www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index www.justiceforchandra.com
Justice for Chandra Levy and missing women
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Jennifer Kesse, 24, missing from Orlando
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
 
Post new topic   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
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there a record of pings that a cell provider can access after it has occurred? I am aware that, with a warrant, Law Enforcement can get a real time account of the location of any powered-up cell phone but they do not retain a record of the pings that had occurred in the past. Is this correct?

Carriers (the cell networks) have a history of pings to access that they can provide to law enforcement. As you can imagine the capacity for doing this has increased dramatically as computing power increased and legal requirements have been made. This established that a cell phone was within communications range of a tower at time, that is all. That is all that is needed though to show that the cell phone movements from one place to another, for example, such as Scott Peterson driving from Modesto to San Francisco Bay which was used in trial to place him at scene.

Location of a cell phone is a different matter and the technologies involved, tower location, triangulating with multiple towers, time delay in ping responses to estimate distance, and GPS location are not a field of expertise for me, and not involved in simply determining if cell phone was communicating with any tower (ping activity), which is all that is being talked about here with the 10:40 power off time for both cell phones (as told to Drew by someone he trusted enough to quote.)

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joyce Kesse, Jen's mother has gone on record with information that while the condo was mostly impeccably clean and neat, the shower had condensation inside, Jen's pajamas were on the bathroom floor, a towel, still moist, hung on the dryer in the laundry room and her bed had been slept on, on one side while outfits (more than one) that were describe as "suitable for" that would go with the missing taupe pumps (type of woman's shoes) were draped over the other side of the bed.

All of that is pretty suggestive of someone getting up in the morning and going to work. The is what Joyce Kesse seems to think.


I would say there are three things that are mitigating factors but only info loved ones would know.

1) There are any number of reasons why Jennifer took a shower before 10pm previous evening, going back out being one of them. Laying out clothes for work next day may very well have not been a nightly practice but this evening was different. She had just carried her luggage from a long weekend trip and set it down as soon as she came in the door. It had not been unpacked. Her usual routine may have been slightly different this evening. Slept on one side of the bed? I would say sounds more like she laid some possible clothes out for next day and relaxed on one side of the bed while talking on the telephone.

2) Although I don't know validity of it, it has been posted that Jennifer was known to keep her shoes in a briefcase out in the car and change shoes for driving, i.e. did not necessarily bring her shoes in each night. I further contend that these new shoes her family knew about from her description was bought for the trip, and she would have had them at work Monday. She didn't even open the luggage she brought in, I would say it is very likely she didn't bring her briefcase with shoes in if there is any truth that this was known to occur.

3) I pose this question regularly. Is there anything missing that is known would only be carried out to her car Tuesday morning to go to work? I cite the briefcase with her new shoes in it as definitely not a given she carried it out to her car Tuesday morning due her known practice. No one has ever suggested something that would only be missing if she had gone out to her car to go to work Tuesday morning. I admit there isn't much that could be identified as such, but by same token it makes going out to her car Monday evening or Tuesday morning equally possible just based on that. The two phones being powered off at 10:40pm could only be overcome with some ironclad indication of Jennifer home Tuesday morning, and there is none.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From what I can tell, law enforcement or Homeland Security or anyone else with the proper warrants can get extremely detailed "real time" information from someone's cell phone provider. What is not so clear is what information can a Cell Phone provider obtain about past activity when the phone was not being monitored. Certainly they can furnish the time and cell tower(s) used for any incoming or outgoing call. What I can not verify is whether or not the cell phone provider can obtain a record of what towers a phone that was "on" but not in use had "pinged" off of and can they tell the exact time the phone was powered off (or out of range, had its battery removed etc).

I spent a few hours doing additional searching. This is a "hot" search area and extremely difficult to get answers that don't involve the privacy interests, warrant or not, etc. etc. that fill search results.

All data is fed back to the providers. The only question is what various data is retained for how long, if at all. The communication to towers of a cell phone making it the servicing tower and updating it (cell phone location updates) was in particular what I thought providers could search to determine connection of cell phones without any calls being made.

It turns out there is a technical description for this data and various retention lengths of it, from 3 months (T-Mobile) to 7 years (AT&T). The data is referred to as cell tower dumps. This is all cell phones connected to a tower during a period of time.

