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

[Kickoff61]

I am surprised if she was attacked that early in the route, that her possible find my phone AP was still active at 2:25.

I also believe if he had succeeded at burning her completely with the fire, or a large one as Rocky1 mentioned, there would have been no DNA found.

 

[Steleheart]

Welcome all guests and members. There always seems to be more guests than members! For information on how to register try this: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?320844-Welcome-to-Websleuths-How-to-Register
For questions relation to TOS and RULES go here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?159-The-Rules

And as always if any member has an issue or question about a post it is always recommended to alert the post and ask a Mod.
To alert, there is a red triangle in the lower LEFT of every post. Click on that and ask a mod if your reply will be ok to post. The Mod can then decide if the post should stay or not.

This always helps to avoid bickering and snarking.

Regards and Happy Sleuthing New Year!

 

[Steleheart]

It's been posted several times in the past. <modsnip>

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

It does get frustrating to members who have followed a thread from the beginning but guests and new members may not have followed.

It may be possible to start a "Media Links" thread for those links members remember and have bookmarked.

I will ask a Mod if that is possible and to start one if so.

It would be a "No Discussion" type thread that would include just a link and a short quote or comment as to the content.

I am sure a Mod will let us know.

 

[Cem75]

Yes it would have hidden then body. As did the extensive foliage.

I wonder if the fact they found her body so soon was uncommon based on other cases. Pretty amazing how effective dogs are.

 

[ThinkHard]

I don't think it would have taken them very long regardless. She was only 100 ft in and off a path, rather then some random place in the woods. And it was off the road she was known to be on, juts a half mile from home.

So i don't think it would have taken LE too long to have fully explored that path even if they didn't have dogs. JMO

 

[Rocky1]

If VM told her family she was going to the market, but wasn't seen on any cameras there, that is very interesting. If this is true, where did she actually go ? To meet someone ? And who would she be meeting that she would not want to tell her family ?

As you said, "If this is true" that's a great question. The thing is, we don't know if she was seen on video or not. We know FM asked the employee, and the employee didn't think she was there, and that LE has reviewed the tape. Did LE tell the employees that she wasn't, or was that the employees opinion because they never came back and told them one way or the other? Maybe FM can elaborate.
And we don't know if the Family told LE that she was there.They may very well have, Or with the time around 7 pm, and being that her body hadn't been found yet, LE was asking everyone, and it could be that a neighbor said they were in the Mountain Side around noon, and they "thought they saw a girl that looked like her buying a drink," after LE showed them a pic. It could also be that LE went to the Mountain Side just to ask if anyone had seen her, and one employee thought they remembered seeing her, and another said he/she didn't remember.

 

[liz b.]

As you said, "If this is true" that's a great question. The thing is, we don't know if she was seen on video or not. We know FM asked the employee, and the employee didn't think she was there, and that LE has reviewed the tape. Did LE tell the employees that she wasn't, or was that the employees opinion because they never came back and told them one way or the other? Maybe FM can elaborate.
And we don't know if the Family told LE that she was there.They may very well have, Or with the time around 7 pm, and being that her body hadn't been found yet, LE was asking everyone, and it could be that a neighbor said they were in the Mountain Side around noon, and they "thought they saw a girl that looked like her buying a drink," after LE showed them a pic. It could also be that LE went to the Mountain Side just to ask if anyone had seen her, and one employee thought they remembered seeing her, and another said he/she didn't remember.

This is why I prefer video over eyewitness accounts...it would be easy to track any purchases around the time she was supposedly in the store. Did she use a debit card ? easier than taking money, and carrying change. Easy for LE to verify. I think the simplest explanation is that VM told her mother and/or her aunt that she was going to the store. That's why LE believed she might have gone there.

Where is VM's cell phone ?

 

[searunner]

A SECOND CRIME IS VERY UNLIKELY, IMO

Good post. Yup, I'd say the fact that the wording on the website her family set up makes it clear that where she was found was, indeed, where (or near where) she was killed.

