www.justiceforchandra.com

[Vivian]

I may be able to talk my husband into photoshopping the photo....he is way more computer saavy than I am.....if he will , I will let you be the first to see it....

Take care, Ralph...You are the best....

[Vivian]

Ralph,

When you were working with the POI looking back at the car did you think that he has a mustache in addition to the goatee?

Also, I know that you probably know I am nuts but while looking at this image in different colors, contrasts etc every once in awhile it would come to me that this man is wearing one of those disguises with the eyeglasses, nose and mustache attached....

It appears that his nose is not that small in some of these colors and contrasts....

Vivian

[rd]

How strong is the science behind cell phone pinging? Has anyone ever seen an interview regarding to the cell phone pings? If it has been determined with scientific certainty that the cell phone left her apartment after 10 pm the night before she was reported missing, she must've gone someplace on purpose, in her vehicle.

I did some research on cell phone pinging on the Theresa Parker case in 2007 and somewhere in there decided to take at look at these Jennifer Kesse POI images and I found all the law enforcement gear at that time and posted the blowups. But the cell phone research helped me understand better both this case and Steven Koecher case for example. I've been retired from following cases since then but look in on Jennifer Kesse's whereabouts and Chandra Levy case due to the work I put in on them.

The cell phone pinging research was pretty complex due to the different possibilities, technologies, etc., and who knows what all has changed since then but is helpful to understand what little we know of Jennifer's situation. I didn't see any information for years and then this 10:40 thing which is pretty thin. It does correlate with what I initially thought happened, Jennifer leaving after the phone call to get her brother's friend's phone sent off, but most are convinced and have posted with some authority that she would have sent the phone from work. One person even said it wasn't an urgent matter for her which I thought would be given her brother asked her to overnight it. (Not literally overnight in the sense of sending that night but when it was sent, sent with overnight shipping.) So with that and no ping info on phone(s) given there wasn't much to go on.

My understanding is that cell phones can communicate with any towers in signal range, maybe up to a mile and a half, but one tower takes control of the phone. If you are moving another one will take control and anything sent to your phone will be transmitted from the tower that currently has control.

The police comment I saw quoted on this referring to the ping info about "can't be in two places at once" I interpreted as the phone switching from one tower to another and back, seemingly two places at once but if the towers are within a mile and a half of each other perfecly possible. Maybe signal is disrupted in one direction and another tower takes control and then signal to previous tower is seen again and switches back. On the other hand police would/should know this and it would help correlate the location of the vehicle. But with such meager information I can only guess.

rd

[rd]

What in the world would have Jennifer leave her apartment at night, deliver a phone of robs friend?

It was her brother's friend, they had stayed in her condo that weekend while she was away and he left it there. Her brother asked her to get it to him quickly, "overnight it", something to that effect. The reasoning would be that if she went out and took care of it she would not be delaying its return and not have to deal with it next day.

However, what little that has been posted by some who have some insight into this is that she would have sent it from work. I've only read a portion of what's been written on this case but I don't recall seeing a solid confirmation that she had sent packages from work before.

I've sent quite a few personal packages in my time and it has never occurred to me that it would be possible to ask an employer if I could ship something from their mailroom and pay for it. There was a discussion on this years ago and some people said they've done it. I've never seen it happen but I've never asked either. I would think that would be people's goto to send packages if they could do it. The most I've ever done in a mailroom is buy stamps, and that was quite awhile back.

rd

[rd]

Besides, apparently she either told her brother or Travis that she was not going to go out to send the phone...

As I mentioned above, I have seen a couple of posts from someone close to the family who said that she would send it from work and that it was not an urgent matter for her. Of course the only way to know this is whatever her response to her brother was when he told her his friend needed his phone back as quickly as possible. Possibly also mentioned to her bf in their last call. Basically enough information is provided as to why they dispel notion of her going out after the call.

But they also are the source of this information about phones going dead at 10:40 pm, and prior reports that her last call ended with her bf about 10 pm. This phones (both phones, hers and her brother's friend's phone) going dead I only frst saw mention of a few months ago.

