FL - Jennifer Kesse, 24, Orlando, 24 Jan 2006 - #11

[Bootsctr]

I am going by what's recently been posted in this thread. The conclusions always drift back to Jennifer abducted going out to her car to go to work, when it just isn't possible. If I got anything wrong or the info is wrong then by all means please correct me.

1) For years I saw no indication that police had ping data of either Jennifer's cellphone or that of the cellphone left in her condo. Then I saw recently two indications that the police had ping data from one or more phone companies.

One was a statement that both cellphones (or just Jennifer's?) went dead at 10:40 pm. I believe there was even talk of the batteries being taken out.

I googled before continuing here and the info is from Jennifer's dad in 2014. If I had the time I would collect all this info like I did with Chandra's case and have a better idea of what is known. But fortunately the Kesse's Guestbook, Reddit, websleuths, supplemented by some other sites out there, have some good info and analysis available via search. I don't know how long that will last but glad it's there.

The post from her dad says both cell phones went dead at about 10:40 pm and the police say by manual shut down and presumed removal of cell batteries. I don't know of a possible reason why the police believe the batteries were removed as I don't think cell phones ping when they are powered off. But the point is ping data for both phones stopped at 10:40 pm.

It also means that ping data didn't start again. It is impossible that Jennifer got up the next morning and walked out the door without charging her phone even a little and turning it on to make the drive to work. That didn't happen.

The phones were manually shut down at same time, 10:40 pm. Any talk of batteries going dead etc. can be ruled out entirely. And Jennifer was already abducted at 10:40 pm.

2) The second was a comment attributed to police that she couldn't have been in two places at once. This is from the same guestbook post by her dad in 2014. Both he and I would guess the police since they said this to him attribute this to ambiguous ping data, however I explained this in a post a few days ago. This is not ambiguous, and cell phones can switch from one controlling tower to another as long as both towers are within range.

So instead of something making investigators unsure, it should have provided an opportunity to get clearer guidance on the location. It could very well indicate movement of the phone sometime between 10 pm and 10:40 pm.

3) Jennifer did not answer her morning phone call from her bf on both the cell phone and her land line, and the call to her cell phone went straight to voice mail. We knew this from the beginning, even without the phones going dead at 10:40 pm the previous night information eight years later, and yet the consensus was that Jennifer was abducted going to work. This is all but impossible.

The only rationalization one could make for this, and this being in the first eight years, was that Jennifer's cell phone didn't charge and went dead, that she didn't realize her alarm didn't go off, that she didn't hear her landline phone ring when her bf called it, that she didn't check her cell phone for messages when she didn't get her morning call from her bf, and that she took her phone off the charger and headed out her door to work not realizing it was a dead phone.

I won't belabor the point now that we know both phones went dead the previous evening, but for eight years everyone, and even more for those that knew about the phones going dead, should have known it was next to impossible that Jennifer was still around to go to work in the morning. Not just unlikely, not maybe, but next to impossible. And with the phones going dead the previous evening at 10:40 pm, now impossible. Forget the going out to her car stuff. It should have been pointed out by way more than me all these years and never even got started.

The can't be in two places at once is more indicative of Jennifer leaving her condo between 10 pm and 10:40 pm than anything. It is less likely that a phone sitting still switches controlling towers. It is more likely when you are moving. It is inevitable when you get out of the previous tower's range. The belief that she didn't go back out also needs to be suspended. For that matter, what is it based on? That she told her brother she wasn't going back out that night, or she wasn't going to send the phone that night? There's a difference.

Even if that was her initial reaction, the fact that her brother asked means she may very well have had second thoughts and decided to run the phone over to the nearby bar at the mall and give it to her ex bf to take care of. If it didn't get back quickly enough it would be his problem. She obviously didn't make it, and the POI was a security guard or law enforcement imposter.

Just as surely as she wasn't there in the morning to take that call, she was on the move with her phone when abducted. The sooner people start accepting the facts that lead to those probabilities the better understanding there will be for finding Jennifer.

rd

Thank you! Excellent posts!