The above quote is part of my response on 12/22 to Mainely who quoted the following:

• From www.VanessaMarcotte.org: "Marcotte, 27, was killed Aug. 7 in the woods near her mother&#8217;s home in Princeton, ....​

If Vanessa's family (they set up the site for her) is saying that she was killed in the woods near her mom's home, I think we can accept with perhaps 98% certainty that's what happened and that there is no second crime scene. Surely, they have more info from LE than we do.

That certainty figure is just off the top of my head. The point is that just about nothing is 100% certain because we have so very little in the way of cold, hard facts. So while I fully agree with ForensicMass's thoughts about talking about probabilities, I also think it's out of line for anyone to call anyone else's theories "ridiculous" when they could be *possible,* even if not probable.

ThinkHard - Agree with your thoughts that the *most likely* reason for the initial report that Vanessa was thought to have been seen at the store around noon is that she told her mom, aunt, or uncle that she was going to the store. So, *IF* she wasn't in the store around then (which appears to be the case, but we don't know that for certain) then I agree with you that this could be an interesting and meaningful development.

ForensicMass - Thanks for visiting the CS and reporting back. Some good info.

Hope everyone had a nice holiday.

PS -- My caps at top are not meant for emphasis - meaning I'm not screaming - but as a heading, so people can see quickly what my post is about. (The organization of the site and the sheer number of posts - some very long - would make me welcome headings, if anyone cares to follow suit.

 

[Rocky1]

I wonder if the fact they found her body so soon was uncommon based on other cases. Pretty amazing how effective dogs are.

Good question, and one we will never know.I think her having a set time to go back to NY, along with her routine, made the difference. If she had a history of spending time away from home without telling anyone, then maybe that search wouldn't have been started for days or weeks.
As far as if LE would have found her anyway. I would think yes, but each case is different.
In the Susan Smith case, LE had searched John D Long lake looking for her kids, but stopped short by 20 ft. If she didn't confess, I doubt those kids would have been found for a long time.
I am still surprised at how Hannah Graham was found so fast in that remote section of VA.
I think what made all the difference there, was Chief Longo being on TV almost daily, and keeping her fresh in everyones mind. To me that was one of the most persistent searches I have seen yet.
Those dogs did their job, no doubt.

 

[Rocky1]

This is why I prefer video over eyewitness accounts...it would be easy to track any purchases around the time she was supposedly in the store. Did she use a debit card ? easier than taking money, and carrying change. Easy for LE to verify. I think the simplest explanation is that VM told her mother and/or her aunt that she was going to the store. That's why LE believed she might have gone there.

Where is VM's cell phone ?

Good point about the debit card.
It's not clear where her phone is.
I agree. That is the simplest explanation, but after reading the link, It's great for discussion, but, is not fact.
I think it's great that everyone wants to piece the puzzle together, it's important not to read more into a quote that's not there just to make the piece fit. After a few times, the story grows wings and that becomes fact, and for new readers they may get bad information.
I'll give you an example.
When I first joined this forum, someone posted that because there was a ping from the Mountain Barn, that maybe the perp parked his vehicle there and walked in through the woods. At the time, it made sense to me, until someone posted that the Mountain Barn was closed that day, so his vehicle would have been the only vehicle in the parking lot, and would have been remembered. Then that scenario didn't make so much sense anymore.
So I looked up the Mountain Barns' web site and posted it here showing the hours of operation, and it showed they were open, during that time, and the response was, "well, they change their hours during the summer months" And then I remembered MSM stating that the family went inside asking the employees if they had seen her, so I knew they had to be open, and when I asked how that could be, the response was "well they open late on Sundays so the employees were there, but no customers." So to be sure, I called the Mountain Barn and they said "No, we don't change the hours, and yes we were open that day, during that time"
So my point is this. Everyone here would have been led to believe that that parking lot would have been empty, when in fact it is possible that he could have parked a vehicle there non detected. It's such a small detail but could also make all the difference.
I have a whole list of examples, but I think you get the point.
I am certainly not pointing fingers. I think no matter what the subject is, the more focused someone is, the more they have the blinders on, as far as entertaining other options.

