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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
tlcya

tlcya

Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
42,229
Reaction score
65,532
attachment.php


"Vanessa Marcotte, 27, was last seen Sunday afternoon while visiting family in Princeton, Mass., police said. Around 1 p.m., she went for a jog — and vanished. Officers found her body in the woods that night about a half mile from her mother’s home."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...c-google-employee-dead-mass-article-1.2742909

Presser Aug 8th
[video=youtube;2D3fmpBEAfU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D3fmpBEAfU[/video]

In fact, one of the few details investigators have released is that Marcotte did fight back and may have inflicted some injuries on her attacker. Police have asked the public to be on the lookout for anyone with scratches, scrapes or bruises that would have been inflicted around Aug. 7 and to call the anonymous tip line at 508-453-7589.

http://www.masslive.com/news/worcester/index.ssf/2016/08/vanessa_marcottes_tweet.html

She had a pattern. Marcotte would visit her mother on a weekends and go for a run before returning to the city on Sundays. If she was the intended victim and her killing was not a random act, Kirby said her weekend runs "would be the place."

http://www.masslive.com/news/worces.../fbi_profiler_on_vanessa_marcotte_killer.html

Video Interview w Unidentified Man in Socks - Says he Gave DNA to LE

[just a note, since we don't the man's name it is acceptable to refer to him as Socks or the UI DNA guy but please avoid other variations - thanks]

Video - Reporter walk thru of Crime Scene

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread $6
 
FM. You think the perp may live in the Rutland, Holden, Worcester area.
What makes you think that, and, if your belief that she didn't go to the store, and wasn't seen before her walk/jog, then how did he know she'd be out at that time?
 
Rocky- To Your response regarding my field test-

The neighbor reported that Vanessa's aunt had stopped at his house around 4 o'clock pm at which time she stated to him that Vanessa's cell phone had last pinged near the mountain barn restaurant at 2:25 (more than an hour previous). She only could have known this information so soon from a smart phone application and not from a cell phone provider who had analyzed their tower data. We don't know exactly what she meant when she said "near ", but certainly she did not mean the location of the crime scene which was more than 5000 feet away in the woods. Reguarding the accuracy of the location, as I stated, in the field test conducted at the same locations, with NO wifi connection, the locations were very accurate, showing the precise locations of both the mountain barn and the crime scene. At No time did my friends phone show him to be in a location where he had not actually been. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that her cell phone was in fact located near the mountain barn at 2:25 PM. The time that the signal took to update to show my friends location as he moved wouldn't apply in her case, since the location was the last logged location of her phone. It wasn't "processing". It was a discrete data point, accessed an hour later by her aunt when her family wanted to see where she might be.
 
Rocky1 said:
FM. You think the perp may live in the Rutland, Holden, Worcester area.
What makes you think that, and, if your belief that she didn't go to the store, and wasn't seen before her walk/jog, then how did he know she'd be out at that time?
Click to expand...

Because of the general location of Princeton, I agree with the common thinking that this person has at least a regional connection.

I don't know whether she went to the store. I was Convinced she had been there until speaking with the employee and seeing the camera setup. Now I'm leaning away from it. I think she left her house earlier that day in a car, but if she didn't go to THAT store, my next best bet would be that she went to a different store. At some time on this trip she could have encountered someone.

I lean toward a southern residing perp because of the phone ping location. I believe it indicates the perps escape route, and I believe he was heading south past the mountain barn. I think his vehicle was parked in a northely direction at the path, and he fled north on BSR for only a half mile, then turned onto BOYLSTON AVE then south on 31. I believe he would flea in The direction where he felt most comfortable.

