www.justiceforchandra.com :: View topic - Jennifer Kesse Disappearance Discussion

www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Jennifer Kesse Disappearance Discussion
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 33, 34, 35 Next

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

myserty64

Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 82
Location: Gold Coast QLD Australia

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 6:23 pm Post subject:

Napqueen: I was more referring to the last case that blogger analysed. It was January 2016 if I remember correctly.

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:59 pm Post subject:

Markybug wrote:

Nancy wrote:

And lastly, I promise, is the following short quote from Rob.

Snipped transcript from about 7:34 minutes in:
Rob: I talked to her, I believe, 9:30 – 10:00, on the Monday evening. We had a disagreement over a phone, like any husband and wife; any boyfriend/girlfriend; any couple might have.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3642478585001/?#sp=show-clips

Is the quote from Rob stating “ we had a disagreement over a phone “ meaning “ on the phone “ or arguing about a actual phone ?

Well, that's a good question.

I take it to mean "on the phone". But I do wonder the same thing myself.

Markybug wrote:

Was the Nancy Grace episode any good ? Sorry but i had to switch off after 10 minutes as Nancy constantly talked about herself, any time jenns mum spoke , Nancy steered the topic back to her.... is the norm with her?? My ipad was at risk of getting thrown across the room , so i switched off.

Mark.

Oh, yes. That's just Nancy Grace and how she rolls. I think she has a good heart, though.

If I ever get caught up, I'd like to transcribe the part where Mr. Kesse mentions that in his opinion, Jenn would usually select her work clothes the night before.

It's just a small thing, but an interesting statement to consider, none-the-less.

(I'm glad to see you "in" here.)

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:36 pm Post subject:

myserty64 wrote:

I have been AWOL due to a medical issue. I just thought I'd let you know it wasn't caused by a banned message from RD's site.

Thank you, Mystery. I appreciate your comments, so I missed you.

I hope you are much better now.

myserty64 wrote:

I have just read through the posts and there was some good information as far as refreshing one's memory goes.

I'm now going to post some random thoughts that mostly repeat what I have thought and written about over the past twelve years.

Most will be aware of a blog site that now appears 'dead' as it were. This site was detested by WS .

BBM - Yes, and with good reason.

myserty64 wrote:

Regardless the blog owner conducted a thorough review of the Jennifer Kesse mystery.

I have a difficult time believing it was a work of fiction but who am I to know.

Well, I'm no-one to know, either; but be careful of believing what you read there.

myserty64 wrote:

In the bloggers analysis it was claimed a man's sweater was found in Jennifer's laundry hamper. What do you make of this?

Yes, this turned out to be true. (I'll add some links to support its accuracy). But, what do I think? I wish it would have been sent to a lab to be properly analyzed; but I have a tendency to agree with the popular opinion that it may have simply been a sweater that Jenn found comfortable to lounge around home in.

Snipped transcriptions:
@ about 24:09 minutes in:
Gurd: The second one is about a man’s sweater that was located in Jennifer’s hamper in her condo after her disappearance. And Joyce Kesse told me that that, in fact, is true. There was a sweater in her hamper that they don’t know who it belonged to which goes without saying is pretty interesting.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6137182-sidebar-7-24-17

@ about 14:09 minutes in:
Gurd: Let me start by saying that I’ve never been told that it was a size “medium”—only that it was smaller than the size that her boyfriend would have wore. We have actually received multiple questions about the sweater; so, I’m going to tell you what I know which honestly isn’t much.

The people I’ve talked to remember it as such: the sweater was found a little later, after Jennifer’s disappearance. It was a navy, v-neck, light-weight sweater from Banana Republic. Her friends actually said that it would not have been odd for Jennifer to have picked it up on her own on sale, and worn it around the house and such which is something I thought about the first time I heard about the sweater.

In my opinion, it is something that has been sensationalized on the internet when it has an easy explanation. Of course, no one knows for sure so it is still a piece of the puzzle to be considered; and not something that we just completely disregard.

