MA - Vanessa Marcotte, 27, murdered, Princeton, 7 Aug 2016 #3

[Rocky1]

So are you thinking this is a serial killer, then? That is the manual your statistics come from. Not arguing, just asking.

I think that it is either a serial killer, or a serial killer in the making, meaning this is his first kill, and will continue to kill if not stopped.
But what is more important is I think LE thinks so too. I am basing it on this..
There are a limited amount of criteria where the FBI gets involved in a crime, according to the link that I posted. When I looked at the different reasons,only one stood out that would apply here, and that is serial murder. It's not art theft, or bank robbery, and I doubt she was a gang member etc.Then I combined that choice with the stats for no other reason than to assume he is a serial killer, along with the very little clues that we have.
1) We do know that her body was left in the open, and not buried, and the majority of serial killers do not conceal the body. which leads to the next stat.
2) We know the body was found within 24 hours.In murders involving a serial killer, the majority of bodies are found within 24 hours.
3) We do not know the COD because LE has not released that. MSM has said that the COD was strangulation. My opinion only is to believe that, because as LE did say, she fought very hard. I know there are many reasons to fight very hard, but when a person is being strangled, the fear of losing air will make you fight like you have never fought before. (Same case as KV, and we do know she was strangled) The number one method of killing a serial killer uses is strangulation.
4)Serial killers pick a spot that is comfortable for them to kill. There was a detective interviewed on the news that seemed to think that one reason he picked that spot was because he was comfortable and could see traffic coming for a distance either way. Looking back I wonder if he was thinking this was the work of a serial killer/future serial killer too.
5) As I posted in a previous post, there's a professor of criminal justice that teaches in Boston. When asked by news media if the killer would be caught, without hesitation he replied "Yes when he kills again" He must think it is a serial/future serial killer, one would think.
6) Not released by LE, but by the news, she was sexually assaulted. 81% of serial killers use this as the motive.

Again, I can't say for sure that it is a serial killer, but if it is, this is a text book case.
If it's not, then maybe someone can answer the original thought. What reason would/could the FBI be called in to join the investigation, based on the reasons why they join?

Just to add, Roseofangels has made some great points in regards to the Macdonald Triad.

 

[ThinkHard]

Of course I understand that they can have DNA without a match. I'm just saying that there have been some things (like not ruling out a connection to the NY case) that make me wonder whether they do have DNA.

I'm also wondering if they don't have DNA if there are other ways to determine that a male was involved. Could there be vaginal injuries for example which would lead them to determine a male was involved even if there was no DNA?

Respectfully, I don't think we can be so definitive to say the only way they can know about a car is from tracks. Perhaps they have an eye witness who saw her with a car. Perhaps an accelerant was used that comes from a car (wild guessing, probably not true). We don't know for sure how they know about a car being involved.

All JMO

Depending on the extent of her injuries, and things like the angle of them and force, sometimes they can come up with a height and weight profile of the perp....and perhaps from that profile make a determination of the likelihood of it being male.

However in this case I think they know because of skin cell DNA and her nails, perhaps other skin or hair cells on her body.

 

[Steleheart]

Of course I understand that they can have DNA without a match. I'm just saying that there have been some things (like not ruling out a connection to the NY case) that make me wonder whether they do have DNA.

I'm also wondering if they don't have DNA if there are other ways to determine that a male was involved. Could there be vaginal injuries for example which would lead them to determine a male was involved even if there was no DNA?

Respectfully, I don't think we can be so definitive to say the only way they can know about a car is from tracks. Perhaps they have an eye witness who saw her with a car. Perhaps an accelerant was used that comes from a car (wild guessing, probably not true). We don't know for sure how they know about a car being involved.

All JMO

BBM;
Then why would they not ask about a car with that description? "Did anyone see a red Camaro, did anyone see a blank white van, etc. If witnesses saw a car, then why would they ask if witnesses saw a car if they already know that witnesses saw a car and no one could describe it?
Curious reasoning I must say!

Because no witnesses IMO. The have evidence of a vehicle. They did not ask about a motorcycle, a boat or a plane. If they found a piece of a vehicle then they would know what kind of vehicle. I am left with tire tracks as a logical indication there was a vehicle there.

