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

[ThinkHard]

Well, your theory does make sense. I have always considered that as well, since you brought it up.

Following along...perhaps as was suggested that she put up more of a fight and thus more DNA....so he goes home to get something to cover for this and decides on fire....he lives close so he bikes or walks or whatever home......he wants to cut down on the time he might be spotted and decides vehicle is quickest....he borrows a family members suv...maybe a child's? Knows it's risky....but rationalizes it's less risky then leaving DNA.....and also less risky then being seen biking or walking on the road again....

 

[Kickoff61]

Following along...perhaps as was suggested that she put up more of a fight and thus more DNA....so he goes home to get something to cover for this and decides on fire....he lives close so he bikes or walks or whatever home......he wants to cut down on the time he might be spotted and decides vehicle is quickest....he borrows a family members suv...maybe a child's? Knows it's risky....but rationalizes it's less risky then leaving DNA.....and also less risky then being seen biking or walking on the road again....

That is one of different scenarios, yes. One that I was bringing up earlier on.

 

[ForensicMass]

The State Police were not local. They were brought in from 3 different barracks. Holden, (C6) Sturbridge,(C5A) and Leominster (C4) With so many cops and so much confusion, I can see that mistake happening rather easily.
Who said she was going to the store at 12? I know there was a lot of discussion about that here, but now the thinking is that she never was there in the first place. Where did the 12 Oclock come from? I'd like the link.

I don't know where that info is, but I will support this as I am 100% certain that it was reported as around 12 or around noon. I know that's not as good as a link, but I'm short on time, and I am sure of it. Or I wouldn't chime in.

 

[ThinkHard]

It is all about evidence at the scene. And covering his tracks. Not only 'suspicion' of people.

Yes but what evidence at the scene would put a perp under their radar?

I think it's possible to have evidence at the scene and still be missing the link btw that and DNA.

As for covering his tracks....what would he have to do?

If no one saw him, if he successfully lied to his wife?.....then what tracks would he have to cover?....they could follow more but he'd have to come under suspicion first.

My point is if he's not even on their radar, they could have all the evidence in the world and not a clue who it belongs to.

Or they could have a bunch of suspicions and no proof. Who knows.

 

[Kickoff61]

People keep saying he didn't want to be seen in the area. Yet, that completely conflicts with his vehicle parked on the road for the duration of all this. *specifically with the driveway to the house so close to the entrance of the path (across the street)

 

[ThinkHard]

People keep saying he didn't want to be seen in the area. Yet, that completely conflicts with his vehicle parked on the road for the duration of all this. *specifically with the driveway to the house so close to the entrance of the path (across the street)

One of the only things that makes the vehicles make sense to me, is if the person in that vehicle didn't plan on becoming a criminal that day and therefor had no reason to hide it as if he was committing a crime in the first place. And managed to get very lucky, perhaps he was even driving someone else's car that day.

The 2 other ways I see the vehicle....

- he killed her via foot/ bike and came back to burn her.

- he knew her, picked her up on the side of the road, they went somewhere else something happens, now he has a dead girl, and brings her back to where he picked her up from. Now I know this is unlikely but I don't completely rule it out....while dumping her there is a risk...I think the perp might consider it a risk he's willing to take.....say a car drove buy while she Is near his....so he knew someone had at leas seen his car and her on the side of the road together. Now if this is the last known sighting (theory not facts), then it's better for him if he brings her body back there, rather then somewhere else.....even if they track him down he could always says he stopped and talked with her.....if she was found somewhere else then he may rationalize they would assume he was the one who took her somewhere else.....having her found there he might at least think makes him look more innocent.

 

[Kickoff61]

Getting out of dodge with a body in the vehicle for long distance? The longer the distance, the more risky as well as the evidence in vehicle 'increases'.

 

[Rocky1]

Holden states troopers would know the difference, half their kids go to Wachusett HS. (Figure of speach , not literally)

12 o'clock came from articles and the suspicion is that info was told to LE by her parents....because who else would suggest that she had been there then in the first place. This was also very early when it was still likely in the hands of local LE.

You may disagree on the relevance here...but I think this is actually a tid bit that could in fact be significant.

What I do not think happened was LE mixing up the two times and locations. And I think to dismiss that info would be a mistake.

If you would like to of course that's your choice. But if others would like to discuss its significance, I would just kindly ask that you allow us to do so.

That still leaves Leominster and Sturbridge and Police that are not local.
Even if they were local, it could be that the cop that was talking to Vanessa family simply mispoke and said Mountain Side instead of Mountain Barn.

