MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #6

[Kickoff61]

As I said- for me, the crime scene says it all.
Specifically where it was. The fact that it was not THAT isolated. The fact that a vehicle was left in an observable position for ANY length of time. The fact that more wasn't done to conceal the body. The pathetic and failed attempt to remove DNA. The physicality of the crime requiring someone to drag her 130 feet or be big enough to initmidate her into going there.

Also you don't know if the attempt was for the fire to rid of the body completely or not. There are just too many scenarios to be certain.

 

[Rocky1]

QUESTION REGARDING ESCAPE ROUTE

would the killer prefer back roads over main roads, to "sneak" away? If he had to choose between say route 31, a state route with many passing cars and more densely positioned houses, or stay on the back routes?

I am leaning very much toward a killer from areas to the south of the site. Rutland, Holden, maybe even Worcester. But I like the first two better

I think he would have used any road that took him to where he wanted to be.I
don't really see him avoiding much, with the exception of town, only because of the stop signs and slow moving traffic.
Just wondering what brings you to believe he lives in one of those towns/city?

 

[ForensicMass]

Yes it seem unreasonable to me. You actually make my case. If he has taken the time to "Cover his DNA tracks," and has covering his tracks on his mind, why then would he even think of taking the phone?
You say he "remembers he still has her phone on him." How did he end up with her phone on him in the first place? If we use your scenario of her being in jogging clothes, her phone would be attatched to her wrist right? After he removed her clothing and her phone, those items are on the ground, unless he males a conscious effort to put her phone in his pocket, and why would he want to do that?
I do believe he was pumped up and in a rush to get away, but not knowing,yet, I think it's fair to keep in mind if he is the "serial killer" type, it could have been just the opposite after he killed her, and could have been very calm and relieved.
Another thing to remember. MSM said that her phone pinged "off the tower next to the Mountain Barn." not 100 ft across the road , or in the parking lot etc.
If she was using FindMyPhone, (which we don't know, she could have been using ICloud which I have read in both cases can at times be up to two miles off, depending on Data/wi- fi connection) and it was totally accurate, that would have meant that her phone was right under the tower.
Hard to tell if the cam can see the road. I looked on Google Maps, and it looks close enough where it may have, but not sure.

He puts her phone where she can't get it. You ever take something away from a small child? you can't just put it down- they will pick it right back up. He kept CONTROL of it. If it wasn't found at the scene, that means he didn't THROW it, which is exactly what he would have done if he didn't KEEP it. The bit about the "tower" was a media misinterpretation. The ping could only have come from an app, since it was known about BY 3:30 or 4pm. No tower data is available that quickly. Her aunt told the neighbor about the ping early in the search effort, possibly even before police involvement. The info was a phone to phone location, it was not from the cell company. I'm sure about that.

Other reasons for intentionally removing the phone from the scene- it could make it more difficult to find HER. rather than last ping at site she was found. It was EXTREMELY LIKELY HE HAD TOUCHED IT. Didn't want to leave prints or DNA. So take it and throw it in a lake. I still prefer that he forgot about it for all of three minutes of chaos. Then shut it off. But these are other reasons he could have taken it.

 

[Kickoff61]

He puts her phone where she can't get it. You ever take something away from a small child? you can't just put it down- they will pick it right back up. He kept CONTROL of it. If it wasn't found at the scene, that means he didn't THROW it, which is exactly what he would have done if he didn't KEEP it. The bit about the "tower" was a media misinterpretation. The ping could only have come from an app, since it was known about BY 3:30 or 4pm. No tower data is available that quickly. Her aunt told the neighbor about the ping early in the search effort, possibly even before police involvement. The info was a phone to phone location, it was not from the cell company. I'm sure about that.

Other reasons for intentionally removing the phone from the scene- it could make it more difficult to find HER. rather than last ping at site she was found. It was EXTREMELY LIKELY HE HAD TOUCHED IT. Didn't want to leave prints or DNA. So take it and throw it in a lake. I still prefer that he forgot about it for all of three minutes of chaos. Then shut it off. But these are other reasons he could have taken it.

You think the attack, struggle, a murder and the fire, took 3 minutes??? Where are you coming up with that?

 

[Rocky1]

I can see what you mean by all of that. What about the attempted abduction in either westborough or northboro- I can't remember which but in one of these scenarios I believe a vehicle was parked along the side of the road with its hood up. I agree that if he was driving along and had to pass her just as she was running by the path that timing is too impeccable. I am more inclined to think that he may have pulled over at the path in advance of her running by.

I know that females often have their guard up when something looks unusual, but I have also heard many times here on this forum that it is not unusual for a car to be parked on the shoulder of the road in Princeton. What is highly unusual is a murder in Princeton. To me this adds up to the possibility that Vanessa never would have considered that a car along the side of the road whether located near the path or elsewhere was any risk to her safety or well-being. Of course I might be wrong about this, but I honestly feel like she would not have been that off-put By a vehicle along the road, since nothing ever happens in this town. Prior to this incident when I visited town looking out for my own safety never even entered my mind. Granted I am a male, but I guess what I am saying is that when I am in Worcester or Fitchburg or even Leominster there is at least some little conscious voice keeping an eye out. But never in Princeton. Danger just wasn't a real possibility there for me before this.

Although it may not be strange to see a car parked along the side of the road in Princeton, to me it would at that location because there isn't anything around there. You were there. Try to forget about that a crime happened there. What do you think about a car being parked there, but you stay up the road, so you know there's no pond, or hiking trail, and you see a man just sitting there?
I know I may think a little different if the hood was up, but, that brings a lot more attention, and I would think more people would remember that. Did he close the hood before he dragged her into the woods? If he didn't, he's taking another big chance than, because I don't think there is any way a cop is going to pass without stopping with the hood up.