 

[JnRyan]

I am going by what's recently been posted in this thread. The conclusions always drift back to Jennifer abducted going out to her car to go to work, when it just isn't possible. If I got anything wrong or the info is wrong then by all means please correct me.

1) For years I saw no indication that police had ping data of either Jennifer's cellphone or that of the cellphone left in her condo. Then I saw recently two indications that the police had ping data from one or more phone companies.

One was a statement that both cellphones (or just Jennifer's?) went dead at 10:40 pm. I believe there was even talk of the batteries being taken out.

I googled before continuing here and the info is from Jennifer's dad in 2014. If I had the time I would collect all this info like I did with Chandra's case and have a better idea of what is known. But fortunately the Kesse's Guestbook, Reddit, websleuths, supplemented by some other sites out there, have some good info and analysis available via search. I don't know how long that will last but glad it's there.

The post from her dad says both cell phones went dead at about 10:40 pm and the police say by manual shut down and presumed removal of cell batteries. I don't know of a possible reason why the police believe the batteries were removed as I don't think cell phones ping when they are powered off. But the point is ping data for both phones stopped at 10:40 pm.

It also means that ping data didn't start again. It is impossible that Jennifer got up the next morning and walked out the door without charging her phone even a little and turning it on to make the drive to work. That didn't happen.

The phones were manually shut down at same time, 10:40 pm. Any talk of batteries going dead etc. can be ruled out entirely. And Jennifer was already abducted at 10:40 pm.

2) The second was a comment attributed to police that she couldn't have been in two places at once. This is from the same guestbook post by her dad in 2014. Both he and I would guess the police since they said this to him attribute this to ambiguous ping data, however I explained this in a post a few days ago. This is not ambiguous, and cell phones can switch from one controlling tower to another as long as both towers are within range.

So instead of something making investigators unsure, it should have provided an opportunity to get clearer guidance on the location. It could very well indicate movement of the phone sometime between 10 pm and 10:40 pm.

3) Jennifer did not answer her morning phone call from her bf on both the cell phone and her land line, and the call to her cell phone went straight to voice mail. We knew this from the beginning, even without the phones going dead at 10:40 pm the previous night information eight years later, and yet the consensus was that Jennifer was abducted going to work. This is all but impossible.

The only rationalization one could make for this, and this being in the first eight years, was that Jennifer's cell phone didn't charge and went dead, that she didn't realize her alarm didn't go off, that she didn't hear her landline phone ring when her bf called it, that she didn't check her cell phone for messages when she didn't get her morning call from her bf, and that she took her phone off the charger and headed out her door to work not realizing it was a dead phone.

I won't belabor the point now that we know both phones went dead the previous evening, but for eight years everyone, and even more for those that knew about the phones going dead, should have known it was next to impossible that Jennifer was still around to go to work in the morning. Not just unlikely, not maybe, but next to impossible. And with the phones going dead the previous evening at 10:40 pm, now impossible. Forget the going out to her car stuff. It should have been pointed out by way more than me all these years and never even got started.

The can't be in two places at once is more indicative of Jennifer leaving her condo between 10 pm and 10:40 pm than anything. It is less likely that a phone sitting still switches controlling towers. It is more likely when you are moving. It is inevitable when you get out of the previous tower's range. The belief that she didn't go back out also needs to be suspended. For that matter, what is it based on? That she told her brother she wasn't going back out that night, or she wasn't going to send the phone that night? There's a difference.

Even if that was her initial reaction, the fact that her brother asked means she may very well have had second thoughts and decided to run the phone over to the nearby bar at the mall and give it to her ex bf to take care of. If it didn't get back quickly enough it would be his problem. She obviously didn't make it, and the POI was a security guard or law enforcement imposter.

