FL - Jennifer Kesse, 24, Orlando, 24 Jan 2006 - #12

[Truth Prevails]

I think you and RD-JFC should contact the podcast and talk to them about the cell information.

I’ve learned a lot from both of you!!

You are much too kind. Thank you.

 

[wpaylor]

It seems to me that the Kesses were told things over the years that just weren't so, I feel that they don't know anymore today than they did on January 24, 2006 and I KNOW that they must be at their wits end!!! One thing that I have been focusing on that doesn't seem to be mentioned much, is the latent fingerprint found in the car. Does this mean that more than likely the person did not have a record, was an illegal that would not have prints on file in our country, or have not been tested on a regular basis to find a match from over the years? This seem to me to be something that maybe FBI experts or even private investigators would want to focus on.

 

[Myserty64]

The lead detective at the beginning of the investigation said 'this was as close to a vanishing as he had seen.'

That kind of sums up this stalled investigation doesn't it.

There is a lot of debate about the knock on the door. Where is the proof this happened or is it just a red herring?

 

[Truth Prevails]

The pings suggest movement. They place the phones in an area where Mr. & Mrs. Kesse believe wholeheartedly that Jennifer would never go. Especially at that hour.

Out of all your great information here, this one raises questions with me. Why would anyone assume Jennifer was in the area of her own volition? You have a disappearance and an almost certain abduction. An area Jennifer would never go? That is why it's called an abduction.

Your point is well taken by me, and I believe I do totally understand and even agree with you.

However, that statement has to do with the way law enforcement approached the Kesse's. I believe law enforcement set the Kesse's down in a stuffy interviewing room and told them their beautiful, cultured daughter was out driving around in seedy, drug infested neighbor hoods of her own volition. Or at least strongly implied it.

The Kesse's never got over that, and I don't blame them one bit.

I believe, at the time, law enforcement thought this because of the Jennifer look alike. LE believed that girl to be Jennifer and that is the neighborhood she hung out in.

Something I would really like to know is--who was responsible for that tip? I have read where LE thoroughly vetted the tip and found it reliable. So who discovered that lookalike woman, and why? Did the tipster truly believe it was Jennifer Kesse, or did the tipster purposely mislead LE? What does the tipster know about Jennifer's disappearance? Is the person still around? How about another interview, and maybe a poly?

I think law enforcement, after searching, finally came to their senses--but did they ever apologize? I doubt it, and maybe now would be a good time for them to do so. It's never too late.

The Kesse's themselves are victims. I wish LE would cut them a little slack.

 

[Truth Prevails]

The lead detective at the beginning of the investigation said 'this was as close to a vanishing as he had seen.'
That kind of sums up this stalled investigation doesn't it.

It sure is. That's what sets this case apart, really. Jenn wasn't out jogging, she wasn't out drinking. She wasn't doing anything that should have made her a random victim or a target for some sick SOB.

There doesn't seem to be a motive--so, what on earth happened?

There is a lot of debate about the knock on the door. Where is the proof this happened or is it just a red herring?

I'm going to link you a comment I made just a few pages back.

It has a link to the Unconcluded podcast where this information was released through an interview with Mr. Kesse. Also, I made a short typed transcript.

You'll appreciate this in a minute--but it's better if you just take a read on your own, rather than have me write a book trying to explain it.

Comment 760 of this thread: It should appear right at the top when you click on the link below:

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...rlando-24-Jan-2006-12&p=13918358#post13918358

 

[Myserty64]

Who am I to doubt anything but my instinct is telling me there is something 'off' about this knock on the door.

I mean twelves years after the fact this 'knock' comes right out of left field.

Five gold stars to the person who discovered this 'knock' was mentioned but I'd like to see a full and frank explanation as why this was kept a secret for so long.

 

[Truth Prevails]

It seems to me that the Kesses were told things over the years that just weren't so, I feel that they don't know anymore today than they did on January 24, 2006 and I KNOW that they must be at their wits end!!! One thing that I have been focusing on that doesn't seem to be mentioned much, is the latent fingerprint found in the car. Does this mean that more than likely the person did not have a record, was an illegal that would not have prints on file in our country, or have not been tested on a regular basis to find a match from over the years? This seem to me to be something that maybe FBI experts or even private investigators would want to focus on.

