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

[ThinkHard]

So everyone she ever made out with at a bar or after party? That would be hard to track.

It's also possible even if they did hook up she didn't tell and if he's married why would he.

I certainly didn't confess all of my drunken mistakes to my friends I can tell you that.

I just think it's entirely possible without this person having come under their radar yet.

 

[Rocky1]

It doesn't explain how he got her so far in the woods with no one hearing screaming though.

I know you have suggested gen could have jumped out and clicked her...but that gully is deep...it would be difficult to spring out out, attack someone, and drag or carry them 130 ft over then over a log....

I don't see that being a plan. I think it would have been way to risky. Too far too drag her and too much of a chance of a car coming by during the course of this.

If he doesn't clock her then there is a struggle right there...also increasing visibility.

It just doesn't seem like the best plan...so maybe he got super lucky.

But the way my brain is pieces all of these things together I see the explanation of no screams and no one seeing a struggle...is that she was dead when gen brought her there or she walked to that spot willingly.

Again this is just my opinion on what I feel
Like the facts tell us.

That gully isn't that deep, and if he ambushed her from behind, between the shock and being incompacitated, I don't see her screaming at all.
If he carried her, and yes got lucky that no cars drove by, I'd say she's back there in the woods within 45 seconds. But we can disagree on that.

 

[liz b.]

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?

So LE was likely told that she had gone to the store around 12 noon. But it doesn't seem that she did go into the store. How much time passed from when she left her mother's house to when she came back and left to go running ? VM could have run into someone she knew on her way to the store. They stopped to chat. This person might have found out she was going running, and where exactly she was going running.. VM then decided to go back to her mother's house, and start jogging. The person she ran into on her way to the store was waiting for her on her jogging route.... jmo

 

[ThinkHard]

Have you drive past it recently? It doesn't look that deep with the foliage but I was surprised it actually is quite deep when you see it now in person.

 

[ThinkHard]

So LE was likely told that she had gone to the store around 12 noon. But it doesn't seem that she did go into the store. How much time passed from when she left her mother's house to when she came back and left to go running ? VM could have run into someone she knew on her way to the store. They stopped to chat. This person might have found out she was going running, and where exactly she was going running.. VM then decided to go back to her mother's house, and start jogging. The person she ran into on her way to the store was waiting for her on her jogging route.... jmo

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.

 

[Rocky1]

i disagree. I don't see it that way at all.

For one even if there was a phone call who's to say he made it from his cell phone?

It's also possible they never once spoke on the phone. It could have been a one night hang out thing....and then he maybe he heard through the grapevine she knew he was married and was pissed or maybe he didn't.

Maybe he just happened to be driving by and saw her and pulled over to talk.

I think it's entirely possible there is a connection like this with no foot print.

If he's married he'd hardly be calling up some other girl or taking phone calls from some other girl.

Also I think part of the issue here is that maybe what you are seeing in a potential connection via this is quite different from how I am seeing it.

I'm not talking about some long term lie. Im talking about something that might have happened one time, maybe too if you think along the lines he could have known her Fromm before he was married.

Also maybe he is local and a friend of a friend, but somewhere btw 5-10 years older then her so outside her peer group and immediate LE radar. Which could also explain why he hasn't fallen under suspicion...his connection to her is loose.

If he made the phone call from someone elses phone LE would track that back to who ever the phone belongs to, and simply ask who made the call.

 

[ThinkHard]

If he made the phone call from someone elses phone LE would track that back to who ever the phone belongs to, and simply ask who made the call.

What if it was a pay phone or disposable phone.

But again I don't think they would have been in contact with each other that way as I've said several times now.

 

[liz b.]

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 [/B]her to change her plans.

RBBM : Somehow this hypothetical meeting caused her to cancel her plans to go to the store. What if : the person she ran into lives near the store, and invited her into his house, for the juice/.water ? They talked in his house. Then she left to go home. VM might have thought this was a chance encounter, but actually he had been waiting and watching her. I think this is a person younger than VM, college age. He was possibly staying in his parents' house over the summer. He saw his opportunity that day, although he may have long thought of it. This crime sounds like the work of a young, extreme high risk predator. He would be back at school now, so not there to give a DNA sample.
jmo
Smart enough not to do this inside his parents' home.

 

[ForensicMass]

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

This may have already been answered I am just catching up in the posts but this log was visible in early crime scene footage and was there at the time. Vehicle could have been pulled up to that point approximately 75 feet into the woods from the road. The vehicle would not be obvious to passing cars at that spot, but could in theory be visible if someone happens to turn their head and look directly down the path as they drove by. But I will agree with that if a vehicle had driven down that path law enforcement knows it from evidence at the scene. Although the grass might spring back up to some degree, visible evidence would have remained that a vehicle was through that area, and that would have caught law enforcement's attention since it is not typically an area where vehicle travel is expected.

 

[Rocky1]

You could be out with your friends and you run into their other friends while you are out. And maybe go to someone's place for an after party all together ...that's how you hang out with friends of friends.

Hanging out one on one and not going to places where you run into people you know is how you go out and don't get seen.

Two different things.

But again I don't think she was running around meeting up with him secretly.

Ok so now you think that they were in the open?
Why didn't her Mom know, or her friends tell LE if people knew?
Just trying to get the scenario, I thought you were consistent that it was a secret romance with a married guy.

 

[ForensicMass]

A SECOND CRIME IS VERY UNLIKELY, IMO



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’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.