You can't determine what tower a cell phone was communicating with without interrogating every tower records, but in a situation like Jennifer's, a certain location for a limited amount of time, tower dumps could be done for surrounding towers. I don't know what the Orlando Police did but if you asked the cell provider(s) involved about the two cell phones, that's what they could look at.

Note that this is different from cell phone call records which are for phone calls and SMS and retained for years. Those records also would have been searched but nothing if no phone calls made or received after the 10pm phone call.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Sep 25, 2017 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just saw a suggestion that Michelle Parker's disappearance in same area of Orlando as Jennifer could be related. Looked it up. Yet another case that fits the pattern of most missing women, but not Jennifer Kesse. This is also a woman who is still missing in same area as Jennifer with about same time frame, previous evening to next day her car found in a parking lot.

Reading an article on the missing Michelle Parker, we have this statement which we just can't get in Jennifer's case:

"The missing momís cell phone was later found by a police dive team under the Nela Bridge in Belle Isle. The location is not far from the cell phone tower that registered the last ping from Parkerís iPhone on the day she disappeared. "

Maybe there's no info at all from the two phones in Jennifer's possession. Maybe all we got was made up bs. Who knows? Sad that both Michelle and Jennifer cannot be found in same area in Orlando.

rd

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/03/michelle-parker-missing_n_6792356.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the podcast, Mr. Kesse explained that the OPD brought in a Verizon expert that examined the ping patterns. Unfortunately, the Verizon ping expert said that the ping patterns were not reliable in 2006 and really meant nothing, which rendered that part of the investigation useless.

Thank you for this info. First I've seen anything definitive on that, and helpful.

Having said that, I'm a graybeard computer type and done a lot of communications programming in my time. While I haven't dealt with cell tower ping programming, I'm comfortable with what's going on with it having researched this several times.

I've read Drew Kesse commenting on this and saying that pretty directly, and I've commented before on it but bears repeating. The "not reliable" thing is not relevant, and as far as I'm concerned is probably still "not reliable" the way Kesse is thinking of it. What he is going on about is this notion that a cell tower in contact with a cell phone is not always the closest cell tower to the phone. That is known, has always been known, and cell tower pings were never a guarantee of location of the phone. That isn't the issue at all, although of course any clue as to whereabouts is helpful.

Drew referenced this with his "a phone can't be in two places at once" comment, I believe in that technical post. I've explained repeatedly in posts that a cell phone can jump from contact with one tower to another and maybe back, and maybe back quickly, especially when moving. If a signal is blocked or weakened due to structures a tower further away may be strongest signal, and then when closest tower's signal regains strength may become controlling tower again.

This is not a big deal at all, and is actually helpful as it provides triangulation information as to what part of cell tower area phone was in when switching back and forth. Lemonade should have been made out of this, and instead you have this silly stuff.

Moreover, the only important thing is when did activity from each of these phones stop? When were they last heard from, anywhere?

Now someone who knows something about the data may say "well, there was no data, and it's probably because pings were not that reliable in 2006" yada yada, which could be blah blah blah stuff that amounts to we have no stinkin data. Fine, whatever, just out with it.

On the other hand the "two places" comment implied there was some data, and the question is when activity stop for each phone? That doesn't guarantee that the phone wasn't still on and ping data no longer available, but it does say how long the phones were active. Geez, this is 101 stuff. I shouldn't have to post stuff like this for OPD/Verizon whatever.

Now unless an amateur blogger was making up some wild stories for Kesse, the both phones stopping at 10:40 pm is really specific stuff. The "not reliable" stuff is pure silliness. We're not talking about pseudo pseudo GPS (because there is actually pseudo GPS), we're talking about how long were the phones active that we know of.

That is all. Quit making excuses OPD and get with the program.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Kesse brought out the point that Facebook was not in existence in 2006 and Google may have been in it's infancy.

Google started becoming well known in 1998 to 1999. I switched over to them as my search engine. I did all my work on Chandra Levy case in 2001 to writing a book on it in 2004 using it. By then I don't think there was a competitive search engine. It was post the original search engines pretty much except Yahoo bought one of the originals. It was before Bing and some foreign engines really got traction.

