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

[Rocky1]

What? No not at all.

I'm not sure how you got that.

I suggested she could have been out over the summer and ran into a friend of a friend while she was out with friends or something like that. I guess technically that means they were out in the open...but if she hanging out with a group of people why would he specifically fall under suspicion.

Why would she tell her mom about him?

Again as I've said several times I do NOT think she wasn't having some closed OR open relationship with him. I think there connection could be far more casual then that.

I got that from your previous thoughts going back a way. The scenario based on your own experiences where you didn't tell a soul etc.
I wouldn't expect for her to tell her Mom, but if it's "casual", I wouldn't expect for her to keep it a secret from her either, ie. say she was going out for a jog when in fact she was going out to meet someone in the example you used previously.
Thanks for clarifying.
If it's casual, why all the rage?

 

[ForensicMass]

They never said they found DNA. They announced it was a male, likely with scratches. The deduction of course being they know this because male DNA was under her nails.

Police haven't given us a check list of their evidence and they won't. They have no reason too.

Telling us he's male and had scratches however might jolt someone's memory.

Announcing they have fingerprints doesn't do anything as far as the public and tips.

They DO HAVE. DNA. they are phenotyping it right now. Can't do that without a sample.

 

[liz b.]

It's interesting that LE used the phrase : "had access to " in reference to the SUV...jmo

 

[ThinkHard]

I have always thought it was only him with her phone near the mountain barn, and not her. I also like this scenario because, if the case, helps to narrow down the time of the crime, and the timing and route of his escape. I think there is MUCH value in entertaining this specific theory. The crime is therefore over by 220pm. He VEry likely is traveling by vehicle if he gets 3 miles away. Also important, his escape
Route might reveal how he also arrives at the scene, and is also more than likely in the direction he feels isn't safe, is more familiar with, more comfortable with, possibly in the direction of his home.

If he's local. As in grew up in Princeton...but lives in a neighboring town with his wife...then he likely has a family home in Princeton as well as the home he shares with his wife.

That gives him two places to escape to and clean up depending on the schedules of the people in either place.

But it's possible he went to his families home...maybe even in the opposite direction he disposed the phone....and no one was home so he was able to showe and clean up and then head back to the home he shares with his wife.

 

[ThinkHard]

They DO HAVE. DNA. they are phenotyping it right now. Can't do that without a sample.

I know the have it. I said LE has never stated it directly not that they didn't have it.

It's been inferred obviously because they said male and scratches and again because of the facial imaging ... but I do not believe LE has ever made a statement about it though.

 

[Rocky1]

I have always thought it was only him with her phone near the mountain barn, and not her. I also like this scenario because, if the case, helps to narrow down the time of the crime, and the timing and route of his escape. I think there is MUCH value in entertaining this specific theory. The crime is therefore over by 220pm. He VEry likely is traveling by vehicle if he gets 3 miles away. Also important, his escape
Route might reveal how he also arrives at the scene, and is also more than likely in the direction he feels isn't safe, is more familiar with, more comfortable with, possibly in the direction of his home.

If he has already killed her, then why would he have her phone with a target on his back, knowing he could be tracked?

 

[ThinkHard]

I got that from your previous thoughts going back a way. The scenario based on your own experiences where you didn't tell a soul etc.
I wouldn't expect for her to tell her Mom, but if it's "casual", I wouldn't expect for her to keep it a secret from her either, ie. say she was going out for a jog when in fact she was going out to meet someone in the example you used previously.
Thanks for clarifying.
If it's casual, why all the rage?

<modsnip>for one I don't find any need to tell my mom every friend of a friend a ran into while out, especially if it's not someone they even know.

So that explains in part why her mom wouldn't know.

Now say she did hook up with him casually a few months back and she didn't know he was married but found out shortly after....she might feel awful about it and embarrassed and angry and like it was somehow her fault (because that's how a lot of girls are conditioned to think) and that could be why she didn't really tell anyone.

Regarding his rage...what if she threatened to tell his wife? Plus he's a sociopath. And his rage is like a light switch, when on he becomes a different person. Maybe it's a side he works really hard to hide from pretty much everyone.

 

[ThinkHard]

It's interesting that LE used the phrase : "had access to " in reference to the SUV...jmo

Agreed. I think that's significant too. Someone who had acces to a relatives vehicke perhaps? That wording was one of the things that made me wonder if they had some POI's and where trying to shake loose someone's doubt.

