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 Disappearance Discussion
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Nancy



Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks like they have officially filed the lawsuit against the OPD, too.

Quote: The family of missing Orlando woman, Jennifer Kesse, filed a lawsuit against the Orlando Police Department, Channel 9 reporter Shannon Butler learned Tuesday.
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/jennifer-kesse-missing-woman-s-family-files-lawsuit-against-orlando-police/887236488
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NapQueen



Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there a way to upload a pdf on here? If so, I can upload the complaint they filed. I read it yesterday. Definitely a few missed opportunities in the arguments but they made a lot of the ones I was echoing back last year, and that a lot of us expressed the same views on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have an upload unless it would be frequent enough to create an FTP account for the poster, but if you email to me at ralph@ee.net with attachment I will upload and post a link to it here.

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



Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just sent it over RD, thank you! [admin note: posted in Archive - thanks]
Totally unrelated, but has anyone looked into either of the two men that had murdered 19 year old Tara Ord in 2001? They weren’t arrested and charged for the crime until 2014. Who knows where they were in between that crime and their arrests. I wonder if either of them spent any time in Orlando.

https://wnep.com/2012/10/29/arrest-made-in-2001-murder-of-scranton-woman/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NapQueen



Joined: 12 Jul 2018
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thought - the whole ping study debacle. It's not totally clear what all was included in the analysis of the study, but we do know the family does not have believe the study's conclusions are reliable.

My understanding is that the main issue with the pings is the tower coverage and whether or not the ping was pushed over to a different tower depending on the volume of activity in the area on a given tower, leading to inaccurate geographical data that night.

Jennifer was a creature of habit. Outside of her vacation with Rob, the weeks and preceding her disappearance likely consisted of her regular routines. Why can't we use ping data from the weeks preceding the night in question to observe patterns in how the phone location data registers on the local towers at various times of the day/night and as she goes about her routines and compare that to what the ping data is showing the night of the 23rd?

I can't remember if this was already discussed on WS or somewhere here so apologies if it was already addressed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The gist of your question needs answers, but some background.

Ping data, like pretty much all data, is only retained for a certain length of time, depending on the data and requirements.

The only reason LE has that data is that they requested it within a certain timeframe for a specific date range. Dates just prior to Monday would not have been helpful anyway as Jennifer was out of town.

I will spare everyone going into much detail on pings as we have volumes posted on it. but some principles that apparently the Kesses, and OPD at least as far as related by the Kesses, don't understand are:

- Pings are not location trackers. There is no guarantee what tower a phone will communicate with, other than it must be within broadcast range. That can vary based on many factors, including cell tower strength, terrain, obstacles, and cell phone factors such as battery needs charging.

- Cell phones can do anything, but unlikely they change controlling tower if not moving.

- However, a cell phone with poor signal strength such as Jennifer's was said to be in her condo could concievably drop off and reconnect with another tower, looking somewhat like moving, but unlikely there were two towers within range and consistently poor signal strength. But theoretically there could be two towers weakly seen by cell phone and cell phone could switch back and forth between them resembling movement somewhat. The signals would have to vaccilate in strength and cell phone briefly sees another signal as stronger and changes to it, but then sees prior tower as stronger. Don't know that cell tower signals would vaccilate that much to cause cell phone to do that sitting in her condo. Doubtful.

- The fact that a different tower got pinged is pretty much an indication the cell phone was moving from her condo at that time.

- There is no guarantee what tower a cell phone will change to when moving, other than the tower is within broadcast range. A cell phone could connect to any tower within range and then change back to previous tower. There is no movement of the cell phone to the other tower and then back in doing that, it's just changing channels so to speak.

- Having said that, over enough time and distance, certainly a direction can be determined as when for example you're driving down an interstate and the cell phone connects to one tower after another down the highway, This doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that pattern.