All speculative of course
 
ForensicMass said:
Rocky- To Your response regarding my field test-

The neighbor reported that Vanessa's aunt had stopped at his house around 4 o'clock pm at which time she stated to him that Vanessa's cell phone had last pinged near the mountain barn restaurant at 2:25 (more than an hour previous). She only could have known this information so soon from a smart phone application and not from a cell phone provider who had analyzed their tower data. We don't know exactly what she meant when she said "near ", but certainly she did not mean the location of the crime scene which was more than 5000 feet away in the woods. Reguarding the accuracy of the location, as I stated, in the field test conducted at the same locations, with NO wifi connection, the locations were very accurate, showing the precise locations of both the mountain barn and the crime scene. At No time did my friends phone show him to be in a location where he had not actually been. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that her cell phone was in fact located near the mountain barn at 2:25 PM. The time that the signal took to update to show my friends location as he moved wouldn't apply in her case, since the location was the last logged location of her phone. It wasn't "processing". It was a discrete data point, accessed an hour later by her aunt when her family wanted to see where she might be.
Click to expand...
I believe that "Ping came from Data and not cell phone records.I don't think at that time she thought her cell phone was in the woods either, but may have just thought like a lot here that the cell pinged off the tower and went there.
I think it's less than 5,000 ft, not more.
I believe your findings to be true in your test, no doubt, but you are drawing your conclusions that that was the case in her situation.
Did you read what Apple says that the location can be thrown way off if the signal is updating?
What about the families wi fi updating at that location?
I believe you had a great connection, but what about theirs in Princeton where wi-fi is spotty? think it may take a few minutes to update there?
 
Rocky1 said:
I believe that "Ping came from Data and not cell phone records.I don't think at that time she thought her cell phone was in the woods either, but may have just thought like a lot here that the cell pinged off the tower and went there.
I think it's less than 5,000 ft, not more.
I believe your findings to be true in your test, no doubt, but you are drawing your conclusions that that was the case in her situation.
Did you read what Apple says that the location can be thrown way off if the signal is updating?
What about the families wi fi updating at that location?
I believe you had a great connection, but what about theirs in Princeton where wi-fi is spotty? think it may take a few minutes to update there?
Click to expand...

The test was conducted in Princeton- at the actual crime scene and at the actual mountain barn. No wifi was needed, even without wifi, the locations in question were highly distinguishable and very accurate.

The way the app works, the phone self-recognizes it's own position and that information is stored intermittently. Then, with a second phone, or a computer, that information can be "looked up". The last known location of her phone, as looked up by her aunt when she checked the app, was reportedly "near the mountain barn". The aunt's wifi connection would have no bearing on the accuracy of the last position which had already been recorded by VMs phone. And given the field test, I believe VMs phone was locating precisely.

In our test, While my friend was driving, I was watching his location move on my phone (I was 100 miles away from him) It would update about every minute, and each time it updated the location shown was directly along the path he had driven. It never showed an error in location. It never indicated that he was somewhere that he had not been within one minute. And when he stopped the car, the location was exactly where he reported on the phone verbally that he was in fact sitting.

I understand that Apple says it may not always be accurate. There are a lot of reasons why it may not be accurate in a given area. But since the field test was conducted in the very same area, and even without any use of the wifi (WIFI WAS OFF during the test), the locations were accurate to within 10 feet.

The most reasonable conclusion I can draw is that her phone, when in the same locations, behaves similarly. And therefore, her phone location near the mountain barn at 2:25 was accurate.
 
It is offensive to insinuate that VM was an illegal drug user. Her healthy lifestyle belies that theory.

I concur it would be probable that the Perp took her phone, on purpose and with intent, to leave 5000ft from the CS. His way of diverting the investigation. Did Perp plan that action in advance once deciding upon the location? If the prearranged fire pit was prepared say, on Saturday, before Sunday's pyre, the CS was ready for the unsuspecting victim.

JMHO For some reason, VM herself was targeted. She was a tiny young lady seemingly one to overpower easily but the Perp took a licking from this feisty fighter. Not a tough assignment for a big bad guy to take her down the path and around the corner to the fire pit. Shivers.

If VMs murder was not personal, we may have a serial killer on our radar. ForensicMass, I agree the killer resides nearby the CS. And, VM may have recognized who had Taken her. So, then the question is why would a male living up to and, as close as, 15 miles away want to murder VM? If she was a target, what was the motive?

O/T Note: KV, in Queens, was dragged from the jogging path against her will. KV bit her Killer so hard that she broke her tooth. Her closed fists held clumps of grass she had pulled out by its roots.
 
ForensicMass said:
The test was conducted in Princeton- at the actual crime scene and at the actual mountain barn. No wifi was needed, even without wifi, the locations in question were highly distinguishable and very accurate.

The way the app works, the phone self-recognizes it's own position and that information is stored intermittently. Then, with a second phone, or a computer, that information can be "looked up". The last known location of her phone, as looked up by her aunt when she checked the app, was reportedly "near the mountain barn". The aunt's wifi connection would have no bearing on the accuracy of the last position which had already been recorded by VMs phone. And given the field test, I believe VMs phone was locating precisely.