I think any of the possibilities you mentioned could be valid. I don't think we know if they run the print regularly, but during the 10-years missing presser on Jenn, law enforcement stated that they were "resubmitting" evidence for "further" testing. That was in 2016.

A couple of links:

Snipped quote: No forensic evidence was obtained from her vehicle – only one “latent print,” which her father called “too minuscule” to be useful.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/2...years-after-disappearance-jennifer-kesse.html

Snipped quote: Sprague also said detectives are resubmitting evidence from the car to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for testing.

"We are hoping that new testing methods and technology will give us new leads," said Sprague.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...r-kesse-missing-cold-case-20160122-story.html
________________________________________

It's interesting to me that Mr. Kesse doesn't seem to have any more faith in the print than he does in the ping study.

I've heard it was only a partial print of either a finger or a palm and that it was found inside Jennifer's vehicle. I don't think it was ever clarified whether it was found inside the front driver's seat area, the back seat area, or the trunk area.

Also, apparently a single fiber was recovered from somewhere inside the vehicle. Now, that fiber could be interesting, too. Could it be a carpet fiber? Could it be a fiber from a unique type of clothing? Is it possible the fiber could contain DNA?

It's not unusual for LE to withhold that type of information, though.

And I still find it so odd that they would seize the items from the trunk, but not the items in the back seat. (I know I mentioned this before, recently, but it is one of those little points that sticks in my mind and festers).

Another thing I wonder about the print--is it possible that it may simply be from someone Jennifer knew and willingly, frequently or infrequently, had in her vehicle? For example, a friend she would go shopping with, or anything of that nature. But someone totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

Suppose the POI simply and carefully, opened the driver's door, pushed the seat back ('cause he is/was tall), and drove the car directly to HOG--spent 32 seconds wiping the confined area where he sat and any button or lever he had handled. Or, if it was that planned, maybe he wore gloves and spent the 32 seconds checking to be sure know one was close enough to see him as he exited Jennifer's vehicle. I think he only would have removed the gloves once he had exited and closed and locked the car. Jennifer's key fob and keys were never found.

I know I'm beginning to ramble, but the point I'm trying to get to is--would 32 seconds be long enough to wipe the whole car? Probably not, so either it was wiped previously (here we begin to enter into the realm of how much time did this guy have); or, he didn't have much of an area to wipe.

So, there really should have been other prints--innocently left.

Sorry for the length of my comment. I find this a really interesting topic. Thank you for mentioning it.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Who am I to doubt anything but my instinct is telling me there is something 'off' about this knock on the door.

I mean twelves years after the fact this 'knock' comes right out of left field.

Five gold stars to the person who discovered this 'knock' was mentioned but I'd like to see a full and frank explanation as why this was kept a secret for so long.

I have to admit I had a small chuckle over this, because I feel exactly the same way about myself.

You know, I even wonder at what point law enforcement became aware of this knock. Did anyone think to mention it to them right away? I would have--I'd a been screaming it from the rafters until they gagged me. But maybe that's the case?

And here is an innocent but connected theory my tired old mind came up with:

Suppose a neighbor just got back from grocery shopping or whatever--just a routine excursion--and when he pulled-in to park his vehicle, he noticed someone around Jenn's car. Perhaps, being a decent individual, he thought he would take a short detour to her condo door and let her know what he had witnessed. Jenn didn't answer, so he just continued upstairs to his own condo.

The connection I see could have been the neighbor's witnessing of the person or people setting the scene for an incident that would cause Jenn to run down to check on her vehicle.

I know it doesn't exactly fit because Jenn wouldn't have needed to shower and put in her contacts for something of this nature, but it has been said that often all the details don't fit. I guess it's more of a case of finding the right ones.

But, still, while I believe the knock could have been with good intentions, it has to have had some meaning, some connection to Jennifer's disappearance.

 

[Myserty64]

Here is something vague coming from my ageing memory.

I once saw an interview with a detective working the case and when questioned about any evidence they had he admitted they didn't have much of anything. This is true as I remember it.
Anyway it has proved correct because whatever LE have it hasn't advanced the case an inch in twelve years.

It is both sad and frustrating.