And right now, I do not know if it has ever been processed by police. However, the rest of Jennifer’s condo wasn’t, so I would actually be surprised if it was.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6181834-sidebar-8-7-17

myserty64 wrote:

Also the blogger claimed certain items were found in the vicinity of of Windermere. What do we make of this and does this area tie in with RD's ping study?

This is strange, Mystery; and I think it could really be important.

Every time I think about it, I think about the t-shirt belonging to Morgan Harrington that they found spread-out over a bush a period of time after she had gone missing. Although, at that time, we were told it was only rumor--it turned out to be true and a very valuable piece of evidence.

I'll post some quoted statements from both Mr. and Mrs. Kesse on this. This is one of those issues where they seem to have differing opinions. I can understand that, though.

Anyway, I don't know if you know this or not; but the man that owned the company Jennifer worked for lived in Windermere. (The guy who put up the $1,000,000.00 reward for information leading to an "alive" Jennifer).

It's about a 20 minute drive from Jennifer's condo, and my understanding is it's a very "moneyed" area.

I heard that Mr. Kesse said Jennifer would sometimes go there to shop for things like groceries because she found the stores less busy and she loved the area. (I can't link that, however, so I'm not sure of the accuracy).

Now, the quotes. I'll put Mr. Kesse's first: (The link will work for a few days because I just looked it up again and re-set it. The links from that site move because of the way it's set-up).

Quotes:
Replied on: 11:32am 05-11-2016
a FOB was found and could be Jennifer's but Investigators have that info and have not and will not share because I don't think they know if it is. So????
http://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/?page=18

@ about 16:00 minutes in:
Gurd: I don’t but Jennifer’s mom did. She responded to a question on our Facebook group about this as well, and her answer was no—that her keys or key fob have never been recovered.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6089866-sidebar-7-9-17

@ about 23:52 minutes in:
Gurd: One of those rumors is that Jennifer’s key fob was found in Windermere several years after her disappearance. But, according to Joyce Kesse those keys and key fob have never been found.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6137182-sidebar-7-24-17

myserty64 wrote:

The grainy images of the POI. At least we know it wasn't JK who parked her car at HTOG. How many unsolved cases have pictures of a perpetrator or at least a person who knew a crime was committed?

Not many. I can't even think of one. But why does it elicit more questions than answers? Could he have been aware of the quality of the cameras, and even practiced the timing of the "walk" to be sure his face would be hidden by the posts--to taunt law enforcement or Jennifer's family?

I don't know--just something I think about over and over again.

myserty64 wrote:

Did anyone notice that in Mr Kesse's fund raiser JK's last known boyfriend made a four figure donation. It just proves that these dastardly crimes affect those close to victim the whole of their lives. But I guess we all know that.

Oh, thank-you for mentioning this. I didn't know; but, of course, he would. Mrs. Kesse said he really struggled trying to move on with his life, and I believe her, too.

myserty64 wrote:

Just what is LE holding back? They must have something. I'm not not convinced about a tiny piece of DNA. That technology has advanced in leaps and bounds over the past 12 years.
Then there is the latent print. That hasn't achieved anything either.

Some days, especially when I'm discouraged, I think maybe they are holding back nothing; because they have nothing.

It takes hope to believe I'm wrong, and I can't always find it.

myserty64 wrote:

Have any of Jennifer's closest friends been interviewed? Either by LE or any private individual. Many people share stuff with their nearest and dearest friends. Many times it is information they would not share with parents.

Nobody is talking. Why not?

A few of them have been interviewed by law enforcement, for sure. Lauren is one--but I think that was mostly because she talked to Jennifer on the 23rd.

And early in the case, the media interviewed at least the girl Jennifer lived with prior to moving into the condo.

I find the problem with publicly interviewing Jennifer's close friends is that they pretty much will only say what they know Mr. and Mrs. Kesse will approve.

So, I'm not sure we get the truth.

I have an old link to an interview that Jennifer's roommate did very early on; and, of course, there is the podcast episode where he talked to a fair number of her friends that I could link if you are interested. I also transcribed portions of that episode, but it's quite lengthy so would be better to add it under a separate comment.

Let me know if you are interested.

What I find odd is that no-one from her workplace is talking.

