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

[Kickoff61]

I am not saying this happened, but since percentages have been talked about here: It is hard to imagine not one single tip from 1,000 were related to her running in town further on in her run. Just one, would conflict with her being killed at the beginning.

 

[ForensicMass]

FIND MY FRIENDS iPHONE LOCATION TEST RESULTS.

Date 1/4/2017
Time 9:30 am
Weather conditions: cloudy with patchy fog, 37F

Subject started at MSM. With his phone powered on and wifi turned on, I could clearly see he was at MSM on my phone. He then SHUT OFF WIFI and proceeded to the CS. The location updated when he was driving along BSR, and showed him 1,500' north of the site. He proceeded to the CS and parked at the road. After about a minute and a half, his location updated and I could see on my map that he was located precisely at the entrance to the path. Then, keeping the wifi off, he continued to drive south. His next visible location on my end was the intersection of Ball Hill RD, where he turned left. He proceeded to Worcester road and headed north to the mountain barn. I refreshed the app on my end, and after 1 minute I could clearly see that he was in the front parking lot of the mountain barn, as confirmed by him over the phone.

At no time did his location on my end show him in an area where he had not actually been. The signal did lag slightly, so he was usually actually physically ahead of where he was shown unless he stopped, at which point the location was spot on.

THEREFORE,

Although other variables could possibly yield a different result, to me this shows that the general technology coverage in the area is fairly solid.

And to me this CLEARLY indicates that her phone WAS NEAR THE MOUNTAIN BARN at some point if it in fact last located there. Which means it was shut off VERY CLOSE BY, since the location data updates relatively quickly, in just minutes.

The phone being at the CS would not have indicated the Mountain Barn location.
And this is with wifi turned off, which is the worst-case scenario from an accuracy perspective.

 

[Kickoff61]

FIND MY FRIENDS iPHONE LOCATION TEST RESULTS.

Date 1/4/2017
Time 9:30 am
Weather conditions: cloudy with patchy fog, 37F

Subject started at MSM. With his phone powered on and wifi turned on, I could clearly see he was at MSM on my phone. He then SHUT OFF WIFI and proceeded to the CS. The location updated when he was driving along BSR, and showed him 1,500' north of the site. He proceeded to the CS and parked at the road. After about a minute and a half, his location updated and I could see on my map that he was located precisely at the entrance to the path. Then, keeping the wifi off, he continued to drive south. His next visible location on my end was the intersection of Ball Hill RD, where he turned left. He proceeded to Worcester road and headed north to the mountain barn. I refreshed the app on my end, and after 1 minute I could clearly see that he was in the front parking lot of the mountain barn, as confirmed by him over the phone.

At no time did his location on my end show him in an area where he had not actually been. The signal did lag slightly, so he was usually actually physically ahead of where he was shown unless he stopped, at which point the location was spot on.

THEREFORE,

Although other variables could possibly yield a different result, to me this shows that the general technology coverage in the area is fairly solid.

And to me this CLEARLY indicates that her phone WAS NEAR THE MOUNTAIN BARN at some point if it in fact last located there. Which means it was shut off VERY CLOSE BY, since the location data updates relatively quickly, in just minutes.

The phone being at the CS would not have indicated the Mountain Barn location.
And this is with wifi turned off, which is the worst-case scenario from an accuracy perspective.

Maybe she was still alive at that time.

 

[liz b.]

GREAT exchange between you and liz b! This topic has been on my mind. DeDee's comment was in response to liz b who posted:

Is it possible for LE to obtain the cell phone info from any and all phones that were located and turned on in that small crime scene area during the time +- arnd noon ?

IF this murder was spur of the moment/not planned, the perp would likely have no reason to NOT have his cell phone activated BEFORE the crime. And, as DeDee said, LE would probably have no problem getting a warrant for cell phone records for the crime scene vicinity within, say, 12-3 pm.

Meaning IF LE has the cell phone dump already, it seems less likely to me that the murder (or at least some crime, like rape) was UNplanned. If this is the case, I think they might have their man by now. This isn't a big city or even a more typical suburb, but a rather rural area with houses on spacious lots and just occasional traffic on BSR and most other nearby roads. So while still a big job, it seems very doable to me that LE would be able to go through the cell phone records for the CS vicinity in the 12-3pm or so range (concentrating on the early part of the range) by now. Again, assuming they have them already, which they might not.

And ForensicMass (when talking about HER phone is correct) - that no matter the mechanism used for tracking, a phone's location can be either extremely to very accurately tracked. (Brief explanation below.) So, LE would be able to track HIS cell accurately, as well.

Caveat:

While just about everyone has a cell phone with them while driving or on their person while walking/running/biking, we can't 100% assume he had a cell on him. So, even if they have the cell dump or obtain those records in the future, we can't rule out the "unplanned" scenario because he might not have had a cell on him.

So, DeDee, I'd love an answer to your question about warrants for cellular dumps: Does anyone know how to check for warrants filed within county records for this case?

