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

[ForensicMass]

I have explained earlier how a vehicle could fit in without being there the entire time, but only briefly.

It doesn't make sense with a well planned and pre-sited attack. Bringing a car into it to "cover up" the DNA. DNA that apparently is not already in the system. And DNA That he did a quickie botched job to remove. Bringing the car is riskier than abandoning the DNA, in my view. Find the specific car, find the killer, don't you agree? A car that was specifically identified at the scene at the Tim of the crime is just as good as DNA at sealing this guy's fate.

 

[Kickoff61]

It doesn't make sense with a well planned and pre-sited attack. Bringing a car into it to "cover up" the DNA. DNA that apparently is not already in the system. And DNA That he did a quickie botched job to remove. Bringing the car is riskier than abandoning the DNA, in my view. Find the specific car, find the killer, don't you agree? A car that was specifically identified at the scene at the Tim of the crime is just as good as DNA at sealing this guy's fate.

Sorry, I don't agree. I think it is riskier going back on foot if he had to go get something. AND if we are talking about him taking clothes or things with him....he may have not wanted to carry those things. Getting a vehicle for means to cover up DNA and retrieve items (and hide whatever wounds may show) is the most sensible.

I think jumping out of a vehicle and doing all this leaving the vehicle there throughout - is MORE risky...then to add in a possible quick decision to cover up the DNA - go back to vehicle get torch, matches something, back and do that too , all the while vehicle is sitting there.?? That is much more risky then returning quickly to retrieve items OR the other scenario of dropping her off there if it happened somewhere else on her route.

The problem is here, is we are lacking facts. Trying to speculate and piece things together without the facts. Which is actually impossible until facts are known. It could be completely different than what anyone thinks, based on facts.

 

[ForensicMass]

Sorry, I don't agree. I think it is riskier going back on foot if he had to go get something. AND if we are talking about him taking clothes or things with him....he may have not wanted to carry those things. Getting a vehicle for means to cover up DNA and retrieve items (and hide whatever wounds may show) is the most sensible.

I think jumping out of a vehicle and doing all this leaving the vehicle there throughout - is MORE risky...then to add in a possible quick decision to cover up the DNA - go back to vehicle get torch, matches something, back and do that too , all the while vehicle is sitting there.?? That is much more risky then returning quickly to retrieve items OR the other scenario of dropping her off there if it happened somewhere else on her route.

The problem is here, is we are lacking facts. Trying to speculate and piece things together without the facts. Which is actually impossible until facts are known. It could be completely different than what anyone thinks, based on facts.

Speculation can bE extremely useful in figuring these things out. I don't think he returned to the site WHATSOEVER. He made do with what he had on him, or what was in the vehicle (if there was one). Or what he had already staged at the site. Odds of him returning are very slim given the amount of time And risk. I don't think he returned on foot or in a vehicle. I think he killed did what he could to cover up and got the hell out of there

 

[Kickoff61]

It doesn't make sense with a well planned and pre-sited attack. Bringing a car into it to "cover up" the DNA. DNA that apparently is not already in the system. And DNA That he did a quickie botched job to remove. Bringing the car is riskier than abandoning the DNA, in my view. Find the specific car, find the killer, don't you agree? A car that was specifically identified at the scene at the Tim of the crime is just as good as DNA at sealing this guy's fate.

You are saying how risky it is for vehicle to be there, but on the other hand saying the perpetrator left vehicle parked there in plain site while doing all this.

 

[Kickoff61]

We can disagree then.

 

[Kickoff61]

We don't even know if this is the primary crime scene or secondary or even the cause of death.

 

[Kickoff61]

Speculation can help make sense of some things, but nothing with certainty or definite answers without the facts.

 

[Rocky1]

I agree that the location, if known to the perp, would be the best place along her known Route. But if this was a planned location, how does a vehicle fit in? No pre-planning rapist or murderer would PLAN to leave a car right along the road there. Doing so would completely negate the benefit of the remoteness of the site. That's a good spot to attack if you are jumping out of nowhere. But it's really not a great spot at all if you have a vehicle along the road. And by LE's knowledge, I do believe a vehicle was seen right there in the time period in question or they wouldn't be asking the public about it. Therefore, despite how perfect the spot seems, I'm inclined to think that if a car was there, it wasn't someone jumping out of the woods. It was someone cruising along, and looking for a remote place near where he saw Vanessa return from the store. Whoever it was seems to me to have known where she would be emanating from. That leaves long-time planner/admirer and random guy that spotted her at the store and watched where she went. Long-time planner wouldn't use a vehicle, and would have had a plan for where to hide her body. I believe this person became aware of Vanessa very shortly before the assault.