In any event, I noted in preamble to book that phpBB (board software used by the main Chandra sites) and Google made it all possible. So the Google part of it is not true/relevant. The social media aspect of it that people started doing is of course true, quite frankly with the garbage out there not sure how helpful that stuff is. Maybe one can believe that twits that so and so is missing has an impact that you don't have with Orlando paper articles of police announcements, etc., but in my opinion wishful thinking. A search would bring you relevant social channels, but also relevant boards. And search engines did take you to boards for Jennfer Kesse.

As I said, wishful thinking from us who were there before 2006.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr. Kesse actually mentions that there were maybe 11 pings--all of which he concludes as being totally ridiculous.

Also, he confirms that the final event of the "phones" plural occurred in the evening of the 23rd. He changes the time frame to between 10:20 pm and 10:40 pm.


Here's another question. Why in the world would he consider 11 pings ridiculous? Also of interest is if the 11 are combined from the two phones or all from one phone. Each ping involves the ID of the cell phone. It is not something that just happens like a ghost signal or something. Each of those pings says that the phone was in the area and on. And that is critical info.

Another critical piece of info is the time of the pings. Did they accelerate in number before stopping? That suggests moving. Pinging more than one tower suggests moving. By "stopping" we mean that is last ping recorded. If there was any bunching of pings before the last one that suggests the phone(s) were moved.

The stopping can be one of batteries pulled, phones dropped in water, or driven out of distance of towers that were interrogated. Given that Jennifer has never been found in the area, driving out of the area can't be disregarded. The gas gauge thing means nothing when you start driving the previous night.

I am absolutely baffled why the valuable data of 11 pings is considered ridiculous.

And more importantly, how in the world both phones never being heard from again around same time is anything but the most valuable of data as to what happened to Jennifer.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Drew doesn't clarify this. In my opinion, the pings came from Jennifer's cell phone because Travis' phone was off.

This is only my opinion but I stick with it. Phones, even in 2006, gave a "final event" ping. Experts can recognize this ping from the others and it always sounds to me as if Mr. Kesse is describing this event when he discusses the phones either being destroyed or having their batteries removed.

That is why Travis' phone sent it's final ping--even when powered down. They still have the ability to connect with a tower one final time if they are being rendered useless. It is like someone taking their lives and they scream.

The "new" time of between 10:20 pm and 10:40 pm fits succinctly. It would be hard to destroy them both at once.

And interestingly enough, both Mr. and Mrs. Kesse have been fairly consistent with the information of this "final event" ping coming from both phones. Most of their issues seem to be concerning the pings that show movement.

They believe she was abducted in the morning. She didn't go out the night before. The rest has to be hogwash/law enforcement bull. Could be, who knows?

The pings suggest movement. They place the phones in an area where Mr. & Mrs. Kesse believe wholeheartedly that Jennifer would never go. Especially at that hour.


That raises questions with me. Why would anyone assume Jennifer was in the area of her own volition? You have a disappearance and an almost certain abduction. An area Jennifer would never go? That is why it's called an abduction.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just trying to wrap my head around a lot of this new more enlightening information (at least new to me). Also another thought occurred to me.

I remember posting at length concerning the described scenario of friend's phone in a briefcase, how an intruder would be very unlikely to find that to disable along with Jennifer's phone. And I'm not sure how I got led down that path. How would anyone know where the friend's (Travis) phone was in her condo? Why would someone say it was in her briefcase in her condo the night before, and just as importantly to me, why did I accept that and try to work with that in scenarios? For some reason I thought there was a basis for it (and maybe there is, but how would anyone have any idea?)

In fact, it is a certainty that Jennifer retrieved it and likely was laying out in plain view. If an intruder was disabling phones, they would disable that phone just as surely as her phone. An intruder wouldn't even try to determine which was "her" phone. The intruder would assume they were both same capability.

Now, having got past that scenario difficulty, the next is why would the phones be taken away with her? I am never sure what is missing given the ambiguous information about Jennifer's disappearance, but I think it is a given that driver's license and such is missing. And what we often have with a woman's disappearance is at least the appearance of a voluntary departure, as if they just decided to vanish. Lacking a violent crime scene, the difference between a clear abduction and a vanishing is the abductor bringing keys, wallet, and phone with the victim. In this case both phones.

A key clue here is the timing of the 11 pings which we know stopped by 10:40 pm. We know the pings indicated movement, and we know Jennifer was on her landline at 9:57 pm. That doesn't leave much time for movement. It is possible she was dealing with someone at the door (maybe even ending the call because of it), or that she went out to her car to get something, or that she went out to her car to drive somewhere.

