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

[Truth Prevails]

But the seat was pushed further back than she would have it ? Dunno probably nothing.

I just thought of this so I'll add it in here as it's too late to edit my earlier comment:

Maybe even law enforcement wedged the ball between the front and back seats like that to keep it from moving about as the car was being driven. I don't think having something light and loose like that is considered good driving practices, so they might have. I know it's common though. Most people have all kinds of loose things in their vehicles.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Why walk anywhere ? Security seemed to be a joke and the gate was left open for the workers . Just drive up and park like the Kesse's did that day. I just don't think he did this solo.

Well, better than good--excellent point. Sneaking around under the cover of darkness because he didn't have a vehicle? Or was smart enough not to even want to take the slight risk that someone would remember his vehicle; parked it at the mall and walked; parked it at the HOG and walked?

Going in this way, especially to the front stairwell of Jenn's condo but also to her parking area, would save quite a bit of walking time. I believe there are open-air hallways, and if I'm understanding what that is correctly, he could simply walk through to the back parking area or keep out of sight by hanging out in them.

I sometimes consider two, but mostly I settle on one. Even if there were two though, they would possibly separate in the pre-planning stages, at least.

 

[Markybug]

I'm not sure, either. Maybe it was actually setting on the car floor just behind the driver's seat and when he pushed it back it wedged it in like that?

What really bothers me is how clean everything looks. Law enforcement must have dusted everything for prints, do you think? I've never heard them known for cleaning up the mess that makes. Unless they vacuumed after they dusted for prints--I guess I really don't know how that works.

I'll add the quote from that old MSM article I have of Mr. Kesse describing the car after they got it back. (Sorry the link doesn't work anymore).

Another thing I find unusual is that there are no pictures of the interior of the trunk. And where they apparently left a fair amount of contents inside the seating area of Jenn's vehicle--they kept everything that was in the trunk.

I note they have never said where they found the partial print nor the tiny fiber containing an incomplete DNA profile. Do you ever think these might have come from the trunk?

Snipped quote: "Something happened there and that's my daughter, a living being, and she was taken from that car," Jennifer's father, Drew Kesse, said.

He said, even with the splashes of processing fluid used to check for evidence, his daughter Jennifer's car is cleaner than she ever kept it. Detectives likely have most of the items of clutter that used to be there, hoping for clues.

"I'm sure they took everything they possibly could out of it and I hope they pulled something off of something in that car to give them a direction," Drew Kesse said.

Fingerprint dust lines the steering wheel, gear shift, door handles and anything else a suspect might have touched. The seats and floors were likely vacuumed to collect hairs and fibers. Soil tests could show where the mud caked on the bottom of the car came from.

"It's just logical thinking of the technology they have nowadays that they have to have something within the car," Drew Kesse said.
http://www.wftv.com/news/7162648/detail.html

Seems strange with all the possible clues in the car , that it was not retained by the police permanently?

The boot (trunk) scenario is strange , making rob be present ehen initially opening it , no pictures at all , as you mention. Strange.

Can the fact the bottom of the car was “caked in mud” be relevant? Or could jen have done this in her own driving?

 

[TedMac]

Seems strange with all the possible clues in the car , that it was not retained by the police permanently?

The boot (trunk) scenario is strange , making rob be present ehen initially opening it , no pictures at all , as you mention. Strange.

Can the fact the bottom of the car was “caked in mud” be relevant? Or could jen have done this in her own driving?

BBM Not sure why no pictures of the trunk is strange. Making Rob be present when initially is not hard to explain. They were getting his reaction to their request to open it. They didn't know if she was in the trunk or not. If he (Rob) had put her in there, his body language would have indicated it.

 

[Markybug]

Is it because its holding info they want to hold back?

I assume police had checked the boot before Rob was asked to look ( yes , to trst his reactions)

 

[Lavinia]

I agree, especially after watching the Oxygen series on Maura Murray where the hosts were with the actual car in the lot. Maybe Jennifer's car wasn't paid off and so it went back to the dealership? Weird to think someone is driving around in that car, living in that apartment, etc.

Seems strange with all the possible clues in the car , that it was not retained by the police permanently?

The boot (trunk) scenario is strange , making rob be present ehen initially opening it , no pictures at all , as you mention. Strange.

Can the fact the bottom of the car was “caked in mud” be relevant? Or could jen have done this in her own driving?