 

[liz b.]

Good point about the debit card.
It's not clear where her phone is.
I agree. That is the simplest explanation, but after reading the link, It's great for discussion, but, is not fact.
I think it's great that everyone wants to piece the puzzle together, it's important not to read more into a quote that's not there just to make the piece fit. After a few times, the story grows wings and that becomes fact, and for new readers they may get bad information.
I'll give you an example.
When I first joined this forum, someone posted that because there was a ping from the Mountain Barn, that maybe the perp parked his vehicle there and walked in through the woods. At the time, it made sense to me, until someone posted that the Mountain Barn was closed that day, so his vehicle would have been the only vehicle in the parking lot, and would have been remembered. Then that scenario didn't make so much sense anymore.
So I looked up the Mountain Barns' web site and posted it here showing the hours of operation, and it showed they were open, during that time, and the response was, "well, they change their hours during the summer months" And then I remembered MSM stating that the family went inside asking the employees if they had seen her, so I knew they had to be open, and when I asked how that could be, the response was "well they open late on Sundays so the employees were there, but no customers." So to be sure, I called the Mountain Barn and they said "No, we don't change the hours, and yes we were open that day, during that time"
So my point is this. Everyone here would have been led to believe that that parking lot would have been empty, when in fact it is possible that he could have parked a vehicle there non detected. It's such a small detail but could also make all the difference.
I have a whole list of examples, but I think you get the point.
I am certainly not pointing fingers. I think no matter what the subject is, the more focused someone is, the more they have the blinders on, as far as entertaining other options.

Why do you suppose LE believed she had been to the store ?

 

[Rocky1]

Why do you suppose LE believed she had been to the store ?

At first I thought that it could have been LE confusing The Mountain Barn with the Mountain Side, as her family went to the Mountain Barn looking for her, but, now that I read the link mentioned the time I no longer think that. The "12 Oclock tells me it was a specific conversation made to L.E. in regards to The Mountain Side.
Again, being so early in the search, I am thinking that LE was heavy in the area, and were talking to many people. If Vanessas' Aunt was out looking for her at 3:30, and chased after a State Police cruiser, I think it's fair to say that the State Police were first on the case, meaning they would have had time by 7M (3 hours plus) to talk to a lot of people.
To answer your question... 60/40. Either a family member,(60) or someone else LE talked to. A store employee that thought they may have seen her, after LE saturating the area going there randomly because they were just starting the investigation, thinking there may be cams there,wondering if the cams may have seen her jogging past. (40)
Knowing she specifically was "getting a drink, I am narrowing it down between the two.
If she was seen on Video, then I'd say 100% family, and the reason I say that is, relating to the "secret lover" scenario, if she lies to her family before she leaves the house, saying she is going to the store, then, instead , she meets someone, that means she would have had to communicate with him before she left, leaving the electronic footprint.
If she had planned it without communicating first,(somehow) then why drive to meet him, then drive back in a half hour or so after, then set back out to meet him? Why not just set out to meet him and forget about the short drive first?
If you say that she set out for the store, then met him, planned on going someplace with him, drove the car back home, then set out to meet him again, then why the lie in advance about going to the store if she didn't know she was going to meet him in the first place?

 

[ThinkHard]

There is a lot of course we do not know for sure and we are speculating. Of course that goes without saying.

But I think the most realistic explaination is that her parents where the ones who said she had gone out to get a drink around noon...how else would the store employee come up with noon?

It's not like they just came in and said, we thought she might have been in here at some point...they had a specific time they thought she was in there and that info came from someone....and it's very unlikely that someone mixed up a noon errand in a car, with a 2:25 ping after setting out on a run and uncover this ping part at a time they were likely becoming worried about her.

