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

[liz b.]

At the outset of the reporting about Vanessa's murder, strangulation was occasionally mentioned as the COD. I will try to locate any references to COD; in my experience with this case, that has been the only COD mentioned.

I pause, however, because Vanessa's murder and Katrina Vetrano's (in NY) were pretty much back to back. Due to both being murdered while jogging, and both being athletic, brunette, etc., media outlets, reporters and readers alike were understandably switching back and forth between the two stories, often overlapping case details. Since Karina was strangled, it is very possible that any reference to Vanessa's COD was misreported. After spending (way) too much time on WS since Missy Bever's murder last April, I have become familiar with various sources, reporters, and generally, how these types of cases "report." I am now better able to wade through some of the muck, at least, and also recognize how facts transmit just as unsuccessfully as in the "telephone game" I played as a child (and also have taught in the classroom as a lesson about gossip.)

Anyhow, I just want to acknowledge fellow sleuths for sharing ideas, spending copious amounts of time thinking about victims like Vanessa AND lending truly remarkable expertise to these cases. We are anything but armchair detectives. It can be hard to stick out one's neck with theories, but it's important that we do so. WS has to be a safe space for what may seem like "nutty" theories or fruitless efforts to those in our lives without similar interest. In my case, that means everyone, so WS is it for me. Otherwise, I am mocked for my interest and care for those who suffer incredible, unspeakable trauma at the hands of others. My particular interest area relates to women who are not only murdered just for being women, but are also re-victimized post-mortem with the public's blame and objectification.

Anyhow, I have noticed while watching a handful of cases that squabbling in a forum picks up 3-4 months after the murder or disappearance, particularly when new information is not forthcoming. I think we become frustrated in general, so we occasionally take it out on each other. Totally my opinion, anyway, for what it's worth...which lately, in general, feels like...

:notgood:

Yes, I did read that VM was strangled. Very early on. I noticed that LE has become ever more
tight lipped, which can sometimes be a good thing, as it can sometimes mean they are closing in...jmo

Agree that many cases become frustrating. But, I think as crime message boards go, WS is the best. jmo

 

[The Farm]

At the outset of the reporting about Vanessa's murder, strangulation was occasionally mentioned as the COD. I will try to locate any references to COD; in my experience with this case, that has been the only COD mentioned.

I pause, however, because Vanessa's murder and Katrina Vetrano's (in NY) were pretty much back to back. Due to both being murdered while jogging, and both being athletic, brunette, etc., media outlets, reporters and readers alike were understandably switching back and forth between the two stories, often overlapping case details. Since Karina was strangled, it is very possible that any reference to Vanessa's COD was misreported. After spending (way) too much time on WS since Missy Bever's murder last April, I have become familiar with various sources, reporters, and generally, how these types of cases "report." I am now better able to wade through some of the muck, at least, and also recognize how facts transmit just as unsuccessfully as in the "telephone game" I played as a child (and also have taught in the classroom as a lesson about gossip.)

Anyhow, I just want to acknowledge fellow sleuths for sharing ideas, spending copious amounts of time thinking about victims like Vanessa AND lending truly remarkable expertise to these cases. We are anything but armchair detectives. It can be hard to stick out one's neck with theories, but it's important that we do so. WS has to be a safe space for what may seem like "nutty" theories or fruitless efforts to those in our lives without similar interest. In my case, that means everyone, so WS is it for me. Otherwise, I am mocked for my interest and care for those who suffer incredible, unspeakable trauma at the hands of others. My particular interest area relates to women who are not only murdered just for being women, but are also re-victimized post-mortem with the public's blame and objectification.

Anyhow, I have noticed while watching a handful of cases that squabbling in a forum picks up 3-4 months after the murder or disappearance, particularly when new information is not forthcoming. I think we become frustrated in general, so we occasionally take it out on each other. Totally my opinion, anyway, for what it's worth...which lately, in general, feels like...

:notgood:

Thanks for the post Mainely16.