Just think about it--she worked there for approximately four years. She "interned" for two, and then went on full time after receiving her degree.

Now, that's a fair length of time. We spend a lot of hours with our co-workers. Not only the work hours, but social events, too.

How many of us haven't attended a "happy hour" or two or three, with our co-workers?

But my point is--you get to know what is going on in each other's lives. And you care, too.

Then there is the "office gossip". That can be pretty accurate.

And we can't forget that this was a group that couldn't wait a reasonable length of time before they alarmed Jennifer's parents.

So, why all the seemingly sealed lips, not only immediately after but continuing their silence for 12 years? Something is not right, there.

And here is an interesting statement from the podcast:

Snipped transcript:
@ about 7:26 minutes in:
Gurd: We have spoken with a handful of people from Jennifer’s job—none of which are willing to go on the record and none of which would identify themselves as Jennifer’s friends.

We do have a couple of tips based on these conversations that we are following up on, but really don’t have anything to share at this time.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6181834-sidebar-8-7-17

myserty64 wrote:

If this hasn't been declared a cold case what is the reason?

Egos?

myserty64 wrote:

Finally, has a crack cold case team ever had access to JK investigation files? There is plenty of them and you can't tell me they are full of POI pictures.

I don't think so. Most official, professional "teams" will only look into a case at the invitation of law enforcement. That could be the problem.

myserty64 wrote:

If I am out of order with any of these comments the administrator is free to delete any part of this post.

Same for me. But I think we have been careful, so we should be okay. :)

admin

Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 126

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:50 pm Post subject:

If I am out of order with any of these comments the administrator is free to delete any part of this post It would take quite a bit to be out of order. Basically would require something that you said to be worthy of a lawsuit if one were to say it to the person they were talking about, and the lawsuit was a serious matter, not a preemptive I'm going to sue you trying to shut you up lawsuit. In any event, questions are not part of that territory. Inquiring minds want to know.

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:27 am Post subject:

kudo623 wrote:

Triangulation should have been able to pinpoint her phone's location very accurately being that there are much more towers in a densely populated area like Orlando.

How do we know it didn't? Perhaps an exact spot was indicated, but after the phones lost their ability to ping their locations the "party" moved on, leaving no physical evidence behind.

kudo623 wrote:

Yes, you are right, the cell phone data leads to a stupid assumption--that doesn't make any sense--as to why Jenn quickly left her condo right after ending her phone call with Rob at 9:57PM and drove her car directly to that area in the middle of nowhere to then have her phone powered off and disappear? But that's what the cell data indicates.

No, the phones were not powered off. They were destroyed or their batteries were removed. Both cell phones. At the same time.

Also, you mention Jennifer drove her car to an area in the middle of nowhere--can you support this? I'm just wondering where it comes from. I'll settle for anything--for example, the name of the website where you saw it mentioned.

Or, is this something that is your own opinion?

kudo623 wrote:

Not only this, but that when she left she took her personal articles with her that she needed for work--ipod, ipad, attache, purse, etc. Why would she do that if she wasn't going to work? Why would she not take her mace with her at that hour? I mean there has to be a reasonable explanation for all this, but there isn't any, is there?

I've never heard any mention of an ipad. The serial numbers for both phones and the ipod have been given.

The attache or briefcase is no longer believed by her family to be missing. (And never was listed as missing by law enforcement). The brown purse was eventually discovered in Jennifer's unpacked luggage.

Good point about the mace--why would she not take it with her at any hour?

kudo623 wrote:

What the cell data indicates is unreliable and inconclusive--because it says that just after Jenn got off the phone with Rob, someone came out of hiding in her condo and abducted her without a scuffle and scurried her out the door, but not before collecting her phone, ipad, ipod, attache, purse etc and taking them with him, not powering off the phone until 40 minutes later. Then some 14 hours later be seen parking her vehicle at the HOTG apartment complex?

This is the only scenario that could have happened based on this cell phone data. Or tell me that it happened another way? This is why I don't believe in this theory.

What the cell data indicates is that we don't have enough facts to put the theory together. The phones were moving. Of that much we can be sure.

