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

[ThinkHard]

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.

If this scenario were possible the guy would have to. E incredibly tech savvy and very suave. It's a stretch but it certainly is a way that makes it possible for someone to track another person without being detected and know there precise locations at all times...something SM can't do.

I think it might be worth noting that she did in fact work for google...a tech company with its own gps software...so we can assume she worked with many tech savvy men...who perhaps would have even more opportunities to instal tracking on her phone.

Btw when I say app I don't mean one you need your apple password for , I mean coded secret type software, that can let someone access data on other persons phone remotely.

 

[ThinkHard]

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?

Why do you keep assuming local means walkable? I don't think local means he was in walking distance so why wouldn't a car come into play? Or am I misunderstanding?

The store is walkable but is further then north then she usually went so it would make walking there to get a drink for a later walk/run quite repetitive.

 

[ThinkHard]

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?

That's simple. As they said in their statement they aren't just interested in people who OWN dark SUV's they are intersted in anyone who would have even had access to one on that day...and figuring out who had access is a lot harder to prove.

btw I actually think LE does have a decent amount to go on, I think it's us as the public who does not. In my opinion I think they do have their sights on a perp but do not have enough to make it stick and are trying to collaborate information without compromising the case. And I think what they are asking the public help on is to help build their case.

 

[ForensicMass]

That's simple. As they said in their statement they aren't just interested in people who OWN dark SUV's they are intersted in anyone who would have even had access to one on that day...and figuring out who had access is a lot harder to prove.

btw I actually think LE does have a decent amount to go on, I think it's us as the public who does not. In my opinion I think they do have their sights on a perp but do not have enough to make it stick and are trying to collaborate information without compromising the case. And I think what they are asking the public help on is to help build their case.

You think they have someone in mind for this? I find that hard to believe but I REALLY hope you're right.

 

[ForensicMass]

Why do you keep assuming local means walkable? I don't think local means he was in walking distance so why wouldn't a car come into play? Or am I misunderstanding?

The store is walkable but is further then north then she usually went so it would make walking there to get a drink for a later walk/run quite repetitive.

I wrote a long, piece by piece response to rockys post and it got deleted before I could post it. So demoralizing. Maybe the universe is trying to tell me something.


The store is only 1.6 miles from her house. She sometimes ran 8 miles. So the statement that it was further north than she usually went is not correct. She easily could have walked, but I do agree that on that day, give the timeline, she would not have walked to the store to get a drink, then walked home (total 3.2 miles). Then less than an hour later, gone for a walk/run. Seems to me she drove.

Now regarding the store and someone's ability to follow her home. Parking for the store is in a dedicated adjacent lot. But there is also a wide shoulder with roadside parking spaces along hubbardston road in front of the store. It wouldn't be difficult for someone parked there, or in the small lot, for that matter, to "casually" exit the lot a couple hundred yards behind her, watch her make one turn onto BOYLSTON AVE, ontinue down BSR, and watch from some distance behind as she pulls into the very visible driveway at the home address.

 

[ForensicMass]

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

Totally. If it was somehow related to this crime I would expect that accessibility. It was a daytime blitz attack on a lone female jogger in a remote stretch in a relatively well to do area. I'm not saying I believe it is related, but it does catch my interest.

 

[ThinkHard]

I wrote a long, piece by piece response to rockys post and it got deleted before I could post it. So demoralizing. Maybe the universe is trying to tell me something.


The store is only 1.6 miles from her house. She sometimes ran 8 miles. So the statement that it was further north than she usually went is not correct. She easily could have walked, but I do agree that on that day, give the timeline, she would not have walked to the store to get a drink, then walked home (total 3.2 miles). Then less than an hour later, gone for a walk/run. Seems to me she drove.

Now regarding the store and someone's ability to follow her home. Parking for the store is in a dedicated adjacent lot. But there is also a wide shoulder with roadside parking spaces along hubbardston road in front of the store. It wouldn't be difficult for someone parked there, or in the small lot, for that matter, to "casually" exit the lot a couple hundred yards behind her, watch her make one turn onto BOYLSTON AVE, ontinue down BSR, and watch from some distance behind as she pulls into the very visible driveway at the home address.

I didn't say she didn't run as far as the store distance wise but except for when she ran part of the Mnt I don't believe her loops took her as far north as where the store is located...so walking past your regular running route to get a drink then walking back and then heading out again would have put her past the past 3 times and I just don't see her walking to the store coming home and then heading out for a run again in the same directions.

The thing is I don't see the rest of your scenario...I am very familiar with the market and am I there usually once a weekend as it's sort of a ritual...but I don't see him spotting her following her and then cruising around for an hour waiting for her to leave her moms house. And under your scenario he'd also have to have somewhat of a plan and be prepared. I just don't see it.

If the store is where he spotted her that day...I don't think creeping on her road was his approach...if he saw her I'd say he knew her and even spoke with her in or just outside that store in the parking lot.