Just as surely as she wasn't there in the morning to take that call, she was on the move with her phone when abducted. The sooner people start accepting the facts that lead to those probabilities the better understanding there will be for finding Jennifer.

rd

All valid points. I can see the abduction happening after 10:30 that night. My problem with that is that the purse and briefcase are missing and maybe a pair of her shoes, but I may be mistaken on that last item as I am going from memory. I have difficulty seeing an abductor taking the time to find and collect each of those items. In Drew Kesse's post from 2014, I thought he stated that Jennifer's phone was powered off (and possibly the battery removed) at 10:40, but I don't remember any mention of the other phone being powered off. Since it was there for at least a couple of days the battery may have already run down. Or, if the phone was in her briefcase maybe this phone was still pinging IF the battery had not run down. If the abductor took the purse and briefcase (and possibly the shoes) this would appear to be a very well thought out and planned abduction. Who would do something like that and what would be the motive? And why take her car when you know LE is going to process it? Why not use one LE does not know of.

An abduction in the morning. That explains the missing briefcase and other items AND her car being used much more logically. BUT it does not explain the phone being powered off at 10:40 PM.

I am just brainstorming here, because I can't settle on either of these scenarios without an issue. Still trying to keep an open mind on this case.

 

[Bootsctr]

Pounding my head as to reasons why a young woman would power off her cell phone at 10:40 PM :banghead:

1. Someone was holding a gun to her head.

2. She trusted the person she was with, or thought she could "settle him down" "do as he said," or she did not want to be disturbed by the current BF the following morning (because the person she was with might hear and see the cell phone ringing and it would set them off). Or this person powered off the phone himself w/o Jennifer's knowledge. He also unplugged the land line which meant it just rang and rang and would not go to answering machine. Or did it go to answering machine?

He let her get dressed as usual as if to go to work in order to keep her calm. He felt comfortable driving her car. He was confident he could pull "it" off.

IIRC, the BF did point out that someone had driven Jennifer's car because the seat position had been moved? I think that was pointed out on the ID Disappeared show. I wish I had saved it on my DVR, because YouTube has deleted the one there because of ID's copyright bs or something like that.

 

[JnRyan]

OK, you REALLY have to dig through the guestbook posts to find the info.
Post from the Kesses on 7-24-2014:
"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." http://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/?page=24

So, per the Kesses BOTH phones were still pinging up till 10:40 PM. Also, her iPod and briefcase are missing. (I can't find anything in the guest book on the shoes, but I thought I read that somewhere.)

On webpage, jenniferkesse.com, they state that the last phone call was to her boyfriend at 9:57 PM. It's not clear to me whether that is when the call started or ended from that summary. So, if both phones were shut off at 10:40 PM we don't know if that was in the condo OR at another location.

It still leaves me with a question: WHY take the briefcase (or work attache as the Kesses refer to it)? If I'm leaving the condo with someone why take it with me? UNLESS I suspected there was something in there that concerned me and could make me a suspect. That point would seem to point to something other than sexual assault or trafficking. And why take her car? I have to know that LE is going to process it. I'd use another vehicle, possibly a van and not leave behind something for LE. If this did happen at the condo and the car was cleaned up so well, this would seem to be done by someone who is VERY confident in their abilities.

 

[JnRyan]

Another point from the guestbook - the Kesses don't know which purse or pocketbook is missing. Per the post on 9-22-2014, they found the purse they thought was missing so they don't which purse or pocketbook is missing. http://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/?page=23

I assume that possibly because they did find her license or credit cards they know a pocketbook or purse is missing. But I'm guessing there.

We've speculated on here that the person parking Jennifer's car at the HOG may not be the actual abductor, but rather someone who was paid to do so. I believe that is possible but very unlikely. Why involve a party who was not part of the abduction? The more people involved, the harder to keep a secret. Also, whoever parked it left almost no evidence and since they were in the car for about 30 seconds they may have doing one final wipe down. I don't see a hired person doing that. Of course, if they were hired they would become a 'loose end' and they may deceased as well. (That would still not work if the hired car parker told a close friend or family member, but that goes back to why would you involve someone else.) But would indicate something VERY well planned.

If the abduction occurred Monday night at Jennifer's condo AND they turned off the phones AND took the work attache AND took Jennifer's car, this is one cool and confident person. And when I watch the POI leaving Jennifer's car I get the impression that person is very cool about the matter.

