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

[Evey]

Rocky- To Your response regarding my field test-

The neighbor reported that Vanessa's aunt had stopped at his house around 4 o'clock pm at which time she stated to him that Vanessa's cell phone had last pinged near the mountain barn restaurant at 2:25 (more than an hour previous). She only could have known this information so soon from a smart phone application and not from a cell phone provider who had analyzed their tower data. We don't know exactly what she meant when she said "near ", but certainly she did not mean the location of the crime scene which was more than 5000 feet away in the woods. Reguarding the accuracy of the location, as I stated, in the field test conducted at the same locations, with NO wifi connection, the locations were very accurate, showing the precise locations of both the mountain barn and the crime scene. At No time did my friends phone show him to be in a location where he had not actually been. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that her cell phone was in fact located near the mountain barn at 2:25 PM. The time that the signal took to update to show my friends location as he moved wouldn't apply in her case, since the location was the last logged location of her phone. It wasn't "processing". It was a discrete data point, accessed an hour later by her aunt when her family wanted to see where she might be.

One idea(and I'm pretty sick so sorry if I sound loopy) let's say she's alive and in the neighbor or someone in that areas basement and her phones giving off the general location but bkg the exact spot, what if then the killer panics because he's already killed her or kidnapped her(cause why not pick her phone up if able) and maybe by then for all we know a search party has already looked down bsr(would explain kinda why it took awhile longer to find her on her usual route) or they hadn't but either way what if now this killer(how close does the neighbor live to where she was found?) needs to think quick so he gets her in his SUV takes her there and sets this whole thing up so not to burn down his own house or houses of people that matter but enough to hide some signs of the crime that could make it more obvious and even point to other unsolved murders. And what if we have the DNA thing wrong and he didn't burn her to remove DNA cause he full well knew it's under her nails but to remove all traces of fibers from a rug or his car or anything specific that could make it even more obvious. Then he posts that thing on her site to make him seem upset or he could even be someone else who's posted there(or even here really) wanting to not seem odd by not showing his support. I know it's kinda a stretch but to me this isn't his first time and to me burning her despite knowing his DNA was under her nails shows me he's trying to remove something specfic that isn't DNA. Cause with the assault I believe he used a condom cause it was clearly thought out(yes I know media hasn't been mentioning it anymore) and he could easily have burned her clothes at his place or there but if done at his place maybe the stray shoe to make us think otherwise. And maybe he heard the dogs searching for her and the people calling since I'm sure they were loud and depending on how close he lives he could easily have taken her there through his property and skipped an SUV. Now I'm not sure how off the path where her phone was showing and how close that neighbor who said that lives but does it have a direct view of her run? And what does this neighbor do for work? And to the person(sorry I wasn't but able to quote it) who's mentioned what they found on her site, can it be posted as a screenshot? I'm not seeing it. Sorry in advance if any of this has been said or asked.

 

[Evey]

I think if you were looking for a contact lens per say, then yes, if you spent enough time, you may find it. 50 ft sq.? The day they showed the bag it showed them searching along the guard rail. A lot more than 50 sq feet.
I am not saying they didn't find a contact lens either, but I do know a phone could have been in that bag and it wouldn't have bowed out.

I wonder if they found a cigarette butt and that's what was in the bag. And perhaps he was smoking as he went past or drove away or while he waited to attack her. The only other things I can think of would be a condom a condom wrapper a lighter related object the phone or headphones or water bottle type thing. I believe if this wasn't all done at one spot he's going to want to do his best to make it seem like it was. Someone mentioned in the last thread an unsolved crime a lot like it but I've not heard of one except KV who I've thought from day one was related. And if this is a kid who was visiting for college who's to say he doesn't go to college in New York.

 

[Evey]

Does anyone know what time the trash would go out in the area of tha ping and if that was trash day? Cause if so it would show even blew planning and be a good ploy to make her family and LE chase the pings rather than carry it on him knowingly. Assuming he knew it was there and this was before he left the body. I'm wondering a lot more about this neighbor or others living right by where it pinged now. And what else besides DNA someone might want to burn away.

 

[Kickoff61]

Burning could also be done to try to cover up cause of death.

 

[Evey]

I'd guess that if he threw the phone, he threw it in the woods across the street from the Mountain Barn, I doubt he threw it in the parking lot if he was heading south.
Not sure how it would be obvious that early in the game that her phone wasn't along side the road in the woods. I see a major search.