Remember, we haven't seen the ping study. The only things we know about it comes from Mr. and Mrs. Kesse who want us to believe in a morning abduction.

They are not likely to give interviews extrolling its accuracy.

myserty64

Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 82
Location: Gold Coast QLD Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:49 am Post subject:

Nancy, I am humbled by your detailed response to my post. Thank you so much. Believe it or not there is also new information that even after twelve years I was unaware of. There is much to mull over and I wouldn't be surprised if I lay awake half the night staring at the ceiling. To use a saying often used by detectives there is something 'off' about this case. I feel someone who knows something about this mystery (not the perpetrator) is holding back some information. It might be tiny but it also might be crucial. They might not think it is all that important but from numerous investigations I have watched it is often even a seemingly flippant remark that leads to a break in the case. I still have the Disappeared program on Jennifer on my hard drive. There is a scene that sticks in my mind. It is when a detective allows the camera into the area where the files are stored for Jennifer's investigation. There were a lot of binders and boxes. Tomorrow I'm going to count them. I would give my 'eye teeth' to go through those. It is quite possible the answer to this crime lays waiting in those boxes. All that is needed is a pair of sharp eyes along with a sharp mind.

myserty64

Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 82
Location: Gold Coast QLD Australia

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:58 am Post subject:

I overlooked the $1,000,000 reward. May I say that the conditions of that reward troubled me from the start. And I wasn't the only one. I posted at the time, publicly, that I considered that was offering a reward when you aren't offering a reward. Harsh? Maybe, but I'm sticking to my guns.

kudo623

Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 10

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:09 pm Post subject:

Nancy wrote:

kudo623 wrote:

Triangulation should have been able to pinpoint her phone's location very accurately being that there are much more towers in a densely populated area like Orlando.

How do we know it didn't? Perhaps an exact spot was indicated, but after the phones lost their ability to ping their locations the "party" moved on, leaving no physical evidence behind.

kudo623 wrote:

Triangulation should have been able to track the movement of Jenn's phone and where the batteries were removed/phone destroyed. However, there is no difference in pings between a phone that is powered off or one where the batteries are removed or if the phone is thrown into the water lets say. The phone is powered OFF in each instance.

You say we know the phones were moving for sure--How do we know that for sure? Especially when you said that we haven't seen the ping study?
Where's the empirical data? There isn't any. The original gumshoe detectives on the case didn't even keep any notes, how can we believe anything they say? Its all here say.

Based on the state of Jenn's condo, or the factual information obtained by the Kesses family, Jenn took a shower, dressed for work, locked her door behind her and was abducted somewhere between her door and her car. It appears she was running late for work because she left her glasses on the sink, her clothes strewn about, her mace on the counter and her clothes unpacked from her trip.

I'd have to say that there is not one shred of empirical evidence of any ping study that was ever done in this investigation. All they went on was what Rob told them about a discussion over Travis' phone. They had no evidence of any movement of Jenn's phone because if they did then they would have followed that path.

rd

Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9275
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:32 pm Post subject:

kudo623 wrote:

Triangulation should have been able to track the movement of Jenn's phone and where the batteries were removed/phone destroyed.

You are using the term triangulation in a context which didn't exist. Triangulation, tracking, and such are involved in a carrier assisted simultaneous broadcast as request of LE.

The responses, taking into account strength of tower signals, known by the carrier, can accurately locate position. Multiple determinations of these locations is tracking. This all takes place knowing ahead of time it is going to be performed.

What we have here is the normal after the fact request from carrier(s) for any contact info with specified phone(s) and possibly targeted towers. The response to LE is a list of any contacts within the specified time frame.

kudo623 wrote:

However, there is no difference in pings between a phone that is powered off or one where the batteries are removed or if the phone is thrown into the water lets say. The phone is powered OFF in each instance.

We've had this conversation before and suffice to say if anyone wants to read it it's on the net. I would just point out that power is required for communications, a ping is a communication, and power in a phone is supplied by a battery.

kudo623 wrote:

You say we know the phones were moving for sure--How do we know that for sure? Especially when you said that we haven't seen the ping study?