I have not been posting lately as I am basically at a standstill with the in formation we have. When LE released their statement about the SUV n November I felt like a junkyard dog at the fence, so eager for a new piece of meat.
Much that has been talked of has been talked about over and over and over with what little we have.
Dont get me wrong, I understand new posters coming in and all because I tend to ask many questions also because I forget!! But until something shakes up I am really at a standstill with this case.
As far as Vanessas cell phone pings and all someone above mentioned about wondering who the last person she talked to was. LE must have already got her cell phone records and know that answer. Again so much we dont know and of course understandable on LEs part.
DeDee I love your new pic!! Very cool.

 

[ForensicMass]

Fwiw, count me in as believing the phone was very close to Mt Barn at 2:25 pm and that the perp, not Vanessa, had it. This is based on my research done when phone was initially mentioned and my experience with similar processes (somewhat limited and in areas not as thick with foliage, however). FM's field test, why not ideal as acknowledged, strengthens my belief.

That said, Rocky, your points about conditions that can throw signals off considerably are valid. I appreciate the input. You could be right here; I just lean toward the theory that he alone had her phone with him at 2:25 pm very close to Mt. Barn.

I love old maps too, FM and DeDee.

So, if it was just him with the phone at mountain barn at 2:25, are you also of the belief that the attack happened at the start of the walk/run, and that the attack started and ended along BSR? And that the perp had the phone as he fled the scene?

If you agree with me that the perp fled with the phone and turned it off as he drove down 31 near mountain barn, help me answer these questions :

Was he headed north or south on route 31 as he passed mountain barn?

if he fled from the crime scene at the cart path and he passed the mountain barn he would have been doing some backtracking no matter which way he went. But I believe that he fled the cart path heading north on BSR, thence to Boylston Avenue thence to Route 31 heading S. This would have been slightly less than 2 miles of "backtrack". And would fit with my belief that his car would have been parked WITH traffic at the cart path and not against. Had he fled south, thence to ball HILL ROAD thence to rt 31 heading N. he would have "backtracked" almost 4.5 miles.

So to me, he fled north on BSR, quickly to 31, and then South on 31. And I believe he fled directly toward a place he was most comfortable. A place he lives or has a significant connection to.

What do you think ?

 

[ForensicMass]

That's fine, It's ok that we can disagree. Forgetting he had it on him means that he had it in his pocket. I know you used the example that if you want to take something away from a baby, you keep it on you. You are assuming that the baby is still free to walk around, and as we know, that doesn't apply here. My thought is that he took her phone, and threw it as far as he could. If he was on top of her, all she would have had to do is go for the phone, if it was in his back pocket, Not saying she would have got it, But, I do know that if he threw it, she wouldn't have. And then there's the thought of the cover up, and my thought is that if he spent time building a fire, he would have made sure that phone was not on him. You mentioned in another post that many here think he was tech savoy. I must have missed those posts because this is the first time I have seen that, but, if he was in your words, then again, why take it knowing he would be a target.
I have to also disagree with burning the phone.If he thought a fire would destroy DNA on her body ,I would think the same applied with the phone ,and I'd be willing to bet he could have succeeded with doing that with the phone much easier.That phone would be charred.
I know what you mean about the ride to the store. The reason I asked, is we agree that LE sat the family down, and because of the details that " LE believes she went to the store for a drink around noon, and we know they took the tapes and more likely than not never told anyone at the Mountainside the results of the review, I'm not so sure I'd dismiss that she did go based on an employees thought only. Even tone of voice can be deceiving. He may swear that nobody did see her, and I know you said there were only two people in front of you, at the counter, so it wasn't that busy at about the same time of day, Think Sundays may be a little more busy?
I believe you have experience with the GPS on your phone. I can also say, that although I wasn't clear how the "FindMyPhone" app worked, I too have a little experience with GPS. As a Pilot, I have studied GPS systems. The FAA has what is called a WAAS System, developed specially for aircraft, and the reason is because the standard GPS system is not reliable. Although you have never had a non accurate signal, and in your experiment your system was accurate updating every minute and a half, WAAS is required to update every 5 seconds or less. It is a complete different system than the one you know, and it relies on ground stations and a separate satellite system all together. The reason, Because GPS is not always reliable, and that system corrects the inaccuracies. You won't find an FAA approved GPS system in a $600.00 Phone, because the GPS alone starts at about $14,000, and if you want a decent stack, plan on spending $35,000. So although I do have faith in technology, the GPS in a phone is not always reliable.
Google "why is the location of my phone wrong." There are 7 pages of tech support just on that subject alone," so I think it's fair to say it's not all that uncommon of a problem.
If you want to use that in building a theory, great, however I think it's premature to state it as fact, as long as there is no tree coverage. JMO.

