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

[Rocky1]

a few thoughts:

+ I do think that they were probably following him or he was on their radar for a while. it does seem extremely coincidental that their detective randomly saw a dark SUV and thought this might be the guy. unless, it was a very specific kind of dark SUV - like one with a particular sticker or damage or an unusual color like navy. seems like Ortiz's lawyer is also questioning their story of how they found him.

+ I think they probably had a list of everyone who pinged that cell tower during the time of the murder and he may have been on their radar but they needed to find the right time to try to get the DNA.

+ my dad (who is local and used to work in criminal justice) and i have always disagreed about who the killer would be. i thought it would be a random serial killer. he has always believed that it would turn out to be someone who knew vanessa - even very tangentially. he said to me "think about it, if you were out looking for jogging victims, princeton would be the last place you would go because you might see a jogger there once every 6 hours." I'm coming around to his way of thinking. perhaps he regularly saw her on weekends running and decided to stalk her. maybe he had bumped into her in town. maybe he saw her that weekend...

+ i've always been curious how they would know he had short or no hair. that is not something they could determine from DNA. was that info from the eye witness? or was there no hair found on her body and this is how they made that assumption?

+ there is no way this is his first crime. no way a rape, murder and burning in broad day light could be his first crime. terrifying to think what else he may have done. and kudos to the PD for catching him before he had the urge and chance to do it all again.

+ no case has ever hit so close to home for me. i am so relieved they caught this guy. my heart is breaking for her family. the fact that they have to look at this monster's face and hear about everything he did to her is overwhelming. i am sending them lots of love and good thoughts and i hope they will somehow be able to survive this.

all JMO, IMO, MMO

The reason I think she was a target, is he doesn't have a reason to be in Princeton on a Sunday. The Post Office would be closed.
I believe LE spotted him the way they said. They did have the make/model SUV, unlike the public. There was a navy blue Ford SUV parked in front of his house during a MSM report that I just watched, but because I am not sure if it is his or not, I won't post it was a WCVB report.
I was thinking they said cropped or shaved head because he didn't leave any DNA from his hair.
FM, are you sure the witness said that? I would think it would be easy to determine a shaved head from cropped hair, but maybe not.
Cem. Thank you for clarifying the flight risk. I just watched a video that shows his arraignment in it's entirety. I will post it. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://www.wmur.com/article/man-cha...arcotte-held-on-dollar10-million-bail/9523462

 

[Rocky1]

Thinking back on some of the subjects discussed here, there are a few things we now know.
1) Her clothing was at the scene.
2) She was not found naked.
3) She was not raped.
4) The defendant did not live in the neighborhood.
5) The SUV was involved.
6) The defendents phone was used at the crime scene.
7) The defendant spent approximately an hour with her, if not more.
8) The SUV was spotted parked along BSR during the crime.
9. The defendant was not a younger kid living at home.
10) My theory that the defendant was on a bicycle wasn't even close.

Here's a few things that we don't know yet.
1) If she was staked in advance.
2) If the defendant knew her, or who she was.
3) If the defendant brought accelerants with him.
4) If the defendant is a smoker and had a lighter, or if he brought one with him.
5) The degree of injuries on the defendants body, and if someone noticed.
6) If the defendant took time off from work days following the crime.
7) If the defendant lived at the current address when the crime happened, or did he move there after.

Any other thoughts?

 

[mocity]

Thinking back on some of the subjects discussed here, there are a few things we now know.
1) Her clothing was at the scene.
2) She was not found naked.
3) She was not raped.
4) The defendant did not live in the neighborhood.
5) The SUV was involved.
6) The defendents phone was used at the crime scene.
7) The defendant spent approximately an hour with her, if not more.
8) The SUV was spotted parked along BSR during the crime.
9. The defendant was not a younger kid living at home.
10) My theory that the defendant was on a bicycle wasn't even close.

Here's a few things that we don't know yet.
1) If she was staked in advance.
2) If the defendant knew her, or who she was.
3) If the defendant brought accelerants with him.
4) If the defendant is a smoker and had a lighter, or if he brought one with him.
5) The degree of injuries on the defendants body, and if someone noticed.
6) If the defendant took time off from work days following the crime.
7) If the defendant lived at the current address when the crime happened, or did he move there after.