Could where it pinged be in the way to or from the store? Cause that could make her family think that. Maybe it showed her heading towards the store then away from it and they breathed a sigh and were like ok she just needed to go to the store. Also I have the type of phone she has(an older version) and live in an area with lots of wooded area and rural farm areas etc and based off that I think forsenic is right. Mine would easily still be tracked. The only thing I can think of that could mess with it would be metal roofing. I know that will mess with wifi but don't know if it messes up cell service also. I could be wrong but someone said she had an iPhone once and I live in an area where I often lose service when driving outside the town. Lots of farms and woods here. I think LE could have questioned those places without us knowing since we don't live right by that spot and I believe they wouldn't want to make the residents alarmed or worried and would come ask questions without drawing a ton of attention and worrying residents that a killer may be their neighbor and therefor causing a potential risk to the neighbors and making the killer skip town if he lives there. I could be wrong though. I assume tihid area was part of the dragnet? What businesses are close by?

 

[Evey]

Agree. Has the COD even been released ? I'm wondering if LE has someone they are looking at. jmo

At first all the media I read said she was strangled and sexually assaulted but then however long after around the same time I stopped seeing them mention it leading me to wonder why.

 

[ForensicMass]

I don't think the neighbor made it up either. I believe she said "near the Mountain Barn"
I am just basing the theory on what MSM, etc. said and did.
If it's not hard to interpret the signal, then why the 7 pages of tech support? As you said, "There are people out there that do not know how to use or understand technology? Which is it? Think the Aunt thought that it was "Off The Tower" like MSM said ? "Near" the Mountain Barn, may have met the tower, right?
Again, if you want to say MSM misreported that, What are you basing that on? Why are we picking and choosing what was true and what wasn't when they are both MSM reports?
Why am I mistaken about the search? Can you show me one report or video? There were choppers and news people that infested Princeton. Just basing my thought on what I saw. and didn't see.
The Mountain Barn would have been no less "game" than the CS. If cops were there, the media would have been too.
It's ok to say "you think." But if you are saying that the search was "undoubtedly conducted", then I've got to ask for a link, because there are just too many things that don't add up. As I have said before, thoughts grow wings, and then they turn to facts.

No I do not believe near the mountain barn would have meant "off the tower". I believe the aunt was looking at the dot on the map on her screen representing the last location of the phone. I don't believe the tower had anything to do with her aunts interpretation of the location.

 

[ForensicMass]

I don't think the neighbor made it up either. I believe she said "near the Mountain Barn"
I am just basing the theory on what MSM, etc. said and did.
If it's not hard to interpret the signal, then why the 7 pages of tech support? As you said, "There are people out there that do not know how to use or understand technology? Which is it? Think the Aunt thought that it was "Off The Tower" like MSM said ? "Near" the Mountain Barn, may have met the tower, right?
Again, if you want to say MSM misreported that, What are you basing that on? Why are we picking and choosing what was true and what wasn't when they are both MSM reports?
Why am I mistaken about the search? Can you show me one report or video? There were choppers and news people that infested Princeton. Just basing my thought on what I saw. and didn't see.
The Mountain Barn would have been no less "game" than the CS. If cops were there, the media would have been too.
It's ok to say "you think." But if you are saying that the search was "undoubtedly conducted", then I've got to ask for a link, because there are just too many things that don't add up. As I have said before, thoughts grow wings, and then they turn to facts.

The diffence in he two reports is simple- due to the fact that the timing of the aunt saying "near mountain barn". It COULD NOT HAVE BEEN the tower. There was t enough time there for an analysis of cell data.

 

[ForensicMass]

Let me clarify.
MSM reports "The Aunt said the phone "pinged" off the tower.
MSM reports The Neighbor said "the phone was "near" the Mountain Barn," based what the Aunt said.
The Tower is near the Mountain Barn.
Two totally different meanings..
Same exact story.

Tower data would not have been available at 4pm. The "tower ping" was a media misinterpretation IMO

 

[Rocky1]

The diffence in he two reports is simple- due to the fact that the timing of the aunt saying "near mountain barn". It COULD NOT HAVE BEEN the tower. There was t enough time there for an analysis of cell data.

I agree. I don't think the Aunt was suggesting "cell phone data."
Based collectively on the following:
1) Common sense that the perp wouldn't leave those woods with the phone,carrying the smoking gun that would seal his fate, along with a honing device that puts a bulls eye on his back.
2) No report of LE searching anywhere near the Mountain Barn for the phone.

LE dismissed looking near the Mountain Barn for the following reasons.

a) The Aunt not understanding the technology.
b) A false location, due to the heavy tree cover, or damaged "IF" antenna in the phone.
c) The phone was found near the crime scene.

Of course feel free to discuss the phone, but,I am willing to move on, although it was an interesting discussion. There is nothing wrong with different opinions.
I do believe TOD to be around 2:15 either way.
JMO.