 

[Ozoner]

I think any of the possibilities you mentioned could be valid. I don't think we know if they run the print regularly, but during the 10-years missing presser on Jenn, law enforcement stated that they were "resubmitting" evidence for "further" testing. That was in 2016.

A couple of links:

Snipped quote: No forensic evidence was obtained from her vehicle – only one “latent print,” which her father called “too minuscule” to be useful.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/2...years-after-disappearance-jennifer-kesse.html

Snipped quote: Sprague also said detectives are resubmitting evidence from the car to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for testing.

"We are hoping that new testing methods and technology will give us new leads," said Sprague.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...r-kesse-missing-cold-case-20160122-story.html
________________________________________

It's interesting to me that Mr. Kesse doesn't seem to have any more faith in the print than he does in the ping study.

I've heard it was only a partial print of either a finger or a palm and that it was found inside Jennifer's vehicle. I don't think it was ever clarified whether it was found inside the front driver's seat area, the back seat area, or the trunk area.

Also, apparently a single fiber was recovered from somewhere inside the vehicle. Now, that fiber could be interesting, too. Could it be a carpet fiber? Could it be a fiber from a unique type of clothing? Is it possible the fiber could contain DNA?

It's not unusual for LE to withhold that type of information, though.

And I still find it so odd that they would seize the items from the trunk, but not the items in the back seat. (I know I mentioned this before, recently, but it is one of those little points that sticks in my mind and festers).

Another thing I wonder about the print--is it possible that it may simply be from someone Jennifer knew and willingly, frequently or infrequently, had in her vehicle? For example, a friend she would go shopping with, or anything of that nature. But someone totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

Suppose the POI simply and carefully, opened the driver's door, pushed the seat back ('cause he is/was tall), and drove the car directly to HOG--spent 32 seconds wiping the confined area where he sat and any button or lever he had handled. Or, if it was that planned, maybe he wore gloves and spent the 32 seconds checking to be sure know one was close enough to see him as he exited Jennifer's vehicle. I think he only would have removed the gloves once he had exited and closed and locked the car. Jennifer's key fob and keys were never found.

I know I'm beginning to ramble, but the point I'm trying to get to is--would 32 seconds be long enough to wipe the whole car? Probably not, so either it was wiped previously (here we begin to enter into the realm of how much time did this guy have); or, he didn't have much of an area to wipe.

So, there really should have been other prints--innocently left.

Sorry for the length of my comment. I find this a really interesting topic. Thank you for mentioning it.

You raise some interesting questions.

The care taken with respect to wiping the vehicle and parking it near Jennifer's apartment make it clear that she was killed by someone known to her.

To me it looks like the person was wearing the sort of disposable coveralls people sometimes use for painting or working with chemicals, which would mean that he was even attempting to avoid leaving clothing fibers.

If I were a betting man, I'd be all in on the coworker who was several hours late to work.

 

[Skully]

they may have found a dozen prints in her car, most of them could have been family, friends and people who you would expect to see there. But if no prints are found, not even her's, then the car was completely wiped down. A partial latent print is hard to ID, and it can come from someone that serviced the car or someone that had innocent contact with the car too. Like in a parking lot, or at work. I would expect that person, who drove the car back to wear gloves. No prints on handle, seats, steering wheel, no prints but a latent print, and we don't know where it was found. So it is frustrating to say the least.

 

[Skully]

what I do know, in my heart, is someone knows what happened. His or her BF, GF, Wife, cell mate, family member, they told someone. People get divorced, break up and get mad, they talk. They get arrested and want a deal, so they trade information about a crime and get a lighter sentence. I know 12 yrs is a long time, but there are case 20+ that get solved, because of someone talking. So hope that happens for Jennifer's family.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Here is something vague coming from my ageing memory.

I once saw an interview with a detective working the case and when questioned about any evidence they had he admitted they didn't have much of anything. This is true as I remember it.
Anyway it has proved correct because whatever LE have it hasn't advanced the case an inch in twelve years.

It is both sad and frustrating.

It makes me want rail against the injustice. They need to go back and look again. I think they must have missed something.

