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

[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.

You have claimed that the killer is "Tech Savoy."
Being "Tech Savoy" think he's going to reboot the phone and try to use it for anything?
Can't use "Tech Savoy" and "Stupid" together.
Which one?

 

[DeDee]

There is no proof the phone was at that location for fact to even begin to piece together any escape route.

Absolutely, Kickoff61. I've enjoyed the phone possibilities discussion but LE may have had her phone all along for all we know.

I think it is great that everyone wants this solved and work hard to figuring it out. But speculation can go way too far sometimes without enough known, (or even come across with improper certainty) even to possibly incorrectly judging the victim. I understand this is a tough case to discuss with so little info. they have given.

Concur with this, too, Kickoff61. We need to work with all that LEO has given and use our common sense to theorize to a reasonable conclusion. Making up stuff, like wanting or taking drugs, to get her in the woods is not productive, jmho.

There is no proof the phone was at that location for fact to even begin to piece together any escape route.

Rocky, it is alright that you don't feel Perp tossed the phone at the MB to throw off the cops. The whereabouts of her phone is unattainable at this time. It was mere speculation on my part in an apparently poor attempt to explain a 2:25pm Ping!

 

[Rocky1]

Anyone want to speculate on the half burned shoe?
Was it on her at the time, or no?

 

[DeDee]

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

If UnSub knows about this camera [CCTV] at the bank, then LEO surely knows about the cam, too, and have obtained the tape in a timely fashion. These establishments record over CCTV tapes with frequency. The bank may cycle over recorded tapes every four days or up to ten days depending on their system and needs. I notice the location for the local Post Office is there.

Since I believe the UnSub planned the entire event, I also feel that he planned his escape route with precision and without guesswork. This guy, above all, does NOT wish to be caught. He believes he will not be caught or how else could he do this horrific thing if he thought he would be caught and punished accordingly?

 

[Rocky1]

Absolutely, Kickoff61. I've enjoyed the phone possibilities discussion but LE may have had her phone all along for all we know.



Concur with this, too, Kickoff61. We need to work with all that LEO has given and use our common sense to theorize to a reasonable conclusion. Making up stuff, like wanting or taking drugs, to get her in the woods is not productive, jmho.



Rocky, it is alright that you don't feel Perp tossed the phone at the MB to throw off the cops. The whereabouts of her phone is unattainable at this time. It was mere speculation on my part in an apparently poor attempt to explain a 2:25pm Ping!

I don't think it was a poor attempt at all DeDee. Although speculation, it did open up an interesting dialogue. I enjoy discussing any topic. I just don't want everyone here to get burned out on the subject with the back and forth, discussing a phone.
As I have said before. Without speculation, basing this crime on just facts, this thread would have been stagnant the first week. We really don't have much to go on.

 

[DeDee]

Anyone want to speculate on the half burned shoe?
Was it on her at the time, or no?

She was nude when found so no, she was not wearing them, seems the proper reply.

I do know it takes a great deal of heat to ignite or melt rubber soles. Not sure the fire ever got that hot.

Her feet were burned so it seems that she was not standing on them at the time of burning.

 

[ForensicMass]

You have claimed that the killer is "Tech Savoy."
Being "Tech Savoy" think he's going to reboot the phone and try to use it for anything?
Can't use "Tech Savoy" and "Stupid" together.
Which one?

I actually don't believe he's tech savvy. Many people here do, though. In previous discussions there was talk of planting tracking software, or the perp is a google employee. I have never been on board with any of that. But I included it in some theories for the benefit of those who believe it.

 

[ForensicMass]

Anyone want to speculate on the half burned shoe?
Was it on her at the time, or no?

One burned shoe was reportedly found "near the body". So it was off of her. And actually this is worth some real thought. Would seem likely to me that it would have been burned while on her, unless it was right next to her in the fire. Just my opinion but I think "near the body" might have been referred to as "next to the body" or "with the body" if the shoe was RIGHT next to her. I envision "near" as a few feet to perhaps ten feet away, but maybe that's just me. As we know, the facts are often hidden in the details of the language used. But the biggest question this raises for me. Where is the other shoe?!!!! Was it burned? If it was, why take it? I think it may have been hypothesized earlier, and I found it quite plausible, that VM lost a shoe in the struggle, maybe near to the road. It never made it to the burn site, and he took it as he fled the scene. This brings up another point that strengthens my theory that the phone was taken from the site. And that is, if we accept that ONE SHOE was found, and take that to mean ONE WAS TAKEN, this completely undermines any argument that the killer would not take the phone because it was incriminating. Surely you can agree that VMs shoe would be equally incriminating.

 

[Rocky1]

She was nude when found so no, she was not wearing them, seems the proper reply.

I do know it takes a great deal of heat to ignite or melt rubber soles. Not sure the fire ever got that hot.

Her feet were burned so it seems that she was not standing on them at the time of burning.

That was my thought too. I was wondering why he would have wanted to burn shoes, but not her clothing,
Based on the shoe being burned, think he burned her clothing?
I know that MSM said her clothes were missing. Think that may have meant missing from her body, missing from the scene, or missing just because they weren't informed they had been burned because with clothing burning more through than a shoe, nobody knew until they analyzed the ash from the fire?

 

[Rocky1]

The shoe was reportedly found "near the body". Somoff of her. And actually this is worth some real thought. Would seem likely to me that it would have been burned while on her, unless it was right next to her. But the biggest question this raises for me. Where is the other shoe?!!!!

Ok, so you think he removed her clothes with her shoes still on?