 

[rd_jfc]

All valid points. I can see the abduction happening after 10:30 that night. My problem with that is that the purse and briefcase are missing and maybe a pair of her shoes, but I may be mistaken on that last item as I am going from memory. I have difficulty seeing an abductor taking the time to find and collect each of those items. In Drew Kesse's post from 2014, I thought he stated that Jennifer's phone was powered off (and possibly the battery removed) at 10:40, but I don't remember any mention of the other phone being powered off. Since it was there for at least a couple of days the battery may have already run down. Or, if the phone was in her briefcase maybe this phone was still pinging IF the battery had not run down. If the abductor took the purse and briefcase (and possibly the shoes) this would appear to be a very well thought out and planned abduction. Who would do something like that and what would be the motive? And why take her car when you know LE is going to process it? Why not use one LE does not know of.

An abduction in the morning. That explains the missing briefcase and other items AND her car being used much more logically. BUT it does not explain the phone being powered off at 10:40 PM.

I am just brainstorming here, because I can't settle on either of these scenarios without an issue. Still trying to keep an open mind on this case.

Yes, you can see in my post that I started out with the ambiguousness in this thread, there was uncertainty about one or both phones. It's a critical difference as many possibilities can be speculated on one phone alone. So I googled it. Jennifer's father very clearly states in the 2014 guestbook post that both phones were manually powered down at approximately 10:40 and presumably the batteries removed. So most if not all speculation is removed with that statement.

The police had to have known this for many years. It is quite frankly cruel the amount of time and effort people have put into trying to figure out what may have happened that morning when it was impossible she was still moving about of her free will the next morning. The calls to her cell phone going straight to voice mail and her land line unanswered demonstrated that from the beginning, and that was my biggest concern from the beginning, but no one would give it any credence. Even now knowing that she was almost certainly abducted for the two phones to be powered off at 10:40 pm the finality of that is difficult for people to accept. If they are even reading the details here.

Her stuff being missing is very difficult to explain when one insists she was in her condo when she was abducted. There is basically no basis for believing that her statement that she would not be sending the phone out tonight (however she worded it, although a very emphatic I am not going back out is different than I am not sending the phone back tonight) overrides the ping data showing her phone hitting multiple towers. The info is there that she went back out, it is very fortunate her father let this be known for the good of being able to help find her.

Unless there was an item missing that is very unlikely that would be in her condo unless she were going to work, it seems to me that it is easonable that a case holding some shoes she used for driving and possibly the friend's cell phone would go with her wherever she went after 10. It almost certainly was about the phone left behind, so we would expect it to be missing.

I am sorry that loved ones and those who care about her disappearance wanted her not to have gone back out, but the multiple tower ping data pretty much confirms it. Which is a good thing, because an abduction with a staged disappearance as if she were going to work is a very difficult case to make. But we don't need to.

 

[JnRyan]

Yes, you can see in my post that I started out with the ambiguousness in this thread, there was uncertainty about one or both phones. It's a critical difference as many possibilities can be speculated on one phone alone. So I googled it. Jennifer's father very clearly states in the 2014 guestbook post that both phones were manually powered down at approximately 10:40 and presumably the batteries removed. So most if not all speculation is removed with that statement.

The police had to have known this for many years. It is quite frankly cruel the amount of time and effort people have put into trying to figure out what may have happened that morning when it was impossible she was still moving about of her free will the next morning. The calls to her cell phone going straight to voice mail and her land line unanswered demonstrated that from the beginning, and that was my biggest concern from the beginning, but no one would give it any credence. Even now knowing that she was almost certainly abducted for the two phones to be powered off at 10:40 pm the finality of that is difficult for people to accept. If they are even reading the details here.

Her stuff being missing is very difficult to explain when one insists she was in her condo when she was abducted. There is basically no basis for believing that her statement that she would not be sending the phone out tonight (however she worded it, although a very emphatic I am not going back out is different than I am not sending the phone back tonight) overrides the ping data showing her phone hitting multiple towers. The info is there that she went back out, it is very fortunate her father let this be known for the good of being able to help find her.