 

[Truth Prevails]

Seems strange with all the possible clues in the car , that it was not retained by the police permanently?

Yes, I can't figure out why law enforcement ever released the vehicle to the Kesses--and so quickly after calling it the crime scene.

The Kesses were horrified at the thought of what might have happened and couldn't stand to look at it. They returned it to the leasing company as soon as possible.

The boot (trunk) scenario is strange , making rob be present ehen initially opening it , no pictures at all , as you mention. Strange.

Law enforcement put Rob through everything. Just everything. Two or three polygraphs; took his DNA twice; countless interviews; being there when they opened the trunk--and the guy's alibi checked out. And he never even attempted to lawyer-up. He did everything they asked of him--no matter how many times they asked.

He has to be an amazing person to put up with all that.

Can the fact the bottom of the car was “caked in mud” be relevant? Or could jen have done this in her own driving?

There is certainly the possibility it could be relevant. I wonder if there were any roads in the immediate area under construction--I remember that according to gas usage, the vehicle probably wasn't driven far on the late evening/night of the 23rd. (I take into consideration that the POI may have filled it back up to the exact level he had perhaps recorded when he began driving the vehicle; but somehow I don't find that feasible).

Or maybe even an unpaved driveway, or an old dirt path that a local might know about.

As far as Jenn herself driving on muddy roads--I'd be surprised if she was the type. We know she liked to go shopping; maybe out to a restaurant or a classy bar for a drink--not much mud around those places.

She liked to go to the beach, probably with Rob. It's hard to say if they would have used his car or her car. Would they go to the beach on a rainy day, or would there even be actual mud around? Maybe on the side of the road after a rain--where they parked maybe?

Or maybe some of the roads were under construction that she used to travel to Fort Lauderdale on the Wednesday before she flew to St. Croix. Maybe even parts of the highway she used to travel to her job in Ocoee were under construction.

IIRC, Mr. Kesse said he cleaned her vehicle just before she went on her vacation--I wonder if he noticed any mud caked underneath at that time. I wonder how long it had been since the vehicle was put through a car wash? Usually you can get the undercarriage washed--sometimes they charge a little bit more, but not much. Some people do that regularly.

So, it's hard to say, I guess. But it's something that I'm sure law enforcement would look at. (I hope).

Is it because its holding info they want to hold back?

Concerning the trunk contents, I think so. They never even told the Kesses what they took out of it, and still have in their possession, today.

I assume police had checked the boot before Rob was asked to look ( yes , to trst his reactions)

Sure they would have. There would have been a possibility she was still alive if she was in there.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Not sure why no pictures of the trunk is strange. Making Rob be present when initially is not hard to explain. They were getting his reaction to their request to open it. They didn't know if she was in the trunk or not. If he (Rob) had put her in there, his body language would have indicated it.

BBM There are pictures of the interior of the vehicle and its remaining contents from every angle--pictures released by both the Kesses and law enforcement on different dates.

To the best of my knowledge, not a single picture was ever released of the inside of the trunk of Jennifer's vehicle.

I've seen it stated that the only prints inside the vehicle were Jennifer's. I think that indicates the POI didn't wipe the interior of the vehicle but instead wore gloves.

However, if the above is true, where did they find the partial print and the tiny fiber contain an incomplete DNA profile? Maybe in the trunk? I don't know.

So, maybe "strange" isn't exactly the right word; but, I do believe there is a high probability of information being withheld here.

 

[rd_jfc]

BBM There are pictures of the interior of the vehicle and its remaining contents from every angle--pictures released by both the Kesses and law enforcement on different dates.

To the best of my knowledge, not a single picture was ever released of the inside of the trunk of Jennifer's vehicle.

I've seen it stated that the only prints inside the vehicle were Jennifer's. I think that indicates the POI didn't wipe the interior of the vehicle but instead wore gloves.

However, if the above is true, where did they find the partial print and the tiny fiber contain an incomplete DNA profile? Maybe in the trunk? I don't know.

So, maybe "strange" isn't exactly the right word; but, I do believe there is a high probability of information being withheld here.

As you've probably pointed out a few times, but worth pointing out again here, is what OPD told Nancy Grace:

...we believe that she was in or near that vehicle during the time of her abduction.

end quote

 

[Markybug]

https://crimesquid.com/2017/08/21/t...bably-wasnt-wearing-a-white-shirt-and-khakis/

Interesting article on the poi cctv , re the colour of the clothing.