OR knew of her. Saw her earlier that day, got the idea

The car doesn't fit, that's why I think with such a short timeline, people may have spotted an unmarked cruiser/SUV parked along that road. Fair to say the police were on the scene by 4 pm? The first report gave a timeline of 1-4 pm. how many people called the tip line those first few days? How many people have to report seeing an suv before it becomes a reliable tip 20,25? 25 cars could have passed that SUV in 5 minutes before marked units started showing up, if that was the case.
I am leaning away from someone seeing her that day at the store, getting all her information somehow (when she was going to run, where she ran( followed her home to find out where she lived, scouted out the path, and made the plan happen all within a few hours. I think as you say, he knew of her, and knew her route. By the looks of things, she always started out walking/jogging north, no matter which road she took from there.
Someone that lives along the route she jogged, that was a lurker, had time to let his plan simmer in his head, and saw the perfect time to act.
Or of course going back to my thought, that he was on a bike, rode his bike on that road before, saw her at least a few times jogging, rode past her that day, and ambushed her.

 

[Kickoff61]

The car doesn't fit, that's why I think with such a short timeline, people may have spotted an unmarked cruiser/SUV parked along that road. Fair to say the police were on the scene by 4 pm? The first report gave a timeline of 1-4 pm. how many people called the tip line those first few days? How many people have to report seeing an suv before it becomes a reliable tip 20,25? 25 cars could have passed that SUV in 5 minutes before marked units started showing up, if that was the case.
I am leaning away from someone seeing her that day at the store, getting all her information somehow (when she was going to run, where she ran( followed her home to find out where she lived, scouted out the path, and made the plan happen all within a few hours. I think as you say, he knew of her, and knew her route. By the looks of things, she always started out walking/jogging north, no matter which road she took from there.
Someone that lives along the route she jogged, that was a lurker, had time to let his plan simmer in his head, and saw the perfect time to act.
Or of course going back to my thought, that he was on a bike, rode his bike on that road before, saw her at least a few times jogging, rode past her that day, and ambushed her.

I agree Rocky, it is hard to fit the vehicle in with this. Absolutely. Someone clearly saw one. Question is, was it related to this? I also agree it is unlikely someone planned all this quickly from seeing her at the store. It has always seemed to be someone familiar with the area (as they reported) more than likely along her running route and chose this day to act.

 

[ForensicMass]

You are saying how risky it is for vehicle to be there, but on the other hand saying the perpetrator left vehicle parked there in plain site while doing all this.

Unplanned vehicle based attack. He had no choice. Coming back with a vehicle is a matter of choice.

 

[Kickoff61]

Unplanned vehicle based attack. He had no choice. Coming back with a vehicle is a matter of choice.

Sorry I am having trouble understanding you. You are calling this unplanned vehicle based attack, but yet saying it was planned out from the store?

 

[Kickoff61]

I am still curious about the source re: her being at the store?

 

[ForensicMass]

Unplanned vehicle based attack. He had no choice. Coming back with a vehicle is a matter of choice.

Anyone in the immediate vicinity would have been thoroughly investigate by this point.

Regarding the SUV tip. The cops aren't morons. They know this SUV was seen there PRIOR to their own involvement. Guaranteed. This tip has been completely vetted before asking the public for information about it. This person saw a SUV there before the search. It was not a police SUV. They had a specific time from the witness that the witness could be sure of (witness was in town only before 230, for example). And police could easily cross check the whereabouts of Their officers against the tip.

This doesn't mean necessarily that the SUV was involved. Should have been a one in a million coincidence that someone stopped for a phone call or to check a map or something in the specific location that this crime had just taken place (or was in progress). One in a million.
BUT I AM SURE we aren't talking about a mixup with a police vehicle at 4pm. The FBI is involved. The state police are involved. We need to give them more credit than to insinuate that they are too incompetent to sort out the credibility of the SUV tip.