Unless there was an item missing that is very unlikely that would be in her condo unless she were going to work, it seems to me that it is easonable that a case holding some shoes she used for driving and possibly the friend's cell phone would go with her wherever she went after 10. It almost certainly was about the phone left behind, so we would expect it to be missing.

I am sorry that loved ones and those who care about her disappearance wanted her not to have gone back out, but the multiple tower ping data pretty much confirms it. Which is a good thing, because an abduction with a staged disappearance as if she were going to work is a very difficult case to make. But we don't need to.

I can't help but come back to the missing briefcase. Why take it? The other missing cell phone, iPod and pocketbook could be explained if they were in the briefcase. If the abductor is interested in Jennifer for sexual assault or trafficking, then the focus should be on her. That is, keep it simple. The more extra things you try to do the greater the chance something will go wrong. It is possible that Jennifer had her phone in her pocket and the abductor didn't notice it.

Then again, going into someone's place and subduing them without a struggle says something about whoever did this if it happened like this. It was not a crime of opportunity, but a crime that a person gave a lot of thought and planning to in advance. They also had to be very determined and possibly desperate.

 

[marable]

Some criminals like to keep souvenirs of their victims, ie, underwear, jewelry, etc....Perhaps the briefcase was a souvenir....

Or, someone was interested in the contents of the briefcase pertaining to work.....If it were someone interested in the contents of the briefcase , a coworker for example in a supervisory position would have been able to access what she had stored on her computer at work unless she had deleted that something and he wanted to make sure there weren't any copies of some specific information around for others to see....OPD surely would have discovered any information she had stored on her work computer when they seized it....

I do not believe that Jennifer's disappearance was a crime of opportunity but was a well planned event......I get the impression that it was carried out with precision by someone or more than one person who has done this sort of thing before and probably since Jennifer's disappearance....

Has anyone ever thought that Jennifer's bathroom with the underwear and pj's in the floor were left there by her the day she left for her vacation....I know it sounds like a longshot but I can see some young men walking over these items for three or four days never thinking of picking them up.....Could she have left clothes on her bed that morning as well while packing ? Could Logan and his friends have all slept in the living room and not used her bed?

Could Jennifer have been forced to shower to remove any DNA after an assault Monday night or Tuesday morning?

Just some thoughts....

 

[marable]

This is not true

Why are you saying that this is not true?

 

[TexasT]

Yes, you can see in my post that I started out with the ambiguousness in this thread, there was uncertainty about one or both phones. It's a critical difference as many possibilities can be speculated on one phone alone. So I googled it. Jennifer's father very clearly states in the 2014 guestbook post that both phones were manually powered down at approximately 10:40 and presumably the batteries removed. So most if not all speculation is removed with that statement.

The police had to have known this for many years. It is quite frankly cruel the amount of time and effort people have put into trying to figure out what may have happened that morning when it was impossible she was still moving about of her free will the next morning. The calls to her cell phone going straight to voice mail and her land line unanswered demonstrated that from the beginning, and that was my biggest concern from the beginning, but no one would give it any credence. Even now knowing that she was almost certainly abducted for the two phones to be powered off at 10:40 pm the finality of that is difficult for people to accept. If they are even reading the details here.

Her stuff being missing is very difficult to explain when one insists she was in her condo when she was abducted. There is basically no basis for believing that her statement that she would not be sending the phone out tonight (however she worded it, although a very emphatic I am not going back out is different than I am not sending the phone back tonight) overrides the ping data showing her phone hitting multiple towers. The info is there that she went back out, it is very fortunate her father let this be known for the good of being able to help find her.

Unless there was an item missing that is very unlikely that would be in her condo unless she were going to work, it seems to me that it is easonable that a case holding some shoes she used for driving and possibly the friend's cell phone would go with her wherever she went after 10. It almost certainly was about the phone left behind, so we would expect it to be missing.

I am sorry that loved ones and those who care about her disappearance wanted her not to have gone back out, but the multiple tower ping data pretty much confirms it. Which is a good thing, because an abduction with a staged disappearance as if she were going to work is a very difficult case to make. But we don't need to.