Great post. Apologies to all for venting my frustrations. I think part of my issue is that we all accept that very little is known for certain. We Also accept that we cannot develop any theory without some degree of uncertainty. So instead of striving for certainties, we should be focused more on the liklihood of things to drive our thinking and theories. if something is 2% likely and something else is 98% likely let's assume the 98% scenario and develop our theories from there. We are far more likely to be and stay on the right track. We can chat all day about the 2% scenarios but our efforts are better spent on things that are most likely.

 

[ThinkHard]

RBBM : Somehow this hypothetical meeting caused her to cancel her plans to go to the store. What if : the person she ran into lives near the store, and invited her into his house, for the juice/.water ? They talked in his house. Then she left to go home. VM might have thought this was a chance encounter, but actually he had been waiting and watching her. I think this is a person younger than VM, college age. He was possibly staying in his parents' house over the summer. He saw his opportunity that day, although he may have long thought of it. This crime sounds like the work of a young, extreme high risk predator. He would be back at school now, so not there to give a DNA sample.
jmo
Smart enough not to do this inside his parents' home.

There are only a few homes right near the store and I know the people who live in most of them. Of the ones I know I can't think of anyone that fits that scenario...but I think it's a possibility.

 

[Rocky1]

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?

 

[ThinkHard]

This may have already been answered I am just catching up in the posts but this log was visible in early crime scene footage and was there at the time. Vehicle could have been pulled up to that point approximately 75 feet into the woods from the road. The vehicle would not be obvious to passing cars at that spot, but could in theory be visible if someone happens to turn their head and look directly down the path as they drove by. But I will agree with that if a vehicle had driven down that path law enforcement knows it from evidence at the scene. Although the grass might spring back up to some degree, visible evidence would have remained that a vehicle was through that area, and that would have caught law enforcement's attention since it is not typically an area where vehicle travel is expected.

I agree. If a vehicle was there down that path so is the evidence of it having been there.

Which also makes me wonder if LE has always know a vehicle was involved but had to narrow down which vehicle it was.

Perhaps btw eye witness statements and tire print forensics they were able to confirm the type...and matched with witness statements the color.

Just a thought.

 

[ForensicMass]

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.

I agree. After speaking with the store employee, I am very curious about this piece.
I asked the store employee flat out quote "was she (Vanessa) in fact here the day of the crime?" He replied "no, she wasn't". This seemed to be a general consensus beyond his own opinion- it seemed to me to be the conclusion reached by ALL the store personnel. If anyone at the store still believed that she had been there the way that I prompted him would have elicited a response where he would have mentioned that someone else thought that she was there. Meaning that I did not ask him specifically for his opinion but I asked him for the general Facts. He said LE took the footage for review. But apparently nothing came of it. So then, where was she? I still don't see the meetup, since there would VERY likely be an electronic footprint. For the sake of entertaining at the only possible meet up situation I could see is that a local married man perhaps someone slightly her elder was having an affair or attempting to do so with VM. This might explain why his family hasn't fingered him. Was a secret already, before the killing, and he was adept at covering it. I don't think it likely. But it's the only scenario I can see where any kind of meetup wasn't involved.

 

[Rocky1]

I agree. If a vehicle was there down that path so is the evidence of it having been there.

Which also makes me wonder if LE has always know a vehicle was involved but had to narrow down which vehicle it was.

Perhaps btw eye witness statements and tire print forensics they were able to confirm the type...and matched with witness statements the color.

Just a thought.

I think it's fair to say that if LE knew a vehicle had been parked in that path from day one, they would have asked if anyone had seen a vehicle parked in the path. If not the first press conference, then the second, along with the scratches and bruises.
The eye witness' saw it parked "along BSR" not in the path.

 

[ThinkHard]

Ok so now you think that they were in the open?
Why didn't her Mom know, or her friends tell LE if people knew?
Just trying to get the scenario, I thought you were consistent that it was a secret romance with a married guy.

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.

 

[ThinkHard]

I think it's fair to say that if LE knew a vehicle had been parked in that path from day one, they would have asked if anyone had seen a vehicle parked in the path. If not the first press conference, then the second, along with the scratches and bruises.
The eye witness' saw it parked "along BSR" not in the path.

I'm sure LE was basing asking for SUV information on more then one person reporting a sighting. We head one piece of it, not neccasrily every reason why that became their focus.

Also LE did ask for any vehicle sightings early on or anything else unusual. But when LE asks for info they don't show their whole hand...that way they can protected the info they do have and can sort out the credibility of a tip.

 

[ThinkHard]

Great post. Apologies to all for venting my frustrations. I think part of my issue is that we all accept that very little is known for certain. We Also accept that we cannot develop any theory without some degree of uncertainty. So instead of striving for certainties, we should be focused more on the liklihood of things to drive our thinking and theories. if something is 2% likely and something else is 98% likely let's assume the 98% scenario and develop our theories from there. We are far more likely to be and stay on the right track. We can chat all day about the 2% scenarios but our efforts are better spent on things that are most likely.

Can someone please direct me to where on her website this quote is taken from...for the love of me I cannot find it.

 

[ForensicMass]

The ping at 2:25 is one of the reasons I think something like this is possible.

It's also one of the reasons I think she might have been in his car willingly at some point. If she got in and something happened and then he brings the body back there....and drives away and as he does realizes her phone isn't still in his car and gets rid of it as fast as he can.

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.