 

[Truth Prevails]

As you've probably pointed out a few times, but worth pointing out again here, is what OPD told Nancy Grace:

...we believe that she was in or near that vehicle during the time of her abduction.

end quote

I don't think I ever accepted what they were saying, but I'm a believer now. It ends my speculation about the POI simply moving the car to throw off LE, too.

He didn't just move the car. He used the car for the abduction and then had to get it away from wherever he had taken Jennifer. He probably would have returned it to her condo parking spot but heard somehow via the grapevine that Jennifer's parents knew something was wrong and were on their way.

There are lots of things I would like to know, but one of them is the time for the very first ping. How close was it to the time her last phone call to Rob ended? I'm sure they have confirmed that was on her landline, so she had to have been in her condo at that point--and probably her bedroom.

Could they have waited for that call to end, realizing that if she didn't make it, her boyfriend would have been alarmed, and probably acted on that alarm much sooner.

But if that is the case, why did Jennifer--a cautious, careful, intelligent, informed young woman--leave her condo so quickly (with both cell phones), and how did he/they know she would go out?

Unless it really was random? Something as simple as Jennifer rushing out to her vehicle to bring in the DVD player and a couple of car burglars were already in the vicinity eyeing the DVD player in the backseat.

There is the 2nd cell phone and the cleanness of this crime that doesn't fit the above, though. Car burglars or common criminals would certainly have most likely harmed Jennifer and realized it would be better to leave the DVD player where it was, but I doubt they would have had the intelligence to make her disappear. They probably would have simply discarded her and she would have been found.

 

[Truth Prevails]

https://crimesquid.com/2017/08/21/t...bably-wasnt-wearing-a-white-shirt-and-khakis/

Interesting article on the poi cctv , re the colour of the clothing.

What surprised me most was the guy's backpack. I would never have guessed it was the one shown in the color image.

I think the images and the video we have of the POI are so badly distorted that a person wouldn't know the person if he was their own brother.

But was even that planned--a mocking, if you will. Think about the missing 20 seconds--was he standing still counting seconds until he knew just the right time to step out so his face would be obscured by the fence post at ever camera interval shot. Maybe the only misstep he made was turning at the palm tree where we get a tiny glimpse of his face. I bet that's the one thing he didn't plan.

But he didn't have to worry cause most people won't trouble themselves to look--preferring to go with the idea that he never looked back.

I bet the SOB enjoys that.

 

[rd_jfc]

https://crimesquid.com/2017/08/21/t...bably-wasnt-wearing-a-white-shirt-and-khakis/

Interesting article on the poi cctv , re the colour of the clothing.

That's just a really great example, Marky. Nice find.

I looked these over carefully. What's interesting is the hat, the skin, the glasses, and fundamentally the shoes do not lighten like the shirt, pants, and backpack. The undershirt didn't lighten.

I can imagine b/w only doing this to those pastels, but not the backpack. What causes washing out the clothes is I/R for night time vision not blocked in light. One or the other, not both. But the less expensive models either don't have a light sensitive I/R shutter or are unreliable or this light level wasn't enough to trigger it shut. Obviously at HOTG at noon it has to be no I/R shutter or broke.

We saw same thing in POI images. The hat, hair, skin, shoes, things like the gate railings, aren't noticeably washed out. The hedges are a lighter green than normal, the clothes as we saw in that I/R comparison I posted a few months ago, very much washed out.

One interesting thing is you can see detail that you can't see very well in the color image. I lightened the color image 100% and can see detail much better but the C on the front of the baseball cap can barely be made out for example. Other examples are the detail of the backpack and straps. You can see a little color in the middle of the straps but not much.

The timestamps are two and a half hours difference on the images. Something's off with that. The clothes are identical in shape, I can't really see changing from vivid pink to white and a different backpack. Would take an elaborate hoax.

The blogger's dates and registration are within last year and some effort put into it. Good find.

 

[KayCherry]

I wish Mr & Mrs Kesse came to Websleuths, I feel like it would be good for them to read the posts. I know it's painful, but it's painful either way. I feel like he could gleam some knowledge here, many posts are so thought provoking... IMO

 

[Truth Prevails]

That's just a really great example, Marky. Nice find.