The timestamp of the pings would be helpful because movement (and therefore change in strength of tower signals) causes re-evaluation of controlling tower which involves pings. But I think the time to accept that Jennifer was abducted shortly after she ended her phone call with her bf is 12 years overdue.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find the timing really tight here, too. One of your scenarios is quite possibly the correct one--for the purpose of this discussion, I'll favor that she went out to her car to drive somewhere.

To return to the "tight timing" discussion--if we consider the last known phone call was a brief call of 10 or so minutes, that puts us at around 10:10 pm. Trying to consider Mr. Kesse's most recent information that the "final events" of the cell phones could have occurred between 10:20 pm and 10:40 pm, that would give Jennifer a total of 10 minutes. Five minutes to end the land line call, grab her keys, driver's license and for some reason both cell phones, lock her condo and head toward her vehicle.

If she encountered her abductor or abductors in the hallway, the last five minutes could have been used to get Jennifer into any vehicle prepared to begin moving immediately. If the cell phones were on her person, the ping movement would show regardless of what vehicle she was in.

I don't know. It could have happened that fast. The problem for me comes from trying to fit in that it was said she was ready and in bed. A t-shirt and personal things were lying on the bathroom floor as if she had had a shower. Her contacts are missing, but her glasses were in the bathroom beside the contact case. There's that dang damp towel hanging over the washer in the laundry room with the door closed; a little water behind some shampoo/soap bottles.

Nothing there indicates a hurried, unplanned departure.

Unless she was already prepared to do something unusual that evening and didn't want to share that knowledge with anyone. It's difficult for me to make myself accept that, though. In my heart of hearts, I don't believe it.

I may agree, but I don't think we are all in agreement at the current time.




I haven't seen a definitive beginning or ending of call at 9:57 pm. Is it your understanding that 9:57 pm was the placing of the call? If that is the beginning of the call then that is even less time for movement. The timestamps of those pings are an important part of the picture here.

Why would the party involved (the bf) not be specfic as to when the call began and ended? Even approximately. Maybe was and I haven't seen it? No one seems to know anything about it.

I am assuming that at least some of the pings are somewhat recent before the 10:40 pm event. Obviously if all the pings are before 9:57 pm then they are not telling us anything. If people want this case to move forward they need to look at those timestamps and the estimated ending of call with bf (short good night, 10 minutes or so, etc. Was knock at door during that phone call, etc.)

I don't think it was beyond realm of possibility that she took a shower that evening. We have zero positive indication of Jennifer up and about in morning or her car outside. Nothing about dinner, nothing about breakfast, even a positive indication coffee was made, anything? Nothing that I have seen. Just a damp shower. Everything else would be as is after a shower whenever it took place.

We need to also keep in mind that her luggage was not unpacked and now I see that her purse was in that luggage. So one needs to think about what was her usual practices, she didn't need the purse that day, maybe didn't need it for next day, did she carry a clutch, a wallet? She would have had that at work Monday. Her boss would have seen what she walked out with.

She was said to have carried shoes in a briefcase, changed them for driving. Changed them at her desk before walking out to car? Or changed them in car? Her shoes (new shoes that are missing) could be in briefcase I expect.

Some more info on this final event at 10:40 pm would make things clearer for an investigator. There is 0 possibility she powered off or took the battery out of her alarm clock cell phone and everything was normal the next morning.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If she was abducted, why did her abductors not leave the phones wherever they were, for example in the condo, or in her vehicle ?, Or throw them in a trash can ? Why go to the trouble of disabling two phones ? Could they have thrown them into a body of water ?

This is an interesting question. I had been gving it some thought.

The interesting thing about disabling phones is that the person knows why they are disabling them, the phones leave a trail. This by the way also rules out most random people, crimes of passion, etc. It indicates pre-planning, a knowledgeable abductor, etc.

The next interesting question is where were the phones disabled? Disabling in the home and then bringing them with you wouldn't make any sense. Disabling and leaving them in the home wouldn't make any sense either. But to bring them leaves a trail.

So, just as with parking her car in an apartment complex a mile up the road, this can be used as a diversion. It would be interesting to see if this "area where Jennifer would never go" is generally east of Jennifer's condo. Because that's where her car was found, unknown to the abductor that the parking of the car was caught on camera.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Based on these things, the phones would have been disabled where ? In the vehicle ? But how would an abductor have known she had two phones on her, and why would she have had the phones on her person ?


I can only speculate that if the police told Kesses what the pings indicated, and didn't point out that Jennifer may heve been abducted for those pings to take place, that Kesses were offended that anyone would suggest Jennifer was out and about driving in an area "she would never go". The OPD in their earliest statements said that Jennifer might have been looking for a place to send the friend's cell phone. Actually pretty garbled because the reporting ended up being about mailboxes or something. Just a sorry experience for all involved.

The most likely scenario involving phones disabled at 10:40 pm is that Jennifer went to her car with the friend's phone, her phone, her wallet, and her keys. I don't know that there is anything else missing that definitively would have been brought inside after work and then needed to be brought back out to car to be missing.

There is not much time involved, and it seems that an abduction at her car is likely. Or not driving far, for example to that mall parking lot where the bar was. I have speculated on that extensively. The phones would be with her and they would need to be disabled by someone who didn't want the phones leaving a trail to where he took her.

The other possibilities are an intruder, perhaps the person that knocked on her door, or she went out to her car to get something. In those scenarios the abductor would have gone back into her condo to get her wallet and phones to make it look like she left on her own. The phones in my opinion would both be laying out and an intruder wouldn't know which was her primary phone, they would take and disable both of them if both were in sight.

That would make sense if it were to make it appear that Jennifer left on her own and was abducted elewhere, i.e. not someone from her condos or someone she knew that came to see her, etc. But that also shows criminal sophistication. the phones would be disabled elsewhere, or thrown in water, before driving off somewhere else.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But both phones stopped working that night ?

Just to be clear, there's three phones involved; Jennifer's cell phone (also used as alarm clock as I do), Jennifer's landline which she last used in a phone call with her bf at 9:57 pm, and her brother's friend's cell phone left from the weekend visit, which she was asked to send back ASAP.

The info given to Mr. Kesse by Verizon (and I have always said this was clearly analysis from the phone carrier), was that both cell phones were disabled (my words) around 10:40 pm. The technical info that Kesse repeated in his post indicated technical indications of battery removal.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read an account this weekend that the young man's phone that was left at Jennifer's Condo was his work phone, not his personal phone and that according to the ping pattern for that phone, the battery had gone dead over the weekend. SO many stories have been told which make this puzzle like a moving target. I am trying to assimilate any and all info I can find and see if there is a prevailing theme.

I believe what you read was pure conjecture and shame on the conjecturer for muddying up the water.

I have seen many conjectures that the battery of the other cell phone went dead. That was a flat out WAG made moot by the info given to Kesse. The info was that both phones were disabled around 10:40 pm, not, and I direct this to the source of this stuff, there was something going on with Jennifer's phone and the other phone must have been dead.

Also, there is no such thing as a ping pattern indicating a battery went dead. There could be a cessation of pings, but that happens when phone is turned off.

There could be something that the phone sends when battery level reaches a low threshold but I doubt it. That would just use up precious remaining power that might be needed for an emergency, like maybe why the battery has not been recharged.

Also there is no such thing as knowing how much power is needed to make one last contact, it depends on close the tower is.

All in all, the source is full of crap.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9243
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does the particular make of phone, example: LG, Samsung, Apple, etc. and the carrier, example: Verizon, Sprint, etc. have any bearing on a "ping", or is a ping just a ping regardless?

I posted a bunch on this but your question wasn't covered. I spent an inordinate amount of time researching pings and effect of removing battery late last year so info is from the research.

The pinging and controlling tower thing is a standard as a tower can interoperate with multiple carriers. The ping info contains a carrier ID and the ID of the phone, and the carrier ID as I understand it is used by the tower to determine whether it accepts the packet, not rebroadcast and send on further away as IP networks do for something not theirs.

Each carrier might handle some aspects differently back at network centers but it seems the whole thing is pretty standard industry communications protocol. I imagine contact retention criteria is determined by carrier. I was very pleased to see that there was some significant ping data following Jennifer's call. I operated on assumption all these years that there was no ping data. To have it and it have no effect on the investigation all these years is pretty amazing.

rd
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 35 of 37

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group