To be fair the fact that there are 7 pages of tech support isn't very telling as far as the technology goes. What it tells me is that there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to USE and understand the technology. There are 7,340,000 google results for "how to fix a flat tire". The problem isn't with the tire. With the MILLIONS of iPhones currently in use, 7 pages of tech support on any issue isn't nearly as significant as you're spinning it.

I agree the field test is better with trees. But I think the results WITHOUT trees is still more reliable than assuming a random error placed the phone near mountain barn.

Cool pilot stuff, btw! Must be a fun sport!

 

[searunner]

So, if it was just him with the phone at mountain barn at 2:25, are you also of the belief that the attack happened at the start of the walk/run, and that the attack started and ended along BSR? And that the perp had the phone as he fled the scene?

If you agree with me that the perp fled with the phone and turned it off as he drove down 31 near mountain barn, help me answer these questions :

Was he headed north or south on route 31 as he passed mountain barn?

if he fled from the crime scene at the cart path and he passed the mountain barn he would have been doing some backtracking no matter which way he went. But I believe that he fled the cart path heading north on BSR, thence to Boylston Avenue thence to Route 31 heading S. This would have been slightly less than 2 miles of "backtrack". And would fit with my belief that his car would have been parked WITH traffic at the cart path and not against. Had he fled south, thence to ball HILL ROAD thence to rt 31 heading N. he would have "backtracked" almost 4.5 miles.

So to me, he fled north on BSR, quickly to 31, and then South on 31. And I believe he fled directly toward a place he was most comfortable. A place he lives or has a significant connection to.

What do you think ?

Yes, I have always believed the attack happened at the beginning of her run/walk and that there is no second crime scene. Could be wrong, of course. And, yes, it makes sense to think that his car was parked in the direction of traffic, so north. And, yes, I do lean toward him having her phone as he fled.

(One caveat to the direction of the car before moving on .... You weren't on the scene when this was mentioned, but I'm sure you saw it since you reviewed all the threads: According to a post, a witness reported early on that he/she saw a car turn around after passing a woman walking on BSR in the time frame of interest and when he/she looked again, saw the car parked, but not the woman. We don't know directions for the passing, etc., but IF this was Vanessa and the perp and IF the car passed her going north and then turned around and parked, the car would be facing south. Do you - or does anyone - recall the time reported for this sighting? I'm pretty sure there was a more narrow time frame than 1-3 pm.)

But, that aside, I do lean toward the car facing in the direction of traffic. Regardless of whether it was parked beforehand or he drove up to her, that makes more sense. If parked before Vanessa came by, it's less conspicuous. In the latter case, it makes sense that he'd drive up from behind so she'd have less time to see him.)

So if Vanessa was attacked at about 1:10 pm-ish about a half mile north of her mom's/aunt's and we're theorizing that the perp had the phone as he passed Mountain Barn at 2:25, that leaves about 1 hr 15 mins for the whole thing, including the drive. This fits Rocky's theory that the sicko enjoyed spending time with her; the thought of it just gives me chills. Just wanted to flesh out the timeline.

I like the direction you and Rocky were headed in talking about probable escape routes. I recall the area map pretty well in my mind, but I'm going to go back and look at it closely before weighing in.