- In general, all of Kesses stated concerns concerning the ping data are completely off base and I have been posting that seems like a couple of years now, for what good it does. The one solid indication is that for whatever cell phone pings were involved, the cell phones were moving.

- And that doesn't say the cell phones were being moved voluntarily by Jennifer, so reading any assumption into the movement and rejecting it is unwarranted by the Kesses and who knows what the OPD has thought on this. They haven't thought enough as they still give that abducted Tuesday morning in her parking lot despite the information that Jennifer was moving Monday night from her condo.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nancy



Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd wrote:
- Pings are not location trackers.
Agreed they are not, but the pings indicate cell phone location so solidly that the location indicated by the towers and sub-towers can stand as evidence of cell phone location in a court of law.


rd wrote:
- Cell phones can do anything, but unlikely they change controlling tower if not moving.
True, but Mrs. Kesse believes she has this covered by saying the main cell phone tower serving Jenn's condo may have been taken down to correct a temporary glitch, thus causing the pings to come from a different tower.


rd wrote:
- The fact that a different tower got pinged is pretty much an indication the cell phone was moving from her condo at that time.
Mr. Kesse says there were "maybe" 11 pings. Eleven.


rd wrote:
- And that doesn't say the cell phones were being moved voluntarily by Jennifer, so reading any assumption into the movement and rejecting it is unwarranted by the Kesses and who knows what the OPD has thought on this. They haven't thought enough as they still give that abducted Tuesday morning in her parking lot despite the information that Jennifer was moving Monday night from her condo.
The pinging on the 23rd between 10 pm and 10:40 pm is a strong indicator that Jennifer left her condo on that date, in that time period, and never returned.

That is taboo thinking for the Kesses. We are not to believe it. She was abducted on her way to work in the morning, and that's that. Period. She was most likely sold into sex slavery. That's their story and they are sticking to it. It looks to me as if they simply refuse to believe that someone Jennifer knew--and they knew and know--could have so grievously harmed her. Denial at play, I guess.

One of the strangest things, though, is both Mr. and Mrs. Kesse agree that the batteries of both cell phones were removed or destroyed at the same time on the 23rd. Mrs. Kesse says they were never given a time; Mr. Kesse says they were. Whatever. But they are always consistent in saying that the batteries of both cell phones were removed or destroyed at the same time on the 23rd. I repeated that on purpose, because I think it's noteworthy.

I wonder what they think it indicates? That Jennifer removed the batteries from both phones herself (or destroyed them) and then went to bed? Got up in the morning and left for work as usual? Really?

Law enforcement is happy to publicly go along with the Kesses in regards to their theory of the morning abduction because it makes it look like they agree on something and they don't want us internet people to really know anything anyway.

If enough evidence ever surfaces for law enforcement to make an arrest, law enforcement and the prosecutors will not care what they are saying now about the time of her disappearance.

If the ping study helps them make their case in court, they will use it. I have no doubt.

I hope you forgive me for so brutally snipping your comment. In an effort to be brief, I tried to address specific points.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nancy wrote:
rd wrote:
- Pings are not location trackers.
Agreed they are not, but the pings indicate cell phone location so solidly that the location indicated by the towers and sub-towers can stand as evidence of cell phone location in a court of law.

A reply to this requires specifying what is meant by "ping". A common notion of ping is that of the law enforcement requested locationing pings simultaneously from all area towers. Special equipment is required on the towers, which may or may not be present on all area towers, and the location determination can only done by the carrier involved using signal strength information about the towers involved that is not publically available. The location determination is very accurate, the methodology and protocol well defined, and this is a legally established location mechanism.

The actual "ping" we refer to though is that of normal cell phone usage. A location determination is only true in a broad geographical sense, that being the cell phone was in broadcast range of the tower. If talking about a cell phone ping in Idaho hundreds of miles from where the cell phone owner's home, then yes, that is a well established location mechanism that the phone was in Idaho.