 

[Rocky1]

<modsnip>for one I don't find any need to tell my mom every friend of a friend a ran into while out, especially if it's not someone they even know.

So that explains in part why her mom wouldn't know.

Now say she did hook up with him casually a few months back and she didn't know he was married but found out shortly after....she might feel awful about it and embarrassed and angry and like it was somehow her fault (because that's how a lot of girls are conditioned to think) and that could be why she didn't really tell anyone.

Regarding his rage...what if she threatened to tell his wife? Plus he's a sociopath. And his rage is like a light switch, when on he becomes a different person. Maybe it's a side he works really hard to hide from pretty much everyone.

Fair enough. I missed the posts about your change in theories before today.
Ok, she feels it's all her fault, but she has threatened to tell his wife, Got it.

 

[ForensicMass]

Sounds reasonable...but one hang up I have is if she was heading to the store and ran into someone...but no one saw her at the store....why would running into someone cause her to abort her errand at the store?

But then still head out running an hour later?

I guess in this scenario what I'm wondering is if she was planning to go to the store but whoever she ran into and whatever was said caused her to change her plans.

On a somewhat related note- we need to consider that unexpectedly "running into someone "while on her way to the store is highly unlikely, or at least no more likely than her running into a random killer. Because since she wasn't seen at the store we are assuming that this encounter happened between her driveway and the store parking lot, A total distance of 1.6 miles equivalent to a 3-minute drive. Again she did not go to school in Princeton, I think it's safe to assume that although she probably knew a couple of people from Princeton most of her friends were in Leominster or elsewhere, and The odds of encountering someone randomly on a 1.6 mile, 3-minute drive, while both she, and I think it's also safe to assume he, were in cars, are very very slim. I don't know Vanessa's habits of observation but sometimes I drive by my own friends and don't notice them passing in their cars. And that's IF someone were even to pass her.

 

[liz b.]

On a somewhat related note- we need to consider that unexpectedly "running into someone "while on her way to the store is highly unlikely, or at least no more likely than her running into a random killer. Because since she wasn't seen at the store we are assuming that this encounter happened between her driveway and the store parking lot, A total distance of 1.6 miles equivalent to a 3-minute drive. Again she did not go to school in Princeton, I think it's safe to assume that although she probably knew a couple of people from Princeton most of her friends were in Leominster or elsewhere, and The odds of encountering someone randomly on a 1.6 mile, 3-minute drive, while both she, and I think it's also safe to assume he, were in cars, are very very slim. I don't know Vanessa's habits of observation but sometimes I drive by my own friends and don't notice them passing in their cars. And that's IF someone were even to pass her.

Did she walk or drive to the store ? Also, the randomness of "running into someone" could have seemed random only to Vanessa. The person she "ran into" could have made it seem random. jmo Also Vanessa supposedly spent a lot of her weekends visiting her mother. She might have met up with someone that she thought was harmless, based on seeing them around the area. I don't think this was a friend of hers. Someone younger. jmo

 

[ForensicMass]

FM, did the person at the Mountain Side say if LE said that she wasn't there? Or never said one way or the other?
Did the employees say they reviewed the video themselves?

The source implied she was not on the video tape, but didn't directly say LE confirmed that, nor did he say store employees reviewed the tape. I think they handed the tape over immediately, precluding any review of the tape by store personnel. But as I believe ThinkHard mentioned earlier, It seems to be the consensus and not his individual opinion that she was not there- meaning that nobody at the store remembered her being there.

 

[ThinkHard]

Fair enough. I missed the posts about your change in theories before today.
Ok, she feels it's all her fault, but she has threatened to tell his wife, Got it.

I don't know if you are male or female but as a female I can saying feeling like things are your fault is a complicated matter....it's compounded by psychology and social norms. As a girl when you feel something is your fault like that, you might not tell people so you can avoid their judgement. Judgement from those you love and respect is the worst kind of judgment one can feel...it's like when your parents say we aren't angry, we are disappointed.

However that doesn't mean that she doesn't also blame him. Feeling like it's your fault doesn't mean you don't think it's also their fault, or even that they are at far greater fault.

I think it's possible if they were taking about things that day, and he tried to get her to hook up again, and she said no, and he tried again, and she said stop or ill tell your wife...he could have snapped.