Putting myself in this situation, my main goal in a deciding on a route home (assuming he went home, which seems a good assumption) would be to avoid police cars at all cost. (This assumes he's not from Princeton. If he is, the primary or co-primary, to make up a word, goal would surely be to avoid anyone he knows seeing him/his car. ) My paranoia would be so high that I'd be concerned a patrolling police car might spot me/my car and remember so after the crime came to light - or worse, that I'd be pulled over for some reason, even if I was obeying traffic laws and all was in order with my car. Of course, this might not be a good example, as, depending on his psychological profile, he could have been relatively cool and calm afterwards. I don't think that's the case, but I have nothing concrete to offer as support.

I'm not a local, so I don't know what a better route would be to lessen the chance of coming across a cop. In my area, however, I do know what roads they seem to be on more often.

I'll weigh in once I examine the map.

Interested to hear what others think? This is an impressive group!

 

[ForensicMass]

Yes, I have always believed the attack happened at the beginning of her run/walk and that there is no second crime scene. Could be wrong, of course. And, yes, it makes sense to think that his car was parked in the direction of traffic, so north. And, yes, I do lean toward him having her phone as he fled.

(One caveat to the direction of the car before moving on .... You weren't on the scene when this was mentioned, but I'm sure you saw it since you reviewed all the threads: According to a post, a witness reported early on that he/she saw a car turn around after passing a woman walking on BSR in the time frame of interest and when he/she looked again, saw the car parked, but not the woman. We don't know directions for the passing, etc., but IF this was Vanessa and the perp and IF the car passed her going north and then turned around and parked, the car would be facing south. Do you - or does anyone - recall the time reported for this sighting? I'm pretty sure there was a more narrow time frame than 1-3 pm.)

But, that aside, I do lean toward the car facing in the direction of traffic. Regardless of whether it was parked beforehand or he drove up to her, that makes more sense. If parked before Vanessa came by, it's less conspicuous. In the latter case, it makes sense that he'd drive up from behind so she'd have less time to see him.)

So if Vanessa was attacked at about 1:10 pm-ish about a half mile north of her mom's/aunt's and we're theorizing that the perp had the phone as he passed Mountain Barn at 2:25, that leaves about 1 hr 15 mins for the whole thing, including the drive. This fits Rocky's theory that the sicko enjoyed spending time with her; the thought of it just gives me chills. Just wanted to flesh out the timeline.

I like the direction you and Rocky were headed in talking about probable escape routes. I recall the area map pretty well in my mind, but I'm going to go back and look at it closely before weighing in.

Putting myself in this situation, my main goal in a deciding on a route home (assuming he went home, which seems a good assumption) would be to avoid police cars at all cost. (This assumes he's not from Princeton. If he is, the primary or co-primary, to make up a word, goal would surely be to avoid anyone he knows seeing him/his car. ) My paranoia would be so high that I'd be concerned a patrolling police car might spot me/my car and remember so after the crime came to light - or worse, that I'd be pulled over for some reason, even if I was obeying traffic laws and all was in order with my car. Of course, this might not be a good example, as, depending on his psychological profile, he could have been relatively cool and calm afterwards. I don't think that's the case, but I have nothing concrete to offer as support.

I'm not a local, so I don't know what a better route would be to lessen the chance of coming across a cop. In my area, however, I do know what roads they seem to be on more often.

I'll weigh in once I examine the map.

Interested to hear what others think? This is an impressive group!

Great, I like your insight. Great thoughts on the psychosis that might occur after committing a crime like this. Several observations I didn't think of.

Looking forward to your perspectives after reviewing the maps

 

[searunner]

Here’s link to the site map for anyone who hasn’t seen it or saved it: MAP

FM, I agree with your theory as most probable. If he wanted to escape to the north, he’d have no need to pass Mtn Barn period, right? Or am I not considering something? It could very well be the latter – I’m tired.