In our test, While my friend was driving, I was watching his location move on my phone (I was 100 miles away from him) It would update about every minute, and each time it updated the location shown was directly along the path he had driven. It never showed an error in location. It never indicated that he was somewhere that he had not been within one minute. And when he stopped the car, the location was exactly where he reported on the phone verbally that he was in fact sitting.

I understand that Apple says it may not always be accurate. There are a lot of reasons why it may not be accurate in a given area. But since the field test was conducted in the very same area, and even without any use of the wifi (WIFI WAS OFF during the test), the locations were accurate to within 10 feet.

The most reasonable conclusion I can draw is that her phone, when in the same locations, behaves similarly. And therefore, her phone location near the mountain barn at 2:25 was accurate.
Click to expand...
It's great that different ideas are discussed here, because if we discussed just what we know, this thread would have been stagnant the first week. I think it was nice that you and your friend took the time to conduct your test. I am sure you can relate, being in forensics, that tests are based off conditions to what they were the day of the crime. So I started thinking and I did a lot of reading and after reading 6 pages of what would throw off the location of a phone I read through the fact that most of the time they are accurate when mobile, and are constantly updating, as yours did. Then I read that if they are stationary you may have to do a reset, along with the different hardware problems different brands have, ie. Samsung 3 etc.
Setting all that aside, because I think we can both agree that in order to conduct forensics, we would have to have the exact brand phone, and the proper app that she was using, etc, which we don't know. And then I started thinking about GPS. I know when they are linked to all 4 satellites, they are accurate within 10 feet, and, I also know that the FAA restricts the use of GPS on precision approaches in IFR conditions, why? because they are not always accurate.
So, I thought what conditions would be different on Aug 7th compared to when you did your test. I know being inside of a building can throw off a GPS, and being in a city, the signal can bounce off of buildings and throw off a location, but of course that doesn't apply here, so, I thought what else and then I thought the Trees. I was surprised after reading up, just how much they will throw off a location, due to a blocked signal.
Below I'll post a link. If you like to read, scroll down to "Your Location" You will see a picture so accurate to the Mountain Barn and BSR, it's surprising.
Notice how the signal starts from the east, moves through the trees west, then south. (exactly the scenario here), It's not just a chance it may happen, but it seems the norm.
If you look at Google Maps you will see the exact same tree cover.
And now the tree cover is gone, so although well appreciated, FMs test was in totally different conditions. Not only was there no tree cover, but there wasn't any cover, as the driver in the test had a clear opening above him and the GPS signal wasn't blocked.
I am not saying this happened, but I do think it's possible.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accuracy_of_GPS_data
 
If the phone was "near" the Mountain Barn" and LE thought so, maybe someone can answer this.
Why is it that with every news channel in Ma, swarming like bees on honey, so much that people in town started complaining because they wouldn't leave, and broadcasting every move, never once showed one video of LE searching anywhere close to the Mountain Barn? In fact, they never mentioned a search once in that area.
LE left and came back a few days later and MSN were all over them within minutes.
Not one picture of cruisers parked in the parking lot of the Mountain Barn, nor the light department. Think it's fair to say that phone was a top priority, and they would have searched that area with a fine toothed comb? I would have expected to see tens of cops searching not only the MB, but along Rt 31, and footage of that. Not a thing.

I'd be willing to bet on it that if the dumpster was due to be emptied, and it wasn't searched, there would have at least been a cruiser parked in front of it blocking the truck from doing so until it was searched.
Any guess to what was in the evidence bag? I think by the looks of the bag not bulging out, it it's fair to rule out her clothes, or a shoe, what else is left? I know a contact lens was mentioned, What's the chances of finding a clear contact lens a half inch in diameter in a forrest?
 
