www.justiceforchandra.com

[rd]

I have read the phones last pinged in different directions?

Phones pinging in different directions may not be an accurate take on what little was said, and even if true doesn't mean anything.

The little blurb I saw was Drew repeating something he had been told, which was puzzlement over "can't be in two places at once".

I have written about that in posts above, essentially I believe that refers to one phone pinging Tower A, then pinging Tower B in a different direction and perhaps farther away, then pinging Tower A again, and relatively quickly together.

I don't believe that would refer to one phone pinging Tower A and the other phone pinging Tower B because then the statement would be "why were the phones in two different places?"

In any event, one phone can ping Tower A and the other Tower B in a completely different direction, especially if they're different brands. However, with info both were powered off at same time my instinct is that same carrier is involved with both phones to make that determination, although of course carriers could cooperate to give that determination to Orlando police.

rd

[rd]

The one thing that bothers me about this case, is it said she MAY have left to go mail the phone that night....But without postage, where would she have done that at that time of night. I'm sure it's been covered before, it just bugs me a bit. Besides eBay, I know online postage wasn't AS common as it is now, so that always nags at the back of my skull. Though I feel she did get taken in the morning, not at night.

The first thing I said when I read police suggested this was that unless she had her own FedEx account and kept suitable packaging for a cellphone at home she wasn't going to be dropping anything off that night. Note that the whole point of any notion of her going out right away was the request to essentially send one day delivery. While getting it sent that night wouldn't be any quicker than the sending the next day, the basis of my thinking was of getting it taken care of rather than having to leave work to do it.

Of course since then there were numerous posted comments that she would send from work, but I never got a clear answer that she had a history of mailing packages from work. This has been discussed in depth, but nevertheless no clear answer was ever given. The best answer given with some authority was 1) that she would have mailed from work, and 2) she did not consider it urgent, but there was no 3) yes, she did send packages from work before and therefore known she handled packages that way. The answer to 3) is what is important to me.

What is interesting is this mail business. I see the police suggested she might have been looking for "a roadside mail box" to mail a package. But same WFTV news article ends with friend asked her to overnight it, and she may have been looking for "a roadside drop box" to mail the phone.

It is true it'd be somewhat easier to mail a package. You still need a large cardboard mailer to put the phone in and I have no idea how anyone would know how much postage to put on it or where you'd get the postage for it. And if you're mailing it then 1) that isn't quick, and 2) there's absolutely no reason to go out and put it in a mailbox at night.

So I checked on FedEx stores in her area and apparently did not find any 24 hour stores in the area, and also there may have been something convenient close to work if not using her work mailing facilities. It was my thought back then that she went out early to take care of it and never came back. But that was 10 years before I read about the two cellphones going dead at 10:40 pm.

I came to the conclusion awhile back that she was taking the phone over to her ex-bf for him to take care of if she had an inclination he was nearby as he was. I just don't see how the looking for a mail box or drop box is possible. For that matter the early police reports mentioned the cell phone package and there was quite frankly no way to know if it had been placed in any package or in anything in particular such as the briefcase, etc.

rd

[rd]

If she didn't meet up with somebody that night, wouldn't that be in her phone records/log?

well first there's only 40 minutes of potential phone logging. Communications ended with both phones at 10:40 pm per Drew via authorities and there was no call activity in those 40 minutes after her call with her bf ended.

When I say I came to conclusion she went to take the phone somewhere like to her ex-bf, she obviously didn't phone ahead if she went anywhere and with such a short amount of time my thought is she was abducted in a parking lot before seeing anyone.

That's just my conclusion. I guess a lot of people think someone gained entrance to her condo (and was someone she knew well). It's beyond my comprehension of a jilted ex or wanna be bf finding and disabling all cell phones and taking those and everything else with Jennifer somewhere. That's the behavior of a hardened abductor. I guess anything is possible, but it's really really unlikely.

rd

[rd]

Do we know of any evidence that disputes that Jennifer never even made it to the work parking lot that morning?