If he wanted to escape to the south, he has two choices. Your scenario of going north to Boyleston and then making a right to go south on 31 (where he’d pass Mtn. Barn) makes the most sense even though at first glance it might not. The logical question is why go north to go south, meaning out of his way? One might ask why not just make a U-turn on BSR (assuming the car was facing north) and go south – BSR to Ball Hill to 31. (Or alternatively, take Washusetts if he lives to SW of Princeton.) My thought would be that he’d want to get onto a main road as soon as possible – easier to blend in, be less conspicuous. So going the way you theorized means he gets on 31 very quickly. Going the other route seems riskier. He could stick out more. Of course, this is just based on my takes of the info provided by the locals. It’s hard to beat first-hand knowledge.

Making a U-turn could be a bit conspicuous, too. But my main reason for thinking he went the way you theorized has more to do with him wanting to get on a main road asap.

So, yes, theorizing that he likely lives somewhere south of Princeton makes good sense. Where else is he going to go but home, as we know he was least had some scratches on him?

Thinking “out loud,” say he lives north of Princeton… If his car was facing north, he’d just continue in that direction, so no passing Mtn. Barn. If his car was facing south for some reason (a possibility, but doesn’t seem likely), I think he would make a U-turn to go north because even if it making a U was a bit conspicuous, going south to go north would be going way out of his way and risky as he’d be on non-main roads for a while.

I did follow along with the stop sign/light factor discussion – a good one – with the bottom line being (I believe) that stops wouldn’t be a factor because there would be one (I think) in each of the two main proposed routes, right?

Just my 2 cents. Anyone else?

 

[DeDee]

If assuming Perp parked in a dark SUV along BSR, at the lip of the asphalt, at the end of the guardrail, the Perp's vehicle must be facing the same direction for that lane's flow of traffic, in my state, and just assumed it was for all states. Executing a big U turn would not likely go unnoticed by passersby.

In short, he slips his dark SUVehicle onto the asphalt pad at the end of the guardrail with the headlights pointing North. He pulls away later, from the lip of the asphalt, heading North, straight onto BSRoad.

 

[DeDee]

Great post, searunner.
RSBMFF

Yes, I have always believed the attack happened at the beginning of her run/walk and that there is no second crime scene. Could be wrong, of course. And, yes, it makes sense to think that his car was parked in the direction of traffic, so north. And, yes, I do lean toward him having her phone as he fled.

I can also agree that she was attacked early and he headed North when leaving.

So if Vanessa was attacked at about 1:10 pm-ish about a half mile north of her mom's/aunt's and we're theorizing that the perp had the phone as he passed Mountain Barn at 2:25, that leaves about 1 hr 15 mins for the whole thing, including the drive. This fits Rocky's theory that the sicko enjoyed spending time with her; the thought of it just gives me chills. Just wanted to flesh out the timeline.

Yes, well, I do believe that you have created a palatable timeline that I did not want to admit and that is so much time was available to be spent with the victim. RIP Vanessa

Putting myself in this situation, my main goal in a deciding on a route home (assuming he went home, which seems a good assumption) would be to avoid police cars at all cost. (This assumes he's not from Princeton. If he is, the primary or co-primary, to make up a word, goal would surely be to avoid anyone he knows seeing him/his car. ) My paranoia would be so high that I'd be concerned a patrolling police car might spot me/my car and remember so after the crime came to light - or worse, that I'd be pulled over for some reason, even if I was obeying traffic laws and all was in order with my car. Of course, this might not be a good example, as, depending on his psychological profile, he could have been relatively cool and calm afterwards. I don't think that's the case, but I have nothing concrete to offer as support.

Someone who has gone to the trouble to target VM in Princeton and succeed in Taken (play on words from the movie) VM into the woods, will not be scared or paranoid afterward. I would expect that they may be already planning to leave town and will move within a year of the murder. If she was their target, they are filled with glee but once in a while the fear enters. For the first 48 Hours, their heart rate was excitable. JMHO Both sociopaths and psychopaths would blame others and rationalize the murders in their own scheme of things. Excellent and convincing liars are both type personalities.