Rocky1 said:
It's great that different ideas are discussed here, because if we discussed just what we know, this thread would have been stagnant the first week. I think it was nice that you and your friend took the time to conduct your test. I am sure you can relate, being in forensics, that tests are based off conditions to what they were the day of the crime. So I started thinking and I did a lot of reading and after reading 6 pages of what would throw off the location of a phone I read through the fact that most of the time they are accurate when mobile, and are constantly updating, as yours did. Then I read that if they are stationary you may have to do a reset, along with the different hardware problems different brands have, ie. Samsung 3 etc.
Setting all that aside, because I think we can both agree that in order to conduct forensics, we would have to have the exact brand phone, and the proper app that she was using, etc, which we don't know. And then I started thinking about GPS. I know when they are linked to all 4 satellites, they are accurate within 10 feet, and, I also know that the FAA restricts the use of GPS on precision approaches in IFR conditions, why? because they are not always accurate.
So, I thought what conditions would be different on Aug 7th compared to when you did your test. I know being inside of a building can throw off a GPS, and being in a city, the signal can bounce off of buildings and throw off a location, but of course that doesn't apply here, so, I thought what else and then I thought the Trees. I was surprised after reading up, just how much they will throw off a location, due to a blocked signal.
Below I'll post a link. If you like to read, scroll down to "Your Location" You will see a picture so accurate to the Mountain Barn and BSR, it's surprising.
Notice how the signal starts from the east, moves through the trees west, then south. (exactly the scenario here), It's not just a chance it may happen, but it seems the norm.
If you look at Google Maps you will see the exact same tree cover.
And now the tree cover is gone, so although well appreciated, FMs test was in totally different conditions. Not only was there no tree cover, but there wasn't any cover, as the driver in the test had a clear opening above him and the GPS signal wasn't blocked.
I am not saying this happened, but I do think it's possible.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accuracy_of_GPS_data
Click to expand...

Her map my run app had no problem tracking her routes when the area was completely green. And again, if the phone was in the woods, the odds that an error location would be placed along a roadway versus some other wooded area out there seems very unlikely to me. Yes admittedly, the field test is not ideal. But it's the best we can do with the knowledge and conditions we have. And it DOES point toward it being more likely that the phone was at a location other than the CS. You can keep dismissing it if you want, but I think it might be beneficial to think of theories that involve this fact instead of only trying to dismantle it.
 
Rocky1 said:
If the phone was "near" the Mountain Barn" and LE thought so, maybe someone can answer this.
Why is it that with every news channel in Ma, swarming like bees on honey, so much that people in town started complaining because they wouldn't leave, and broadcasting every move, never once showed one video of LE searching anywhere close to the Mountain Barn? In fact, they never mentioned a search once in that area.
LE left and came back a few days later and MSN were all over them within minutes.
Not one picture of cruisers parked in the parking lot of the Mountain Barn, nor the light department. Think it's fair to say that phone was a top priority, and they would have searched that area with a fine toothed comb? I would have expected to see tens of cops searching not only the MB, but along Rt 31, and footage of that. Not a thing.

I'd be willing to bet on it that if the dumpster was due to be emptied, and it wasn't searched, there would have at least been a cruiser parked in front of it blocking the truck from doing so until it was searched.
Any guess to what was in the evidence bag? I think by the looks of the bag not bulging out, it it's fair to rule out her clothes, or a shoe, what else is left? I know a contact lens was mentioned, What's the chances of finding a clear contact lens a half inch in diameter in a forrest?
Click to expand...

These are all great points. As far as why they didn't search there, perhaps if the location was centered along the roadway they assumed that the phone wasn't in his moving car when shut off while passing the restaurant. And not deposited there. In a way this does tell us that the signal wasn't locked on by the dumpster, or you're absolutely right they would have searched it.

If you went bAck locking for a contact lens in 50 square ft area, it could be found, but the process would be painstaking and time consuming. I don't know what they found but contact is possible. Not sure.
 
ForensicMass said:
Her map my run app had no problem tracking her routes when the area was completely green. And again, if the phone was in the woods, the odds that an error location would be placed along a roadway versus some other wooded area out there seems very unlikely to me. Yes admittedly, the field test is not ideal. But it's the best we can do with the knowledge and conditions we have. And it DOES point toward it being more likely that the phone was at a location other than the CS. You can keep dismissing it if you want, but I think it might be beneficial to think of theories that involve this fact instead of only trying to dismantle it.
Click to expand...
Same applies for running apps. She wasn't jogging in the forest, she was on the road much better signal.
According to this trees affect those apps too.

http://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-accurately-do-running-apps-track-your-distance-1734172510
 
ForensicMass said:
These are all great points. As far as why they didn't search there, perhaps if the location was centered along the roadway they assumed that the phone wasn't in his moving car when shut off while passing the restaurant. And not deposited there. In a way this does tell us that the signal wasn't locked on by the dumpster, or you're absolutely right they would have searched it.