MOO

 

[Inthedetails]

I think that it is either a serial killer, or a serial killer in the making, meaning this is his first kill, and will continue to kill if not stopped.
But what is more important is I think LE thinks so too. I am basing it on this..
There are a limited amount of criteria where the FBI gets involved in a crime, according to the link that I posted. When I looked at the different reasons,only one stood out that would apply here, and that is serial murder. It's not art theft, or bank robbery, and I doubt she was a gang member etc.Then I combined that choice with the stats for no other reason than to assume he is a serial killer, along with the very little clues that we have.
1) We do know that her body was left in the open, and not buried, and the majority of serial killers do not conceal the body. which leads to the next stat.
2) We know the body was found within 24 hours.In murders involving a serial killer, the majority of bodies are found within 24 hours.
3) We do not know the COD because LE has not released that. MSM has said that the COD was strangulation. My opinion only is to believe that, because as LE did say, she fought very hard. I know there are many reasons to fight very hard, but when a person is being strangled, the fear of losing air will make you fight like you have never fought before. (Same case as KV, and we do know she was strangled) The number one method of killing a serial killer uses is strangulation.
4)Serial killers pick a spot that is comfortable for them to kill. There was a detective interviewed on the news that seemed to think that one reason he picked that spot was because he was comfortable and could see traffic coming for a distance either way. Looking back I wonder if he was thinking this was the work of a serial killer/future serial killer too.
5) As I posted in a previous post, there's a professor of criminal justice that teaches in Boston. When asked by news media if the killer would be caught, without hesitation he replied "Yes when he kills again" He must think it is a serial/future serial killer, one would think.

Again, I can't say for sure that it is a serial killer, but if it is, this is a text book case.
If it's not, then maybe someone can answer the original thought. What reason would/could the FBI be called in to join the investigation, based on the reasons why they join?

Just to add, Roseofangels has made some great points in regards to the Macdonald Triad.

Excellent analysis.

Of course we don't know how much of this will turn out to the be the case, but this is a great list and gives quite a bit to think about.

Thanks.

 

[rosesfromangels]

Rocky1, great post. Agree completely on the FBI points.
However, I think attribution to great points on macdonald triad goes elsewhere.
Although I do make good points from time to time. ; ) ; ) ; )

 

[Steleheart]

Depending on the extent of her injuries, and things like the angle of them and force, sometimes they can come up with a height and weight profile of the perp....and perhaps from that profile make a determination of the likelihood of it being male.

However in this case I think they know because of skin cell DNA and her nails, perhaps other skin or hair cells on her body.

I know some large athletic women who could take me down in a couple moves. My own niece is 6' likely about my weight, B-Ball and soccer player/ coach ... I am 6'1 and 185 but I guarantee she is stronger. , No, no determination of gender, put out there so specifically, came from height, weight, angle, force, etc.. IMO
SO how did they determine he had bruises, cuts and scrapes from height, weight, angle and force?

 

[Camerabug]

I think that it is either a serial killer, or a serial killer in the making, meaning this is his first kill, and will continue to kill if not stopped.
But what is more important is I think LE thinks so too. I am basing it on this..
There are a limited amount of criteria where the FBI gets involved in a crime, according to the link that I posted. When I looked at the different reasons,only one stood out that would apply here, and that is serial murder. It's not art theft, or bank robbery, and I doubt she was a gang member etc.Then I combined that choice with the stats for no other reason than to assume he is a serial killer, along with the very little clues that we have.
1) We do know that her body was left in the open, and not buried, and the majority of serial killers do not conceal the body. which leads to the next stat.
2) We know the body was found within 24 hours.In murders involving a serial killer, the majority of bodies are found within 24 hours.
3) We do not know the COD because LE has not released that. MSM has said that the COD was strangulation. My opinion only is to believe that, because as LE did say, she fought very hard. I know there are many reasons to fight very hard, but when a person is being strangled, the fear of losing air will make you fight like you have never fought before. (Same case as KV, and we do know she was strangled) The number one method of killing a serial killer uses is strangulation.
4)Serial killers pick a spot that is comfortable for them to kill. There was a detective interviewed on the news that seemed to think that one reason he picked that spot was because he was comfortable and could see traffic coming for a distance either way. Looking back I wonder if he was thinking this was the work of a serial killer/future serial killer too.
5) As I posted in a previous post, there's a professor of criminal justice that teaches in Boston. When asked by news media if the killer would be caught, without hesitation he replied "Yes when he kills again" He must think it is a serial/future serial killer, one would think.
6) Not released by LE, but by the news, she was sexually assaulted. 81% of serial killers use this as the motive.