UnSub is
Bold.
Brazen.
Burns.
Likes Fire.
Lay in wait.
Patiently parked.
Possible Stalker.
Possible Satanist.
Possible Local.
Rapist.
Rapist that can't perform. [Ha! We don't know this!]
Risk taker.
Sadist.
Scratches, scrapes or bruises.
Targeted VM.

 

[Mainely16]

Wow.

This map is incredibly helpful for those, like me, who require visuals to process directions and location. What a great effort. THANK YOU. Searunner, did you create this? If not, who did? As for my two cents, I will spend some time viewing it and firming up my thoughts tomorrow...shoot, today. I work all night on Thursdays and Fridays, and I'm already feeling especially frazzled. How dare my job spill over into my real life?

Another thing about the map - it gave me the chills. Anyone else have a similar reaction? As I clicked on each location, I couldn't suspend the awfulness and the consequence of what was before me. I found it pretty disconcerting. I am also - originally- from the area, so I have that overlay. I was born and raised in Sterling and then we moved to West Boylston when I was in middle school. My horrid high school bf was from Holden. When I taught middle school, my mentoring teacher was from Princeton, and I lived with her for a summer. My sister attended Bancroft for a couple of years, and I attended Worcester Academy...so between us both, we ran the gamut of towns. As a consequence, a thread of experience and memory runs in me from town to town....By the way, in no way do I think being from the area is anything special. Sometimes saying that kind of thing sounds arrogant, and that's not my intent. I possess no more or no less truth and wisdom about what happened to Vanessa as anybody else.

Take care & be as safe as safe can be.

 

[Rocky1]

To be fair the fact that there are 7 pages of tech support isn't very telling as far as the technology goes. What it tells me is that there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to USE and understand the technology. There are 7,340,000 google results for "how to fix a flat tire". The problem isn't with the tire. With the MILLIONS of iPhones currently in use, 7 pages of tech support on any issue isn't nearly as significant as you're spinning it.

I agree the field test is better with trees. But I think the results WITHOUT trees is still more reliable than assuming a random error placed the phone near mountain barn.

Cool pilot stuff, btw! Must be a fun sport!

You help make my point. As you say, "There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to use or understand technology." Do you think with VMs Aunt being either side of 60, she may be one of those?
That was one of my first questions.
I am in no way trying to spin anything.
You are basing your "fact" on a third hand statement that is very vague."
"A neighbor said the "ping" came from near the Mountain Barn."
We don't know just how near that may have been.
We don't know if she thought the "ping" was being transmitted from the tower, due to , as you say, being among the many that "don't understand the technology.
We don't know if the heavy tree cover threw off the signal, because it wasn't able to hook up with all of the satellites.
That is in no way a "random error". it is a fact that given the "exact" location under those trees was highly likely.
There is also a possibility that the phone was damaged, throwing off the signal, that we haven't discussed.
But what we do know, is, common sense would say that no person that just killed another , after taking the time to rid the evidence, would forget such an important step, and carry around a piece of evidence that is sure to convict without doubt , and leave the woods with it.
I really don't think he wanted to take the phone home with him.
I really don't think he was trying to throw off LE.

What we do know is that LE thought the location "near" the Mountain Barn was of no importance,because they didn't do a search.
I'd bet my house that if LE was searching, that MSN would have been all over them, reporting every time one sneezed.
I disagree with your assessment that MSM were elsewhere, "covering other things" therefore it wasn't covered. What "other things?" The annual 4 H club meeting? This made national headlines.
Again, if you want to use that theory for discussion to make your scenario fit, Great.
But to me, If you weigh all the pieces, it tilts hard to the phone not being at the Mountain Barn., and too many things that we do know tells me that.
I'd love to be with you on this, not that it will tell us much .Tracking the perp ends either at the Mountain Barn, or at that Cam at the bank. I think it is interesting that so many have different views from just a few clues, and I enjoy thinking them all through. If you think I am asking you lots of questions just to disagree, that's certainly not the case at all. I ask because I like to see what reasoning may make a person think that thought. That's all.
If you are trying to determine time of death, I'll agree she was dead at very close to that time.