A phone communicates more actively when it is moving and tower signal strengths change and network may get involved. If that were not the case there would be pings non-stop 24/7. As it is, there is at least one ping every 8 hours or so (carrier determined) if there hasn't been any communication since then.

kudo623 wrote:

Where's the empirical data? There isn't any. The original gumshoe detectives on the case didn't even keep any notes, how can we believe anything they say? Its all here say.

The information comes from Drew Kesse in carefully worded posts. There is no hearsay.

kudo623 wrote:

Based on the state of Jenn's condo, or the factual information obtained by the Kesses family, Jenn took a shower, dressed for work, locked her door behind her and was abducted somewhere between her door and her car. It appears she was running late for work because she left her glasses on the sink, her clothes strewn about, her mace on the counter and her clothes unpacked from her trip.

yeah, I'd say not having an alarm clock sort of gums things up.

kudo623 wrote:

I'd have to say that there is not one shred of empirical evidence of any ping study that was ever done in this investigation. All they went on was what Rob told them about a discussion over Travis' phone. They had no evidence of any movement of Jenn's phone because if they did then they would have followed that path.

Several missing things here. The evidence of ping info is from Drew Kesse. He indicates both a police involvement ("You don't know your daughter like you think you do" or whatever), and a carrier technical analysis ("the batteries were removed at 10:20 to 10:40" etc.)

The information was about both phones. I'd also say that we have specific information provided by Drew Kesse that we're discussing, and anything that basically says what Drew is repeating is not possible we'll need some substantive reference for that.

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:45 pm Post subject:

rd wrote:

Actually is very good to respond in multiple focused posts. Just because I got to rambling there doesn't mean we have to be stuck with it. :)

Quote:

Nancy typed: But the phone (and whoever is traveling with it), has to be in the specific area where the signal range of the two towers overlaps--do you think this is correct? And it could be three towers or maybe more that all overlap coverage?

Yeah, that's part of the definition of in communications range, and I've referred to this type of triangulation in past. However, the time between recorded pings is also a factor.

Unlike a broadcast used to locate your cellphone (when requested of the carrier by LE via warrant), these are not simultaneous contacts. However when close together in time, it's a given that phone was in a position that could communicate with both towers.

But if the two towers are half a mile apart and the communications range anywhere from two miles to twenty miles (depends), then the overlap is practically 100%. It depends greatly, but the situation could limit in a helpful way areas farther away from the trianglation if any, and the tower if none.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize the importance of "the time between recorded pings" when placing location. I always thought the time was just given to show when the person was at the location.

rd wrote:

Quote:

Nancy typed: But the phone, itself, would pick the tower that is offering the strongest signal and make one ping off of that tower? And it would not ping again until it left the coverage area of that tower, (due to physical location movement); and entered another tower range?

It gets dicey to count on this. That's like saying it will contact the closest tower and then sequentially contact other closest towers as you approach them. And you just can't count on any of that.

But in general what you're saying there is ideally what's going on.

So, off topic to Jennifer's case, but this is probably some of what's behind crappy cell phone reception--we don't always get switched to the tower offering the strongest signal. Ha. I always suspected this.

rd wrote:

Quote:

Nancy typed: Now this would occur if you were having a conversation on your phone? But if you weren't actually using your phone, would it not just ping the tower as it came into range--letting the tower know it was there and available? And then would only ping again when it left that tower range and came into the range of another tower signal?

Yes, as you're driving along having a phone conversation, your call is being handed off to a tower coming into range as you leave previous range.

As I understand from research, how this is handled varies by carrier architecture of network, phones, etc. It could be that phone makes these decisions based on signal strength, it could be masterminded by network routing based on info passed to it by towers and phone, or some combination.

The last thing it is though, is an inexact science. It is, and has been for longer than 12 years, a precise engineering architecture.

Precise, exact, and complicated for us ordinary folks struggling to understand invisible things. :)

Regarding the bold by me: So, based on your explanation in a previous portion, if you were not talking on your phone--just driving with it--it may not even switch to the strongest tower zone, but stay in the old one?