Are you suggesting that without evidence to the contrary, Jennifer might have made it to her employment parking lot before being abducted?

I would say the whole phone call to her bf each morning, some say on her way to work, not taking place rules her out as going to work that morning.

Of course with both phones going dead at 10:40 pm that should have ruled out anything concerning morning. There just isn't very much logic that was applied by Orlando Police in anything they have said or done in this case, in particular, saying in public statements that Jennifer was probably abducted in her parking lot going to work around 8am.

I know Orlando Police have more blood spatter evidence on a given day than they can handle, but if they don't care much about this case they should have at least not said just about everything they have said about the case. Their public statements have all been misleading if not incorrect or impossible.

rd

[rd]

This occurred on a Tuesday.

Anything that talks about this occurring Tuesday morning is an incorrect basis. There is quite literally nothing that indicates it occurred Tuesday morning rather than late Monday evening between 10:00 pm and 10:40 pm other than a belief from Jennifer's family that the shower was damp enough to have been used Tuesday morning. For that matter there is no indication who used it last as Jennifer was abducted with all her personal items.

rd

[rd]

I agree that there is no concrete, indisputable proof that it occurred Tuesday AM. But the only thing we have is the Kesses' own observation. Had LE processed the condo that might have clarified the timeline somewhat. That omission by LE has left a hole in this case. I personally doubt the condo is a crime scene but processing it might still have helped.

I would go further than no indisputable proof to that there is no indication whatsoever. Her cell phone and her brother's friend's cell phone both going dead at 10:40 pm Monday night is about all anyone needs to know. That we only find out about this from Jennifer's dad 8 years later is something that is typical of the way Orlando Police has handled this case.

It's their right to not say anything and even mislead the public, and it may work out someday such as in Tara Grinstead's case. But they can't get any help from the public that way.

rd

[rd]

So let's assume that at least Mr. Kesse knows about phones dead at 10:40 pm -- but he is still going with a morning abduction. He still believe in the four hour window from 8 AM to 12 Noon. Why?

I don't know when he was told about the phones going dead, but my thought is he is repeating the Orlando Police line from 2006. Some people say the Orlando Police line is based on the parents belief which again was before they were told about the phones going dead. The Orlando Police do not even want this case, they said they gave it to the FBI and as far as I know won't comment on it further. At least I haven't seen any posts on it. I used to follow searches on news on the case for the first few years so they might have said something besides not our case.

Bottom line, there's no one that has any incentive to change what the police said back then, that she was abducted going out to her car that morning, even though they originally felt she went out previous night. Parents were so set against that and investigators so non-investigative that you more or less end up with least resistance statements.

Now for that matter theoretically she could have let someone in between 10:00 pm and 10:40 pm and not gone out. The attributes of someone she knew, having behavior of an experienced abductor in disabling multiple phones, taking her and all that stuff from her condo in her car, planning enough not to have parked their car in Jennifer's parking lot, just a really planned professional abduction from an acquaintance is not likely to say the least.

But if one wants to insist she wouldn't leave they still have to deal with the fact that she was disabled along with phones by 10:40 pm. The morning stuff is just wishful thinking.

rd

[rd]

The person stopped for speeding was not stopped on 1/24/2006.....he was stopped on 1/16/2006 , got belligerant with the officer and was arrested.....You can find the arrest report on line.....

With regards to Travis phone, could Jennifer have placed it into her briefcase to take to work with her the next morning? I have worked with professional women at BCBS who used their briefcase to carry shoes, wallets, phones, iPods, makeup so that they only had the briefcase to carry...Perhaps Jennifer did this as well...

I have thought that Jennifer disappeared sometime Monday night after talking to Rob because of the phones pinging and her security alarm that supposedly not armed....I think if the security system was working she would have set it on her way out Tuesday morning????

I have read that there was Chinese take out boxes in Jennifers fridge, now whether that was left from her brother or his friends staying there or if Jennifer had Chinese food delivered or stopped on her way home from work....