It's unlikely they were worried about her at noon. And if she came home in btw, they may not have thought to mention the store till later because she disappeared after returning from that errand so they probably didn't think that errand had anything to do with it and didn't think to mention it when first reporting VM.

It's more likely as they were searching for her, someone sat the parents down and I had them go through every step of her day. And this the noon errand came up and they went to check there around 7.

stepping back and looking at this I really do not believe there was confusion and I do not believe the errand or noon can't out of no where or came out of confusion.

And I really do not feel we should be so quick to dismiss this....I think it's an angle we should be willing to explore fully....is it speculation yes....but so is every other theory proposed to date....for example you have zero proof he was in a bike....LE keeps saying SUV ... but you still feel strongly about a bike....I don't see it but I still think it's an angle worth exploring even though it's based completely on speculation.

So I think when we look at this piece we need to be willing to explore it. It doesn't do us good to just dismiss pieces like an SUV and a noon errand because they do not fit out profile of the case.

I think it would be beneficial to explore it as an angle rather then just shoot it down and claim it's completely insignificant.

 

[ThinkHard]

I believe that's the simplist and most logical explanation too.

I got the impression though I could be mistake from what FM said that perhaps the employees had viewed the footage too...and they didn't see her on any of the video footage. My impression was that she was reported in the store but no cameras actually had her on them.

Anyway good point about the cell....even if they do not have it, is they know her number it would allow them to perhaps triangulate her whereabouts around that time. Actually the whole day until the phone was shut off.

 

[Evey]

this is a really small town...3k total, 6 full time cops, 2 cruisers and the chief of polices SUV. No stop lights, no gas stations, no grocery store. There are 2 restaurants, a banquet facility that use to be a restaurant,a market,a pizza place, a wool store, an antique store, some xmas tree farms, a bank, and a ski Mnts which is technically in Westminster. There aren't a lot of cameras in other words.

Most people even in big houses don't have cameras either, or gardeners or maids or any of that stuff. They might have people who clean their homes as in a cleaning service, not as in a live in made. People hire yard companies to work on their lawns but don't employ full time gardeners. It's got money but it's quiet and humble money for the most part.

Btw not sure why you think he was wearing gloves but I doubt he was.

Mainly it's the lack of prints that has me thinking it.

 

[ThinkHard]

I've read VM website several times now and still have not found where the quote is they talk about a possible secondary crime scene...could you tell me where on the website this is?

 

[ThinkHard]

That would be great! Thanks!

 

[Evey]

I am surprised if she was attacked that early in the route, that her possible find my phone AP was still active at 2:25.

I also believe if he had succeeded at burning her completely with the fire, or a large one as Rocky1 mentioned, there would have been no DNA found.

I see him realizing her phone is still in his car and tossing it. Since I believe she was left there. Because why else take her phone? If someone's was kidnapping her they'd take it fast but if you jump someone and knock them out it's odd to take it less you don't want her found quickly. Maybe he needed to buy himself time to get back to where he was going or supposed to be when he was really killing her.

 

[ThinkHard]

Hannah Graham actually took a good month to find...the reason she was found was because of vulture sightings...but even at that they'd didn't check it out at the first report.

She was also found behind a home in a dried up creek bed...it was out there but still bear land markers like the house.

Poor Morgan was in a field though and didn't get found until early spring by a farmer.

I don't believe dogs to found HG...but once they got a location they could have brought cadaver dogs in to search the woods behind the house....but it's not like dogs led them to that house. By the time she was found she was only bones.

 

[ThinkHard]

How do we know they don't have prints? And exactly what would he be leaving prints on in the woods?

I don't think they would have gotten them off her body, and as far as we know her belonging either weren't there or burned up.

So what would they be pulling prints from?

And say they did pull them from somewhere...just because we haven't heard this doesn't mean it's not in police knowledge. They could have the and they don't match anyone...or there could just be no real good place to lift prints from in that crime scene.