In the Unconcluded podcast devoted to the searches of Jennifer, it brought to light the fact that Jenn had only been missing about two weeks when law enforcement began doing searches resulting from psychics tips. Now, they tried to polish that up by saying sometimes a person will tell something to a psychic hoping the psychic will alert law enforcement as the original person wants to remain anonymous.

To me, all the beautifully spun bull doesn't hide the fact they were desperate at that point. They had nothing.

But why?

Here is something that I roll around in my thoughts sometimes:

Law enforcement only made the briefest of appearances at Jennifer's place of work in 2006. They seized her work computer, (as well as her laptop from her condo). They conducted at least a few perfunctory interviews with co-workers, and that was that. Sure, I'm taking into account that they were probably operating under the impression that Jennifer never even made it to her vehicle on the morning of the 24th.

Keep in mind the last person to technically visually see Jennifer was her boss. They walked out of the building together around 6 pm and wished each other a good evening.

Okay, all is peachy. Hopefully, LE at least gave him one of the cursory interviews.

Now fast forward to the next morning when Jennifer doesn't show up for work. Taking into account that Jennifer was well regarded as an excellent and hardworking employee, she had recently had occasion to take some personal time to deal with a few issues regarding her condo. Why would their mind go immediately to something was so wrong that they had to notify Jennifer's emergency contact?

Jennifer was 24-years-old at the time. Even if she did miss an important meeting, I would have been worried about overstepping boundaries. With hindsight, of course, they did a good thing.

But still, usually when a person's place of work resorts to notifying an emergency contact, it is because law enforcement is standing in front of them explaining there has been a terrible tragedy.

But, nope, in this case we have the employer of a 24-year-old woman calling her mother who lived in another city informing her that her daughter was late for work.

Then a $1,000,000 reward for Jennifer's safe return is offered. I believe I read somewhere that it was Jennifer's employer who actually put the money up for it. That's a lot of money, even if the reward was only offered for a specific time period. If it's true about the backer of the reward, one would have to think they cared a great deal, right? Is there an "or" there?

So, that was pretty much it until 2010 when all of a sudden law enforcement shows up on Jennifer's employer's doorstep again. Only this time they are a little more serious, and do more in depth interviews. For what caused this sudden renewal of LE's interest, I'll link a podcast from Unconcluded as I'm not sure how much we can mention about these circumstances.

See video at about 12:23 minutes in:
https://audioboom.com/posts/6063896-on-the-radar

Yikes, this comment is getting way too long--I'll try to cut to my point: When LE showed up the first time within days of Jennifer's disappearance to the place where everyone was so concerned that they notified Jennifer's parents within hours of her absence, where were their voices in 2006? Where are there voices today?

What is the truth about what was going on there, and why couldn't law enforcement have ferreted this out in 2006.

They might have found a better lead than the psychics tips, maybe?

 

[Truth Prevails]

You raise some interesting questions.

The care taken with respect to wiping the vehicle and parking it near Jennifer's apartment make it clear that she was killed by someone known to her.

And even taking the broad range of the time-frame into account. Whether you are an evening theorist or a morning theorist, it was a reliable time to find Jennifer alone.

Another tentative thing I take into account, but recognize not everyone does, are the silencing of both cell phones. How many people could have known Jennifer had Logan's friend's cell phone? (I realize this point is highly debatable, though.)

To me it looks like the person was wearing the sort of disposable coveralls people sometimes use for painting or working with chemicals, which would mean that he was even attempting to avoid leaving clothing fibers.

Gosh, that video gives me fits. I think it is so badly distorted that I don't trust a thing I see. Not even the colors are accurate. It seems to me to be two colors, a lighter color at the top and a slightly darker color for the pants part; so, I go loosely with a t-shirt and pants. And I think, perhaps, coveralls would appear more baggy in the waist area?

However, I'm so bad with what I see in that video, I would be willing to take your word for what you see over my own.

If I were a betting man, I'd be all in on the coworker who was several hours late to work.

I'd love to say something about this, but I think we'll all get our comments deleted (or worse) if we start discussing it. I must remain mum. I must remain mum. :tantrum:

 

[wpaylor]

It makes me want rail against the injustice. They need to go back and look again. I think they must have missed something.