--

CELL PHONE TRACKING

"Pinging" and and cell phone triangulation are two different things. Pinging is a digital (GPS) process, triangulation is cellular.

Bottom line - both are supposedly able to pinpoint a location very closely - pinging (which is the method used by the Find my phone app) supposedly within a few feet and triangulation within about 100 ft, according to my (brief) research. I believe FM might have mentioned 300 ft. Either way - 100 or 300 ft is pretty close. So, we can be pretty sure that the ping or what was called a ping by Vanessa's aunt at Mt Barn at 2:25 did originate pretty close to Mt. Barn.

LE might well have cell phone #s from that small area during that time frame. I am thinking though that they need more for an arrest. They need that DNA...and he's not going to give it to them voluntarily. Hmm, could be that LE has someone in mind for this murder. jmo

 

[ForensicMass]

Maybe she was still alive at that time.

One thing seems fairly certain. If her aunt saw on the application that VMs phone located near mountain barn at 2:25pm, its highly likely the phone was there- and here's yet another reason to support that!

If VMs phone's location was subject to a massive error of hundreds or thousands of feet, the chances the "erroneous location" would land right along the road and not in a completely random spot, like the woods, or a back yard, are also very slim.

This leaves three possibilities, each of which involve the phone near mountain barn-

1- Vanessa is with her phone near mountain barn at 2:25pm
2- Vanessa is with her Killer & Phone near mountain barn at 2:25pm
3- the Killer is with Vanessa's phone near mountain barn at 2:25, but she is absent.

Also important- the phone is shut off at this point, at or very near 2:25pm. Presumably the phone is turned off by the perp and not VM.

So

In scenario 1, why would she turn her own phone off while near mtn barn? I don't believe she would. The battery could have died, but she would probably have known that it would die on the excursion and in that case, why take it in the first place?

In scenario 2, the killer shuts off her phone, so presumably the attack has already commenced. But this area is fairly populated, with much more traffic than BSR. Very poor choice for a place of attack.

In scenario 3, Killer realizes he still has the phone and powers it off 3 minutes after fleeing CS, as he passes mountain barn.


I know many think he wouldn't have the phone at this point, but given the only 3 scenarios I can think of, #3 still holds the top spot for what most likely happened, vs the other 2 scenarios, in my mind, at least.

 

[Mainely16]

Hi all,

What I had posted remains on the website:

"Marcotte, 27, was killed Aug. 7 in the woods near her mother’s home in Princeton, where she was visiting from New York. Authorities say she was killed between 1 and 3 p.m. after going for a run."

Below please see the link for those who would like to view my findings.I contribute rarely to WS because what we discuss here is so grave. I always strive to use respectable sources, and check and recheck before I post. I completely understand wanting to see something for oneself. Hope this helped. I also found a few new pieces of info (new to me, but don't think I have seen them here before), but again need to review the sources, etc.

http://vanessamarcotte.org/more-than-1000-tips-received-in-vanessa-marcotte-murder-case/

 

[Emb72]

FIND MY FRIENDS iPHONE LOCATION TEST RESULTS.

Date 1/4/2017
Time 9:30 am
Weather conditions: cloudy with patchy fog, 37F

Subject started at MSM. With his phone powered on and wifi turned on, I could clearly see he was at MSM on my phone. He then SHUT OFF WIFI and proceeded to the CS. The location updated when he was driving along BSR, and showed him 1,500' north of the site. He proceeded to the CS and parked at the road. After about a minute and a half, his location updated and I could see on my map that he was located precisely at the entrance to the path. Then, keeping the wifi off, he continued to drive south. His next visible location on my end was the intersection of Ball Hill RD, where he turned left. He proceeded to Worcester road and headed north to the mountain barn. I refreshed the app on my end, and after 1 minute I could clearly see that he was in the front parking lot of the mountain barn, as confirmed by him over the phone.

At no time did his location on my end show him in an area where he had not actually been. The signal did lag slightly, so he was usually actually physically ahead of where he was shown unless he stopped, at which point the location was spot on.

THEREFORE,

Although other variables could possibly yield a different result, to me this shows that the general technology coverage in the area is fairly solid.

And to me this CLEARLY indicates that her phone WAS NEAR THE MOUNTAIN BARN at some point if it in fact last located there. Which means it was shut off VERY CLOSE BY, since the location data updates relatively quickly, in just minutes.

The phone being at the CS would not have indicated the Mountain Barn location.
And this is with wifi turned off, which is the worst-case scenario from an accuracy perspective.

Nice job FM... COOOOL!!!

 

[Rocky1]

FIND MY FRIENDS iPHONE LOCATION TEST RESULTS.