I would hope that source of contents of refigerator is not a question. Her brother and friends would know if they left contents in there or not, I would expect not, but that should not be an open question nor sensitive information to withhold. It would be of interest if left from visitor's weekend visit, picked up after work, or Jennifer left in evening and picked it up, if that could be determined.

I think an alternative scenario is due here. There are too many loose ends not accounted for.

The first aspect is what all bags and cases that are missing could be expected to have been usually kept in car overnight by Jennifer? I'm going to speculate everything but her purse. I'll be interested to hear if it's less than that. That would also include her missing alligator skin shoes left in her briefcase.

Is there any reasonable scenario where Jennifer takes her purse containing her phone and the friend's phone out to her car, intending to return and not setting the alarm, and is abducted at her car? Not a few minutes before 8am but a few minutes after 10pm? I think there could be.

I have never been comfortable with an attack of such proficiency as to locate and disable within same minute both her cell phone and an unexpected (to all but but one or two people) additional cell phone. Let's say given an abduction of Jennifer out at her car with all items missing in the car or what she's carrying, I would expect a more likely scenario is that everything in her car was ditched in water at 10:40 pm. What I don't know is if there is a reasonably deep accessible water to throw her items into that you could drive up to that is also within a couple of miles or so. Anything further would leave a multi-tower ping record of travel direction.

I would also say that the POI images do not rule out all known associates of Jennifer or possible associates from the Ocoee area.

rd

[rd]

[b]On the screen shot below I added red arrows to represent the path of the POI. I put him walking along Downing St and crossing kitty corner to the bus stop that I circled in red, too.

First of all, a lot of progress with those maps, so much appreciated for that.

The arrows are correct from the pool to the corner of Americana. That is just the POI continuing to walk past the gate and on down the lane to Americana where he would then do something about going somewhere. I call it a parking lane, I see the map says it is Downing St. It is a little lane in the apartment complex.

Since I am the only one who thinks that those covered bus stops at Texas and Americana is where he likely went, let's forget about that for the moment. He would only cut across the grass at the corner if he wanted to go left on down Americana, stop at one of the bus stops, or in the case of living nearby down Texas, cross Americana and continue down Texas to his residence.

Let's say it's none of those, and that he walked back to Mosaic. Then the last red arrow across the grass at the corner would go away. He would round the turn at the end of Downing and walk a short distance on the same lane but now named Tom Jones. he would walk to the Picadilly Circus lane and then out the entrance and onto the sidewalk on Americana. He would then walk as the original path showed, down Americana, cross that expressway, continue on now called Conroy, and cut across a lot to the Mosaic fence as soon as he near Mosaic.

The interesting thing is that the arrow is just across the street corner, not kitty / catty corner. Kitty corner would be diagonal across Americana. Except a person can't do that, they would cross Texas at the red arrow but then continue and cross Americana, and they would have crossed kitty corner. Except I see circled what looks like a bus stop and it looks like one on both sides, so he would he gone to whichever bus stop for direction he was headed, which the bus stop circled would be for headed back to Mosaic.

And thus you have stumbled upon the answer. He would have taken a bus back toward Mosaic, not walked, as I have never believed from the beginning. However, I thought the bus would more likely be headed on out Americana toward Orange Tree Blossom, but no, he is headed back toward Mosaic, either the complex itself, or where he parked his car when he walked in there to stalk Jennifer or whatever he was intent on doing when he abducted her.

It is starting to make sense.

rd

[rd]

The phones were disabled via powering off, we have to assume Jen powered them off, anything outside of that is just speculation. There is no evidence she left the condo that night, or that there was a struggle that night. There is more information to suggest this was a morning abduction than a previous evening abduction, this is what the family believes as well.

My response is predicated on the 10:40 pm info being correct to start with. It was apparently valid enough for Mr. Kesse to quote verbatim, in other words, he put some stock into it, but we don't know how much stock to put into it. But it's out there, and until something official negates it it's a significant factor.