I looked these over carefully. What's interesting is the hat, the skin, the glasses, and fundamentally the shoes do not lighten like the shirt, pants, and backpack. The undershirt didn't lighten.

I can imagine b/w only doing this to those pastels, but not the backpack. What causes washing out the clothes is I/R for night time vision not blocked in light. One or the other, not both. But the less expensive models either don't have a light sensitive I/R shutter or are unreliable or this light level wasn't enough to trigger it shut. Obviously at HOTG at noon it has to be no I/R shutter or broke.

We saw same thing in POI images. The hat, hair, skin, shoes, things like the gate railings, aren't noticeably washed out. The hedges are a lighter green than normal, the clothes as we saw in that I/R comparison I posted a few months ago, very much washed out.

One interesting thing is you can see detail that you can't see very well in the color image. I lightened the color image 100% and can see detail much better but the C on the front of the baseball cap can barely be made out for example. Other examples are the detail of the backpack and straps. You can see a little color in the middle of the straps but not much.

The timestamps are two and a half hours difference on the images. Something's off with that. The clothes are identical in shape, I can't really see changing from vivid pink to white and a different backpack. Would take an elaborate hoax.

The blogger's dates and registration are within last year and some effort put into it. Good find.

I really did make an effort, but I can't see that he has an undershirt on. No surprise there, right. lol

But, I'm wondering if you mean the undershirt was white and stayed white?

Also, during all your research, did you ever find any indication that law enforcement got anyone dressed in light colored clothing to stand at the gate where the POI walked --just to see what color their clothing showed on the same camera at around 12 o'clock, noon?

I guess what I'm getting at here is can we be certain, in your opinion, that the POI was not dressed in a white shirt of some sort and beige trousers?

 

[Truth Prevails]

I wish Mr & Mrs Kesse came to Websleuths, I feel like it would be good for them to read the posts. I know it's painful, but it's painful either way. I feel like he could gleam some knowledge here, many posts are so thought provoking... IMO

I'm assuming you know that Mr. Kesse is a member here.

He joined in 2010, but hasn't been active since 2014. That doesn't mean he doesn't read here, at least occasionally.

I, as probably the only one, would hate to see our W/S thread turn into a "condolences" thread.

Mr. Kesse has said himself that he is not interested in the who, what, when, where or why. He only wants his daughter back.

It's seems pretty clear to me that he is not interested in anything we have to say. He has occasionally referred to what we do in somewhat unflattering terms.

If anyone followed the podcast, it became obvious where they want our thinking to be--period. That became the big, big problem with the podcast.

So, even though I know this will not be a popular comment, I hope the discussion on Jennifer's thread continues without family influence.

 

[Markybug]

Maybe thinking, what if jenn done that , rather than jen would never do that , would run down more leads ?

 

[Truth Prevails]

Maybe thinking, what if jenn done that , rather than jen would never do that , would run down more leads ?

It's not that I disagree, here, because I believe we have to have an open mind and look outside the box a little bit.

But a good theory is a theory based on fact. Most of the little pieces will snap easily into place. Some never will, and those are the things that the prosecutor will turn over to the defense--should we be lucky enough to live long enough to see that happen in this case.

I know it seems so logical to think that here is a 24 year old woman, with a mind of her own, who was no wall-flower, so anything was possible. And it's true in a way.

But if we consider that woman had lived with a fear of being abducted and no-one being able to find her; if we consider that woman was dealing with the stress of cat-calls and wolf-whistles; if we consider that in the last two weeks of her life she had heard someone jiggling her door-knob sometime during the night; if we consider that woman heard a knock on her door sometime between arriving home and retiring for the evening; if we consider that woman had a can of mace sitting on her kitchen counter--is it so logical to consider anything was possible in regards to her going out alone after 10 o'clock at night?

It isn't to me, and I think any theory that overlooks all of the above--theories like she had a man on the side and went to spend the night with him--are simply trash and not worth the time it takes to read them.

 

[flgrl017]

But the seat was pushed further back than she would have it ? Dunno probably nothing.

What's is the person that dropped the car off height? I've read anywhere from 5'3 to 6 ft.

 

[flgrl017]

Do we know if anything was in the trunk or if any of the missing items could have been in the trunk? Sorry for all the questions. Most of the links I click are no good anymore.