(I'm assuming that Jennifer was not talking on her phone).

rd wrote:

Quote:

Nancy typed: The possibility of 11 pings really bothers me. That's why I keep going on about this.

What I'm also concerned about is the time range of these pings. We know the ending time, but I never saw a good indication of the starting time. I don't know that the 11 pings are between 10 pm and 10:20 pm or so. If there is an indication it's post-good night call, then that's good and eliminates a question area.

The takeaway on why the phone started pinging is that the phone was moving. There's no assumptions with that, but it's a given that has to be dealt with.

Well, I suppose I must agree that the indication is not good, as in solid, regarding an actual time for when Jennifer's phone began pinging. What I will say, is that we have the following; but, indeed, it is open to interpretation.

I think what throws us off is taking the 9:57 pm time as the beginning time of the call and not the ending time of the call. (And this may be the result of a deliberate attempt to mislead).

I know there are more quotes out there, but the following is all I could come up with for now.

One way I take the following--and believe me when I say it's only one suggested way and much more open to individual interpretation than I wish--is:

1) The call ended at 9:57 pm.

2) Jennifer's phone begins pinging--showing movement--at 10:20 pm.

3) Both phones emit their final event ping at 10:40 pm.

The above allows about 22 minutes for Jennifer to change her clothes, grab some stuff and head out to her vehicle. (But, no hint as to why she would do this).

Mr. Kesse: And within that conversation, I was told that at a certain point the phones were not powered down, but either destroyed or batteries physically taken out. And I was told the time—and I think the time was somewhere between 10:40 and—10:20 and 10:40 PM on the 23rd; the night before we reported Jennifer missing.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6334818-going-forward

Mr. Kesse: Those phones we were told were pinging a little after 10pm on 1/23/2006 and went silent at approx. 10:40p ...
http://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/?page=32
(This link will work for a short period of time).

@ around 14:00 minutes in:
Mr. Kesse: The last actual thing that we know Jennifer did was: coming home from work she went—at 6:15—she went through a toll booth that she always goes through. And then she had a conversation on her house phone because she had very bad cell reception in her condo. She literally had to go out on her deck to talk on her cell phone. And she was not making contact regularly with the cell phone so she used her landline. And at 9:57 pm on January 23, 2006, was the last contact anyone had and it was with Rob, her boyfriend. And that is it.
https://audioboom.com/posts/6334818-going-forward

rd wrote:

Quote:

Nancy typed: One word: "triangulation". It's possible that even the Kesse's were not shown the complete study.

Personally, I doubt that the Kesses weren't intended to be given the complete study. That's what that "you don't know your daughter" stuff was about.

Good point. I guess I was thinking they wouldn't need the intricacies involved in triangulation to make their nasty little un-point. But still, they may have went with "the more the better idea".

It wouldn't surprise me.

rd wrote:

What I do doubt is the technical understanding by the OP of what they were told by the carrier. And even if triangulation limited the area to say over on Orange Blossom Trail and Americana area, there's nothing for Jennifer over there looking at even today's map, then again it's a really stupid assumption that Jennifer drove herself there and then her phones are destroyed.

That's exactly what someone would want the police to think.

Well. Hmmm. I've never doubted the technical understanding of law enforcement, but maybe that makes me look a bit naive.

It's all about understanding what happened in the moments between Jennifer hanging-up her landline phone after talking to Rob, and her cell phone beginning to show movement.

Let's remind ourselves that her gas mileage indicated little vehicle movement.

Would anyone agree that this could indicate Jennifer was somehow separated from the cell phones during the crucial minutes?

I know if we continue down that road, the theories began to get too complicated to be realistic--but, still, is the indication there?

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:36 pm Post subject:

kudo623 wrote:

Triangulation should have been able to track the movement of Jenn's phone and where the batteries were removed/phone destroyed.

It should have, indeed. But if the batteries were simply removed from the phone, and placed in a pocket--what telling evidence would be left at the location for law enforcement or the Kesses to use for verification? It takes both for confirmation.

kudo623 wrote:

The carrier can tell when a phone has been destroyed from when it has been simply powered down. A cell phone is programmed with this feature.