To assume Jennifer powered her phone off as a sort of companion act to powering the friend's phone off when going to bed, you'd have these consequences:

1) Widely reported that family never knew her to turn her cell phone off. There was the landline as I understand it that woudl allow family to reach her at night in an emergency, but nevertheless, their expectations were that her cell phone would be on all night.

2) Widely reported that she used her cell phone as an alarm (as I do and many others). Turning her cell phone off and therefore her alarm off when she was never known to do this before cannot fall into the realm of assumed.

3) The assumption would have to continue that she woke up without her cell phone alarm, perhaps she had another alarm as well or wakes up on her own, again, totally unexpected behavior, and didn't turn her cell phone on, otherwise pings would resume, and there was reportedly no more activity with these phones after 10:40 pm.

4) One could further extend this assumption to that of planning on turning her phone on after she started driving to work but never got a chance. It's pretty much unfathomable to me that she woudn't have turned her phone on after getting up to check for messages, etc. And that's assuming she for some reason didn't feel need for her alarm clock that morning.

All in all, some major stretching of reality because her phone being powered off at 10:40 pm makes her not there in morning inconvenient to belief. And the belief is based on? The family believed the shower was still wet enough to have been used that morning. And the family doesn't want to believe she left previous night.

So something has to give, and unless it's the 10:40 pm disabling of both phones, there is no reason to believe she was around the next morning of her own accord.

rd

[rd]

The condition of her apartment is just not consistent with an evening abduction. While some features such as the wet towels could have occurred if the perpetrator took a shower and otherwise cleaned up that morning, other features like the unmade bed, pajamas on the floor and the missing phones, briefcase and purse point to a deliberate effort to created the impression of a routine morning exit. The strongest evidence that she left in the morning to go to work is the outfits she had left out and the missing pair of shoes that would have gone with those outfits.

I pose a general challenge, what was missing that would have been in her car only if she were on her way to work Tuesday morning?

The shoes are mentioned. I gather unauthoratatively (and seeking authoritative clarification) that Jennifer obtained those shoes recently and mentioned them to her family, and that she was known to carry shoes in a case and change shoes from driving to go into work, and that she didn't necessarily carry this case in each night coming home from work. This case would also be one of the missing items I presume.

I believe that she would have taken these shoes with her to her long weekend island trip, that they would be in her car Monday, and that a pair of shoes would be expected to be in a case in her car and missing. I do not attribute a missing new pair of shoes as something she did not take with her on her trip, did not wear Monday, but decided to take these shoes to work on Tuesday and therefore she was headed to work. It is in fact the weakest argument that she was headed to work that exists.

The bed is hardly a description of "unmade". It had several outfits laying on it. Yes, it appears at a minimum that she lounged on one side of it while on the phone, but again clothes laying on the bed are not any more a sign that she laid these clothes out Tuesday morning than she laid them out Monday night.

There is the additional factor of coming home from a long trip. She did not unpack Monday night, her bags were said to be by her door, but I would expect some activity Monday evening in the line of clothes, etc.

The remainder concerning shower artifacts can be summed up as a belief she took showers in mornings, not evenings, and furthermore a fervent belief she would not go back outside after her phone call with her bf. Yet if she did go somewhere however close by and brief she intended, it is likely she would have taken a shower first.

What I see is justification of a belief by loved ones that she was headed out the door to work Tuesday morning with no actual firm indication that that happened. It is based simply on the belief she didn't leave her condo after 10 and that everything seen is from Tuesday morning.

If there is anything very likely to have not been in her car and missing unless she was on her way to work Tuesday morning, then that would be a very positive reinforcement of that belief. The new shoes definitely do not fit that bill.

rd

[rd]

I stand by my assertion that there was no staging involving her clothes and her shoes.The two outfits were laid out on the bed by Jen and she had the brown pumps with her when she disappeared. I had not considered the possibility that she had worn those pumps to work Monday (she would have had them with her when she left Ft. Lauderdale) and she took them off when she left work and put them in her brief case or otherwise left them in her car with the expectation that she would wear something that would go with them the next day.