If talking about towers in the vicinity of Jennifer's home and towers involved were pinged, that is not a geographical indication of the cell phone in the immediate area, anywhere from yards to less than a mile, etc. at the time of the ping. It only means the cell phone was within broadcast range, which can vary quite a bit.

So we know that Jennifer's phone was in the general area surrounding her home but since she was on a landline there at 10 pm this is already known.


rd wrote:
- Cell phones can do anything, but unlikely they change controlling tower if not moving.
True, but Mrs. Kesse believes she has this covered by saying the main cell phone tower serving Jenn's condo may have been taken down to correct a temporary glitch, thus causing the pings to come from a different tower.

The cell phone carrier would have known if the tower was taken offline for any reason. They collected ping information for goodness sakes. The tower would have been completely dead, all phone calls would have had to be re-routed to other towers, and some determiniation the "glitch" was resolved and the tower brought back online.

In addition, towers are frequently shared by multiple carriers and this could affect all carriers using the tower. It is not something one can throw out there as a "glitch" to explain changing towers.

Also the other tower would have to be within range of Jennifer's condo indoors. We already know that Jennifer had poor (read: had to go out on the balcony) signal strength. It is unlikely that there were two towers her cell phone could connect to yet both resulted in extremely poor signal strength. It requires signal to be able to ping and connect just as much as a phone call.


rd wrote:
- The fact that a different tower got pinged is pretty much an indication the cell phone was moving from her condo at that time.
Mr. Kesse says there were "maybe" 11 pings. Eleven.

There's so much we don't know that puts that information in more perspective. What time range did these pings take place? As we've done, I'll assume majority are between 10 pm and 10:40 pm, when the last indications were battery was removed or equivalent (dumped in water?).

One indication conveyed in a comment ("can't be in two places at once") was that her cell phone was in contact with two towers far apart back to back. with activity like that, wouldn't take long to record 11 pings among the towers involved.


rd wrote:
- And that doesn't say the cell phones were being moved voluntarily by Jennifer, so reading any assumption into the movement and rejecting it is unwarranted by the Kesses and who knows what the OPD has thought on this. They haven't thought enough as they still give that abducted Tuesday morning in her parking lot despite the information that Jennifer was moving Monday night from her condo.
The pinging on the 23rd between 10 pm and 10:40 pm is a strong indicator that Jennifer left her condo on that date, in that time period, and never returned.

That is taboo thinking for the Kesses. We are not to believe it. She was abducted on her way to work in the morning, and that's that. Period. She was most likely sold into sex slavery. That's their story and they are sticking to it. It looks to me as if they simply refuse to believe that someone Jennifer knew--and they knew and know--could have so grievously harmed her. Denial at play, I guess.

Very well said.

One of the strangest things, though, is both Mr. and Mrs. Kesse agree that the batteries of both cell phones were removed or destroyed at the same time on the 23rd. Mrs. Kesse says they were never given a time; Mr. Kesse says they were. Whatever. But they are always consistent in saying that the batteries of both cell phones were removed or destroyed at the same time on the 23rd. I repeated that on purpose, because I think it's noteworthy.

I wonder what they think it indicates? That Jennifer removed the batteries from both phones herself (or destroyed them) and then went to bed? Got up in the morning and left for work as usual? Really?

It's pretty amazing that they think that could be the result of anything but an abduction.

Law enforcement is happy to publicly go along with the Kesses in regards to their theory of the morning abduction because it makes it look like they agree on something and they don't want us internet people to really know anything anyway.

If enough evidence ever surfaces for law enforcement to make an arrest, law enforcement and the prosecutors will not care what they are saying now about the time of her disappearance.

If the ping study helps them make their case in court, they will use it. I have no doubt.

I hope you forgive me for so brutally snipping your comment. In an effort to be brief, I tried to address specific points.