 

[ForensicMass]

I agree. I don't think the Aunt was suggesting "cell phone data."
Based collectively on the following:
1) Common sense that the perp wouldn't leave those woods with the phone,carrying the smoking gun that would seal his fate, along with a honing device that puts a bulls eye on his back.
2) No report of LE searching anywhere near the Mountain Barn for the phone.

LE dismissed looking near the Mountain Barn for the following reasons.

a) The Aunt not understanding the technology.
b) A false location, due to the heavy tree cover, or damaged "IF" antenna in the phone.
c) The phone was found near the crime scene.

Of course feel free to discuss the phone, but,I am willing to move on, although it was an interesting discussion. There is nothing wrong with different opinions.
I do believe TOD to be around 2:15 either way.
JMO.

I disagree on all accounts. A phone once turned off is not a smoking gun, it's untraceable.

Based on the lack of anything new to discuss, I feel the most useful discussion at the moment centers on the phone ping and the killers direction of escape. Everything else seems to have been thoroughly hashed out to the degree possible at this point. Unless someone else can start up some new interesting discusssion.

If the killer fled south on 31, where might he dispose of the phone? Purely statistically, where might he be most likely to go? If we believe he lives within 20 miles, perhaps we should draw a circle around this area.

 

[victaulic]

I don't know about statistics, but I think the killer drove down Rt. 31, took a right on Ball Hill Rd., and then left on Wachusett St. This would bring him to Rt. 68 in Rutland, which IMO or guess, is where he came from.

 

[victaulic]

Or - the killer pulled a U turn on Brook Station Rd. and went straight across the intersection on to Wachusett St. and in to Rutland. IMO

 

[Rocky1]

Or - the killer pulled a U turn on Brook Station Rd. and went straight across the intersection on to Wachusett St. and in to Rutland. IMO

Welcome
If the Killer went north on BSR, turned south on Rt.31, then west on Ball Hill Rd, to Wachusett, he went 5 miles out of his way to get back to BSR
If he did a U turn on BSR He drove. 1.25 miles to get to the same place.
If the Killer went down Rt 31. he:
Drove 1 mile north in the opposite direction on BSR, then turned south on Rt. 31, then drove 3 miles south to get to the Ball Hill Rd intersection.
Did a U turn on BSR, drove 2.5 miles in the direction he wanted to go, to get to the same intersection.
If he drove north on BSR, then turned south on Rt,31, he drove past the Cam at Barre Savings Bank.
If he did a U turn on BSR, Drove to Ball Hill Road, to Rt, 31,he avoided the Cam at Barre Savings Bank.
What would you do?

 

[Cem75]

It was a Sunday so doubt it was a trash day

 

[liz b.]

Welcome
If the Killer went west on Ball Hill Rd, to Wachusett, he went 5 miles out of his way to get back to BSR
If he did a U turn on BSR He drove. 1.25 miles to get to the same place.
If the Killer went down Rt 31. he:
Drove 1 mile north in the opposite direction, then turned south on Rt. 31, then drove 3 miles south to get to the Ball Hill Rd intersection.
If he did a U turn on BSR, he drove 2.5 miles in the direction he wanted to go, to get to the same intersection.
If he drove north on BSR, then turned south, he drove past the Cam at Barre Savings Bank.
Did a U turn on BSR, Drove to Ball Hill Road, to Rt, 31,he avoided the Cam at Barre Savings Bank.
What would you do?

Could he actually have been spotted on the vidcam at the Barre Savings Bank ? Driving a dark colored SUV ? And his vehicle matched a vehicle that someone called LE about seeing ? And perhaps the timing also matched ?

 

[Rocky1]

I disagree on all accounts. A phone once turned off is not a smoking gun, it's untraceable.

Based on the lack of anything new to discuss, I feel the most useful discussion at the moment centers on the phone ping and the killers direction of escape. Everything else seems to have been thoroughly hashed out to the degree possible at this point. Unless someone else can start up some new interesting discusssion.

If the killer fled south on 31, where might he dispose of the phone? Purely statistically, where might he be most likely to go? If we believe he lives within 20 miles, perhaps we should draw a circle around this area.

I agree the phone once turned off is no longer a smoking gun
We can't go on "purely "statistically" and your scenario. A neighbor reporting her phone "pinged near the Mountain Barn" is not a "stat." I have listed a link, not only explaining in depth how heavy tree cover can throw off the location of a phone, even the example photo is the same basic layout of this crime scene, showing how the signal went from east to west, then south. (Crime scene west then south to the Mountain Barn) That's a "stat"
"Statisticlly" speaking, what are the chances the case was damaged on the phone due to the report from L.E. that VM "fought hard" or that the killer smashed the phone, and damaged the "IF" antenna, throwing off the location?
I posted there are 7 pages of tech support in regards to why the location of a phone would be off. That is a "stat"
In your explanation of why this could be, your response was A lot of people are not familiar with how technology works. Using "stats," how many of these people would be over 60 years old?
What "stat" do you have that any type of search was done in the area looking for the phone, when, "statisticlly" speaking, MSM would have been all over that scene?
The reason you give that the killer didn't leave the phone at the crime scene is that he forgot he had it. The killer in your scenario drove over 3 miles with it turned on. Who would get in a vehicle, sit on a seat with a phone in their back pocket, and not know it's there?
When you say "statisticlly" what exactly do you mean?