 

[Rocky1]

Here’s link to the site map for anyone who hasn’t seen it or saved it: MAP

FM, I agree with your theory as most probable. If he wanted to escape to the north, he’d have no need to pass Mtn Barn period, right? Or am I not considering something? It could very well be the latter – I’m tired.

If he wanted to escape to the south, he has two choices. Your scenario of going north to Boyleston and then making a right to go south on 31 (where he’d pass Mtn. Barn) makes the most sense even though at first glance it might not. The logical question is why go north to go south, meaning out of his way? One might ask why not just make a U-turn on BSR (assuming the car was facing north) and go south – BSR to Ball Hill to 31. (Or alternatively, take Washusetts if he lives to SW of Princeton.) My thought would be that he’d want to get onto a main road as soon as possible – easier to blend in, be less conspicuous. So going the way you theorized means he gets on 31 very quickly. Going the other route seems riskier. He could stick out more. Of course, this is just based on my takes of the info provided by the locals. It’s hard to beat first-hand knowledge.

Making a U-turn could be a bit conspicuous, too. But my main reason for thinking he went the way you theorized has more to do with him wanting to get on a main road asap.

So, yes, theorizing that he likely lives somewhere south of Princeton makes good sense. Where else is he going to go but home, as we know he was least had some scratches on him?

Thinking “out loud,” say he lives north of Princeton… If his car was facing north, he’d just continue in that direction, so no passing Mtn. Barn. If his car was facing south for some reason (a possibility, but doesn’t seem likely), I think he would make a U-turn to go north because even if it making a U was a bit conspicuous, going south to go north would be going way out of his way and risky as he’d be on non-main roads for a while.

I did follow along with the stop sign/light factor discussion – a good one – with the bottom line being (I believe) that stops wouldn’t be a factor because there would be one (I think) in each of the two main proposed routes, right?

Just my 2 cents. Anyone else?

To me, if the SUV is involved, it would have been parked facing north, There really isn't anyplace across the road to park without being out in traffic some. Same law here, can't park against traffic.
Hard to say if he did a "U" turn to be honest. There isn't enough traffic where that would be an issue, and the road is plenty wide where someone could do it easy, especially starting from off on the shoulder.

 

[Rocky1]

Based on the theory that the perp is:
a)Tech savoy.
b)From the area and knows it.
c)Lives South.
d) (optional) Had this planned.
Leads me to believe he did a U turn on BSR to Ball Hill Rd. This puts him south of the Barre Savings Bank, therefore beating the Cam at the drive through, facing the road.

 

[ForensicMass]

You help make my point. As you say, "There are a lot of people out there who don't know how to use or understand technology." Do you think with VMs Aunt being either side of 60, she may be one of those?
That was one of my first questions.
I am in no way trying to spin anything.
You are basing your "fact" on a third hand statement that is very vague."
"A neighbor said the "ping" came from near the Mountain Barn."
We don't know just how near that may have been.
We don't know if she thought the "ping" was being transmitted from the tower, due to , as you say, being among the many that "don't understand the technology.
We don't know if the heavy tree cover threw off the signal, because it wasn't able to hook up with all of the satellites.
That is in no way a "random error". it is a fact that given the "exact" location under those trees was highly likely.
There is also a possibility that the phone was damaged, throwing off the signal, that we haven't discussed.
But what we do know, is, common sense would say that no person that just killed another , after taking the time to rid the evidence, would forget such an important step, and carry around a piece of evidence that is sure to convict without doubt , and leave the woods with it.
I really don't think he wanted to take the phone home with him.
I really don't think he was trying to throw off LE.