 

[ForensicMass]

It's interesting that LE used the phrase : "had access to " in reference to the SUV...jmo

Simple reason, I think - they want all potential witnesses to consider not just those people they know or suspect who OWN dark SUVs, but to expand their suspicions to include anyone who may have been able to borrow one. Meaning they just don't know if the perp was using his own car.

 

[ForensicMass]

If he's local. As in grew up in Princeton...but lives in a neighboring town with his wife...then he likely has a family home in Princeton as well as the home he shares with his wife.

That gives him two places to escape to and clean up depending on the schedules of the people in either place.

But it's possible he went to his families home...maybe even in the opposite direction he disposed the phone....and no one was home so he was able to showe and clean up and then head back to the home he shares with his wife.

Very interesting theory.

 

[ForensicMass]

Did she walk or drive to the store ? Also, the randomness of "running into someone" could have seemed random only to Vanessa. The person she "ran into" could have made it seem random. jmo Also Vanessa supposedly spent a lot of her weekends visiting her mother. She might have met up with someone that she thought was harmless, based on seeing them around the area. I don't think this was a friend of hers. Someone younger. jmo

BY all reasonable accounts she must have driven, since walking would have satisfied both the trip to the store and the need to run or exercise, thereby eliminating her need to follow up the store visit with a run. That wouldn't make sense. I believe She must have driven.

 

[ThinkHard]

If he has already killed her, then why would he have her phone with a target on his back, knowing he could be tracked?

This is one of the reasons I wondered if perhaps she was willlingly in his vehicle. Then he realized it was there only after he had left her body.

Perhaps the phone even made a sound when her relatives tried to locate it and it was the sound that even made him aware it was there? What if he just happen to be by the Mnt Barn at that time.

I feel if they can just bring this person in their focus they'll have the evidence to convict.

If he wasn't planning to kill her, he likely had HIS phone on him the whole time...if they found out who HE was and tracked his phone that day...they'd have their answer.

Can they get a POI's phone tracking on just a hunch? Or do they need a sopeona for that stuff?

 

[liz b.]

BY all reasonable accounts she must have driven, since walking would have satisfied both the trip to the store and the need to run or exercise, thereby eliminating her need to follow up the store visit with a run. That wouldn't make sense. I believe She must have driven.

Ty. So her mother or aunt would likely know this. It's an important point. Whose car, I wonder did she take ? Wonder if it was seen anywhere near the market ? Or anyplace else ? Wonder why LE hasn't asked the public if they saw this vehicle anyplace that day around [/B]noon ?

FM, having gone to Princeton, what is your take on this crime ? Do local people seem scared ? Did anyone give you the vibe that there was someone around Vanessa there who might have harmed her ? Or was the general consensus that they could not imagine anyone wishing to hurt her ? TIA

 

[Kickoff61]

Sorry, but I don't believe law enforcement would be telling anything to the store employees right now about what they did or didn't see on the camera footage they reviewed.

 

[ThinkHard]

On a somewhat related note- we need to consider that unexpectedly "running into someone "while on her way to the store is highly unlikely, or at least no more likely than her running into a random killer. Because since she wasn't seen at the store we are assuming that this encounter happened between her driveway and the store parking lot, A total distance of 1.6 miles equivalent to a 3-minute drive. Again she did not go to school in Princeton, I think it's safe to assume that although she probably knew a couple of people from Princeton most of her friends were in Leominster or elsewhere, and The odds of encountering someone randomly on a 1.6 mile, 3-minute drive, while both she, and I think it's also safe to assume he, were in cars, are very very slim. I don't know Vanessa's habits of observation but sometimes I drive by my own friends and don't notice them passing in their cars. And that's IF someone were even to pass her.

The school she went to wouldn't have had too many Leominster kids. More kids from the wachusett towns go there, which includes Princeton and there were definetly Princeton kids in school with her...two being Crawley (owner of wachusett Mnt) daughters.

I don't know how many people she would have actually know from Leominster, since she only went to preschool there, and we don't know her extra curriculars that might have been town focused. Bancroft is very expensive though, so statistically most of the kids that go there come from towns that match the price tag. Leominster from what I hear has nice areas but isn't very nice overall.

The point is it's a good bet she would have know a decent amount of people from Princeton.

Regarding running into someone...I agree it's weird, such a short trip so she does this happen...the only thing I can think of is the parking lot of the market...but I think she'd be on camera.