The big question is: what did she wear to work Monday, did the brown pumps go with it? We know the outfit she wore to work Monday was laid over a chair in her condo but I can not find what it was.

What I said involved no staging, and I still haven't heard from anyone what is missing that would only be in her car going to work Tuesday morning. Monday she would be wearing something that she took on her trip. If there is any credence to keeping a pair of heels in her briefcase and the briefcase often left in the car, then that implies she didn't wear different shoes every day based on outfit.

I would say I'm sure that Jennifer took her new very nice looking shoes on the trip because that's why people buy new shoes, and they would either be in her unpacked bags or she wore them Monday. And if they're missing that's all it tells us, tells us nothing about indicating she headed out the door to work Tuesday morning because they're missing.

rd

[rd]

Jennifer's apartment showed no signs of a struggle (and I trust her parent's take on this-they knew her habits); Jennifer's car (other than it being moved) showed no signs of a struggle or of being used to transport an injured or dead person. There was no blood, no scent of decomposition in that vehicle. There was also a large DVD player left in the back seat. And the car hadn't been driven far the day of the 24th.

So if the victim's apartment appears untouched, and her vehicle appears the same---are either of the two actually part of the crime itself?

Or is Jennifer's car moved for another reason?

I guess I'm not quite sure how you abduct a person and leave no trace unless everyone is looking in the wrong places.

This is an argument against a worker attacking and overpowering Jennifer and driving away with her, not to mention what the police and apparently others who claim the POI is about 5'4 tall. The whole thing is a ludicrous proposition, not to mention the height was based on judgement of distance through the gate, and the person they had out there imitating the POI was a police spokeswoman hunched over like the Hunchback of Notre Dame and taking giant goose steps. Has to be the most ludicrous police re-enactment ever done. And we can pretty much guess how tall their police spokeswoman was.

The key on height is to compare the POI standing next to the palm tree in image 3. I went there, stood there, and I estimate the POI height as 5'9 to 5'11. I have seen a statement from Orlando Police a few years ago that they would not rule that out. It's several years too late. To be honest with you, I don't know who would be in position to see anything about this data now to recall anything. I guess we're just in confession before dying thing like in Tara's case.

This worker, who everyone thinks is this little strutting gangbanger, overpowers Jennifer and drives off with her. Well, folks, that's a hell of a crime scene, don't delude yourselves. What we have from the POI images is someone who's using law enforcement authority to abduct someone. There are or at least were unfortunately a lot of these types around. When I was researching this case in 2007 and doing my work on the images I documented three or four law enforcement impersonators in Florida alone that I stumbled across that year in my research.

Someone who has geared up for abducting a victim will be prepared to subdue and quiet a victim quickly. There will not be an overpower fight scene and victim thrashing about in a car.

Also, don't forget, Jennifer's bags and cases were disposed of and never found. I'm not sure if anything was left besides her DVD player. There would have been a gym bag in the trunk? There is no incentive whatsoever for a random worker to go through the car and dispose of anything she would carry, especially in this alleged four hour window of the worker abduction belief.

I think the purpose of getting rid of everything in her car is to create the uncertainty that Jennifer went off or was taken somewhere, and as I have focused on missing women for several years including Jennifer's disappearance this happened often. That uncertainty can keep the disappearance from even being considered a crime for a lengthy period as I wrote about in Chandra Levy's disappearance in Murder on a Horse Trail.

This has the hallmarks of a prepared attacker, anything from being prepared to abduct a random victim to stalking and abducting someone they knew. But it takes planning and preparation to commit this crime this cleanly.

rd

[rd]

With all this preparation, and disguise, why park the car at high noon, broad daylight in a lower income housing complex where people are likely to be home during those hours? POI clearly wasn't familiar with the complex..It doesn't make sense to me that it was planned, I believe it was opportunistic or someone running on emotions and spent either the majority of the night or morning freaking out.

