through them? I certainly do...so I don't take what they chose to selectively release three months later as some error in witness statement. It sort of feels like you aren't given LE enough credit.

If they had let a lot slip all along I can see questioning what they release this way...but in this case they have kept so much close...I think it puts more weight on what they do tell us.

I give LE all the credit in the world.
I also think they don't have much to go on, and that certainly isn't their fault . I think the SUV clue is worth elaborating on, to them, no doubt. I don't think they let a lot slip, because I don't think they had a lot from the start.
If they are so sure about the SUV, then tell me why they are doing a DNA dragnet, and not just taking DNA from those that drive a dark SUV?