I'm not sure who would have said she she was there at 12.Oclock. That's why I was asking for a link.
I am not at all saying that her Mom didn't tell LE that. I just wanted to see the source.
The Daily Mail said that she was found in a park. They also said not only was the SUV seen parked on BSR. but it was also seen driving all around town both before and after the murder. My point is that stories grow fast, and all I want to do is consider the source.
I think it's great to discuss any scenario. Mine may be totally wrong. As I said before, at this point it could have happened anyway, and anyones opinion is valid, and just because I may think this happened a certain way, doesn't mean that it did.
I hope that you have a Happy New Year, and the same applies to everyone here.

 

[Rocky1]

It's just a natural phenomenon that occurs, especially on dead trees. Molds are everywhere. Not just in your sink or basement. They're anywhere they can grow.

That's good info about the tree, and the mold.
There was discussion that the fire may have been an old fire from years past, because there was green grass below that tree. Then after looking at the fresh ash in the so called "fire pit" it looked recent so something wasn't adding up.
And now we know.

 

[ForensicMass]

<modsnip> Never did I say 'brought back'. That sounds like attacked there, brought away and back. I did not say that. What I did say , is it is no less risky to park a vehicle there to be seen with a driveway right across the street for the entire time, then to have this happen somewhere else on the route and then left there (with vehicle there less time). OR someone doing it there and returning briefly with vehicle. You can think ridiculous all you want, but I have yet to fit the vehicle there to be seen near that driveway nearby and traffic for the entire, time, struggle, killing, fire and cover up. We will have to disagree.<modsnip>

The difference in those two scenarios is that if the car was parked there it could have been an impulsive measure created when he intentionally or accidentally harmed her there (or he persued her as she escaped him) and he wanted to get rid of the evidence AT THAT MOMENT - ....while GOING to that area would be a precalculated effort that COULD be avoided. so, one scenario a reaction and CYA move, The other a precalculated effort.

Therefore the risk is not equal.

 

[DeDee]

Can we envision Perp riding his bicycle to VM from behind, tossing the bike into the tall grass while grabbing her? This is the most difficult part to me is determining how he got her off the road and so far into the woods.

From CS video, some of the tall grass came up to the shoulders and heads of LEO. Some of the tall grass had tiny purple flowers blooms on them. It was thick enough cover to hide while waiting.

 

[Rocky1]

Can we envision Perp riding his bicycle to VM from behind, tossing the bike into the tall grass while grabbing her? This is the most difficult part to me is determining how he got her off the road and so far into the woods.

From CS video, some of the tall grass came up to the shoulders and heads of LEO. Some of the tall grass had tiny purple flowers blooms on them. It was thick enough cover to hide while waiting.

I don't think he rode up behind her and ambushed her.
I posted a few pages back, what I think happened, is, he rode past her when she first left her Moms house, pedaled to the path, either picked up the bike not to leave tracks and hid it in the woods, or hid it in the gully behind the guardrail, then hid there himself. It's an easy place to hide where he could not only know when she was approaching, but also he would have been able to see if any cars were coming. Then once she passed him and was at the path entrance, he checked for cars, there were none coming, so he sprung up from the gully, hit her in the head, knocking her out and then dragging her into the path.
If he was hiding further in the path, not only may she have seen him darting out, but he would not have been able to see if any cars were coming, being so far back.
There was grass under the guardrail, so he could have hid while cars drove by while he was waiting for her, and they never would have seen him.
If she is knocked out and he carries her rather than drags her, that would take less time to get her out of sight... Just guessing from the time he sprung up and out of the gully, incapacitated her and carried her in the woods, less than 45 seconds.
If he is wearing a helmet and gloves, and she woke up fighting, the helmet would have been a plus to him.
If he does have cuts on his face, and pedaled away wearing a helmet and sunglasses, If cars passed him while he was riding, all he would have had to do is keep his head down and with a helmet and sunglasses, nobody would notice.
When he got home, all he had to say is that he took a spill on his bike, and that covers the scratches and bruises.
He knows the path because he has rode his bike down that road before and maybe found the path when he had to relieve himself.
He knows VM jogged on it too, and I believe he saw her before, and the idea of doing this was planted in his mind before that day, but the decision to act that day was impulsive once he rode past her.
Once he lit the fire, he was able to make a fast escape on his bike, where if he was on foot would not have, and he would have had to walk down Rt 31 or BSR or cut through a neighbors yard and took the chance of being seen. I don't think he was on foot.
All JMO.

 

[Kickoff61]

I will try to explain what I am saying about the vehicle options.

Option One - He came upon her on the road in vehicle, but had to stop with precise timing attacking her at the end of that guard rail (start of cart path). Or he was stopped there already (and jumped out of the vehicle) at the cart path entrance attack her there, still being a struggle on the road side. Then his vehicle had to stay parked there while he brings her into the woods , does a murder, (then decides to start a fire) which I believe was due to realizing from the struggle so much DNA was left behind. Possibly go back to vehicle (or not) for matches /lighter and back to do the fire. Or just did the fire there. **The problem with this is, all this time , the vehicle is parked at that location and there is a driveway close by across the street, anyone could have come out of , familiar with that path to check what is going on. (that is not to mention traffic) I do not think this is as quick as some are making it out to be.