In the Unconcluded podcast devoted to the searches of Jennifer, it brought to light the fact that Jenn had only been missing about two weeks when law enforcement began doing searches resulting from psychics tips. Now, they tried to polish that up by saying sometimes a person will tell something to a psychic hoping the psychic will alert law enforcement as the original person wants to remain anonymous.

To me, all the beautifully spun bull doesn't hide the fact they were desperate at that point. They had nothing.

But why?

Here is something that I roll around in my thoughts sometimes:

Law enforcement only made the briefest of appearances at Jennifer's place of work in 2006. They seized her work computer, (as well as her desktop from her condo). They conducted at least a few perfunctory interviews with co-workers, and that was that. Sure, I'm taking into account that they were probably operating under the impression that Jennifer never even made it to her vehicle on the morning of the 24th.

Keep in mind the last person to technically visually see Jennifer was her boss. They walked out of the building together around 6 pm and wished each other a good evening.

Okay, all is peachy. Hopefully, LE at least gave him one of the cursory interviews.

Now fast forward to the next morning when Jennifer doesn't show up for work. Taking into account that Jennifer was well regarded as an excellent and hardworking employee, she had recently had occasion to take some personal time to deal with a few issues regarding her condo. Why would their mind go immediately to something was so wrong that they had to notify Jennifer's emergency contact?

Jennifer was 24-years-old at the time. Even if she did miss an important meeting, I would have been worried about overstepping boundaries. With hindsight, of course, they did a good thing.

But still, usually when a person's place of work resorts to notifying an emergency contact, it is because law enforcement is standing in front of them explaining there has been a terrible tragedy.

But, nope, in this case we have the employer of a 24-year-old woman calling her mother who lived in another city informing her that her daughter was late for work.

Then a $1,000,000 reward for Jennifer's safe return is offered. I believe I read somewhere that it was Jennifer's employer who actually put the money up for it. That's a lot of money, even if the reward was only offered for a specific time period. If it's true about the backer of the reward, one would have to think they cared a great deal, right? Is there an "or" there?

So, that was pretty much it until 2010 when all of a sudden law enforcement shows up on Jennifer's employer's doorstep again. Only this time they are a little more serious, and do more in depth interviews. For what caused this sudden renewal of LE's interest, I'll link a podcast from Unconcluded as I'm not sure how much we can mention about these circumstances.

See video at about 12:23 minutes in:
https://audioboom.com/posts/6063896-on-the-radar

Yikes, this comment is getting way too long--I'll try to cut to my point: When LE showed up the first time within days of Jennifer's disappearance to the place where everyone was so concerned that they notified Jennifer's parents within hours of her absence, where were their voices in 2006? Where are there voices today?

What is the truth about what was going on there, and why couldn't law enforcement have ferreted this out in 2006.

They might have found a better lead than the psychics tips, maybe?

You bring up such an interesting idea that struck me as SO odd, that her work would call her emergency contact (parents) after only being 3 hours late. She could have had car trouble, flat tire, phone trouble, had a fender bender, etc., any number of things that could have delayed her, even though there was an important meeting. I have never heard of emergency contacts being called when you are just 3 hours late. Something is up with that, in my opinion. Did they call the co-worker's emergency contact when he didn't show up until noon? Did he call in to say he was going to be late? Did that set off alarms with her co-workers? Things coming into my mind as I type, hope it doesn't sound too disjointed!

 

[rd_jfc]

I would just say this concerning her office calling her parents. I can't conceive of any office department who would not be making emergency calls when a person does not show up for an important late morning meeting and calls to them go straight to voice mail. At that point you know the person is incapacitated, just unknown whether in hospital or worse.

That emergency call may take several forms based on situation. It could range from calling family, to the police for a wellness check, or something more informal if known, an apartment or building manager, etc. If close by someone from work is likely to swing by and knock on door to check on the person.

Again, this is late morning, not first thing in morning I'm talking about. And if a cell phone is not involved, then long ringing with no answer instead of straight to voice mail (or both in Jennifer's case).

I stress the office department situation or other work environments where people work closely together is what I'm talking about here. The response from Jennifer's office is exactly as I would expect from anywhere she was working.

 

[liz b.]