 

[ForensicMass]

I agree the phone once turned off is no longer a smoking gun
We can't go on "purely "statistically" and your scenario. A neighbor reporting her phone "pinged near the Mountain Barn" is not a "stat." I have listed a link, not only explaining in depth how heavy tree cover can throw off the location of a phone, even the example photo is the same basic layout of this crime scene, showing how the signal went from east to west, then south. (Crime scene west then south to the Mountain Barn) That's a "stat"
"Statisticlly" speaking, what are the chances the case was damaged on the phone due to the report from L.E. that VM "fought hard" or that the killer smashed the phone, and damaged the "IF" antenna, throwing off the location?
I posted there are 7 pages of tech support in regards to why the location of a phone would be off. That is a "stat"
In your explanation of why this could be, your response was A lot of people are not familiar with how technology works. Using "stats," how many of these people would be over 60 years old?
What "stat" do you have that any type of search was done in the area looking for the phone, when, "statisticlly" speaking, MSM would have been all over that scene?
The reason you give that the killer didn't leave the phone at the crime scene is that he forgot he had it. The killer in your scenario drove over 3 miles with it turned on. Who would get in a vehicle, sit on a seat with a phone in their back pocket, and not know it's there?
When you say "statisticlly" what exactly do you mean?

I gave more than one reason that the killer may have taken the phone from the scene I actually gave three reasons only one of which being that he forgot he had. One being that he thought it had his DNA on it so he intentionally brought it although this wouldn't explain why he wouldn't turn it off before fleeing the crime scene, he also could just be stupid. Sometimes people kill somebody and then try to use those victims bank cards. Not everyone is as sharp as You and me.

You keep saying "the neighbor said it pinged near the mountain barn". But in fact the neighbor reported that HER AUNT said that to him. This information was Not from him initially, he was only relaying it. And yes I know you have made the point about the trees, but if this case has not progressed by summer, god forbid, I will conduct the test again and I would bet the farm it will show that the phone was clearly near the mountain barn and not the CS. Remember, I use an iPhone in the woods. I can speak from experience that for me the GPS has been extremely accurate even in dense woods. I'm going to consider it highly likely and base my theories off of it for now. I don't expect to change your perspective. But perhaps if we rerun the test this summer you'll come around.

 

[Rocky1]

Could he actually have been spotted on the vidcam at the Barre Savings Bank ? Driving a dark colored SUV ? And his vehicle matched a vehicle that someone called LE about seeing ? And perhaps the timing also matched ?

To answer your question, I think it's tough to know, unless you work at the bank, and know the angle/range of the cam. The drive- through is rather close to the road, and it faces the road.
If most here believes he is local, he knows about that cam, especially if he planned his escape route.

Google Maps. 182 Worcester Rd. Princeton MA.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.421...4!1sihOvMZylYIwGtrdbA3sDoA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

[Rocky1]

I gave more than one reason that the killer may have taken the phone from the scene I actually gave three reasons only one of which being that he forgot he had. One being that he thought it had his DNA on it so he intentionally brought it although this wouldn't explain why he wouldn't turn it off before fleeing the crime scene, he also could just be stupid. Sometimes people kill somebody and then try to use those victims bank cards. Not everyone is as sharp as You and me.

You keep saying "the neighbor said it pinged near the mountain barn". But in fact the neighbor reported that HER AUNT said that to him. This information was Not from him initially, he was only relaying it. And yes I know you have made the point about the trees, but if this case has not progressed by summer, god forbid, I will conduct the test again and I would bet the farm it will show that the phone was clearly near the mountain barn and not the CS. Remember, I use an iPhone in the woods. I can speak from experience that for me the GPS has been extremely accurate even in dense woods. I'm going to consider it highly likely and base my theories off of it for now. I don't expect to change your perspective. But perhaps if we rerun the test this summer you'll come around.

I am very clear that the Aunt told the neighbor .What about the"Stat" on the person over 60 not being too tech savoy based on those 7 pages of tech support? Can you give me an age group of those people? The antenna being damaged?
What about sitting on the phone? Think he would have known? On a scale from 1-10.... 1 being no, what's your number?