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

[Evey]

Maybe the person also refused doing voluntary DNA?

Or even better he pretended he wasn't home.

 

[Evey]

If you connect the dots I believe it was a young killer.

Police probably have a good idea of the profile. They got tips from the public. They asked everybody who knows someone who had access to a dark suv. "Access" like using your parents car?

They are trying to communicate with him, cauze if he's young and inexperimented. They probably believe that he'll stress. If he does he might panick, and that might wake up his parents/friends who don't suspect him.

Imagine if its a 20 years old living in his parents house. Having a crush on that beautiful girl jogging. One week his parents are in vacation, he has the house for himself. Bang. He feels invincible. No one sees his scratches/bruises. And as of now he's getting away with it.

To me if he used social media to stalk her then it's likely someone young which is what I think. Maybe they grew up in the same area but he never left home but sure spent time thinking about her. Let's think what jobs would have access tk the SUV? If it's not his or his families then maybe his job so which ones?

 

[Kickoff61]

IF a family has multiple cars with one being a dark SUV, they could easily want to know who had access to a dark SUV that day., JMO

 

[Kickoff61]

Or even better he pretended he wasn't home.

True, but they can return and we know they in fact did return questioning neighbors 'after' dark SUV report.

 

[The Farm]

Although I wish they did, I don't think they have a clue who it is, and this question keeps coming back to me...
If they are so certain that the SUV was involved, rather than just acting on a tip, then why the DNA dragnet?

One thing I also want to point out.
It was stated in a previous post here, that what Vanessa had for breakfast makes no difference. Nothing could be further from the truth, Stomach contents I am sure was a factor in determining time of death.

I agree.

 

[Kickoff61]

IF person is in the immediate area, there is less need to stalk through social media, if the person has access to seeing her there regularly.

 

[Kickoff61]

Although I wish they did, I don't think they have a clue who it is, and this question keeps coming back to me...
If they are so certain that the SUV was involved, rather than just acting on a tip, then why the DNA dragnet?

One thing I also want to point out.
It was stated in a previous post here, that what Vanessa had for breakfast makes no difference. Nothing could be further from the truth, Stomach contents I am sure was a factor in determining time of death.

It doesn't necessarily mean they have no idea who it is. It could go either way. However, building a case, is building a case. That means developing significant probable cause to demand DNA sample.

 

[Kickoff61]

I think a key factor here is who this person knows, or lives with. What kind of things they may be overlooking, denying, refusing to report.

 

[The Farm]

I think a key factor here is who this person knows, or lives with. What kind of things they may be overlooking, denying, refusing to report.

That is very possible Kickoff but I just have a feeling that they do not have a clue.

 

[The Farm]

Of course hoping I am wrong.

 

[Kickoff61]

That is very possible Kickoff but I just have a feeling that they do not have a clue.

Hi. Curious what makes you think the people he lives with or knows have no suspicions, no gut instincts or questions whatsoever, basically no clue?

 

[Kickoff61]

More than likely if this person is within a family, IMO - there have been issues with narcissism or abuse of some kind prior to this as well. However, denial of this over time can be strong too.

 

[Kickoff61]

The reason for all these posts on these line of thoughts, is that I believe it is important to focus on this person who did this, as much if not more than analyzing everything about HER.

You never know...the more discussion on the person who did this, may raise some red flags for someone in the area IF by chance he is in the area.

 

[Kickoff61]

Things people could think about in the area would be someone who may have things in common with her for instance. Running, tech things, outdoors, exercise , etc.

Of course, someone who may have access to a dark SUV.

Someone who may be prominent with money (easy to lawyer up), more apt. to avoid voluntary DNA. ETC

These are only examples. to start off with.

I think he actually has been given too much avoidance in here with so much focus on every little detail to do with her life and habits.

 

[searunner]

Maybe the person also refused doing voluntary DNA?