But something struck me about way this was worded. It was known early on that her brother informed her about his friend's phone left behind. The police originally mentioned that there was a possibility she had left her condo for that reason. There has been somewhat strong pushback that wasn't possible, and the pushback can only come from family / loved ones based on what they knew of her and her comments that night on the phone.

Years later I saw a comment from one of them that she didn't consider the matter urgent and wouldn't have gone out. Then years more later I see this phones dead at 10:40 pm thing.

At some point people have to get realistic. The fact that Jennifer responded she wasn't going out about the phone tells me that indeed that is a response to her brother asking her to get it back to his friend, that he needed it. And that tells me she may have had second thoughts.

There is no way of knowing she didn't leave other than people she spoke to thinking that. And what that leaves is someone getting into her condo within minutes of her saying goodnight to her bf, subduing her, and searching her condo for phones to disable, enough to find the acquuantances phone in a bag or attache case, wherever she had, and take the battery out to disable it. This is like seriously contrived. To come up with an explanation like that because people who know her best don't believe she would leave her condo is untenable.

Now it doesn't help a lot to try to convince people that she did in fact take the phones out where indeed if abducted someone would disable the phones, someone fairly sophisticated to know to do this. And it didn't help to point out for close to ten years that the person who parked her car is wearing at a minimum a thigh holster and an unmistakeable back of a bike helmet, along with some other gear on his backside, but about all I can do is keep pointing this stuff out every few years and then go back to my other pursuits knowing that I've done what I can but Jennifer's disappearance is a black hole.

All light shed disappears and nothing comes out.

It is sad.

rd

[rd]

The men who stayed with Logan was Travis B..(the phone's owner) , Matthew S. (the ex) and another young man....

I didn't know that one her brother's friends staying that weekend was also an ex bf.

I will say that of course they were prime suspects as one would expect and also her bf. As I recall they were all questioned and alibis established and all lived out of town as I understand it, so just establishing they were out of town is all that it would take. I don't think there were any issues with establishing that.

[rd]

Apparently, the ex-boyfriend had been drinking at a bar across the street from Jennifer's condo that very night.

I had seen several references to the ex bf who was in the area, close to the mall I guess, and had no idea it was one of the friends who stayed at her condo over the weekend. If that's true then the situation regarding the police questioning the people that stayed at her condo (and her bf) isn't as was led to believe from the police as reported in the beginning.

I can think of a number of scenarios if this is true. For example, if Jennifer knew he was nearby, she may have decided to take the phone to him and let him deal with it. That would only take a few minutes. Why would something like that not be publically discussed by police and her family if that in fact was the situation?

rd

[rd]

re: ex bf nearby drinking night she disappeared

well, I don't want to dwell on the obvious. I don't even know what basis is there is to it as I never saw anything on this in the beginning. Just some comments on the internet. Not that that isn't a better source than police but there's no source source. There's no one that can tell me that his alibi is that he was drinking in a bar nearby, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, yet all posts from anyone purported to be connected with Jennifer's loved ones said that the brother and friends were investigated and had nothing to do with it.

My point was if this is in fact true, which I have no idea if it is or not, which is obviously by design, there is a very real chance that Jennifer would take the phone over to the bar to give it to her ex bf to take care of getting it back to his (and her brother's) friend. That doesn't mean she made it into where he was, in fact she would have been seen. It means she could have been abducted in a parking lot. But it means she went back out for other reasons than the only one I had ever thought possible, that being to a 24 hour FedEx type store.

And of course there are other possibilities, such as that guy that was linked to another disappearance via a gym she went to, etc., not that I want to divert down that path. But also if you have someone who is very familiar with the situation then they would know about the friend's phone and would disable it if staging a disappearance, and on and on. It's a bad situation if true.

rd

[rd]

I googled Jennifer Kesse Matt and I see that the bar situation was reported on Greta's coverage of Jennifer's disappearance. So it was information that was withheld in the beginning.