Any other thoughts?

I thought everything I read said she was found without clothes on? Has something come out to say that isn't true?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/1...sa-marcotte-in-massachusetts-reports-say.html

 

[ForensicMass]

The reason I think she was a target, is he doesn't have a reason to be in Princeton on a Sunday. The Post Office would be closed.
I believe LE spotted him the way they said. They did have the make/model SUV, unlike the public. There was a navy blue Ford SUV parked in front of his house during a MSM report that I just watched, but because I am not sure if it is his or not, I won't post it was a WCVB report.
I was thinking they said cropped or shaved head because he didn't leave any DNA from his hair.
FM, are you sure the witness said that? I would think it would be easy to determine a shaved head from cropped hair, but maybe not.
Cem. Thank you for clarifying the flight risk. I just watched a video that shows his arraignment in it's entirety. I will post it. Sorry if it's already been posted.

http://www.wmur.com/article/man-cha...arcotte-held-on-dollar10-million-bail/9523462

I am not sure the witness said that but it just seems far more reasonable to me. Because you don't find any hair at the scene that doesn't indicate that the person doesn't have any hair. In fact I would not be surprised if they did find hair at the scene. if she struggled enough to get skin cells on her hands she probably ripped off some body hair at a minimum. But recovering hair from a crime scene like that certainly would have its challenges.

we know that a witness reported seeing him and seeing him standing outside of his vehicle speaking on a cell phone. When this guy drove past him on BSR he had to be within 30 feet of him or less. It would seem to me that this person got a good enough to look at the guy to make a statement that his hair was either short or nonexistent. Rather than basing a discription off Of a lack of hair found at the crime scene.

 

[DatelineFan]

Anyone paying any attention at all would see this whole thing as an anomaly in Princeton and it would be something that should raise an eyebrow. Its Not New York City. Not even close. Nothing but purebred white folks up there.

I've said my peace.

I Want to post a photo that will change direction of conversation- can you help me with that ?

Purebred white people? So if it's a white neighborhood you should call LE because you see a minority? This sounds like extremely troubling and dangerous ideology. Perhaps I'm not understanding you. And I can't blame anyone but the killer.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[ForensicMass]

Thinking back on some of the subjects discussed here, there are a few things we now know.
1) Her clothing was at the scene.
2) She was not found naked.
3) She was not raped.
4) The defendant did not live in the neighborhood.
5) The SUV was involved.
6) The defendents phone was used at the crime scene.
7) The defendant spent approximately an hour with her, if not more.
8) The SUV was spotted parked along BSR during the crime.
9. The defendant was not a younger kid living at home.
10) My theory that the defendant was on a bicycle wasn't even close.

Here's a few things that we don't know yet.
1) If she was staked in advance.
2) If the defendant knew her, or who she was.
3) If the defendant brought accelerants with him.
4) If the defendant is a smoker and had a lighter, or if he brought one with him.
5) The degree of injuries on the defendants body, and if someone noticed.
6) If the defendant took time off from work days following the crime.
7) If the defendant lived at the current address when the crime happened, or did he move there after.

Any other thoughts?

Great Summary. I was certainly wrong about the duration of the crime.
Even though I thought this guy was a total dimwit all along, he surprised even me!

A few of my best guesses along the way-
The perp was a 25 to 35-year-old male, strong, average intelligence (no Google wizard), employed working mostly with men, not working the night shift, making in the neighborhood of $20 an hour, living in Worcester, within 20 miles of the crime scene (currently this is true but he may have had another address at time of the crime). No known criminal history, not obviously connected to VM and not familiar with the path (although this detail is unsubstantiated as of yet).

Still unsure if the cell phone ideas were at all correct. Seems like it may have been a giant waste of time, and not useful, but I enjoyed the discussions.
where did the phone go? LE said it was powered off at 2:11pm. I presume he did this and not her. with the thanking of the dive team, it seems possible that he pitched it in the closest surface water body. But we know his car was still at the scene at 2:05 PM So even if he did leave with the phone he didn't get far with it before he shut it off. Seems more than likely he shut it off while still at the scene. Something that I had hoped did not occur.