What we do know is that LE thought the location "near" the Mountain Barn was of no importance,because they didn't do a search.
I'd bet my house that if LE was searching, that MSN would have been all over them, reporting every time one sneezed.
I disagree with your assessment that MSM were elsewhere, "covering other things" therefore it wasn't covered. What "other things?" The annual 4 H club meeting? This made national headlines.
Again, if you want to use that theory for discussion to make your scenario fit, Great.
But to me, If you weigh all the pieces, it tilts hard to the phone not being at the Mountain Barn., and too many things that we do know tells me that.
I'd love to be with you on this, not that it will tell us much .Tracking the perp ends either at the Mountain Barn, or at that Cam at the bank. I think it is interesting that so many have different views from just a few clues, and I enjoy thinking them all through. If you think I am asking you lots of questions just to disagree, that's certainly not the case at all. I ask because I like to see what reasoning may make a person think that thought. That's all.
If you are trying to determine time of death, I'll agree she was dead at very close to that time.

No problem on the disagreement.

It's not hard to interpret the signal location on the phone. It shows a map, and shows the area where her aunt lives. And has lived for more than 10 years ifni understand it right. It would be plain as day to her where the signal was shown on the map.

It wasn't the neighbor making it up, the neighbor reported that her aunt was the source of knowledge about the ping. You dismiss this so easily and yet, you are convinced there was no search conducted moubtain barn just because it wasn't on the news. I think you're absolutely mistaken about that. A search of that area was undoubtedly conducted. MSM probably didn't cover it since the murder scene was fair game for them and much more sensational than a parking lot where LE may have turned up nothing despite the search.

 

[Rocky1]

No problem on the disagreement.

It's not hard to interpret the signal location on the phone. It shows a map, and shows the area where her aunt lives. And has lived for more than 10 years ifni understand it right. It would be plain as day to her where the signal was shown on the map.

It wasn't the neighbor making it up, the neighbor reported that her aunt was the source of knowledge about the ping. You dismiss this so easily and yet, you are convinced there was no search conducted moubtain barn just because it wasn't on the news. I think you're absolutely mistaken about that. A search of that area was undoubtedly conducted. MSM probably didn't cover it since the murder scene was fair game for them and much more sensational than a parking lot where LE may have turned up nothing despite the search.

I don't think the neighbor made it up either. I believe she said "near the Mountain Barn"
I am just basing the theory on what MSM, etc. said and did.
If it's not hard to interpret the signal, then why the 7 pages of tech support? As you said, "There are people out there that do not know how to use or understand technology? Which is it? Think the Aunt thought that it was "Off The Tower" like MSM said ? "Near" the Mountain Barn, may have met the tower, right?
Again, if you want to say MSM misreported that, What are you basing that on? Why are we picking and choosing what was true and what wasn't when they are both MSM reports?
Why am I mistaken about the search? Can you show me one report or video? There were choppers and news people that infested Princeton. Just basing my thought on what I saw. and didn't see.
The Mountain Barn would have been no less "game" than the CS. If cops were there, the media would have been too.
It's ok to say "you think." But if you are saying that the search was "undoubtedly conducted", then I've got to ask for a link, because there are just too many things that don't add up. As I have said before, thoughts grow wings, and then they turn to facts.

 

[Kickoff61]

I am sorry, but I do think thoughts are growing wings here and turning into facts improperly with this case when we do not know the facts.

 

[Rocky1]

I am sorry, but I do think thoughts are growing wings here and turning into facts improperly with this case when we do not know the facts.

Let me clarify.
MSM reports "The Aunt said the phone "pinged" off the tower.
MSM reports The Neighbor said "the phone was "near" the Mountain Barn," based what the Aunt said.
The Tower is near the Mountain Barn.
Two totally different meanings..
Same exact story.

 

[Kickoff61]

Let me clarify.
MSM reports "The Aunt said the phone "pinged" off the tower.
MSM reports The Neighbor said "the phone was "near" the Mountain Barn," based what the Aunt said.
The Tower is near the Mountain Barn.
Two totally different meanings..
Same exact story.

Yes, I understand. Correct.

 

[Kickoff61]

There is no proof the phone was at that location for fact to even begin to piece together any escape route.

 

[Kickoff61]

I think it is great that everyone wants this solved and work hard to figuring it out. But speculation can go way too far sometimes without enough known, (or even come across with improper certainty) even to possibly incorrectly judging the victim. I understand this is a tough case to discuss with so little info. they have given.