Probably wasn't brutal enough. :p Many excellent points to respond to as usual. thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nancy



Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd wrote:
... If talking about towers in the vicinity of Jennifer's home and towers involved were pinged, that is not a geographical indication of the cell phone in the immediate area, anywhere from yards to less than a mile, etc. at the time of the ping. It only means the cell phone was within broadcast range, which can vary quite a bit.

So we know that Jennifer's phone was in the general area surrounding her home but since she was on a landline there at 10 pm this is already known.
I think if we knew the location of the cell towers, we would know more than simply that she was in the "general area surrounding her home".



rd wrote:
There's so much we don't know that puts that information in more perspective. What time range did these pings take place? As we've done, I'll assume majority are between 10 pm and 10:40 pm, when the last indications were battery was removed or equivalent (dumped in water?).

One indication conveyed in a comment ("can't be in two places at once") was that her cell phone was in contact with two towers far apart back to back. with activity like that, wouldn't take long to record 11 pings among the towers involved.
I've done this rather silly presentation thing that I probably should have put more time in, but I hope it's at least adequate to make my point.

I looked up the quote that you referred to as well, and I'll post it for quick reference at the end.

I have no idea what format law enforcement would have used to present the ping data to Jennifer's parents, but I wonder if they made it clear that each tower has a radius.

When Mr. Kesse stated: "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".--I can think of one way for the confusion to have occurred.

In the example below, let's look at tower 2 and tower 5 and note the overlap in coverage as unscientifically indicated by the overlapping circles.

If Jennifer's cell phone was traveling in the overlapping territory between the two towers but law enforcement only pointed out the physical location of the two towers, might Mr. Kesse's statement appear to make sense but in reality the integrity of the ping study still stand? YMMV




In any event, the tower locations on my map above are, I believe, correct as I added them with their longitude and latitude. It is only their radius that I didn't attempt to show to scale, and I have no idea which towers Jennifer's phone actually made contact with.

Two I find noteworthy are #5 and #10 because they bring to mind the early reports of Jennifer's vehicle possibly traveling south on John Young Parkway on the evening of the 23rd.

Then we can move our thoughts to Jennifer's vehicle showing little distance traveled via the gas mileage, and it makes me think Jennifer's cell phone wasn't traveling in Jennifer's vehicle on the 23rd.

Then I think about law enforcement never releasing even a list of the trunk contents of Jennifer's vehicle, and wonder why if it was not the one traveling on the 23rd with Jennifer's cell phone in it. What did they find in there, and when was her vehicle used and what for--if not just moved to make it look as if she left on her own and went to a "bad" neighborhood? Surely it's not just a ruse on law enforcement's part? Or maybe it is.

Anyway, that's something I ponder as I digress.

Here are the actual linked quotes. The links should work for a short time:

Replied on: 7:23am 07-24-2014
JT
We really don't want to start answering questions here on guestbook otherwise we will end up with 100's of them. However 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. Just another heartbreaking reality of Jennifer's case. Technology isn't always cut and dry which is another thorn in our side. So what you heard is true and to this day those cell phone, Jennifer's pocketbook, Ipod and her work attache are still not located nor anything of hers used that is trackable.
The Kesses

https://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/u/jenniferkesse?page=32

Replied on: 8:16am 02-27-2015
Allen, Than you for finding Jennifer's crime and story. The cell phone were manually disengaged so no pings could be picked up after 10:20pm on 1/24/2006. Someone knew exactly what they were doing. The pics are the best we will get and have already been enhanced with no further ability to get better at this point in time, we are told. We wonder everyday how could this be.
The Kesses

https://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/u/jenniferkesse?page=27
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I won't be able to do justice in a response to your post tonight, but some quick thoughts.

The circles are helpful in locating the cell towers, and acknowledged not drawn to scale, etc. But to give an idea of coverage of those towers, every bit of the area that map covers has max bars signal strength, at least outside they do. That is metro Orlando, with major attractions in the area. Those towers are handling calls from all over.