 

[Kickoff61]

I see no reason why he would risk a fire to cover up DNA if he is not in the system and from out of town. Doing that fire in daylight on an afternoon was a very desperate risk to take for what I believe a 'reason'.

 

[Kickoff61]

The concealing appears to be the very fire he tried to do to rid of everything. It was not just a small lighting with the photos of the dirt ground area.

 

[Rocky1]

Someone experienced OR someone more random. Random killer is harder to find than an experienced one known to the victim.

Experienced random killer is the worst case scenario, and I think there are Too many poorly planned aspects for that to be the case here.

That's the only way I see an SUV involved. 2 killers, random act, rode by her, turned around, one dropped the other off, he hid in the gully, ambushed her, and then the driver picked her up.
I don't see the SUV being parked there that whole time. I know you are thinking 15 minutes, but I see a Sexual Sadist, and it took well over an hour.

 

[ForensicMass]

Actually, there are cases of intelligent killers or serial killers who leave a body not completely hidden. Secondly it would be quite stupid to bring a dead body in a vehicle any distance on a hot summer day. There is not proof the vehicle was parked there the entire time. Also not known if vehicle may have been pulled into the path partially, because we do not know what they found at the scene if they found evidence of tire tracks etc. There is just too much unknown with this case. We may know the scene, but there are no reports of evidence from the scene, not even cause of death.

That's why I said vehicle parked for ANY length of time. And we may not know exactly how it was parked, but we DO KNOW that it was seen. That's what matters.

 

[ForensicMass]

That's the only way I see an SUV involved. 2 killers, random act, rode by her, turned around, one dropped the other off, he hid in the gully, ambushed her, and then the driver picked her up.
I don't see the SUV being parked there that whole time. I know you are thinking 15 minutes, but I see a Sexual Sadist, and it took well over an hour.

I don't disagree that two could be involved. I can't say I lean that way but I haven't ruled it out. Well over an hour is too long for the timeframe unless you agree she was taken almost immediately.

 

[Rocky1]

I don't know where everyone gets the idea of inexperienced, young, punkish, etc. Maybe they can explain?

By the way, younger rebels into other minor things stand out more as well.

I do believe this is someone people would lastly expect.

I say young only because his DNA isn't in the system yet. I think this may be his first kill.

 

[Kickoff61]

I say young only because his DNA isn't in the system yet. I think this may be his first kill.

I see. However, there are plenty of criminals or killers who go years without being in the system
I know I also mentioned this before, so sorry to repeat, but it reminds me of the BTK case, of the man who was right in the community, married and working in the community , serial killer. I don't believe he concealed victims either. But, he taunted police along the way. So I don't think due to the fact this person is not in the system means he is young or a first kill. Could be, but many cases not so as well.

 

[Kickoff61]

It is hard to imagine a first crime like this suddenly taking the risk so confidently enough in broad daylight on a summer afternoon, as well. Get caught, life in prison. This isn't suddenly deciding to rob a store on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[Kickoff61]

I think the brazen act in daylight shows a lot.

 

[Kickoff61]

Plenty of people could be cocky. But confidence can also come from a lot of criminal type activity long term and remaining above the law.

 

[Rocky1]

He puts her phone where she can't get it. You ever take something away from a small child? you can't just put it down- they will pick it right back up. He kept CONTROL of it. If it wasn't found at the scene, that means he didn't THROW it, which is exactly what he would have done if he didn't KEEP it. The bit about the "tower" was a media misinterpretation. The ping could only have come from an app, since it was known about BY 3:30 or 4pm. No tower data is available that quickly. Her aunt told the neighbor about the ping early in the search effort, possibly even before police involvement. The info was a phone to phone location, it was not from the cell company. I'm sure about that.

Other reasons for intentionally removing the phone from the scene- it could make it more difficult to find HER. rather than last ping at site she was found. It was EXTREMELY LIKELY HE HAD TOUCHED IT. Didn't want to leave prints or DNA. So take it and throw it in a lake. I still prefer that he forgot about it for all of three minutes of chaos. Then shut it off. But these are other reasons he could have taken it.

I think if I didn't want anyone get their hands on something I'd throw it. We don't know if LE found the phone or not.
If he was worried about someone finding her, do you think he would have set the fire? I think that was the last worry on his mind.
Shutting off the phone has been my first thought from day one, but I doubt he took it with him.

 

[Rocky1]

I see. However, there are plenty of criminals or killers who go years without being in the system
I know I also mentioned this before, so sorry to repeat, but it reminds me of the BTK case, of the man who was right in the community, married and working in the community , serial killer. I don't believe he concealed victims either. But, he taunted police along the way. So I don't think due to the fact this person is not in the system means he is young or a first kill. Could be, but many cases not so as well.

Oh, I agree. and there are plenty of intelligent killers too. Ted Bundy was one.
I guess they are all smart until the get caught right?

 

[Kickoff61]

I think it was Bob Ward's show, Not certain and would have to find the source, who mentioned another man who was the relative of an unsolved murder victim who had also been burned in MA, who was drawn to this case because of it.

 

[Kickoff61]

Oh, I agree. and there are plenty of intelligent killers too. Ted Bundy was one.
I guess they are all smart until the get caught right?

Yes, smart until eventually they make a mistake. BTK guy eventually did using a computer at a church, I believe. This man in this case could have eventually made a mistake not getting rid of the all the DNA as planned, or getting rid of everything if he wanted the fire to do just that.

 

[Kickoff61]

I would expect him to shut off the phone right away. Not leave it on along with him as he travels somewhere.