If you went bAck locking for a contact lens in 50 square ft area, it could be found, but the process would be painstaking and time consuming. I don't know what they found but contact is possible. Not sure.
Click to expand...
I think if you were looking for a contact lens per say, then yes, if you spent enough time, you may find it. 50 ft sq.? The day they showed the bag it showed them searching along the guard rail. A lot more than 50 sq feet.
I am not saying they didn't find a contact lens either, but I do know a phone could have been in that bag and it wouldn't have bowed out.
 
ForensicMass said:
These are all great points. As far as why they didn't search there, perhaps if the location was centered along the roadway they assumed that the phone wasn't in his moving car when shut off while passing the restaurant. And not deposited there. In a way this does tell us that the signal wasn't locked on by the dumpster, or you're absolutely right they would have searched it.

If you went bAck locking for a contact lens in 50 square ft area, it could be found, but the process would be painstaking and time consuming. I don't know what they found but contact is possible. Not sure.
Click to expand...
If the app is accurate within ten feet, and the road is 12 tops to the woods from the center, think LE would have overlooked it for a few feet, and said ah the hell with it, the phone isn't all that important?
 
Rocky1 said:
I think if you were looking for a contact lens per say, then yes, if you spent enough time, you may find it. 50 ft sq.? The day they showed the bag it showed them searching along the guard rail. A lot more than 50 sq feet.
I am not saying they didn't find a contact lens either, but I do know a phone could have been in that bag and it wouldn't have bowed out.
Click to expand...

Agree. They could have found the phone. But that wouldn't explain the ping unless VM was near mt barn earlier. I really don't think the phone was found at the CS. Just an opinion based on what little evidence we have.
 
ForensicMass said:
Her map my run app had no problem tracking her routes when the area was completely green. And again, if the phone was in the woods, the odds that an error location would be placed along a roadway versus some other wooded area out there seems very unlikely to me. Yes admittedly, the field test is not ideal. But it's the best we can do with the knowledge and conditions we have. And it DOES point toward it being more likely that the phone was at a location other than the CS. You can keep dismissing it if you want, but I think it might be beneficial to think of theories that involve this fact instead of only trying to dismantle it.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to dismantle anything. You are into forensics, and I think it's good to weigh all the possibilities, and add it into the mix. It's possible according to the link I posted that the trees threw off the location, Would you agree? Should we look at everything. or just cherry pick certain things?
 
It is very difficult to figure out anything and definetly not for certain without facts and evidence from what they have investigated. There is too little known in this case.
 
Rocky1 said:
If the app is accurate within ten feet, and the road is 12 tops to the woods from the center, think LE would have overlooked it for a few feet, and said ah the hell with it, the phone isn't all that important?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But when they went to the location where it pinged, there was nothing. Just because the media was set up elsewhere doesn't mean someone didn't check the area. When they questioned the restaurant folks early on officers would have been looking around the area where the ping was. But perhaps it was obvious it wasn't located there anymore. That pavement and roadway near the restaurant are vast. Depending on precisely where the ping showed (I am sure they walked to this EXACT location) the phone, there may have been no good areas to hide it, and the vicinity could have been checked quickly. At that point, I think they were probably more focused on finding her though.
 
Kickoff61 said:
It is very difficult to figure out anything and definetly not for certain without facts and evidence from what they have investigated. There is too little known in this case.
Click to expand...

Of course that's true. But the timing of the aunt's knowledge of the phone location and field test does point toward a liklihood that the phone was indeed located near the mountain barn at 2:25. IMO.
 
ForensicMass said:
Agree. They could have found the phone. But that wouldn't explain the ping unless VM was near mt barn earlier. I really don't think the phone was found at the CS. Just an opinion based on what little evidence we have.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we have no evidence that her phone was near the Mountain Barn, If you read the link I posted, there is evidence that heavy tree cover most likely will throw a location off. Agree?
I am just discussing the topic. I already have my theory, and as I said, I am open to anything. It doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, I'd like to see the guy caught.
Help me lean towards LE thinking her phone was at the Mountain Barn, and explain why LE never searched that area?
If he wanted to throw off LE, explain why he lit the fire if he was that concerned?
If you think she drove out of town to get a drink, can you think why anyone would do that when the store is right down the road?
Valid questions to help piece the puzzle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 173 more.
Total: 4,017 (members: 174, guests: 3,843)

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
3,843
Total visitors
4,017
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,532
Messages
17,954,131
Members
228,524
Latest member
archangel78100
Back
Top