There are no givens on distances, too many variables, some of which are adjusted by the carriers to coordinate coverage. But we saw in some info somewhere, at least mentioned in postings anyway, of a tower 30 miles away that Jennifer's phone connected to, and then back to a closer tower. Someone (the Kesses?) thought this was some kind of error, that it wasn't real. But I've said all along that these distances are possible.

I did a search just now on average broadcasting range of a cell tower. The answer is complicated, but a useful bit of info that jumps out is that a cell phone can reach a cell tower 45 miles away. Due to timing issues, it may not stay long, and that is in fact what happened here. Connected to a tower quite a distance away, and immediately switched back.

But distances of 10 to 22 miles were given as more reasonable working maximums. In general, every cell phone anywhere on that map could probably connect to every tower on that map.

But then you have such large intersecting circles that it's not really helpful, and this map is certainly helpful. Just as long as the towers are not thought of as identifying a close by location of every cell phone communicating with it, and instead thought of as a given that everywhere on that map is covered by those towers.

Thanks for such helpful graphics, Nancy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nancy



Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2018 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd wrote:
I won't be able to do justice in a response to your post tonight, but some quick thoughts.

The circles are helpful in locating the cell towers, and acknowledged not drawn to scale, etc. But to give an idea of coverage of those towers, every bit of the area that map covers has max bars signal strength, at least outside they do. That is metro Orlando, with major attractions in the area. Those towers are handling calls from all over.
And something I should have mentioned, too; those are only the towers registered in the FCC database.

What I'd really like to find is a full list of towers for 2006, with the radius (even if approximate) for each tower given. Then I could put them properly on the Google map.

But I did realize that that section of Orlando has to be saturated with cell towers.


rd wrote:
There are no givens on distances, too many variables, some of which are adjusted by the carriers to coordinate coverage. But we saw in some info somewhere, at least mentioned in postings anyway, of a tower 30 miles away that Jennifer's phone connected to, and then back to a closer tower. Someone (the Kesses?) thought this was some kind of error, that it wasn't real. But I've said all along that these distances are possible.
BBM - I think you are referring to the International Drive/World Center Drive area. I believe it was originally discussed on the blinkettes blog as the location of the last ping from Jennifer's cell phone.

Here is a thingy I did showing the location in respect to other locations, and bits of information I've gathered:





rd wrote:
I did a search just now on average broadcasting range of a cell tower. The answer is complicated, but a useful bit of info that jumps out is that a cell phone can reach a cell tower 45 miles away. Due to timing issues, it may not stay long, and that is in fact what happened here. Connected to a tower quite a distance away, and immediately switched back.

But distances of 10 to 22 miles were given as more reasonable working maximums. In general, every cell phone anywhere on that map could probably connect to every tower on that map.

But then you have such large intersecting circles that it's not really helpful, and this map is certainly helpful. Just as long as the towers are not thought of as identifying a close by location of every cell phone communicating with it, and instead thought of as a given that everywhere on that map is covered by those towers.

Thanks for such helpful graphics, Nancy.
I think I read that the towers with the 45 mile radius are mostly found in rural areas.

But, at last, I do understand your point much better; and agree as to how pinpointing the exact location of the cell phone may be more difficult than I previously believed.

One thing I'd like to point out, though, is in the image above notice how the searches (purple numbered circles) are almost all inside or very near the cell tower locations (black circles). [The green markers merely represent places of interest.]

Just sayin', folks. Just sayin. LE used that ping study. It is not "bunk".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nancy



Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's a much better illustration of your point, RD.

I used a 20 mile radius and added only 3 towers. The top two I picked at random for being near Jennifer's condo and the bottom one is the ping I thought you were referring to as being approximately 30 miles away. I just Google mapped it though, and it is only 12.4 miles from her condo.

So, I dunno. Maybe it's not the right one. (Interesting, however, is that Google maps show it is a 22 minute drive. 9:57 pm phone begins to show movement; 10:20 pm last ping; 10:40 pm battery removed/phone destroyed).