There could be some missed possibilities in the very first 50 or so tips received. A new LEO, or a PI should be given those tips to go over with a fine tooth comb. Probably something there that was either overlooked or dismissed. jmo

 

[liz b.]

I would just say this concerning her office calling her parents. I can't conceive of any office department who would not be making emergency calls when a person does not show up for an important late morning meeting and calls to them go straight to voice mail. At that point you know the person is incapacitated, just unknown whether in hospital or worse.

That emergency call may take several forms based on situation. It could range from calling family, to the police for a wellness check, or something more informal if known, an apartment or building manager, etc. If close by someone from work is likely to swing by and knock on door to check on the person.

Again, this is late morning, not first thing in morning I'm talking about. And if a cell phone is not involved, then long ringing with no answer instead of straight to voice mail (or both in Jennifer's case).

I stress the office department situation or other work environments where people work closely together is what I'm talking about here. The response from Jennifer's office is exactly as I would expect from anywhere she was working.

Could be. Especially an employee like JK.

 

[Truth Prevails]

You bring up such an interesting idea that struck me as SO odd, that her work would call her emergency contact (parents) after only being 3 hours late. She could have had car trouble, flat tire, phone trouble, had a fender bender, etc., any number of things that could have delayed her, even though there was an important meeting. I have never heard of emergency contacts being called when you are just 3 hours late. Something is up with that, in my opinion. Did they call the co-worker's emergency contact when he didn't show up until noon? Did he call in to say he was going to be late? Did that set off alarms with her co-workers? Things coming into my mind as I type, hope it doesn't sound too disjointed!

BBM-I haven't either. I've been in a fairly large office where someone didn't show up and had us all worried. Honestly, no-one went down to personnel and asked them to dig out the emergency contact. And we were all worried to the point of trying to decide who would take a little drive over to their residence to see if everything appeared to be okay. I don't know, but I guess I feel there are certain respectable time limits that we all try to abide by when we can't find someone we care about. We could cause them embarrassment. On the other side of the coin, I guess, the delay could cause them harm.

(We eventually got our buddy located and all was well.)

But really, I can see where this is a matter of personal opinion. I'd be surprised if law enforcement didn't look into the timing, at least a little bit. Maybe they did, though, and thought everything checked out. Just a great place to work where everyone was so very, very concerned about everyone else.

Let's take a look at 2010 then. It doesn't seem like it was such a great place in 2006. The delay could have given someone four years.

 

[rd_jfc]

Just trying to wrap my head around a lot of this new more enlightening information (at least new to me). Also another thought occurred to me.

I remember posting at length concerning the described scenario of friend's phone in a briefcase, how an intruder would be very unlikely to find that to disable along with Jennifer's phone. And I'm not sure how I got led down that path. How would anyone know where the friend's (Travis) phone was in her condo? Why would someone say it was in her briefcase in her condo the night before, and just as importantly to me, why did I accept that and try to work with that in scenarios? For some reason I thought there was a basis for it (and maybe there is, but how would anyone have any idea?)

In fact, it is a certainty that Jennifer retrieved it and likely was laying out in plain view. If an intruder was disabling phones, they would disable that phone just as surely as her phone. An intruder wouldn't even try to determine which was "her" phone. The intruder would assume they were both same capability.

Now, having got past that scenario difficulty, the next is why would the phones be taken away with her? I am never sure what is missing given the ambiguous information about Jennifer's disappearance, but I think it is a given that driver's license and such is missing. And what we often have with a woman's disappearance is at least the appearance of a voluntary departure, as if they just decided to vanish. Lacking a violent crime scene, the difference between a clear abduction and a vanishing is the abductor bringing keys, wallet, and phone with the victim. In this case both phones.

A key clue here is the timing of the 11 pings which we know stopped by 10:40 pm. We know the pings indicated movement, and we know Jennifer was on her landline at 9:57 pm. That doesn't leave much time for movement. It is possible she was dealing with someone at the door (maybe even ending the call because of it), or that she went out to her car to get something, or that she went out to her car to drive somewhere.

The timestamp of the pings would be helpful because movement (and therefore change in strength of tower signals) causes re-evaluation of controlling tower which involves pings. But I think the time to accept that Jennifer was abducted shortly after she ended her phone call with her bf is 12 years overdue.