 

[ForensicMass]

I didn't say she didn't run as far as the store distance wise but except for when she ran part of the Mnt I don't believe her loops took her as far north as where the store is located...so walking past your regular running route to get a drink then walking back and then heading out again would have put her past the past 3 times and I just don't see her walking to the store coming home and then heading out for a run again in the same directions.

Again, the main point here I agree with. She didn't walk to the store, then return home and then run an hour (or less) later. BUT to clarify for you- The only loop that did not go as far north as the store was the 6 mile loop which includes ball hill. The other runs which included RADFORD and BOYLSTON did extend north of the store- the store being on a crossroad (hubbardston road) that bisected these loops. It would not be accurate to say the store was further north than she typically ran, based on the available mapped routes.

 

[Rocky1]

That's simple. As they said in their statement they aren't just interested in people who OWN dark SUV's they are intersted in anyone who would have even had access to one on that day...and figuring out who had access is a lot harder to prove.

btw I actually think LE does have a decent amount to go on, I think it's us as the public who does not. In my opinion I think they do have their sights on a perp but do not have enough to make it stick and are trying to collaborate information without compromising the case. And I think what they are asking the public help on is to help build their case.

I know you think they had someone in mind from the beginning, but, yet they are releasing new clues, asking the public for help seeking out an SUV, months later along with doing a DNA dragnet? Why the waste of time and resources? Don't you think if they are that sure, they would know if he has access to an SUV?

 

[ThinkHard]

Totally. If it was somehow related to this crime I would expect that accessibility. It was a daytime blitz attack on a lone female jogger in a remote stretch in a relatively well to do area. I'm not saying I believe it is related, but it does catch my interest.

I'm confused though, Princeton doesn't have good accessibility so how are you making a connection based on accessibility when one town has a lot and one town has none.

 

[ForensicMass]

I know you think they had someone in mind from the beginning, but, yet they are releasing new clues, asking the public for help seeking out an SUV, months later along with doing a DNA dragnet? Why the waste of time and resources? Don't you think if they are that sure, they would know if he has access to an SUV?

I had same thoughts. But I don't want to seem like a pessimist/antagonist.

 

[ThinkHard]

Again, the main point here I agree with. She didn't walk to the store, then return home and then run an hour (or less) later. BUT to clarify for you- The only loop that did not go as far north as the store was the 6 mile loop which includes ball hill. The other runs which included RADFORD and BOYLSTON did extend north of the store- the store being on a crossroad (hubbardston road) that bisected these loops. It would not be accurate to say the store was further north than she typically ran, based on the available mapped routes.

I'm sorry but I think you are confused about the layout of the roads. Boylston Rd does not go north of the store..and hubbardston road runs to the west of it...neither run north of where the store is. Radford also cuts up into it west of the store by not north of it.

The point is to run past the cart path and to get to the store would take her the same direction...meaning walking to the store and back and then setting out on a run/walk in that same direction would be highly repetitive and would make no sense.

 

[ForensicMass]

I'm confused though, Princeton doesn't have good accessibility so how are you making a connection based on accessibility when one town has a lot and one town has none.

He doesn't live over there if we are to believe he is local to Princeton area. And he has to have a way to get there? Again, not saying these crimes are related, but there are certainly similarities. The MO of the attack looks like it could fit Princeton:

-Lone female jogger target
-Wooded area
-Not in the ghetto
-Apparently Not a robbery attempt (joggers are generally bad targets, the valuables are always in the car!)
-drivable (so, local in a serial killer sense)
-(larger) male attacker
-broad daylight attack in area with potential witnesses

Also, one thing that hasn't been discussed here- this perp apparently did not have a firearm. At least not on him. I considered that one might have been used to force her down the path but then I decided he would have used it over strangling. Then I thought perhaps a fake firearm could have been used to intimidate her. But what does lack of actual Firearm tell us? I suppose there is always the off chance that she was in fact shot but LE hasn't released it. And we didn't hear or anyone hearing a shot.

 

[ThinkHard]

I know you think they had someone in mind from the beginning, but, yet they are releasing new clues, asking the public for help seeking out an SUV, months later along with doing a DNA dragnet? Why the waste of time and resources? Don't you think if they are that sure, they would know if he has access to an SUV?

Maybe they think he had help.

 

[ForensicMass]

I'm sorry but I think you are confused about the layout of the roads. Boylston Rd does not go north of the store..and hubbardston road runs to the west of it...neither run north of where the store is. Radford also cuts up into it west of the store by not north of it.

The point is to run past the cart path and to get to the store would take her the same direction...meaning walking to the store and back and then setting out on a run/walk in that same direction would be highly repetitive and would make no sense.

I am not confused about the layout of the roads I have been staring at the maps and road running routes for days. And you have to be aware of that fact since honestly I wont **** up about it. Lol. Not to mention I have been there. Give Me a little bit of credit.

She ran loops which included Boylston Road to Mountain Road to ALLEN HILL ROAD to Radford Road. Each of her loops, with the exception of the ball Hill Road loop, brought her to points north of the store as I have already stated twice. Check the maps.