Big unknown for me is was he involved in the northborough crimes? Certainly seems possible given the facts laid out this far.

 

[Rocky1]

I thought everything I read said she was found without clothes on? Has something come out to say that isn't true?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/1...sa-marcotte-in-massachusetts-reports-say.html

Yes. There was a report that her pants were pulled down, but not off.
I will see if I can find it.
BTW. nice to see you posting here.

 

[ForensicMass]

Purebred white people? So if it's a white neighborhood you should call LE because you see a minority? This sounds like extremely troubling and dangerous ideology. Perhaps I'm not understanding you. And I can't blame anyone but the killer.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Eventually you will get to another post where it is explained plain as day by another poster. Using someone's physical appearance as a possible indicator of involvement is not racial profiling. As an empiricist, any characteristic which can be used to separate the perpetrator from the majority is a useful characteristic in the apprehension of the perp. In this particular case in this particular setting his Ethnicity was a differentiator. I know we live in a climate now where pointing out anything about someone's race is automatically painted as some Morally compromising judgment. But that's just not reality.

 

[DatelineFan]

Eventually you will get to another post where it is explained plain as day by another poster. Using someone's physical appearance as a possible indicator of involvement is not racial profiling. As an empiricist, any characteristic which can be used to separate the perpetrator from the majority is a useful characteristic in the apprehension of the perp. In this particular case in this particular setting his Ethnicity was a differentiator. I know we live in a climate now where pointing out anything about someone's race is automatically painted as some Morally compromising judgment. But that's just not reality.

I got caught up. I think the way you phrased it was most troubling to me. Obviously if a suspect is any particular race, it makes sense to focus there with reasonable evidence.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[ForensicMass]

I got caught up. I think the way you phrased it was most troubling to me. Obviously if a suspect is any particular race, it makes sense to focus there with reasonable evidence.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Yes everyone is very sensitive around race issues and the specific language used. I believe I am a fair and just individual, and I just don't worry about trying to make everything sound perfect for everyone all the time because inevitably no matter how you phrase something someone somewhere will find a way to make it seem offensive.

Before he was identified (and even somewhat afterward), There were several posters on here who were fairly strong in their beliefs that this perpetrator was an illegal immigrant, or undocumented worker, or unemployed. I Argued exactly the opposite because that's what the facts and circumstances of the case told me. And lo and behold he is a citizen, was working a regular job and was raising a family.

I'm with you on the racial bias not against you. But people on all sides need to understand the difference between racial profiling and as the other poster put it "commonsense "

 

[Rocky1]

Great Summary. I was certainly wrong about the duration of the crime.
Even though I thought this guy was a total dimwit all along, he surprised even me!

A few of my best guesses along the way-
The perp was a 25 to 35-year-old male, strong, average intelligence (no Google wizard), employed working mostly with men, not working the night shift, making in the neighborhood of $20 an hour, living in Worcester, within 20 miles of the crime scene (currently this is true but he may have had another address at time of the crime). No known criminal history, not obviously connected to VM and not familiar with the path (although this detail is unsubstantiated as of yet).

Still unsure if the cell phone ideas were at all correct. Seems like it may have been a giant waste of time, and not useful, but I enjoyed the discussions.
where did the phone go? LE said it was powered off at 2:11pm. I presume he did this and not her. with the thanking of the dive team, it seems possible that he pitched it in the closest surface water body. But we know his car was still at the scene at 2:05 PM So even if he did leave with the phone he didn't get far with it before he shut it off. Seems more than likely he shut it off while still at the scene. Something that I had hoped did not occur.


Big unknown for me is was he involved in the northborough crimes? Certainly seems possible given the facts laid out this far.

I don't think discussing the phone was a waste of time at all. It got me thinking.
If I saw LE searching along Rt 31. near the Mountain Barn, I would have been with you. Where is the phone? We still don't know. If you remember a few days after the crime, LE was searching the pond, but they kept searching days after and that's when they were seen carrying the evidence bag on BSR south of the crime scene.
I guess we should add that to the list of what we don't know yet.
Still thinking they didn't gather hair evidence at the scene, and that's why they thought his hair was shaven or short cropped.
A witness 30 ft away should be able to determine a shaven head, from cropped.
I guess we can add that to the list too.