Again, I can't say for sure that it is a serial killer, but if it is, this is a text book case.
If it's not, then maybe someone can answer the original thought. What reason would/could the FBI be called in to join the investigation, based on the reasons why they join?

Just to add, Roseofangels has made some great points in regards to the Macdonald Triad.

Thank you for your response. In my mind, I can't decide if I think he's a SK in the making or not i.e. was she targeted specifically? I just feel it may be a leap...Too much we don't know...

as as far as the news reporting things the DA hasn't said, well..it's not the first time they've gone a little too far out on a limb as our exercise with what burns VM may have sustained illustrates...

in the end, it will be a joyous day when this perp is behind bars where he belongs.

 

[Rocky1]

BBM;
Then why would they not ask about a car with that description? "Did anyone see a red Camaro, did anyone see a blank white van, etc. If witnesses saw a car, then why would they ask if witnesses saw a car if they already know that witnesses saw a car and no one could describe it?
Curious reasoning I must say!

Because no witnesses IMO. The have evidence of a vehicle. They did not ask about a motorcycle, a boat or a plane. If they found a piece of a vehicle then they would know what kind of vehicle. I am left with tire tracks as a logical indication there was a vehicle there.

MOO

Bingo. my thoughts exactly.
Why waste time going through the well over 1000 tips, sifting through tips about a blue ford focus someone may have called in, when they are looking for a red ford van. (just an example)

 

[zoso]

They found dna, there was no hit on the system. They have been very quiet on this as they should and any specific questions they have for bystanders can derive from any reason. There may not have been tracks, but plausibility of a car is worth confirming with witness accounts.

At this point my speculation is not hearing anything from LE is appropriate if the perp is local, a stranger or in fact a serial killer with previous cases offering evidence like with poor HG and MH. My imagination Always goes to a local teenager or a new/newish serial killer.

One thing that puzzles me is she told her mom she was going for a walk. Not "ok I'm going on my walk now or going on my run." Which implies routine. That sticks out if she were to be actually meeting up with someone...also it could be paraphrased in the media.

 

[DatelineFan]

BBM;
Then why would they not ask about a car with that description? "Did anyone see a red Camaro, did anyone see a blank white van, etc. If witnesses saw a car, then why would they ask if witnesses saw a car if they already know that witnesses saw a car and no one could describe it?
Curious reasoning I must say!

Because no witnesses IMO. The have evidence of a vehicle. They did not ask about a motorcycle, a boat or a plane. If they found a piece of a vehicle then they would know what kind of vehicle. I am left with tire tracks as a logical indication there was a vehicle there.

MOO

I'm stating my opinion that they possibly have a witness to a vehicle, based on a case I was involved in. You don't have to take this as fact, since I want to protect my identity. The day of the attempted abduction I survived, the perp did succeed in abducting and murdering another woman. That day, several witnesses identified the vehicle he was driving. LE continued to ask the public about any vehicles in the area at that time. They also interviewed each of us, and had us look at vehicle line-ups, without telling us that other people saw the same one. It took a few years to go to trial, and probably for 2 years, they kept it confidential. I think they do that so they don't taint witness testimony.

I have no idea if this is the case, here, I just wanted to offer this perspective.

 

[Camerabug]

BBM;
Then why would they not ask about a car with that description? "Did anyone see a red Camaro, did anyone see a blank white van, etc. If witnesses saw a car, then why would they ask if witnesses saw a car if they already know that witnesses saw a car and no one could describe it?
Curious reasoning I must say!

Because no witnesses IMO. The have evidence of a vehicle. They did not ask about a motorcycle, a boat or a plane. If they found a piece of a vehicle then they would know what kind of vehicle. I am left with tire tracks as a logical indication there was a vehicle there.