 

[ForensicMass]

Sorry I am having trouble understanding you. You are calling this unplanned vehicle based attack, but yet saying it was planned out from the store?

Sorry for not being explicit. If the perpetrator was in a vehicle he never intended to conduct the assault at that location. She Got away. The attack at that location was not planned.

 

[ForensicMass]

I am still curious about the source re: her being at the store?

I'll find it.

 

[Rocky1]

Anyone in the immediate vicinity would have been thoroughly investigate by this point.

Regarding the SUV tip. The cops aren't morons. They know this SUV was seen there PRIOR to their own involvement. Guaranteed. This tip has been completely vetted before asking the public for information about it. This person saw a SUV there before the search. It was not a police SUV. They had a specific time from the witness that the witness could be sure of (witness was in town only before 230, for example). And police could easily cross check the whereabouts of Their officers against the tip.

This doesn't mean necessarily that the SUV was involved. Should have been a one in a million coincidence that someone stopped for a phone call or to check a map or something in the specific location that this crime had just taken place (or was in progress). One in a million.
BUT I AM SURE we aren't talking about a mixup with a police vehicle at 4pm. The FBI is involved. The state police are involved. We need to give them more credit than to insinuate that they are too incompetent to sort out the credibility of the SUV tip.

Cops may not be morons, but they make mistakes and botch crime scenes every day.
It's easy for someone to be off on their timeline by an hour or so. yes they would have vetted the tip, but how can you toss the tip out if someone calling it in said they saw the SUV parked at 3, when it really was 4?
It's clear to me that they don't have much to go on, and are chasing rainbows, so if the tip may be nothing more than a possibility of something to go on, why not throw it out there?

 

[Kickoff61]

If someone saw a dark SUV in the area of the scene without seeing the 'person' this doesn't necessarily make it enough probable cause to demand DNA test from those with SUV's in the immediate area to rule them out. Which can also be why they want more information on a man with access to dark SUV that day.

 

[Kickoff61]

Anyone in the immediate vicinity would have been thoroughly investigate by this point.

Regarding the SUV tip. The cops aren't morons. They know this SUV was seen there PRIOR to their own involvement. Guaranteed. This tip has been completely vetted before asking the public for information about it. This person saw a SUV there before the search. It was not a police SUV. They had a specific time from the witness that the witness could be sure of (witness was in town only before 230, for example). And police could easily cross check the whereabouts of Their officers against the tip.

This doesn't mean necessarily that the SUV was involved. Should have been a one in a million coincidence that someone stopped for a phone call or to check a map or something in the specific location that this crime had just taken place (or was in progress). One in a million.
BUT I AM SURE we aren't talking about a mixup with a police vehicle at 4pm. The FBI is involved. The state police are involved. We need to give them more credit than to insinuate that they are too incompetent to sort out the credibility of the SUV tip.

I do not think everyone in the immediate area has been ruled out as you are implying. In fact, even recently when the dark SUV issue was reported, a neighbor in the area was on TV saying they were back in the neighborhood questioning people and he had voluntarily given DNA. This also doesn't mean all people were willing to give voluntary DNA.

 

[Kickoff61]

Sorry for not being explicit. If the perpetrator was in a vehicle he never intended to conduct the assault at that location. She Got away. The attack at that location was not planned.

If she 'got away' I would be more apt to think they considered it a failed attempt and not take risk to jump out of car leaving it there to do all this. But again, we can disagree, that's fine.

 

[ForensicMass]

I am still curious about the source re: her being at the store?

I am glad I searched for this. There was more info than I recalled.

A worker at the mountainside market deli said police came there at 7:15 PM (Before she was found). The police said they believed that Vanessa had been to the market around noon for a drink.

http://www.telegram.com/news/20160808/unimaginable-act-sets-princeton-on-edge

This fits precisely with my supposition that she was hydrating for her run and that someone could have seen her at this point which was not long at all before she set out

I think this is an extremely important clue that we need to focus on. This Was the last thing that she publicly did before she went running.