Has I known this, I would have suggested that Jennifer was intent on giving the phone to her ex bf nearby for him to take care of getting it back, etc. That is what I would expect. I have no idea whether he was known to be in the bar from 10 to 11 pm for example when the phones went dead. If not, well, we don't need to spell out the possibilities there.

I try not to point fingers at anyone just because they knew the victim but anyone who knew this and didn't openly discuss the possibility of Jennifer driving a few minutes away to get the phone over to someone both close to her and the owner just was denying a very real possibity on what happened to her that night. All this she wouldn't go out, it must have been walking out to her car to go to work was the only acceptable scenario that anyone with knowledge of the details allowed.

And even that didn't matter much one way or the other. It was don't worry about the details, has anyone seen this person on the Missing poster? That may be okay for a few months and it may not, but after that you end up with what we have.

rd

[rd]

...in interviews that Drew has given about the ex being at Jennifer's condo that weekend....

While I just now found out that one of her brother's friends staying at her condo that weekend was an ex bf, it's the fact that the ex bf was nearby, well at a bar nearby at the mall, on Monday evening, and on top of having stayed at her condo the previous two days was attempting to change her mind about him. I mean how can anyone reasonably consider the facts of this case without knowing that?

No wonder it was withheld and a pretty sorry not to worry, everyone was investigated and everything is copasetic from those that knew this. Well, first thing I would say is you completely eliminated the probable basis for Jennifer to leave her condo to give the phone to the guy nearby, who by the way wanted to talk to her, so that he could take care of their phone problem from their stay. That's what most people would do.

And yet by denying this information and claiming that Jennifer would never leave her condo and her shower was damp etc. etc. they basically steered everyone away from what most likely happened.

Now the guy could be the most wonderful guy on the world, that isn't the point. The point is that Jennifer may very well have been abducted in the mall parking lot taking the phone over there, and based on the law enforcement gear on the POI maybe by a fake security guard. But there was no way of knowing this, and that didn't help find Jennifer.

rd

[rd]

...the condo was the crime scene. No sign of forced entry - she let'em in. the ex

Here's the problem with that. All her stuff that she would carry out to the car for going to work was taken with her. It's one thing to remove a victim, and abduction if you will, it's another to elaborately stage a disappearance by taking all her normal carry bags with her. On top of that, it would be planned as both her phone and the phone left behind were disabled at the same time, which would be within minutes of gaining entrance to her condo sometime after 10.

There is no aspect of this that has any resemblance to a crime of passion in her condo. Is it even more than she would have taken in her car to go take the phone somewhere? Maybe. But the combination of crime of passion, staged disappearance, and sophisticated prep step to locate phones in the bags and disable them so the disappearance couldn't be tracked is just about nil.

rd

[rd]

rd makes a plausible explanation for the poi car driver being either a cop or dressed as one. I'm unsure how that person links to her abduction tho.

I'm not sure how it links to her abduction either, and that's a good point. We can't assume anything on that.

I think any scenario that has someone enter Jennifer's condo and remove her and multiple carry bags (purse, attache case, etc.) is a very contrived scenario. It is a forced explanation for why those items are missing. A typical random abduction would not include gathering up these items and taking them with her in her car somewhere. You are left with someone staging a disappearance to include using her car, what she would normally take to work, etc. for whatever reason someone might do that, including long time imprisonment. Basically it's an extremely contrived explanation because those close to her don't believe she would leave her condo that night. The facts don't support that belief.

Knowing that someone close to her and to the owner of the phone left behind, guys that stayed in her condo the previous two days, was nearby at a mall bar tells me that there is a high likelihood she would take the phone over to him to let him take care of getting it back to the owner. She clearly didn't want to deal with it. That's what I would have done. That's what I expect most people would have done. And the guy made no bones about wanting to talk to her.