 

[Kickoff61]

I was very wrong with how long the vehicle was parked there. I am surprised by the length of time he would have the vehicle in sight there as all this was happening. Especially with that driveway on google map, just across the street, diagonally.

 

[Kickoff61]

So if they searched the pond and found anything, that would mean he walked to the pond as well with even more time for the vehicle to be there.

 

[ForensicMass]

I don't think discussing the phone was a waste of time at all. It got me thinking.
If I saw LE searching along Rt 31. near the Mountain Barn, I would have been with you. Where is the phone? We still don't know. If you remember a few days after the crime, LE was searching the pond, but they kept searching days after and that's when they were seen carrying the evidence bag on BSR south of the crime scene.
I guess we should add that to the list of what we don't know yet.
Still thinking they didn't gather hair evidence at the scene, and that's why they thought his hair was shaven or short cropped.
A witness 30 ft away should be able to determine a shaven head, from cropped.
I guess we can add that to the list too.

With you on all that stuff regarding the phone. Regarding the witness and the shorthair versus baldhead you have to realize to that when the person drove by 30 feet away he did look at the suspect but he did not realize at the time that he was looking at a suspect he was just looking at another random human being in the world. he was also looking at the subject vehicle, a long enough look to accurately identify the make, model, And color. of the perpetrator he did give a description that the man was possibly Hispanic, with a larger build. To me whether he had very short hair or was bald might not be the focus of a person who is taking in all of this as they pass by the person and then not thinking about it at all until asked to recall it hours or days later. You can't remember every single detail about a person. But he remembered enough to say that the guy did not have long hair.

He has short hair now but might have had even shorter hair at the time, further complicating the witnesses ability to make a determination.

 

[ForensicMass]

So if they searched the pond and found anything, that would mean he walked to the pond as well with even more time for the vehicle to be there.

There were a couple of other bodies of water very close to the road where he theoretically could have pitched the phone as he drove . To your point if he had to run to a body of water to throw in a phone I don't think he would have done that.

 

[Rocky1]

As far as if he is involved in the Northboro crime....
To me the sketch doesn't match.
Going by what we know, he works till 11 am. The crime happened at 10.30 am.
It was reported that he was driving a small black car, not an SUV.
If you go by this, I'll say he is not.

The fact that both hoods were up, to me, throws up red flags that tells me there is no way he is not involved.
Combine that with the Fed Ex building being close by.
He may have got out of work early that day.
The "small black car" could be a "small black SUV"
To me, the deciding factor will be the cell phone records.
I am leaning towards yes, but not confirmed yet.

 

[Rocky1]

I was very wrong with how long the vehicle was parked there. I am surprised by the length of time he would have the vehicle in sight there as all this was happening. Especially with that driveway on google map, just across the street, diagonally.

I think a lot of us thinking this through were thinking of this guy planning out the perfect crime, and taking precautions to not get caught.
Now we know nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Kickoff61]

There were a couple of other bodies of water very close to the road where he theoretically could have pitched the phone as he drove . To your point if he had to run to a body of water to throw in a phone I don't think he would have done that.

Oh, I thought they had searched the pond across the street.

 

[Kickoff61]

I think a lot of us thinking this through were thinking of this guy planning out the perfect crime, and taking precautions to not get caught.
Now we know nothing could be further from the truth.

That's right Rocky.

 

[ForensicMass]

As far as if he is involved in the Northboro crime....
To me the sketch doesn't match.
Going by what we know, he works till 11 am. The crime happened at 10.30 am.
It was reported that he was driving a small black car, not an SUV.
If you go by this, I'll say he is not.

The fact that both hoods were up, to me, throws up red flags that tells me there is no way he is not involved.
Combine that with the Fed Ex building being close by.
He may have got out of work early that day.
The "small black car" could be a "small black SUV"
To me, the deciding factor will be the cell phone records.
I am leaning towards yes, but not confirmed yet.

I could not agree more with every single word in that post