Right, and that is the profile of an LE imposter. Crimes of opportunity, not a targeted victim. LE imposter wears uniform as part of committing the assault, not as a disguise per se. I don't know if men impersonating law enforcement is a thing anymore, it used to be.

There was, for example, a motorcycle LE imposter here in Jacksonville in 2007 when I was doing this research. I will tell you an armed bike security guard imposter as a means of abducting women is not something I've heard of. In addition this particular uniform I've found in only two places; a south Florida security company that lost their license a year after Jennifer disappeared and descriptions of DoD bike patrol regs. I guess what I'm saying is it's a rare uniform to be an imposter with.

I have always considered it very possible that the car was just being parked by a security guard although I couldn't identify any security guard companies that would dress like this in the area. But I've always noted the equipment on the back in image 2 and now having seen the video of the car being parked it appears the POI is slinging backpack type equipment over his back when getting out of car. That just doesn't strike me as someone just moving a car (for example, was led to believe the car belonged to someone in HOTG and needed returned, something innocent).

As to being parked at noon, well, when's a good time to dump the car of a woman you've abducted? I have a hard enough time dealing with the minds of these sick *******, I'm not going to do a very good job of thinking like them. I don't subscribe to the abducted in her parking lot going to work belief as most do, but if that happened the abductor went through the car and disposed of every bag and case and disposed of them carefully enough they were never seen. Not to mention Jennifer as well. This in addition to whatever he abducted his victim for.

So he has her car and needs to move on to his home and probably work at some point. The best way of doing that is parking her car close to a major intersection where he could catch a bus either way on N-S or E-W, and closest one is Texas and Americana. It would have been simpler to park in strip mall parking lot across Texas from HOTG, but it also is obvious what happened, that car is dumped next to bus stop. By disposing of all her bags and parking at a prominent site at HOTG, there is great uncertainty as to what happened. In fact it is only with the surveillance that we know what happened.

People can say he should have known there was surveillance at HOTG, but there wasn't any at Mosaic. I live in a similar apartment complex in Florida then and now, and we didn't have any surveillance till last year. I'm not sure why someone would expect the POI to know there was surveillance at HOTG. I went there and the surveillance cameras aren't obvious (they are obvious at my apartments, they are at front gate).

Yes, bars obscured his face in the two frames taken while he walked up the lane. Total luck. But there was nothing sloppy about anything he did. It's eleven years later and he didn't leave a trace.

Now you could say well he could park the car in the dark, but then bus schedules are less frequent, walking is hazardous, you don't blend in like mid-day. I'm not sure what better time there is to ditch her car than at mid-day.

I can't think of any reason to disappear everything she would carry from her car other than to make it look like she went somewhere, and maybe she was taken somewhere. Goodness knows it is difficult to perform this horrible crime and disappear everything in the area in four hours.

rd

[rd]

OK. I just re-listened to Unconcluded re: the powering down of the phones. I'm pretty certain that the information being given there, is wrong--in regard to the batteries being removed. I don't think that you can know if a battery has been removed from a phone, if you don't have the phone.

How would anyone know this? If the battery were removed from a cell phone, all this would do is render the phone inactive.

For years there was no information about cell phones or what ping info there was. Then when I revisited this case in last year I see that Drew had posted information about it. I need to get this wording verbatim. It's from Drew's post in Jennifer Kesse's Guestbook quoted on jenniferkesse.com:

"... there are 2 cell phones still missing and never found. Jennifer's and an additional one left in her condo by a family friend staying at her condo while she was away. Jennifer was going to mail the second phone presumably whenever she was able upon her return to Orlando 1/23/2006. Those phones we were told were pinging a little after 10pm on 1/23/2006 and went silent at approx. 10:40p by manual shut down and presumed removal of cell batteries. The ping study was not an exact science then and gave us little the investigators can use, i.e. one can't be in 2 places on the same phone miles away a few seconds apart."