There was one item of information posted that triggered a thought though, that she also had a landline. All comments about not turning her cellphone off due to wanting to be able to be reached in an emergency are void if she has a landline. Then it becomes more about battery management. I have always had a landline in addition to a cellphone when not between residences and I recall dealing with this about Jennifer's situation back in 2006. I would have to revisit my posts but I don't recall whether I knew she had a landline or not back then. But it was fresher memories back then of having a cell phone in a cradle charger and the phone could be off or on, but it charged faster if off.

I would not be shocked if the cell phone was turned off at night to be charged if she could be reached by landline. her loved ones would know what number they could reach her at in an emergency, whether they called the cell all the time or landline late at night. They've probably commented on it but I don't know what they've said.

I would also not be shocked if she turned both phones off when she turned her's off, that apparently being 10:40 pm. That's one possibility, however, if her loved ones expected to be able to reach her at any hour on her cell phone then that's out. Also there was some brief mention of the police saying she couldn't be in two places at once, which implies they were looking at cell phone ping data before the phones went dead at 10:40pm. It implies the phone or phones connected to more than one tower, but was there any indication of movement at all or was this from her condo? So there's a couple of things that would rule out her turning the phones off at bedtime.

Up until this ex bf nearby thing, I had to resort to trying to figure out where and when she might take the phone to a 24 hour FedEx location and then of course there was strong pushback that she would send from work so everything was always limited to her being abducted outside her condo going to work.

However, in the extremity of these rationalizations because people didn't believe or couldn't accept that she would go out and get in her car at 10 pm and take the phone somewhere, even a few minutes away to the mall where her ex bf was, there is the extemely telling information that the normal phone call that her bf made to her every morning didn't reach her. It went to voice mail. In any other situation this would be a red flag that actually defined the situation, yet because it didn't fit the scenario people were allowing, it was not only ignored, it was passed off as nothing. That information about the bf not being able to reach her stood out to me from the bf's interview early on. How anyone could dismiss her not taking her morning call as she always did is beyond comprehension.

I have seen some very vague statements on this, my impression on this was that the bf called earlier in the morning, and that morning it went to voice mail. There has been some info that she would call from her car on way to work, but that isn't the phone call the bf made to her in the morning. That she and her phone was not there to take a phone call that morning is all anyone needs to know, whether it it is inconvenient to what people want to believe or not.

Having a much more likely reason of taking the phone to her ex bf at a bar nearby, the scenario of being abducted in that parking lot, possibly by a security guard imposter, becomes much more plausible. Just as an example, around that time there was an abduction in broad daylight in a mall parking lot in Kansas City I believe, and just by coincidence a security image of the abductor released to the press had enough resemblance to the face I found in still 3 of the POI images that I posted the images next to each other on my POI Blowup images page. That was work I did in 2007 and the incidents were fairly recent.

I don't need to rehash my shock at finding law enforcement gear on the POI but the facts are what they are. You just have to deal with them. Having said that, much of what I'm referring to is more than ten years ago and has sat for years. I'm not nearly as up on the facts of Jennifer's disapperance as many are, and I salute the efforts to keep the facts of her disappearance in the spotlight.

rd

[rd]

The poi as a cop / fake cop is plausible dropping the car off , but if we assume jen came across him , if she was dropping the phone off (within walking distance?) what was he doing out at that time dressed as a cop? Unless he is a cop...

She had the phone at her condo, she would not I believe call him and ask him to come to her condo to get the phone. I also do not know if she even knew the ex bf was at the nearby bar, but I would not be surprised that she did know, possibly from talking to her brother earlier. The point is all this information has been withheld due to I can imagine the sensitive nature of these relationships and no one wants to talk about it. That's all fine and good except that what likely happened can't be determined and it sure wasn't she must have been abducted when she went outside to go to work, oh never mind she wasn't there to take her morning call from her bf.