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nancy, that's the kind of timing that we might expect from Jennifer driving somewhere and being abducted. And if there's something in that area that could be a destination, then it adds strongly to the possibility.

Going by memory here, I think you've done maps that showed a package facility was in that area, was it not? If there's any reasonable possibility of taking the guy's cell phone there to get it sent off, I think we have to consider that scenario the most likely of what happened after 10 pm.

Is there nothing in the area that would make driving to that location to deal with the phone an unreasonable possibility?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nancy



Joined: 11 Jul 2018
Posts: 301

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rd wrote:
Nancy, that's the kind of timing that we might expect from Jennifer driving somewhere and being abducted. And if there's something in that area that could be a destination, then it adds strongly to the possibility.

Going by memory here, I think you've done maps that showed a package facility was in that area, was it not? If there's any reasonable possibility of taking the guy's cell phone there to get it sent off, I think we have to consider that scenario the most likely of what happened after 10 pm.

Is there nothing in the area that would make driving to that location to deal with the phone an unreasonable possibility?
Well, I have to say the answer to you last question is yes. There is a UPS store in that area, at least as of 2018. It offers packaging supplies and shipping, and is interesting to note that it is closed on Tuesdays.

Now, it does not appear to be open very late but things can change in 12 plus years.

One has to question, though, why Jenn would choose the UPS store at virtually the farthest possible location from her condo. See below for a quick look at some of their locations:




So below I'll add a blow-up of the area in question.




And to put it in perspective, I zoomed out and showed a possible driving route. Notice it would take 27 minutes--that's because the first route Google selected goes through a toll booth and one of the few things we at least think we know is that did not happen. The last time Jenn's vehicle went through a toll booth was at 6:15 pm on the 23rd.

Thus I drug the route to correspond with a vehicle heading south on John Young Parkway, which reflects both the early reports asking if anyone saw Jenn's vehicle anywhere in that location and Google's selection of the most direct route to the cell tower. (Location "A" is Jennifer's condo--I forgot to mark it).



So, yes, what you suggest is not only one of the most reasonable and logical conclusions; but it's also one of the very few scenarios that can be drawn from a starting point to an ending point--keeping with some of the details of the case--and make sense.

In spite of that, I don't think we got it, though.

Just further musings--they only searched the area in 2012. That suggests to me that they did do the triangulation, which takes time and an expense that would have to be approved. But six years? What could they have even hoped to find after all that time?

To jump back to your proposal--bluntly, a woman alone, suddenly attacked. Statistics show that usually such victims are discarded quickly, thrown out like garbage in a ditch or shallow wooded area.

So where is Jennifer Kesse? Where has she been for 12 plus years? Did they come close but miss her location?

OMG, I want her found.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rd



Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location: Jacksonville, FL

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah, that sure is excellent analysis, Nancy.

I can't imagine that UPS store was open that time of night. I did research on this back then and I didn't find any UPS open at night in area. I just can't see her making that half hour drive at night in any event.

My feel on this is that this was the far away tower (but 14 miles, not 30) that her cell phone switched to briefly and then back. That is I think the only way she willingly had a connection there.

The abductor may have driven that distance before disabling the phones. But there would be more activity on that tower than just a brief connection. In my opinion the OPD would do a search even if there was just the one brief connection because that's all OPD knows how to do.

From the chatter and complaints, it sounded like the OPD emphasis on ping activity was in a "bad" area that sounded like over and up on Orange Blossom. I just don't get the feeling there was any substantive connection activity down there, or that that is the "bad" area that Kesses said she wouldn't have gone to.

So excellent research that I think gives a picture of what is involved at that farther out search location.

Thanks again, Nancy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.justiceforchandra.com Forum Index -> Jennifer Kesse and similar disappearances All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Page 19 of 21

 
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