Totally agree. I don't think we can rule out that they have a suspect or suspects just because there has been no arrest yet. LE can't just demand anyone they consider a suspect give a DNA sample. They need enough evidence in order to demand it. And I don't see the DNA dragnet as being contrary to them having a suspect or suspects. In fact, doing such a dragnet in a suspect's neighborhood would be a great tactic. Obviously the suspect wouldn't voluntarily give a sample. To be clear - I'm not implying anyone who refuses to give a sample could be guilty. (I feel I need to state that as we have some people on this thread that seem to misread others' comments.)

I honestly could go both ways on this - LE might be trying to gather enough evidence against a suspect to require a DNA sample or they might not have any suspects.

 

[Rocky1]

It doesn't necessarily mean they have no idea who it is. It could go either way. However, building a case, is building a case. That means developing significant probable cause to demand DNA sample.

In this case, they are not establishing probable cause, they are going door to door, without a warrant.
If they had one particular suspect in mind, they would have to establish probable cause, go to a judge, and if he agrees, he will issue the warrant.
I do believe they have his DNA, based on MSN reports that they plan on using it to establish a facial profile, however, sometimes they use a dragnet as a bluff, meaning they have no clue who it is, but when asked to give, watch the reaction, and if that person refuses, they zero in . Nobody has to submit their DNA without a warrant, (unless arrested for a felony) So LE pressures them into it by playing the "what do you have to hide" game.

 

[The Farm]

Hi. Curious what makes you think the people he lives with or knows have no suspicions, no gut instincts or questions whatsoever, basically no clue?

I was talking about LE not having a clue
I think if he lives alone, a quiet person that does not get involved in much it would be easy to stay under the radar. That is if he is in fact alone.
I remember saying early on that there is a good possibility he was able to flee for sometime immediately after the crime. Up to N.H., VT maybe telling anyone he did have some form of contact that he was going fishing for awhile and he might be really good at doing such a thing. A very unsuspecting person. Or he might not have had to tell anyone anything.
Then there is the scenario that this is a young person and his family might suspect he is a little wacked and are keeping their mouths shut.
And again as far as visible scratches we really dont know how visible they were or if they were even on his face at all.

 

[Kickoff61]

Totally agree. I don't think we can rule out that they have a suspect or suspects just because there has been no arrest yet. LE can't just demand anyone they consider a suspect give a DNA sample. They need enough evidence in order to demand it. And I don't see the DNA dragnet as being contrary to them having a suspect or suspects. In fact, doing such a dragnet in a suspect's neighborhood would be a great tactic. Obviously the suspect wouldn't voluntarily give a sample. To be clear - I'm not implying anyone who refuses to give a sample could be guilty. (I feel I need to state that as we have some people on this thread that seem to misread others' comments.)

I honestly could go both ways on this - LE might be trying to gather enough evidence against a suspect to require a DNA sample or they might not have any suspects.

I completely agree. It can go either way.

 

[Kickoff61]

In this case, they are not establishing probable cause, they are going door to door, without a warrant.
If they had one particular suspect in mind, they would have to establish probable cause, go to a judge, and if he agrees, he will issue the warrant.
I do believe they have his DNA, based on MSN reports that they plan on using it to establish a facial profile, however, sometimes they use a dragnet as a bluff, meaning they have no clue who it is, but when asked to give, watch the reaction, and if that person refuses, they zero in . Nobody has to submit their DNA without a warrant, (unless arrested for a felony) So LE pressures them into it by playing the "what do you have to hide" game.

I think this can go either way, at this point. Correct, someone does not have to give DNA without warrant, which is why I brought up question regarding anyone who May have refused voluntary. *not saying that happened. They would need to bring together the evidence for significant probable cause for that to be issued - correct.

 

[searunner]

More than likely if this person is within a family, IMO - there have been issues with narcissism or abuse of some kind prior to this as well. However, denial of this over time can be strong too.

Another good comment, Kickoff.

I'm totally with you that SOMEONE - even if just one person - has got to suspect this guy. But you are totally right that within a family, denial is very strong. Besides the denial factor, these types of criminals very very rarely spring from anything resembling a decently functioning family. Meaning there is prob major dysfunction within much of his family (of origin at least), which makes it more likely they're not going to suspect him.

I think the only people most people would cover for or not report is a child. And sadly, some women would cover for their husbands.