A security guard imposter could for example park in the mall parking lot and watch for a lone woman to park, then approach the car, say something authoritative "Come with me", "Let me see your driver's license", something to that effect, and then quickly subdue her and incapacitate her, and drive away in her car. I helped search for a missing fellow student back in '74. Turned out she was stopped by a imposter law enforcement with a flashing red blue light they put on the dashboard, pulled over, and abducted. He led them to the body after being questioned. Security cars drive around all the time around here, and have some flashing lights they use.

Then her car can be parked close enough to get back to the mall easily. I went and looked around Huntingon on the Green several years back and there was a sheltered bus stop on the corner there, in the direction the POI was walking after parking Jennifer's car.

I did find an armed security guard picture in a security company ad from Fort Lauderdale area, but company lost their license that year. I have had that info posted on the POI Blowup page for maybe nine years now, it's obviously a very rare getup but it did exist. It's an armed bike security guard, and while I said above he could be sitting in a car, he could also have been riding around on a bike and put that in Jennifer's car. If so, he left it someplace else later, home or something, he didn't leave on a bike after parking her car, although the back of his helmet is pretty unmistakeably that of a bike helmet. However, it's the thigh strap holster that is most indicative of law enforcement or imposter. (This long before the possibility of open carry holstering.)

rd

[rd]

One of the original news stories on her disappearance quoted the police as saying that they believed she was looking for a place to deliver a package that night. Now I'd be the last person to defend the Orlando Police investigation of this, heck, they never even responded when I called in that I had found law enforcement gear in the POI photos, you'd think they could at least talk to me. But then I saw recently the situation from the first investigators. It wasn't a pretty picture.

But they had some info that led them to believe she had a package to deliver. We know now that it was the phone, but the she went to bed thing wasn't that way in the beginning.

The most critical thing in my mind is that she didn't answer her phone the next morning as she did every morning when her bf called. I believe he said it went to to voice mail, indicating it was off and didn't ring (i.e., phone company has no current ping location of the cellphone.) Now we'd have to see if he called the landline in the morning, otherwise the cellphone had to be on in the mornings. Also the police saying the phones went dead at 10:40 pm indicates they see that as unusual, and turning her phone off every night wouldn't make that unusual.

I suppose I could do some searching on what info is out there on this, I'm working on something else and haven't spent the time boning up on this for all the posting I'm doing.

rd

[rd]

Just assuming she took the phone over to the ex , by car , how would she know he was in the bar? And how did she contact him to arrange the mobiles handover?

That's what I'm saying, she would have to know he was over there to take it over. I don't know if there was a phone call or not because they have withheld all information they didn't deem relevant. He's an ex bf, spent last two days in her condo with her brother and the phone's owner, she did talk to her brother where he told her that the owner needed his phone, please overnight it (which she responded she wasn't going back out), and on top of everything else the ex bf wanted to change her mind about their break up.

There is a decent possibility in all that that she knew he was over at the bar in the mall and taking the phone over to him would get it off her hands and let them deal with it. There could be an opinion from her brother and the ex bf that she didn't know he was over there, didn't know he wanted to talk to her, specifically told her brother she would send it from work, or other similar factors, and it becomes not much of a possibilty. On other hand he may have had a habit of being there on Monday nights, she may have been there before with him, and it becomes much more possible.

They are also vague on the bf calling in morning. My distinct impression from his interview, and it's been ten years but it was a distinct impression, is that he called in the morning, she would answer, and the impression was it was an early morning call. There was the additional that she called him on way to work but he would have already called earlier and that morning her cellphone went straight to voicemail.

I just think that that and the timing of it, her items removed from her home, her last call to her bf ending at 10 pm, and both cellphones being turned off at 10:40 pm leave a small window of someone entering her home and staging a disappearance that looks like she left home with all her stuff, probably to go to work. I suppose an armed security guard could convince her to let him in and turn off the alarm on some pretense, I just think the determining an attache case or whatever is part of what she would take to work, looking through it, finding a second cellphone, disabling it at same time as her cellphone, and taking all that with them is just a really contrived scenario.

The simplest explanation is she took the phone over to the mall unless there's something far more compelling than those close to her don't believe she would go back out.

rd