If I were the OPD I would definitely look extensively at the people who knew her and then the site workers....
FL - Jennifer Kesse, 24, Orlando, 24 Jan 2006 - #11
- Thread starter Cubby
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
NY - Family of four found dead in basement of their Irondequoit home, 31 Aug 2024
- Latest: Paintedhousecat
- Status
If I were the OPD I would definitely look extensively at the people who knew her and then the site workers....
rd_jfc
Well-Known Member
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 ot 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
Markybug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 853
Would it be more or less likely that she would go to the bar with the phone , or the ex would bring it to her place?
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...
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...
Truth Prevails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Reaction score
- 4,842
Just jumping in here--I think it would be far more likely that Jen would have taken the phone to the ex. She was trying to politely make him understand that she was done with him, so I really doubt if she would have invited him into her residence. I believe most women would feel that may be considered as giving the wrong signal.
As her father says she was very safety conscience, I'd bet she chose to drive her car as it would have been the wisest choice at that hour even if she could have walked.
However, I realize this doesn't work with the other missing things. hummm
Great discussion here!
As her father says she was very safety conscience, I'd bet she chose to drive her car as it would have been the wisest choice at that hour even if she could have walked.
However, I realize this doesn't work with the other missing things. hummm
Great discussion here!
rd_jfc
Well-Known Member
She had the phone at her condo, as Truth mentions, 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 setting 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.)
After a long trip and going Straight to work before home , I can imagine her coming home tired and phone needing charged . I'd turned it off and crashed myself . Last worry to return some guys phone at that moment . Reasonable deviation from her normal habits in that synario .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rd_jfc
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
I thought the information that Jennifer turned off her cell at 10:40 PM was odd to those who knew her, particularly her parents. It's mentioned in here some time back that her father stated that she not only used her frequently, but she used the alarm clock function to wake up. If that is true, the phone being off at night would be a red flag. (But isn't LE being secretive about her phone pings? That would seem to cast some doubt on the 10:40 PM shut down of the phone.)
A security guard theory is a good one. It could explain how someone got close to her in the morning OR came to her door that night.
A security guard theory is a good one. It could explain how someone got close to her in the morning OR came to her door that night.
Truth Prevails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Reaction score
- 4,842
BBM - Below is a short transcript I did from the video which I'll link. I thought it was interesting in light of your comment. It does seem that he called her cell phone that morning and also her home phone--although I'm not sure if Jennifer's mother said home or phone. (Sorry, I even tried listening to it with my headphones, but it didn't help.)
Truth Prevails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Reaction score
- 4,842
BBM--Yes, I remember reading that, too..
Truth Prevails
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,817
- Reaction score
- 4,842
BBM - True, but maybe it's important to consider that she did. It really is quite "normal" for people to occasionally break from their routine.
rd_jfc
Well-Known Member
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.
Markybug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 853
What counts against the ex being involved is the planning? Ex i could see as a crime of passion , followed by confession and discovery. But the disappearance of jen and the returning of the car suggests otherwise?
It is still a flag tho , him being across the way the night she goes missing. Did he live in the area? What was his job , car etc ?
It is still a flag tho , him being across the way the night she goes missing. Did he live in the area? What was his job , car etc ?
I think the police said the friend phone was turned off during the weekend.
Maybe that night Jennifer did charged her phone but for some reason it didn't charge .
Few times I charged my phone but I touched the cord by accident and It got out of the outlet, and few times my cord was lose and the phone wasn't charging. I had to buy new USB.
I thought I charged the phone and in the morning I realized it didn't charge at all.
Maybe jennifer left a little early Tuesday morning she went to a place to ship the phone before work.To get get it done and get it over.
She could have stopped at a upc or FedEx store It was early morning no people, she parked her car ,walked to the store and was abducted .
The police should have checked to see if back than shipping stores had video cameras.
Maybe that night Jennifer did charged her phone but for some reason it didn't charge .
Few times I charged my phone but I touched the cord by accident and It got out of the outlet, and few times my cord was lose and the phone wasn't charging. I had to buy new USB.
I thought I charged the phone and in the morning I realized it didn't charge at all.
Maybe jennifer left a little early Tuesday morning she went to a place to ship the phone before work.To get get it done and get it over.
She could have stopped at a upc or FedEx store It was early morning no people, she parked her car ,walked to the store and was abducted .
The police should have checked to see if back than shipping stores had video cameras.
They checked the closest 9 FedEx locations for video and her car and found nothing according to one of the detectives .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the information.Maybe she parked her car where there are no cameras?
Or is it possible Jennifer made it to work and was abducted there ?
Jennifer wanted to mail the phone first thing in the morning, so instead of going to her office ,she was driving to another area at work looking where to ship the phone.
she could have been abducted when parked her car and forced to drive away.
There were not many people at that time .iIt was early and no one saw when she
she entered her work.She could have entered from the back or side entrance . No cameras at these areas.
Or is it possible Jennifer made it to work and was abducted there ?
Jennifer wanted to mail the phone first thing in the morning, so instead of going to her office ,she was driving to another area at work looking where to ship the phone.
she could have been abducted when parked her car and forced to drive away.
There were not many people at that time .iIt was early and no one saw when she
she entered her work.She could have entered from the back or side entrance . No cameras at these areas.
rd_jfc
Well-Known Member
"Jennifer wanted to mail the phone first thing in the morning,"
Was there something somewhere that she said this?
Markybug
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 479
- Reaction score
- 853
Trying to gather some loose threads here ,
We can probably narrow suspects down to J.C and the ex-boyfriend?
So , if jen met the ex that night and somehow in a fit of drunken jealousy, he killed her? Sounds possible, but the planning and disposal of her , plus her car and a possible accomplice sounds too premeditated?
Second scenario of J.C being the perpetrator sounds more plausible, he had all week to plan , arrange some meeting scenario, ( not romantic as that had been nixed previously?) possibly a work emergency? Then a random to return the car (someone through work ? Subcontractor staff? Car valeter?
2 possible leads are jen and J.C 's cars (think the ex-boyfriend would be too drunk to drive?). Is jens still owned by the family , or its whereabouts known? I read that J.C scrapped his 2000 year ford soon afterward? Thats v suspicious, plus not old at 6 years for a car?? If its sitting in a scrapyard uncrushed....
Thoughts?
We can probably narrow suspects down to J.C and the ex-boyfriend?
So , if jen met the ex that night and somehow in a fit of drunken jealousy, he killed her? Sounds possible, but the planning and disposal of her , plus her car and a possible accomplice sounds too premeditated?
Second scenario of J.C being the perpetrator sounds more plausible, he had all week to plan , arrange some meeting scenario, ( not romantic as that had been nixed previously?) possibly a work emergency? Then a random to return the car (someone through work ? Subcontractor staff? Car valeter?
2 possible leads are jen and J.C 's cars (think the ex-boyfriend would be too drunk to drive?). Is jens still owned by the family , or its whereabouts known? I read that J.C scrapped his 2000 year ford soon afterward? Thats v suspicious, plus not old at 6 years for a car?? If its sitting in a scrapyard uncrushed....
Thoughts?
- Status