Wasn't the shower recently used ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rd_jfc]

Wasn't the shower recently used ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was an opinion from her parents based on the dampness of the shower. I'm afraid the clothes on the bed and the dampness of the shower were more reinforcements of what they expected to believe than any hard indications of what happened.

In my opinion the call to her cell phone going straight to voice mail and the land line call not being answered was hard indications she wasn't there in the morning. It seems to me there was more selective reinforcement of what they expected going on. I don't know how damp the shower was, or whether a possible previous evening's use was enough to cause the dampness, or whether the assailant went to her apartment and used it, or something else.

It's just not enough to say she must have used her shower but didn't answer her phone (cell phone and land line) as she did every morning.

 

[Myserty64]

What did the POI do with the car keys?

Why hasn't any other site or even LE confirmed the fact her phone was powered off or had the batteries removed at 10:40pm apart from the site we are all aware of.
I happen to believe what is published there but many don't.

I have followed this mystery for over ten years and basically we don't know a whole lot more today than we did back then.

During a recent documentary, during filming of a police evidence room I saw a lot of files with Jennifer Kesse's name on them.
I got the impression that LE knows a lot more about this case than what is the public domain.

Just what do they know?

Just for starters I'd like to know if it was a night abduction or a morning one.

 

[rd_jfc]

Pounding my head as to reasons why a young woman would power off her cell phone at 10:40 PM :banghead:

1. Someone was holding a gun to her head.

2. She trusted the person she was with, or thought she could "settle him down" "do as he said," or she did not want to be disturbed by the current BF the following morning (because the person she was with might hear and see the cell phone ringing and it would set them off). Or this person powered off the phone himself w/o Jennifer's knowledge. He also unplugged the land line which meant it just rang and rang and would not go to answering machine. Or did it go to answering machine?

He let her get dressed as usual as if to go to work in order to keep her calm. He felt comfortable driving her car. He was confident he could pull "it" off.

IIRC, the BF did point out that someone had driven Jennifer's car because the seat position had been moved? I think that was pointed out on the ID Disappeared show. I wish I had saved it on my DVR, because YouTube has deleted the one there because of ID's copyright bs or something like that.

I want to carefully delineate from the facts I've been postinig about versus my opinion and speculation here.

In my opinion it's not a well planned crime. There was no staging of a disappearance taking things out of her condo with her to make it look like she was going to work or other professional activity versus running out after 10 at night to take care of something. And in my opinion, Jennifer never turned those phones off under duress or not.

I don't think Jennifer went looking for a place to send the phone. That I agree with in terms of what she told her brother. But I do think she probably decided to drop the phone off with the other guy who was with the phone's owner in her condo that weekend, along with her brother. That being her ex bf. Where she thought he'd be is critical. He apparently lived there in Orlando versus the others living out of town. I say that based on comments that he was not a stranger to the area, the bar in the mall, and presumably a bf for portion of the time Jennifer lived in Orlando.

She could have intended to do something as simple as dropping it off at a door or mailbox where he lived. She may have decided to try the bar to see if he was there or maybe she might see someone that could pass it on to him. She may have heard how upset he was with her bf arrangement (based on a few posts here) and ask him to chill before starting any trouble.

The people may or may not have known something of what she knew, may or may not have an idea of her inclinations, but obviously
don;t want to talk about it. It is probably a moot point, as she didn't get far from home, otherwise ping data would have shown some traversal of distance. Everything points to going to the nearby mall parking lot and not making it into the bar.

The point here is an abductor looking for an opportunity, and opportunity is loosely defined here because these yahoos abduct young women right out of mall parking lots in broad daylight, and this was 10 pm at night. So basically seeing a young woman get out of a car with no one around is an opportunity.

People, and I also use that term loosely, these creeps, are geared up to disble the cell phone as they know they can be tracked. So that isn't any particular planning for Jennifer, it's just a step they go through. And since the purpose was to do something with cell phone, she would have both of them there, maybe both in plain sight.

I don't know that she put the left cell phone in her attache case, I don't know why anyone would say she did. Have no idea what they would base it on. She came home from a trip, she was told there was a cell phone there, she would have found it. Was it assumed she would put it in the brief case to take to work? If she had, would she take the brief case with her because she had put the phone in it?