It may take a little more effort on the carrier's part so they don't bother differentiating for the common circumstances; but they can and will for law enforcement investigating a murder or a missing person case that looks like it could be murder.

kudo623 wrote:

You say we know the phones were moving for sure--How do we know that for sure? Especially when you said that we haven't seen the ping study?

Mr. Kesse verifies the existence of the ping study. He just asks us to believe it is "no good".

kudo623 wrote:

Where's the empirical data?

Wouldn't you expect it would be with the cell phone carrier? And law enforcement was given a copy upon their official request?

kudo623 wrote:

There isn't any.

Oh? Please confirm.

kudo623 wrote:

The original gumshoe detectives on the case didn't even keep any notes, how can we believe anything they say? Its all here say.

"Gumshoe detectives". Interesting phrase, there.

You do realize that law enforcement does not have to tell the truth to the public, right? And that would include the Kesses.

The ping study is far from hearsay. However, wishful thinking may try to make it so.

kudo623 wrote:

BBM - What basis did the unqualified and inexperienced Kesse family use to obtain and document this "factual information"? (I type that with all due respect to Mr. and Mrs. Kesse).

Did they even think to take pictures of how the condo was when they first entered? Their daughter was missing and I think they were more concerned with getting flyers printed. After all, they say they arrived at 3:30 pm on the 24th and were standing on the street corner passing out flyers and holding signs by beginning rush hour traffic.

You tell me how much time they would have had to obtain and record factual information on the condition of Jennifer's condo.

kudo623 wrote:

Are you suggesting that law enforcement did not even interview Travis? I hope I'm misunderstanding that.

In the beginning, law enforcement did use the ping study as evidence and they did act on that evidence--risking and withstanding the disapproval of the Kesses.

Unfortunately, it netted nothing but a lookalike prostitute.

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 4:45 pm Post subject:

rd wrote:

yeah, I'd say not having an alarm clock sort of gums things up.

Perfect. Speaking of denial. Hello.

rd

Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9275
Location: Jacksonville, FL

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 5:22 pm Post subject:

Nancy wrote:

Oh, okay. I didn't realize the importance of "the time between recorded pings" when placing location. I always thought the time was just given to show when the person was at the location.

"at a location" is something that people latch on to. It's "time of contact" which only means that phone was in communications range of the tower.

Nancy wrote:

So, based on your explanation in a previous portion, if you were not talking on your phone--just driving with it--it may not even switch to the strongest tower zone, but stay in the old one?

(I'm assuming that Jennifer was not talking on her phone).

I would say it does same thing whether talking or not talking. When not talking the phone must have a controlling tower that can send the ring of an incoming phone call. If you drive out of range of last tower without having switched to another tower within range, then an incoming phone call will be sent to the last tower, now out of range, and the phone won't hear the ring signal. The carrier will return the message to the caller about the phone not being available.

When talking, the phone must switch to another controlling tower within range before driving out of range of last tower for phone call to continue uniterrupted (to you). The carrier network changes the tower destination mid call based on new controlling tower info. Sometime the carrier network will tell the phone what the new controlling tower is. Depends on carrier network architecture.

Nancy wrote:

One interpretation there that's interesting is that the time frame of the pings and battery removal (at end) is between 10:20 and 10:40. That actually makes some sense that some range was given.

However, another quote says pings started a few minutes after ten which would seem to be fewer than 20 minutes but that's just a rough take on it. I would actually expect as you do that some 20 minutes would be involved in getting out to the car and driving.

Nancy wrote:

Well. Hmmm. I've never doubted the technical understanding of law enforcement, but maybe that makes me look a bit naive.

The technical understanding of OP is going to be what carrier told them after looking at the ping contact data. A really stupid assumption that Jennifer drove herself to an area close to the last tower contacted and was assaulted and her phones disabled "in a bad area" has nothing to with technical understanding.

It's just a stupid assumption the victim voluntarily went to an area that no good can come of rather than abductor driving that far before disabling the phones. Disabling the phones means the abductor knows the phones are leaving a trail of contacts. Doing something to mislead investigators as to victims activities and whereabouts is in line with someone who's aware of the phones need to be disabled.