Date 1/4/2017
Time 9:30 am
Weather conditions: cloudy with patchy fog, 37F

Subject started at MSM. With his phone powered on and wifi turned on, I could clearly see he was at MSM on my phone. He then SHUT OFF WIFI and proceeded to the CS. The location updated when he was driving along BSR, and showed him 1,500' north of the site. He proceeded to the CS and parked at the road. After about a minute and a half, his location updated and I could see on my map that he was located precisely at the entrance to the path. Then, keeping the wifi off, he continued to drive south. His next visible location on my end was the intersection of Ball Hill RD, where he turned left. He proceeded to Worcester road and headed north to the mountain barn. I refreshed the app on my end, and after 1 minute I could clearly see that he was in the front parking lot of the mountain barn, as confirmed by him over the phone.

At no time did his location on my end show him in an area where he had not actually been. The signal did lag slightly, so he was usually actually physically ahead of where he was shown unless he stopped, at which point the location was spot on.

THEREFORE,

Although other variables could possibly yield a different result, to me this shows that the general technology coverage in the area is fairly solid.

And to me this CLEARLY indicates that her phone WAS NEAR THE MOUNTAIN BARN at some point if it in fact last located there. Which means it was shut off VERY CLOSE BY, since the location data updates relatively quickly, in just minutes.

The phone being at the CS would not have indicated the Mountain Barn location.
And this is with wifi turned off, which is the worst-case scenario from an accuracy perspective.

Thanks for the experiment FM.
I find it interesting that in less than 2 miles the phone updated twice, taking a minute and a half to do so especially right at the crime scene. According to Apple, the location can be thrown off by miles during this process. According to you didn't happen, According to Apple it It can.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204233

I agree that other variables could possibly yield a different result.

You stated that MSM misreported that the "ping" came from the tower next to the Mountain Barn.
You are relying on a neighbors testimony that the "ping" came from "near" the Mountain Barn. Where did he get that from? The Aunt that was put looking for her? Just how "near" did she say it was? Could he have "misreported?
I'm not taking anything away from anyone, The Family may be the most tech savoy people there are, but, is it possible that they took the "ping" to mean the tower where in reality the phone was in the woods?
Is it possible that the location was updating at the time she first hooked up, and the location was thrown off? Do you think with them being in a panic trying to find her that they sat there for a minute and a half waiting not only for her for the phone to update, but the wf-fi/gps on the families end?
In your next to the last paragraph, you are turning your experiment into clear facts, when not only in your words variables can yield a different result, as Apple has stated, along with in your experiment it took "Just" minutes to update.
In this case, putting myself in her families position, I see "Just" minutes as hours, and I think it's fair to say that it's possible they linked with her phone. It was updating, and the location was thrown off, and they didn't bother to wait for an "update"
I am not saying that is the case, but I am leaning on that a lot more that someone that just killed someone, knowingly put a honing device in their pocket where they can be tracked.

 

[Rocky1]

I really really think they wouldn't have put that info out if there was any chance it was mixed up with a statey vehicle. And the timing would be more like an hour and a half off as I don't believe police began looking until 430.

So it seems silly to not give LE more credit here...I mean don't you think it would have crosse there mind someone could have mixed up a statey too...and waiting 3 month s to release this...I'm pretty sure they would have been sure it was most definetly NOT. JMO

Yes I give LE all the credit in the world, and I am sure they thought about someone mixing it up.
And then I believe they dismissed the SUV as being all that important as well.
If not, why are they doing random DNA tests? I know I am repeating myself, and have asked that question a few times, but I still haven't got a good reason.

 

[Mainely16]

Here is a close-up picture of a burn area to a log. I personally haven't seen such an up-close image before, but perhaps it's been viewed along the way. Anyhow, Forensics, I know that you recently visited the crime site in Princeton. Was it too snow covered for you to see any such trees/logs/branches?


https://crimewatchdaily.com/2016/08/11/d-a-princeton-murder-suspect-likely-suffered-injuries-during-struggle/

 

[Rocky1]

That's possible. The main issue I have with that theory is not the same as the other folks on here. If I recall correctly people in general have just been of the opinion that the perp did not want the whole forest catching on fire. I won't say that's true. I don't know what this person wanted. but from an outdoorsman and former Boy Scout's perspective, my biggest problem is how easily he could have started an enormous fire in there if he wanted, under the specific conditions that existed at that time. We are talking about conditions where a discarded lit cigarette could very well catch the whole plot on fire. If this guy had a means to start a fire and he wanted the whole woods to go up all he would have to do is bounce around and light a couple different areas . Brings me to the last point- The one who wanted that whole wooded plot to go up in flames would have ignited more than just one small area where the body was.

Also. How reasonable wouldn't have been for him to assume a big fire wouldn't get called in immediately. Then they would have found her at 4pm. Perhaps. After responding to the brush fire- fire station is minutes from this location.

I just noticed your edit in the last paragraph.
I do think he would have though that a big fire would have been called in, and I don't think he cared if her body was found, or not. The reason is because I think he thought the fire would destroy the DNA, and therefore it wouldn't have mattered.

 

[tlcya]

Time to close up shop on this thread and move to a fresh one.

Thread #6 is ready for you. This one will close in a few minutes.

 

[tlcya]

move to thread 7 folks. This one is now closed.