My guess based on some posts is that she carried probably her dress shoes in the brief case while wearing lighter shoes for driving and walking. Maybe she would put on heels to go into the bar so she carried the brief case to her car? I don't know. It's also possible she left the brief case in the car after work.

So an abduction in a parking lot is not a particularly well thought out crime, and disabling the phone, or phiones in this case, is a top priority after the abduction victim is no longer able to cause trouble. They may even, and I might even say probably head in a different direction for aways before disabling the phone(s) to throw investigators off.

I just don't see this attack as particularly clever. Random disappearances are always difficult to investigate.

 

[British99]

There really a lot of theories getting tossed around but they are all theores. To say that there is no way it could have happened in the morning is not true.

 

[TexasT]

There really a lot of theories getting tossed around but they are all theores. To say that there is no way it could have happened in the morning is not true.

Agreed . Rob and her parents / brother knew her pretty well. If they say she was very structured and wouldn't go off exhausted in the middle of the night to return a dumb phone I believe them . Even FedEx express had been picked up so there was no point .

Does anyone know what time the disgruntled co worker was arrested and released ? Seems like an obvious attempt at an alibi . How often do people lose their minds enough on a simple traffic stop to get arrested ? .0009% ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rd_jfc]

What did the POI do with the car keys?

Why hasn't any other site or even LE confirmed the fact her phone was powered off or had the batteries removed at 10:40pm apart from the site we are all aware of.
I happen to believe what is published there but many don't.

I have followed this mystery for over ten years and basically we don't know a whole lot more today than we did back then.

During a recent documentary, during filming of a police evidence room I saw a lot of files with Jennifer Kesse's name on them.
I got the impression that LE knows a lot more about this case than what is the public domain.

Just what do they know?

Just for starters I'd like to know if it was a night abduction or a morning one.

That's not from the site we are all aware of. That's from Drew in a post on his guestbook in 2014. We haven't heard about it beause he didn't divulge it until 2014. I'm only aware of it because someone made reference to it here. But I had to do a search to see what exactly was said.

 

[rd_jfc]

There really a lot of theories getting tossed around but they are all theores. To say that there is no way it could have happened in the morning is not true.

I laid out the facts very clearly. They aren't theories. It is true that both phones being powered off at 10:40 pm and no one hearing from her since then, and she not being there in the morning to answer her bf's land line call, calls to her cell phone going straight to voice mail, that it is impossible she was there and walked out the door to go to work. But I fully expect many people will continue to talk about her getting abducted in the parking lot in the morning because that's what people have been doing for eleven years. Even though it was known she was not there to answer phone calls from her bf. I blame that on people who knew better but wanted to believe it.

That stuff about the parking lot, by the way, is a theory. An impossible one, but not a problem.

 

[British99]

You are cherry picking for your theory the phones powering off doesn't prove she was abducted at night . You are dismissing the wet towel and missing pumps and briefcase....don't they prove she was abducted in the morning?

We all have our guesses but that's what they are unfortunately.

 

[shelly111]

Maybe jeniffer herself turned off the phones at night. She finished talking to Robb and was ready to go to sleep so not to be disturbed she turned off both phoned.She charged her phone and went to bed.
In the morning she could have left for work a little earlier than usual.
This is wby she missed robb phone call to her landline.
In the car she realized the phone wasn't charged at night, she couldn't talk to robb .
She could have been abducted on her way to work, maybe she stopped to eat breakfast, maybe the co-worker stopped her before she entered through the gate.
Maybe she parked the car at a different location and was abducted there.

 

[shelly111]

What I want to say in my previous post, most likely Jennifer was abducted at night,but it is also possible she was abducted in the morning.
There are many reasons why the two phones were shutt off after 10pm.
Before sleeping she took the friend phone turned it off and put it in her briefcase not to forget it in the morning.
She also turned off her phone before charging it. She was very tired and want to make sure it is off so she could sleep without interruption.
For whatever reason the phone didn't charge at night,it got disconnected,unplugged
the wire was broken ...and the phone was still dead in the morning.