Second option - (vehicle parked there part time) He is on foot when he attacks her at the cart path entrance. Yes, a struggle would still be on the side of the road to get her into the path (IF he had not been in there and called to her for help). Then IF he suddenly realizes how much DNA he left behind from the unexpected fight, and did not have something to start a fire, that would lead him to run (maybe through trees if he had visible injuries) (just a guess) to get what is needed at home. Then, he is running out of time and quickly goes back to the scene in vehicle to do the fire. (Again , no less risky then vehicle there the entire time near that house)

Third option - She is not attacked at the cart path and is attacked later on her route at someone's property. (explaining 1,000 tips not only to do with BSR) (possible other sightings of her running) and he clearly doesn't want to leave her on his property, knows of the path location and brings her there in the vehicle to do the fire. (not wanting to risk increasing evidence in vehicle to bring her further that summer day). And no-one knows his schedule , time frame or anything with people he knows or what he has planned that day or who else uses SUV possible, etc.

Lastly - The dark SUV was on the side of the road , but not his as part of the crime.

Yes, there are other options like someone picking him up there in vehicle (but I don't think that happened) or her hanging out with someone in Dark SUV there in a secret meeting (but I don't think that happened).

Do I think this is accidental? No. Do I think there are many scenarios due to so little known in this case ? Yes. Could all of this written be wrong? Yes.

It is frustrating when people come across so certain and discounting when none of us have enough facts to be sure about anything in this at this point in time.

 

[Kickoff61]

Option 2 meant to say, going back in vehicle briefly is no 'more' risky than vehicle being there the entire time.

*and there is the issue whether he took clothes, phone , ear buds and shoe or not. The vehicle would also be used to take those items away. (if he went back to do the fire). And take off fast from there.

 

[ThinkHard]

I think people are just expressing what they feel is most likely in their eyes. I think with so little info it's obvious we are all basing theories on speculation and none of us KNOW what happened. Meaning it goes without saying that all our theories are opinion not fact.

If someone feels it's strongly about one theory over another, I don't think you should take that to me you aren't allowed to have your own opinion.

What's wrong with each person feeling strongly about a theory that conflicts with someone else's? We don't have to agree on what we think happened.

Just because someone has a strong opinion that doesn't mean there isn't room for other opinions.

To me that's kind of tone policing people and telling them to not have such strong opinions.

I think the better solution is to be secure enough in your own thoughts and ideas that those of others aren't intimidating or threatening.

 

[Evey]

On google map, there is a driveway to a house very close to the entrance of the path on the other side of the road. I still have a hard time believing the vehicle was parked at the path entrance for this entire time.

I don't believe it was and if it wasn't an SUV maybe it was some type of vehicle that could get back there easier. Wasn the there another neighbor someone said lives even closer? I wonder if this is a fire pit that has been there awhile that someone usss for campfire type stuff like smores and camping or if it was actually made in preparation and if so then how long back did they dig it? Clearly they wouldn't just walk down the path holding a shovel if they worry about the neighbors living by so that's makes me think he drove there. It's a dead end path right? Or could he literally drive down it and end up somewhere not on bsr?

 

[Gussified]

I can answer that.
I'm not sure about now, but there was a log across the path, and that was before the bend, along with taller bushes so, no.

I've seen photos of the cart path with the log across it, taken recently with no foliage. Do we know for sure that the log was there back in August? I.e., is it possible that you could drive an SUV down that cart path in August, but it has since been blocked off (maybe by LE)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Evey]

Yes, it seems more likely the vehicle was there at the entrance for (part) of the time. IF the vehicle they are talking about is in fact him.

Maybe he somehow got her close enough to te car to disable her then backed in? Or could he park farther back next to the spot that's harder to see and then maybe they only saw the car enter and leave but maybe didn't think anything of it because of there being reasons one would want to? I'm not sold that it's an SUV with how many people could have only saw the front or back or saw it briefly from far or in passing because if she somehow didn't see him on that long stretch then how could they? I feel if the report came from a home close by then maybe they are trying to throw cops off because they're protecting someone like s college age kid. Someone young may go out there often and had a pit already from past partying and drinking around a campfire type stuff.

 

[ThinkHard]

No the log was always blocking the path back there. There are things that block Connors lane right at the very beginning.

 

[ThinkHard]

The path is dead end. It doesn't go anywhere it into the woods. He could not have driven and come out somewhere else.

It's also private property, so unlikely a spot people just go and build fires and roast marshmallows.

It's common when you grow up here to party in the woods, but that's wouldn't be a great spot to do it. Too close to the town center and not enough spots for cars.