You're correct in your assertion that she would have to pass the cart path and that the store would be a redundant trip. AND I AGREE. SHE DROVE TO THE STORE. IMO
BUT
Again for the sake of accurate information . And to set the record straight, HER RUNS BROUGHT HER TO POINTS NORTH OF THE STORE. she ran variations of a loop which extend to points north of the store.
(I am looking at the map of her routes right now).

 

[ForensicMass]

With respect to a firearm. Does It seem to anyone else that someone with this kind of propensity for violence would own one? What would be the reasons they didn't have one, or seemingly didn't have one on them?

Too young?
Prior convictions? (would seem DNA would be in system of this we're the case)
Left it home? This would Point toward not planned at the time he left his house that day.

Maybe he doesn't like guns?

Just a new topic to discuss, if anyone has any thoughts on it.

 

[Rocky1]

I had same thoughts. But I don't want to seem like a pessimist/antagonist.

I don't think that's being a pessimist/antagonist. I think it's a valid question.

 

[ThinkHard]

I am not confused about the layout of the roads I have been staring at the maps and road running routes for days. And you have to be aware of that fact since honestly I wont **** up about it. Lol. Not to mention I have been there. Give Me a little bit of credit.

She ran loops which included Boylston Road to Mountain Road to ALLEN HILL ROAD to Radford Road. Each of her loops, with the exception of the ball Hill Road loop, brought her to points north of the store as I have already stated twice. Check the maps.

You're correct in your assertion that she would have to pass the cart path and that the store would be a redundant trip. AND I AGREE. SHE DROVE TO THE STORE. IMO
BUT
Again for the sake of accurate information . And to set the record straight, HER RUNS BROUGHT HER TO POINTS NORTH OF THE STORE. she ran variations of a loop which extend to points north of the store.
(I am looking at the map of her routes right now).

I know you have said you have been to town a few times over the past decade but this is literally where I was born and raised and is practically my backyard. I grew up skiing at the mountain weekday night my whole life, gone for Sunday morning breakfast, door to door my parents house is less the 4 miles from the crime scene. The only road that runs north is Allen Hill...and my point is going to the store is either going further north then she had gone on many runs and would be a midpoint on her longer runs...so it would make no sense to walk to get a drink on the same route you are going to later do your walk/run on...it's simply repetitive because you are repeating almost the same route or at least parts of the same route.

Finally please stop stating I am ignoring facts. I am not ignoring any facts. disagreeing with you on what information tells us does not mean I am ignoring facts. People can disagree with your conclusion without ignoring facts afterall. Just because I don't arrive at the same place doesn't mean I am ignoring things.

What you are saying feels intolerant of others ideas as well as accusatory, and I wish you wouldn't do that.

 

[ForensicMass]

I know you have said you have been to town a few times over the past decade but this is literally where I was born and raised and is practically my backyard. I grew up skiing at the mountain weekday night my whole life, gone for Sunday morning breakfast, door to door my parents house is less the 4 miles from the crime scene. The only road that runs north is Allen Hill...and my point is going to the store is either going further north then she had gone on many runs and would be a midpoint on her longer runs...so it would make no sense to walk to get a drink on the same route you are going to later do your walk/run on...it's simply repetitive because you are repeating almost the same route or at least parts of the same route.

Finally please stop stating I am ignoring facts. I am not ignoring any facts. disagreeing with you on what information tells us does not mean I am ignoring facts. People can disagree with your conclusion without ignoring facts afterall. Just because I don't arrive at the same place doesn't mean I am ignoring things.

What you are saying feels intolerant of others ideas as well as accusatory, and I wish you wouldn't do that.

You still continue to ignore what I am saying. I've been there a few times per year over the last decade. That would make 30 visits. Certainly didn't grow up there but none of that has anything to do with whether or not she ran to points north of the store. Reference "many runs " that did not go north. Which runs are you talking about ?????????

There are four known routes in MapMyRun and two of them go north of the store. And one of them is the out and back on BSR only.

So what are you talking about when you say she wouldn't normally be at points north of be store? That is not accurate.

You Seem to take a personal issue or attempt to dispute just about everything that I say. I noticed this pattern in previous discussions that I read through before my involvement and some of those people seem to have given up on the forum. I don't want to give up but if I can't contribute something of value I don't see the point.

 

[Rocky1]

With respect to a firearm. Does It seem to anyone else that someone with this kind of propensity for violence would own one? What would be the reasons they didn't have one, or seemingly didn't have one on them?

Too young?
Prior convictions? (would seem DNA would be in system of this we're the case)
Left it home? This would Point toward not planned at the time he left his house that day.

Maybe he doesn't like guns?

Just a new topic to discuss, if anyone has any thoughts on it.

I mauled the firearm thought around before, and not convinced he didn't have one, and maybe used the threat to get her down the path. Just didn't kill her with it, because of the noise.
Thoughts on your questions.
Too young, maybe so.
I think if a person wanted a gun bad enough, they could get one somehow besides following law abiding ways, so, not prior convictions. If he's a felon he knows other felons I would think.
Left it at home, doubt it, for reasons you said.
Doesn't like guns. I think this guy likes anything that would make overpowering another easier.
Just my thoughts.