 

[DeDee]

That was my thought too. I was wondering why he would have wanted to burn shoes, but not her clothing,
Based on the shoe being burned, think he burned her clothing?
I know that MSM said her clothes were missing. Think that may have meant missing from her body, missing from the scene, or missing just because they weren't informed they had been burned because with clothing burning more through than a shoe, nobody knew until they analyzed the ash from the fire?

Forensic Detectives would sift through the ash in the lab, I suppose? It was definitely sifted.

If you will, by the burned tree, there is a dip in the earth and to the right side it appears damp [It had rained prior to the time of the image taken.] That is a significant dip of ash and earth missing.

VM was found with her clothes missing.
http://fox59.com/2016/08/08/google-...without-clothes-and-burns-on-head-feet-hands/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/900-tips-received-murder-google-employee-article-1.2761212
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vanessa...rder-cops-new-york-woman-slain-massachusetts/

 

[ForensicMass]

That was my thought too. I was wondering why he would have wanted to burn shoes, but not her clothing,
Based on the shoe being burned, think he burned her clothing?
I know that MSM said her clothes were missing. Think that may have meant missing from her body, missing from the scene, or missing just because they weren't informed they had been burned because with clothing burning more through than a shoe, nobody knew until they analyzed the ash from the fire?

Yes rocky I agree, a burned shoe DOES imply to me that the clothing was burned. Certainly the clothes were far easier to burn. I think the remnant clothes may have been taken from the scene, running clothes melt readily, but I would think SOMETHING would be evident at the scene that they were burned. I lean toward quickly burnt, with remnants removed, but I could be convinced they weren't. The missing shoe is another story.

 

[Rocky1]

I think it's fair to say that LE took most of the fire back to the lab.
Bob Ward described that area as a "Fire Pit", and I think that has led many here to believe that the sight was prepared in advanced.
My thought is it was a level non prepared area before LE removed the evidence, and the "Pit" was from the dig.

 

[ForensicMass]

Ok, so you think he removed her clothes with her shoes still on?

Another good question. I think one shoe came off while she was alive. And one after she was killed. It would be easier to remove clothes after removing the other shoe, but they could have been slipped over the shoe. But since the other shoe was found off the body, I think shoes removed first. Then clothes. But this does pose problems in terms of order of the burning. It's a good topic for discussion

 

[ForensicMass]

I think it's fair to say that LE took most of the fire back to the lab.
Bob Ward described that area as a "Fire Pit", and I think that has led many here to believe that the sight was prepared in advanced.
My thought is it was a level non prepared area before LE removed the evidence, and the "Pit" was from the dig.

I agree with that. No need to make a pit for this fire.

 

[Rocky1]

Another good question. I think one shoe came off while she was alive. And one after she was killed. It would be easier to remove clothes after removing the other shoe, but they could have been slipped over the shoe. But since the other shoe was found off the body, I think shoes removed first. Then clothes. But this does pose problems in terms of order of the burning. It's a good topic for discussion

Unless he has water. I don't see him taking those hot clothes with him.If they are running clothes, the material would be sticking to him right?
Fairly tight clothing to slip over a shoe, would you say?

Edit:
Just to add, I don't see him hanging around waiting for the clothing to cool without the water.

 

[DeDee]

Leonminster District Court has jurisdiction over cases for the towns of Holden, Princeton, and Leominster.

Worcester County Sheriff's Office
5 Paul X Tivnan Drive
West Boylston, Massachusetts, 01583

http://worcestercountysheriff.com/

Leominster District Court
25 School Street
Leominster, MA 01453

http://www.courtreference.com/courts/12665/leominster-district-court

MA Courts
http://www.mass.gov/courts
Leominster District Court

http://www.mass.gov/courts/court-in...h-marl/leominster-district-court-generic.html

Freedom of Information Act
To Request Public Information
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prereq/reqidx.htm

 

[Rocky1]

Leonminster District Court has jurisdiction over cases for the towns of Holden, Princeton, and Leominster.

Thanks DeDee. If this perp is caught, I believe he will be tried at Worcester Superior Court.

 

[Evey]

One burned shoe was reportedly found "near the body". So it was off of her. And actually this is worth some real thought. Would seem likely to me that it would have been burned while on her, unless it was right next to her in the fire. Just my opinion but I think "near the body" might have been referred to as "next to the body" or "with the body" if the shoe was RIGHT next to her. I envision "near" as a few feet to perhaps ten feet away, but maybe that's just me. As we know, the facts are often hidden in the details of the language used. But the biggest question this raises for me. Where is the other shoe?!!!! Was it burned? If it was, why take it? I think it may have been hypothesized earlier, and I found it quite plausible, that VM lost a shoe in the struggle, maybe near to the road. It never made it to the burn site, and he took it as he fled the scene. This brings up another point that strengthens my theory that the phone was taken from the site. And that is, if we accept that ONE SHOE was found, and take that to mean ONE WAS TAKEN, this completely undermines any argument that the killer would not take the phone because it was incriminating. Surely you can agree that VMs shoe would be equally incriminating.

That's why the photo I saw of the memorial where people had been leaving her running shoes and most were pairs and one appeared to be just one and it creeped me out. If she was brought there from a place it could have fallen in the car or location

 

[Evey]

That was my thought too. I was wondering why he would have wanted to burn shoes, but not her clothing,
Based on the shoe being burned, think he burned her clothing?
I know that MSM said her clothes were missing. Think that may have meant missing from her body, missing from the scene, or missing just because they weren't informed they had been burned because with clothing burning more through than a shoe, nobody knew until they analyzed the ash from the fire?

I keep wondering if he burned it all and her to hide something besides DNA that could give him away. Rug fibers his hair dog hair etc could be anything but what specifically would be easiest to trace to get someone arrested?