Nancy wrote:

It's all about understanding what happened in the moments between Jennifer hanging-up her landline phone after talking to Rob, and her cell phone beginning to show movement.

Let's remind ourselves that her gas mileage indicated little vehicle movement.

Would anyone agree that this could indicate Jennifer was somehow separated from the cell phones during the crucial minutes?

I know if we continue down that road, the theories began to get too complicated to be realistic--but, still, is the indication there?

If that did happen it makes it a multi-person abduction and much more complicated. Other than that I don't see where an abductor disabling the phones or an accomplice disabling the phones after the abductor has left with Jennifer makes any difference. In other words, it doesn't explain anything.

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 6:58 pm Post subject:

rd wrote:

BBM - Yes. That's about the time required; but, perhaps, it's not really there.

rd wrote:

Well, I'll call it an "unfortunate" assumption.

But regarding the bold by me, do you think the "misleading" would have been done with an alive Jennifer in her own vehicle?

Nancy wrote:

Right. I agree that an unsubstantiated theory could never truly explain anything.

Sorry, I know I get on your nerves with my persistence toward certain theories; but, 11 pings suggests to me the phone traveled some distance.

The gas usage in Jennifer's vehicle indicates it was driven about 1.5 miles--to the HOG.

For 12 years, law enforcement has withheld the contents of the trunk (boot) of Jennifer's vehicle. No pictures were ever released of even the empty trunk. The Kesses couldn't stand to look at the vehicle; it was called the crime scene by law enforcement. They say no identifiable prints but Jennifer's were found inside her vehicle; but yet a tiny fiber containing an incomplete DNA profile and a partial print were found "in her vehicle". From this I get the eerie feeling that Jennifer may have been in her trunk.

There has to be a way that these three statements connect.

It makes a random assault because Jennifer became the object of someone's desire seem over simplified.

But I don't know. Really, I don't know.

Nancy

Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 460

Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 7:45 pm Post subject:

myserty64 wrote:

Nancy, I am humbled by your detailed response to my post. Thank you so much.
Believe it or not there is also new information that even after twelve years I was unaware of.
There is much to mull over and I wouldn't be surprised if I lay awake half the night staring at the ceiling.

I find there are little details that seem to slip out every now and then; but it's hard to grab them and get them filed in the right place to see their relation to the big picture.

So, they fall between the cracks. Again.

I've spent my share of nights staring at the ceiling and thinking about Jennifer's case, too.

myserty64 wrote:

To use a saying often used by detectives there is something 'off' about this case.

I feel this with every instinct I have. If I could make one suggestion to law enforcement, I think it would be to do a new search of Jennifer's hard drives. Try different "key" words; try a new computer forensics analyst. Just try. Or put them out here for us to look at.

myserty64 wrote:

I feel someone who knows something about this mystery (not the perpetrator) is holding back some information. It might be tiny but it also might be crucial.
They might not think it is all that important but from numerous investigations I have watched it is often even a seemingly flippant remark that leads to a break in the case.

Yes. But what is going to get someone talking after all these years, and how will it reach law enforcement's ears?

I had hoped that the podcast might do that for Jennifer; but instead of opening up a discussion, they tried to close it. :(

myserty64 wrote:

I still have the Disappeared program on Jennifer on my hard drive. There is a scene that sticks in my mind. It is when a detective allows the camera into the area where the files are stored for Jennifer's investigation. There were a lot of binders and boxes. Tomorrow I'm going to count them. I would give my 'eye teeth' to go through those.
It is quite possible the answer to this crime lays waiting in those boxes. All that is needed is a pair of sharp eyes along with a sharp mind.

Oh, you were smart to save it. It can't be currently found on YouTube.

You know, I've watched it enough times that I know the exact scene you reference. Yeah, there could be something there, because they have to contain a treasure trove of information on this case.

Something that was overlooked originally; something that didn't mean anything at the time but may now due to something that came to light afterward; but there is something, somewhere. Jennifer did not vanish.

Display posts from previous:

	www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 33, 34, 35 Next
Page 5 of 35

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum