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 ... , 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: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

During my searches for something else, I did come across the link where it is mention Jenn was possibly in bed:

Jenn's boyfriend--Snipped Quote: [I]Nothing out of the ordinary. I`ve known Jennifer for about the last 12 months, and we talked periodically throughout the day every day, every night before she goes to bed, every morning before, when she wakes up. We`d recently just come back from a vacation, and we talked throughout the day on Monday, and then Monday evening, she called me `round about 10:00 o`clock. She was in bed. She was tired from the vacation that we had just recently taken, had a long day at work. We talked briefly. No problem at all. We both said we missed each other and we were looking forward to the next time we were going to spend with each other.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/07/ng.01.html



A couple of comments on this. He says they talked briefly and I expect that is the most accurate statement we would get on it. There is probably a long distance record that has exact duration on it but that is close enough. I expect briefly to be about 5 minutes or less. This says they had already talked that evening. This was essentially a good night call. Whether immediately followed by yawning and going to sleep alleged ping data has something to say about that.

Secondly, this is from an original interview. This is where I saw (and I believe I have it filed away somewhere) his statement "every morning before, when she wakes up".

I expected that meant earlier than going to work, and that lack of a call from her and lack of answering the phone indicated she wasn't there. To me this was very significant. In addition to no postive indications of her being there that morning, you have this very substantial information that she wasn't there to place or take a call they had every morning.

But it got sidelined into a she called him in car on way to work, and of course she didn't make it to work. I tried hard to get a confirmation that no calls normally took place earlier and that it was unexpected for Jennifer not to place a call earlier, or whether Rob tried earlier and no answer.

If that's the facts, then so be it, although I was hoping for harder clarification than the next to nothing that's been said, and it would have to be said by her bf.

"every morning before, when she wakes up" doesn't sound like when she starts driving to work a couple of hours after waking up. But if it is, and there was zero anticipation of getting or placing a call prior to driving to work, then I'll consider his statement clarified.

Until then, it's a big question and indicates to me she wasn't there early to participate as their usual routine.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope I am following you correctly.

You want solid confirmation to establish she was not in her condo that morning?

I don't think we have that yet.

I just listened twice to every interview I could find and different things are said during different interviews. The impression I came away with is that she sometimes called him first thing in the morning; such as the statement she was his human alarm clock would imply. (Not a direct quote.)

But there were other interviews where he mentioned that she would text him from the car on her way to work.

That could be a faulty transcription--where he said: "every morning before, when she wakes up." Or, he may have begun to say: "every morning before she leaves for work" and for some reason decided to change it to "every morning when she wakes up."

Which, I think, would be exactly what you are looking for. Is that correct?

It would be interesting if we could find the video recording of that show. Sometimes people would record them from their TV's and upload them to You Tube.

It would be worth a look.



I want solid confirmation of what the calling pattern was. Yes, I expect that that "before" was "before she went to work", and he changed it to "when she wakes up". Which is even more specific about how early it was, which is why I believe he changed his wording, to indicate that. And yes, I got the feeling that there was an early morning good morning, I'm awake call. And it didn't happen.

Pretty significantly, her cell phone alarm clock was not on based on the Verizon data. No call from her as usual. And no one wants to deal with that because it goes against their wishes that everything was hunky dory until she walked out to car to go to work. And there's zero positive artifacts she was there that morning or went out the door to go to work, other than a perception of shower dampness hours later.

Stuff like clothes on the bed can be there from night before. In fact it's more like night before. And people can deny ping data, but if there's ping data after 10 pm her cell phone was moving.

So yes, 12 years is long enough. How can there be talk of when she wakes up and no indication she woke up without dealing with it?

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My thought is, with focus on local area, where is Jennifer? And my second thought is, where is Tracy Ocasio? That you have two young women oriented around Ocoee who disappeared within three years of each other, whose remains have never been found, I don't pass off lightly as coincidence.

The details of any possible exposure to a common suspect is of no interest to me. I've read the theories and I don't care. What is of interest to me is two women who spent time in Ocoee vanishing and one suspect in prison which may have stopped what could be more of the same, or the person is not involved in either disappearance. And of course maybe there has been more of the same but not as high profile or maybe somewhere else.

There is talk about short timelines involved in Jennifer's disappearance, a belief that only four hours passed before her car was captured being parked, and yet no trace of her ever found in the relatively small local area likely involved in such a short time frame.

To me where she was assaulted in that relatively small area, or what assaulter we could speculate, doesn't mean much because it's all guesses and it doesn't give any indication where she vanished. Sure there are possibilities to have a better idea where she may have vanished, and you have to start somewhere, but whatever it is, I find it unlikely it was done in a local pond or shallow grave for example.

I think one thing that can help is considering that both Jennifer and Tracy may have vanished in a similar way, and may both be found if one is found. And maybe some commonality could help point to where they may have vanished.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After 12 years, is there anything LE can do now to move Jennifer's case along? I have racked my brain and other than allowing the Private Detectives access to police files, I really can't come up with anything

#1. Release the times and tower A, tower B, even tower C if a third is involved of the pings from each cell phone, Jennifer's and the one left behind, that were found. Not asking for the location of the towers, just Jennifer phone, time, tower A, etc. Also the ending time of the 9:57 pm phone call.

That would allow a determination that abduction occurred evening or, lacking any information of any activity all night and morning, at least knowing the assumption of a morning abduction lacks any technical basis. Many people are not the least squeamish about dealing with reality, but the reality has to be not hidden to deal with it.

#2 Provide a solid finding on whether it was likely that Jennifer had ever sent a package from work before. This is another issue that people skirt around because apparently there are people that have and think it routine to send an occasional package from work as from the employer, or something, lots of muttering in posts that seems to be what they're saying.

So it's like of course Jennifer was sending the package from work because, of course. Brilliant reasoning. Need OPD's finest minds to give a definitive on their finding on this. OPD's original statement to reporters was that they felt that Jennifer went out looking for a mailbox. This is either garbled police statements or garbled reporting on valid statements, but looking for a mailbox after 10 pm at night is not valid. It doesn't even deserve to be repeated, much less reported.

So let's get with the program, determine if there is any justifcation at all, as in past use, of Jennifer shipping a personal package from work, in any way whatsoever, or whether there is ample cause to think that Jennifer did have reason to get that cell phone off her hands in some way, and there are multiple options on that, at least one the OPD may not have considered at time but could have been wanting to offload problem to a friend nearby.

The owner did ask for it back ASAP, actually I believe requested it be overnighted (which is still going out end of Tuesday business day, not overnight Monday night), but there is a discrepancy between that urgency and offered anonymous opinions that Jennifer didn't care whatsoever about any rush to send it back. That of course could only be expressed to those she talked to Monday evening. I don't know if there was any expression or not, they do.

#3 I spent a considerable amount of time working on enhancing the POI images in 2007. I found things in the images. I have the images posted. I have posted isolated pieces throughout these threads, to degree that I might be charged with littering, and the OPD wouldn't even respond to my tips, even acknowledge that they got them and don't give a damn. I don't know, I could have a vision and they would go do a search, but if the vision is something they can look at they don't want to know about it. They have a nice volunteer to take down the tip and give you a number, and that's end of story.

The images and extracts have been up for I guess 11 years and counting now, and what I asked for was feedback on identifying gear from the shapes. Even it couldn't be anything law enforcement because nothing has those kind of thigh straps, anything, any feedback. I found a security company ad with an armed bike patrolman, wearing nearly exactly what I identified, the security company being where she just came from, in area where her bf lived, and nothing. Not where this gear came from, not who might have it, not where this security company had gigs, nothing, nothing, nothing.

The company lost its security clearance after Jennifer disappeared and before I found all this stuff in 2007, so I couldn't just call up the company. That's why police have tip lines, but they don't use the tips.

That's a start. I'm sure there's more if a PI agency got involved, and there was one who posted last year, and if you think OPD was bad, the PI firm couldn't even get started due to some interference, so life goes on except for Jennifer. Year after year.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd be so disappointed with that. I want the cell tower location for each and every ping, and the exact time. Yes, to the ending time for the 9:57 pm call--a definite must have.

I also want a time for the knock on her door on the evening of the 23rd.

I'd love to compare the mileage covered as the phone moved from tower to tower with the gas level. Just guessing right now, but I bet we would find that the phone never really traveled far.

You make an interesting point by mentioning that someone should find out if Jenn had ever FedEx'd anything to anyone from her workplace before.

LE said there were nine FedEx shipping centers near Jenn's condo and they checked each and every one of them for surveillance videos, etc.

This was early on, and my guess is they were following the pings.



Re: the tower locations -
Assuming there is ping data, the tower locations would be the most sensitive data the OPD has in the case. If one were to insist on all or none, the answer would be none.

In trying to move the case along, take the most sensitive data out of the equation and get a chance to use the timestamps and some aspect of relative movement, along with zero cell phone activity after that, to make a reasonable determination that abduction took place during that ping data. Or just what it might help determine. But the actual locations of the towers aren't needed for that, and that shouldn't stop progress in analysis based on knowing when the cell phones were active.

As far as those 11 pings determining a path that was taken, sure, with enough pings over enough time, absolutely. With a few pings in a concentrated time, well, the pings can bounce around and it seems from Kesse's statements did bounce around and sure, if we had the data we'd be able to analyze it and it would be much more helpful but I'd rather get the timestamps than nothing. Of course this is probably all a waste of time as we'll get nothing but the question was asked how progress could be made.

Sure, more information on that knock on the door, absolutely. Who was on the phone with her, when did that happen?

I guarantee you the phones didn't travel far powered on because the pings stopped after a few minutes, by 10:40 it seems. That means nothing other than you have an abductor that knows phones leave a trail and disabled them.

Re: shipping packages from work -
This is 101 stuff and has an amazing amount of pushback given how important it is. Suggest that she was trying to get it sent off from a FedEx type place and you will get "she was sending it from work, of course". Ask for what the basis is for saying Jennifer planned on sending the cell phone from work to her brother's friend and you will get absolute silence.

It appears most people who say this have sent a personal package from work using the company mailroom because "people do that" or something. All I ever asked was for some hard questions to be asked and answered of her employer and people she worked with, and anyone she talked to Monday evening when told about the friend's request to get his phone back ASAP, and exectly what she indicated she would do about it. And there is nothing.

I'm not talking about speculation, that's coming from the people who said she would send it from work. I'm talking about asking hard questions and getting answers.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to review the timeline for everyone: Jenn drove to Rob's in Ft. Lauderdale on Wednesday afternoon. They flew to St. Croix on Thursday morning. They flew into the Miami airport on Sunday night (their flight was diverted). A friend of Rob's picked them up at the airport and drove them to Ft. Lauderdale. Jenn stayed the night at Rob's and left at around 6:00 am on Monday morning, January 23, 2006. (Mrs. Kesse talked to her sometime during her drive to work that morning.)

She drove straight to her workplace in Ocoee and worked a full day, leaving around 6 pm.

Jenn's car is recorded going through the toll booth she regularly used at about 6:15 pm Monday evening. She was also talking on her cell phone to her father and brother during this same time period. She picked-up her mail when she arrived at her condo. She left her luggage in her condo foyer area. Sometime during the evening she talked to her girlfriend, Lauren, who described her as being in a "funky" mood; and she talked directly to the guy who left his cell phone at her condo. (I don't believe a time was given for either of these calls).

Mr. Kesse said that someone--possibly a male upstairs neighbor--knocked on Jenn's door. Mrs. Kesse said that Jenn looked out through the peep hole in her door to confirm it was her neighbor. She did not respond to the knock. A time for the knock has not been confirmed; nor who she was talking to as the knock occurred.

Jennifer used her landline to call Rob at 9:57 pm. It is believed the two spoke only briefly, but no ending time for the call has been released.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2006, Jennifer Kesse did not show up for work. For all intents and purposes, Jenn vanished sometime after the 9:57 pm phone call. But people don't vanish. I think something bad happened.

But regarding questions about eating fast-food, I think she was the type to stop and grab a sandwich or at least try to be a little healthier say than eating at McDonalds. But keep in mind there are no receipts--no sign of this occurring.

It's also been said that Jennifer liked Chinese take-out.

Mrs. Kesse said there was food in her refrigerator so they assume she grabbed something from her own fridge. However, I can't think of what she could eat without leaving some trace. Even a cup of soup comes in a little paper packet. (Apparently there was a cup in the dish drainer or somewhere like that.)

Mr. Kesse said Jenn didn't drink coffee.

I believe Mrs. Kesse has said that the dishes Jenn's brother ran through the dishwasher before he left Jenn's condo were still in the dishwasher.


That is the most informative summary of what she did I've seen. There are scads of details in there that aren't normally posted. Thanks for all of that. For example, she looked out peephole and confirmed was neighbor is new here altogether. Talked directly to her brother's friend that evening. Well, he would know quite a bit about her expressed intentions on sending it back. I thought possibly it was all back and forth through her family that evening.

Also, "food in the fridge". The food would have either been left by her brother, and she wouldn't have known it was there, or almost a week old. If frozen, there is usually something in trash from unwrapping and unthawing frozen food. The "there was food in fridge" is distinctly dismissive of why there is no food wrappers in trash, yet makes little sense. It is as if they know this is what she did without quite being specific about how they know. That's fine, but one needs very positive grounds for doing that.

In addition, the details about the dishwasher indicate that she didn't use a dish or bowl to eat something from the fridge. It is possible she ate at work and wasn't hungry, but indications to me are that there's strong bias against any reason for Jennifer to leave after her phone call with her bf. I don't know how much that bias is reflected in what's being said of Jennifer's activities.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jennifer possibly could have done any of several things.

However, Jennifer had only lived in her condo two months, and she was uncomfortable with at least some of the workers who she felt were watching her and leering at her/catcalling, etc. (It's been described differently). Also, some of those same workers may have been living in some of the unfinished condos in Jenn's building, although it's unclear whether or not Jenn knew this. Would this make it more likely or less likely that Jenn would go out after talking to her boyfriend around 10 pm?

On the morning of the 23rd, Jen had left her boyfriend's condo in Ft. Lauderdale and driven straight to her job in Ocoee. This is about a three hour drive. She worked until 6 pm. The exact time she reached her condo is unknown, but she stopped to pick-up her mail, and brought at least most of her luggage up to her condo where she just left it in her condo entrance; even the bottle of rum she had bought as a gift for her father. She did take the time to sort her mail, neatly stacking the important things and putting the flyers in the trash. So, I think it might be safe to say it was a long day and she was tired. Would this make it more likely or less likely that Jenn would go out after talking to her boyfriend around 10 pm?

According to her parents, Jennifer used what they call "safe calls" to walk from the gym to her car, or from a mall to her car, or even when the painters were in her condo around the noon hour to do touch-up work. Mr. Kesse said Jennifer would put chairs under her doorknobs at night. Mr. and Mrs. Kesse say Jennifer was very safety conscious since she was a teenager and her friends say she was like "a mother hen" making sure they all stayed together if they had gone out together. Jennifer's brother said that Jenn never really even dated much. There was one female friend that said Jenn had driven some distance--spur of the moment--to comfort her and spend the night, but Jenn wasn't living alone in her condo at that time. Would this make it more likely or less likely that Jenn would go out after talking to her boyfriend around 10 pm?

Jennifer's friend since the 2nd grade revealed that Jennifer had a fear of being taken, or something happening to her and nobody knowing. Would this make it more likely or less likely that Jenn would go out after talking to her boyfriend around 10 pm?

There had been a knock on her door on the evening of the 23rd. Mr. and Mrs. Kesse discovered a can of mace on Jenn's counter. Would this make it more likely or less likely that Jenn would go out after talking to her boyfriend around 10 pm?



This is an important context for anyone considering her activities after the last phone call. By no means would I think Jennifer "went out" after that in any normal sense of the phrase.

There are two factors here that I find unusual. One is the complete lack of anything in the trash concerning food. For her to have been there all evening, night, and next morning before going to work and not generate any sign of consumption in the kitchen and trash I find very unusual. However if she was not there from 10 pm on then of course it makes a lot more sense.

The other is the request to overnight the friend's phone to him (i.e. get his work phone back to him as soon as she could). I would expect this to be taken care of next day but I also wouldn't be surprised if she were to more or less dump it on the mutual friend who was in the area. We don't know what communications there might have been about that but we also know the police are saying they are withholding information about her phone calls. (Big surprise there.) And she may have just been aware of the friend's normal routine and not even called him.

I would not be surprised that she intended to drive over to the nearby mall to dump the phone on the mutual friend and was accosted. That would be more "taking care of business" than "going out" and for a brief duration. I would expect she was abducted anywhere from her own parking lot to where she drove to, such as the nearby mall where the mutual friend was, but of course didn't get there.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeniffer was talking to Rob at 10:00 pm at night, because the pings stopped shortly after this last phone call.

There's a lot of truth to this, but note that she was talking on her landline at 10 pm, her cell phone and from what little has been said the friend's cell phone were the phones pinging. There's a lot we don't know.

There was said to be 11 pings identified. There's an implied two towers. ("Which ping is right?") Was the time range of those pings arbitrary? Were they after the 10 pm call so focus is on what happened then? Was one of the two towers handling her condo area, for example, all pings before 10 pm (if any) were to same tower? Were none of the pings before 10 pm so that possibly pings obtained were from outside her condo range?

Of course the tower locations are known and also what the normal controlling tower for her condo area at that time. But we don't know that, hence the question. A typical scenario might be some pings before 10 to same tower, some time after 10 another tower was involved and then switched back, implying movement, and last pings of the two phones at whatever time was indicated, said to be between 10:20 and 10:40 pm.

The towers switching before phones went dead is an important indication. It makes it very unlikely that the phones were disabled in her condo and taken with her, more likely the phones were on when driving and then disabled. It makes for a very unlikely scenario to gather the phone from her condo to take with her, along with other stuff, drive some ways and then disable the phones within a few minutes. The phones would likely be on longer if the abductor was establishing a false direction before disabling the phones.

It has all the earmarks of Jennifer taking the stuff with her, driving not far, and being abducted where the abductor disabled the phones in her possession which an abductor with some knowledge would do. There may be a desire to say well if Jennifer didn't go out then someone forced their way in and abducted her, but the cell phone ping information doesn't support that.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have to go back to what I posted the other day. People want to say oh if Jennifer didn't leave her condo then someone must have forced their way into it, and my conclusion was that the ping data doesn't support that. Nothing else supports it either. The only reason people talk about someone forcing their way in to Jennifer's condo is the belief, totally unsupported, that Jennifer wouldn't go back outside after her 10 pm phone call for any reason whatsoever. And so 12 years later people are still prone to speculate on who might have forced their way into her condo.

And the ping data doesn't support it. That is it. That is all. There is no forced their way into Jennifer's condo and removed her and the cell phones where they disabled them somewhere else a few minutes later.

It is a total waste of time to speculate on who might have done something the data doesn't support anyway.

I will be the first to admit that doesn't leave a lot to look into. We covered the POI images pretty thoroughly. We covered what we know about the ping data pretty thoroughly. I wish there was more we could do, but inevitably speculation turns to avenues the data doesn't support.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Truth Prevails wrote:
This way too long, but I can't decide what to cut--so I'm just going to post it.

RD, your theory is the most logically correct theory. But for me itís a dead end. I can't accept that. Jennifer Kesse did not vanish. Someone took Jennifer; evil took Jennifer.

I believe your theory is the one law enforcement followed in the beginning. It reaped nothing.

And they have all the facts. Everything we think we need to know to get the correct answers, they know. And still, following your theory lead them nowhere.

For the rest of us, no one can even say for a certainty that a purse belonging to Jennifer is missing. They know it wasnít the brown one featured prominently, to this day, on the website. They know that because they found that purse still packed in her luggage. So how do they know a purse is missing? And if Jennifer didnít even take her purse with her, how can we be sure she walked out her condo door with every intention of returning?

Itís debatable, but all that appears to be missing are the two cell phones, her driverís license, her iPod and her keys.

What about her credit cards, or something to hold cash in? If she went out to mail the cell phone, I think she would have brought a means of payment with her.

If it wasnít for the two cell phones, speculation which I donít agree with might be such that she suddenly decided to go for a walk, or for a jog, or down to the gym to workout.

Oróand again I donít agreeóbut perhaps she decided it was a good idea to get into her car and drive to the mall where a person she had formerly dated was getting sloshed. Perhaps she impulsively decided to leave the cell phone that not only her brotherís friend had forgotten at her condo, but the guy was her friend, too. Even though she had talked to him earlier in the evening and had promised to ďovernightĒ it, i.e. get it out the next dayóon a whim responsible Jennifer could have decided to leave it with a drunk who may or may not even remember her leaving the phone with him.

Also, Jennifer was known to make ďsafeĒ calls as she walked from her car to a mall, etcóso, law enforcement must be withholding all information on any call of this type which occurred after 10 pm. (Unless some of the pings are the result of this type of call).

The caróparked at almost exactly high noon on the 24th, with a DVD player clearly visible strapped onto the back seat. Jenniferís car sat in that spot until approximately 8:10 am on the 26th. In a neighborhood where itís suggested that if you leave your car for five minutes, they might steal your tires, if not your very life. Why would Jenniferís car be left untouched by vandals?

The car--with the level of gas indicating that it had not been driven far but the information we have on the ping study indicates the possibility of 11 pings. What do you suggest could account for this--constantly driving back and forth between two nearby towers for about half an hour?

If nothing I have said above alludes to any thoughts that Jennifer might not have left her condo of her own free will, then I feel obligated to point out all your beautiful, logical thinking does not prove that those cell phones were on Jenniferís person when they were pinging on the evening of the 23rd. Admittedly, itís not the most likely, but I donít feel the possibility can be denied.

Way back in July of 2007, a W/S poster did an excellent shower experiment. The conclusion was that it took the shower 4.5 hours to completely dry. Think about tható4.5 hours. (And do your own math with the assistance of Google Maps to check out driving timesóitís interesting).

I know you totally disagree with the following, but Iím going to add it in anyway. What about the route that the hound dog took? I read up a little bit on how hound dogs trackóBo did not necessarily have to be tracking the most recent route the POI (or Jennifer) took. I enlarged and enlarged that picture of the broken fence until I hopefully correctly identified where it was. When I marked it on my Google map, I realized itís just a short walk following the side of the pond to the front stairwell of Jenniferís condoówhere the dog supposedly stopped tracking. (At least itís the most commonly given location). But this is not a route a person would take at high noon and expect to go unnoticed.

Could this be evidence that someone was stalking Jennifer? As much as you can argue against it, an argument can be made for it.

What about the knock on Jenniferís condo door on the evening of the 23rd? What about the mace being out on the kitchen counter? These can both be easily explained away, but the co-incidence of both of these seemingly innocent occurrences happening on the very last evening a person was ever seen or heard from makes them seem not so innocent to me.

What about the rumors of someone jiggling the door knob to Jenniferís condo about two weeks before she went on vacation? Could there be any truth to that? What about a complete set of keys to every condo in Jenniferís building being stolen one month before Jennifer went missing?

What about Jenniferís natureóaccording to her parents: a young woman who understood the risks of living alone and took precautions?

I respect your opinion, RD; but I stand firm that we have at least an indication that something much more complicated, and perhaps much more sinister, happened here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2018 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is beautiful, and I'm glad you didn't trim one word. Every point well taken.

Two cell phones, disabled twenty to forty minutes after her 10 pm phone call, with a controlling tower change and back before being disabled. That data eliminates Jennifer walking outside, to her car, to her gym, anywhere. It eliminates someone masquerading their way into her condo.

There is no one that is going to get her to open the door, abduct her, gather up two cell phones in her condo, drive a short distance, and then disable both the phones. And for sure it's not some random person she knew behaving as an experienced criminal. So the ping data doesn't support anything other than she took both phones and left her condo for some reason. She didn't get far and both phones were disabled. That's consistent for example to maybe driving over to Millenia Mall parking lot, but maybe somewhere else not far away.

If the cell phones weren't moving, there were no phone calls coming in, there was no checking for email updates, there wouldn't be any pings. Or one at most if happened to fall in a periodic scheduled location update. But when cell phones are moved, they are put in a situation of evaluating the relative strength of signals from multiple towers to stay or register with a different controlling tower. That's what is meant by pinging tower A, then pinging tower B. but subsequently tower A can be seen as strongest signal and will re-register back with tower A.

This can happen for a variety of reasons, but one example is something in between cell phone and tower A and the strongest, although weak, signal it can see is from tower B. So it makes tower B its controlling tower. But then car moves past whatever is blocking tower A signal and now tower A signal is strong, cell phone makes tower A its controlling tower again.

This is not driving back and forth between two towers, it's just getting tower A signal blocked temporarily. This is normal cell phone behavior and it is baffling how anyone could describe the behavior as, well, baffling. It isn't. This is really pretty simple stuff made complicated by lack of detail for one reason or the other. But yet we did get enough to at least understand the gist of it.

Any conjecture of Jennifer being up and about in her condo Tuesday morning essentially says she disabled both cell phones after her 10 pm phone call, including disabling her alarm clock, and didn't turn her cell phone back on before being abducted, allegedly at her car in her parking lot sometime in morning.

That is an extreme scenario to justify a damp shower. I don't think anyone would accept that.

But again, that is a beautiful analysis Truth.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Does it seem strange that jenn would lock her briefcase in the boot , but leave a dvd player on the back seat ?( at whatever time )

There's so many odd things and changing information in Jennifer's disappeance that I don't follow as closely as I should. For years was not the briefcase missing? People even said there were things in the briefcase such as the friend's cell phone. I recall posting even not that long ago how could anyone know what was in a missing briefcase?

I just did a search. I included information (not cited) that "Inside the vehicle, police found some of Kesse's personal items, but her purse, wallet, two cell phones and briefcase were missing. The car doors were locked and the car keys were not found."

Also "In a recent interview, Joyce stated that Jennifer's briefcase is also missing."

I also saw that some of the things said to be missing could be expected to be in the missing briefcase.

So now let us fast forward. When did Jennifer's familty get told that her briefcase is not in fact missing?

Now what do we have. A briefcase not missing but in the trunk and no one not OPD knows what's in it? Is there some reason it wasn't clear the briefcase was never missing? Why would the OPD specifically say it was missing, along with a purse and wallet and two cell phones (iPod not mentioned)?

The police could only have an idea what was missing from family telling them. Family tells them purse is missing but later finds the one they're thinking of packed in the vacation bags. They don't know that a purse is missing actually. We can expect that a wallet containing things that a wallet holds like drivers license is missing otherwise surely someone would say wallet was found but drivers license was missing from it, not just drivers license missing.

I don't know. Is it really Jennifer's briefcase in the trunk? Was that a mindgame stunt pulled by OPD ala Columbo? ("That can't be the briefcase." Aha, Gotcha)

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was doing some work on my postings and I clicked over to Kesses site to test the link. I saw where they updated this year's newsletter on their front page and the information about needing to seek legal recourse to get information from Orlando Police Department about their missing daughter.

They have gone through normal channels for years. Apparently the OPD complied with requests by sending them completely redacted (blacked out) return forms. This is also the same OPD by the way that refused to even respond to my tips about the image enhancements. Not even FOAD. Just File 13 it.

This is also same OPD that for years claimed it wasn't even their case, it was the FBI's, and the FBI claiming it wasn't their case, it was OPD's. I'm not making that up.

H even said it's not for the family, it's for their lawyers and investigators (whoever they're able to get) to act on in professional roles. And still the OPD refuses to help the Kesses find their daughter.

I don't know. He got some information but refuses to accept it, and OPD is not forthcoming to them. It's a bad situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder if Mr. Kesse has decided to move ahead with the law suit? I haven't heard anything recently.

I agree with your statement above that the situation is bad. A law suit may make the bad situation or worse. Or maybe not, it's hard to say.

What I do know, though, is that if a team selected by the Kesses get lucky enough to find Jennifer--law enforcement will immediately step in. The area will be declared a crime scene and sealed.

Unless, of course, there is a true miracle, and Jennifer is found alive. I wish I could hold more hope towards that end.



Thinking about it, I don't think the OPD has any information that would help an investigator anyway, at least not beyond what was divulged to the Kesses.

It's not like the location of that second tower means anything. It was a quick switchover and back ("can't be in two places at once"), and the location it switched to is mostly irrelevant. It helps slightly in that the car was probably not moving away from it but could very well have been.

It certainly is not that situation we've read about regarding the searches where someone says oh, that's the tower, let's search in fields around it. It doesn't work that way.

And since phone switched right back to let us assume the local tower the other tower's location wouldn't point to anything anyway regarding searching. So unless there is a pattern indicated in tower locations you just have let us say a group of pings in immediate area and they stop. That just doesn't provide any information other than the car wasn't driven far before the phones were disabled.

I will say if the briefcase is not missing and the new shoes are not in the briefcase, then that would be something I do not expect. But I guess I wouldn't expect the briefcase not missing and iPod missing either. In fact the CD player I think is mentioned specifically as pointing to not a robbery yet the iPod is said to be missing. In the briefcase, understandable. Not in the briefcase, not so much, unless it was actually stolen.

So a hard list of what was found in the car, versus what is "missing", would be somewhat helpful but only in terms of helping to profile a suspect. I don't think anyone is going to come down on a robbery gone awry no matter what is missing. And her bank cards not used anyway.

Interviews with the construction crew that may or may not have taken place? I doubt OPD has anything useful there. The remainder of porential interviews investigators could do anytime. The people are known, there's nothing OPD has that's useful. You can talk to everyone and see what they have to say, don't need OPD's take on whether they passed a polygraph or not.

Phone calls? I would think that Jennifer's estate (her parents) would have access to her last phone billings and see what calls might be listed. I don't think OPD would have any more info than that.

My advice would be not to waste money on a let us say FOIA on steroids against OPD, use the money for an investigator. You'd get started a lot sooner and get farther anyway.

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



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9241
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Truth Prevails wrote: But he says "maybe" 11 pings. If I understand you correctly, the "quick switchover and back" would take care of three pings. What about the other eight? Are you saying it is most likely that the phone kept doing "the quick switchover and back" between the same two towers in groups of three pings: say we have 9 pings instead of 11, would we have three "quick switchovers and back"?

And I think I do understand about each tower having a radius and for good coverage, the radius of several towers should overlap. That way, as one is traveling about, if a building or something blocks your signal, a second tower should be able to keep you covered without interrupting the call. Eventually, as you travel, you would exit the coverage range of one tower and enter the next--still being covered by an overlapping circular radius of various towers.

So, if that is correct, maybe I do understand what you mean; and how that indicates the phone didn't go far at all. Also, if we consider we accounted for nine pings, then the last two could account for the "final event" ping from each phone. (This would involve assuming the ping study showed to Mr. Kesse was a combined study for both phones).



You are right on everything about the overlapping towers. My guess is there was just one switchover and back. I would consider two switches within a few minutes unusual just based on logic. The nature of switching is that the current tower signal is fading and another tower signal is significantly stronger, so phone registers with second tower (switches). The current tower signal can decrease drastically but it won't be terrain causing it in Florida. Speculation on it is not warranted in my opinion unless one were to find there were multiple switches and needs to look into it further.

A switchover and back is two pings with a previous ping however much earlier establishing current tower. The switch is to tower B, then back to current tower. I don't know if there could be additional activity recorded, but that's minimum that would show it.

Bear in mind the phone is judging the relative strength of every tower signal it sees and makes determinations when to register with a different tower. When you have the phrase "can't be in two places at once" which is about all I know of this sequence then that undoubtedly is pings to two towers in a very short amount of time, so short it's considered "at once" or certainly way too short amount of time to have driven any appreciable distance toward the other tower.

Even if it happened more than once it still has the hallmarks of current tower signal blocked and registering with a distant weaker tower, then seeing current tower signal again as soon as you're past the blockage and registering back with the strong local tower. I guess theoretically you could even get the same blockage if you were circling a mall parking lot and hit the same blockage again as an extreme example,. Bottom line, it's not some dash back and forth between two towers.

The lesson of the pings is that the phones are moving. That initiates all this activity, and that is all that investigators will know. There is no location information involved here other than the location of any towers involved, and unless there is a pattern of moving from tower A to tower B and beyond there is no indication of any pattern to the movement.

You could have this list of tower activity for these two phones and it still wouldn't tell you anything about where Jennifer may be, including ground searches. If you have any indication of a pattern such that for example believed to be actually headed toward tower B territory you still have an abductor who knows enough to disable the two cell phones, and therefore knows enough to drive in a misleading direction before doing so.

I just think the car was only driven a mile away and parked isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

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 ... , 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 36 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