MOO

All I can think about the car is that if the police announced that they were looking for a purple Camero with pink polka dots, there would suddenly be a rash of sightings of purple cameros with pink polka dots..it's a people thing...they don't want to put any words into a witness' mouth. And according to one news source there was a witness. The link is now dead and when I search ap stories, nothing comes up. This is the dead link, if anybody knows how to resurrect links..
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...google-employee-found-dead-woods-was-attacked

 

[Steleheart]

I'm stating my opinion that they possibly have a witness to a vehicle, based on a case I was involved in. You don't have to take this as fact, since I want to protect my identity. The day of the attempted abduction I survived, the perp did succeed in abducting and murdering another woman. That day, several witnesses identified the vehicle he was driving. LE continued to ask the public about any vehicles in the area at that time. They also interviewed each of us, and had us look at vehicle line-ups, without telling us that other people saw the same one. It took a few years to go to trial, and probably for 2 years, they kept it confidential. I think they do that so they don't taint witness testimony.

I have no idea if this is the case, here, I just wanted to offer this perspective.

Thank you so much for sharing your experience!

 

[Steleheart]

All I can think about the car is that if the police announced that they were looking for a purple Camero with pink polka dots, there would suddenly be a rash of sightings of purple cameros with pink polka dots..it's a people thing...they don't want to put any words into a witness' mouth. And according to one news source there was a witness. The link is now dead and when I search ap stories, nothing comes up. This is the dead link, if anybody knows how to resurrect links..
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...google-employee-found-dead-woods-was-attacked

True, but I have seen many more cases where LE gives a description of a vehicle seen ie: a something car with front end damage, or blacked out windows, etc.
It could go either way.

 

[ThinkHard]

I know some large athletic women who could take me down in a couple moves. My own niece is 6' likely about my weight, B-Ball and soccer player/ coach ... I am 6'1 and 185 but I guarantee she is stronger. , No, no determination of gender, put out there so specifically, came from height, weight, angle, force, etc.. IMO
SO how did they determine he had bruises, cuts and scrapes from height, weight, angle and force?

....because she scratched him.

The above was simply any answer to a poster that asked what other ways LE might be able to tell gender. Of course determine height and weight by injuries isn't difinitive because of course their are exceptions, my only point was that LE does in fact use this type of analysis to determine the build of a person and often a "likely" gender can be guessed based on that....obviously as I stated that is not a concrete gender identity like DNA would....nor do I think it's how they determined gender in this case.

It seems fairly obviously that they know gender because they have DNA, and it also seems highly probably since they mentioned he'd be scratched that said DNA came from under her finger nails.

 

[ThinkHard]

Bingo. my thoughts exactly.
Why waste time going through the well over 1000 tips, sifting through tips about a blue ford focus someone may have called in, when they are looking for a red ford van. (just an example)

Obviously because of they state the color of the car l, they increase the likelihood of getting false tips about that....at which point true sightings and false sightings become more difficult to desipher.

If they know they are looking for a blue car, try can just easily dismiss say calls about a red car. Way simplier and easier to desipher real from false memories.

It is basically suggestive questioning to ask for memories of blue cars and that defeats the purpose.

If you have ever studied criminal psychology and particularly questioning children, the wording has to be very very particular in order to not suggest information to them because this has been proven time and time again to create false memories and effect a child's testimony in an investigation.

Same psychology at play here.

 

[zoso]

Don't think about apples!


You thought about apples.

 

[ThinkHard]

True, but I have seen many more cases where LE gives a description of a vehicle seen ie: a something car with front end damage, or blacked out windows, etc.
It could go either way.

I find it's more likely that they describe the car when the believe there is a chance the victim is still alive. At that point it makes sense that they would want to increase the communities help in finding the victim alive.

 

[Steleheart]

I find it's more likely that they describe the car when the believe there is a chance the victim is still alive. At that point it makes sense that they would want to increase the communities help in finding the victim alive.

I will concede to that, yes.

 

[DatelineFan]

All I can think about the car is that if the police announced that they were looking for a purple Camero with pink polka dots, there would suddenly be a rash of sightings of purple cameros with pink polka dots..it's a people thing...they don't want to put any words into a witness' mouth. And according to one news source there was a witness. The link is now dead and when I search ap stories, nothing comes up. This is the dead link, if anybody knows how to resurrect links..
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...google-employee-found-dead-woods-was-attacked

It would be interesting to get a hold of this link! In my experience, early witness accounts were quickly wiped from the web without a trace. I think LE makes certain things disappear when they realize they might use the information in trial.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[ThinkHard]

Are you referring to the witness who said the drive by and saw a girl running and a vehicle and did a u-turn and when he went by again he saw the vehicle but no girl?

Or a different witness statement?