Here’s the follow-up to my previous post. It ties into the current discussion, so I figured now was a good time to post it.
Apologies for the length. Please read the disclaimer* before maybe dismissing the possibility and forgive any spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors. I edited as best as I could.
My theory:
There is one possible scenario in which a neighbor could’ve been stalking Jason/his family and casing out his house without leaving the comfort of his or her own home. And though it sounds like a stretch, it’s not as farfetched or as unlikely as it sounds, especially back in the early 2000’s. It was probably more common back then, before people ditched their landlines for cell phones, but it still continues today. A quick internet search will confirm this.
If the Jolkowskis regularly used a cordless phone connected to an analogue phone service (home phone, not cell phone), to make and receive calls, someone in the neighborhood within a certain range of their house (see map in my previous post) could have been listening in on their conversations for weeks, months, or even years. This would be due to frequency overlap. And the Jolkowskis would never have even known it. All the eavesdropper needed was to be within range and have the same brand and model of cordless phone, *OR* use a baby monitor, police scanner or other wireless communication device on the same frequency as the Jolkowski’s cordless phone, which resulted in overlapping frequencies.
On the outside, looking in, what may seem like to us as a random, spur of the moment, or chance encounter, may not have been. It may have been a neighbor playing a calculated long game. I can’t stress this enough, no one would have ever known they were being spied on except in rare cases. I get that some folks believe it was an online predator, and that could still be the case, for sure, but I think that would potentially leave more clues. Eavesdropping with a baby monitor or police scanner would not (see disclaimer).
Unlike today’s models, older model baby monitors were passive, one-way listening devices without all the bells and whistles they have now. I think police scanners are still one-way. You’d only have to leave them on and wait to hear voices in order to listen in. There’d be little chance of detection in the case of baby monitors and police scanners. Cordless phones would have a higher chance at being found out, as there might be cross-talk, background noise, random ringing with no one there, and possible long-distance or local call billing errors, depending on the service, which I have over a decade of experience with working at the former Ma Bell.
If one of the Jolkowski’s neighbors used one of these devices, discovered they could eavesdrop on them, and listened in regularly and long enough, that neighbor would have eventually been able to figure out who they were listening to, where they lived, what they were up to, and all their comings and goings. Heck, they could have even known what they had for dinner the night before, and that Jason’s car was in the shop, too. All that was needed was for the subject to be a topic of a phone conversation made on their cordless phone, and someone listening in.
*DISCLAIMER: Please note, I’m not saying anyone deliberately went out and bought a baby monitor or police scanner with the express purpose of spying on the Jolkowski’s or any neighbors. Most eavesdropping incidences due to overlapping frequencies (that I’ve come across) were discovered by accident by the eavesdropper. Again, a quick internet search will confirm this. There’s forums of people admitting they’ve heard phone conversations through scanners and baby monitors. Some were courteous enough to change the frequency or tell the neighbor they could hear them. In all cases, the listener stumbled upon it, and some simply continued listening in without saying anything at all. My best friend did this with her police scanner, listening in on her neighbor’s conversations for months as a form of entertainment after discovering she could hear them. She listened in until she moved to a new place, and the neighbor had no clue. I’m also aware there are detectors out there now that can detect radio frequencies, but I’m not sure if they were available to consumers back in the early 2000’s. But if you didn’t know, or if it didn’t occur to you that you were being spied on, you wouldn’t think to get one. **
I don’t know if the Jolkowskis used a cordless phone or not. If they didn’t, then, of course, this is a non-issue. But cordless phone use had gained a lot of popularity by the 2000’s, and many people used them. If they did use one, then someone eavesdropping on them, and then waiting for the right opportunity to strike, is a real possibility.
And that opportunity would have presented itself if they overheard Jason’s conversations with Fazoli’s that morning. This makes sense, as opposed to someone lurking outside or sitting in a car waiting to pounce. They would have known approximately when he was leaving and exactly where he was going: Jason and his coworker discussed time and place over the phone. They would have also known he was on foot and pressed for time, possibly more amenable to a ride on that hot day than if he were just out for a stroll. Then all that neighbor would have had to do was hop in a vehicle and meet up with him somewhere along the route. Had this person been in the neighborhood long enough, they may have known who would be home or at work, who would be peeking out of their blinds, and where the best, least risky place to offer a ride would be.
This spying neighbor could have been a familiar face to Jason, possibly someone Jason encountered a time or two on his walks, in passing, in what appeared to be random encounters, where they exchanged greetings or waves. Someone he may have grown accustomed to seeing out and about in the neighborhood and felt comfortable accepting a ride from in a pinch with little arm twisting. Someone he would equate to being a safe person, like someone walking a dog or pushing a baby in a stroller. Again, these encounters could have been achieved by the neighbor simply listening in and timing it right, should the topic arose during a phone conversation. That’s what I mean by a calculated long game, and it would have taken very little effort to do: putting himself or herself out there to lull Jason into a false sense of security.
If they encountered him that morning, they could have played it off like a chance meeting, like they were on their way to the store and just happened to run into him. Then offered him a ride, taking advantage of him being in a hurry. Any encounter between them could have been in under a minute and unremarkable, not drawing anyone’s notice. Or, it could have been dumb luck they weren’t seen.
If offered a ride, there was always a chance Jason would have declined, but declining would have posed very little risk to the neighbor. If refused, all the neighbor would have had to do was shrug and go on their merry way, their encounter not suspicious.
The eavesdropping could have even continued past Jason’s disappearance as a way for the perpetrator to monitor the case’s progress and elude capture. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would have a clue they were being spied on with a baby monitor or police scanner, unless someone told them. However, in the case of matching cordless phones, there could be some indicators, like random ringing, billed call discrepancies on their phone bill, or hearing cross-talk.
I'm no expert on cordless phone technology, by any means. What little I know about them comes from professional and personal experiences with cordless phones. When I lived in the city, I put mine away after I heard people talking on it because if I could hear them, someone might be able to hear me, and I valued my privacy.
My observations also come from working for the former Ma Bell for 30 years. Half of my tenure was in residential
customer service, where I often dealt with issues like billing errors, cross-talk, people actually admitting to me they were listening to their neighbors, like it was a game or a joke. I was the billing subject matter expert in my office and was the one who figured out that someone outside talking on a cordless phone could result in their billable calls ending up on a neighbor’s phone bill. I was told 1 in 30 cordless phones were on the same frequency, and the frequency ranges were anywhere from 300 to 2000 feet. I think back then the range was shorter, but in a populated area, a 300-500 foot range could encompass more homes, especially if there were large apartment complexes nearby, as was mine and my friend’s cases.
If anyone with more expertise on the technical side wants to chime in, by all means, please do, and I’ll stand corrected.
I doubt little can be done to investigate this angle now, the time to have investigated this possibility was in the beginning, as mentioned in my previous post. It’s why I said they needed to knock on every door within that circle, except a more accurate one. The only things I can think of is maybe looking at a city directory from that time and, using a map like the one I drew, looking for anyone in the vicinity who may have committed a similar crime since Jason’s disappearance. They could also look at the Jolkowskis’ old phone bills, if still available, from around that time to see if there were any repetitive call billing errors which might indicate frequency overlap due to matching cordless phones. Possibly old repair tickets if cross-talk was reported. Though it’s been decades, this information may still be available, depending on the systems their local phone company uses now. You never know, but it’s possible any erroneously billed calls or reported cross-talk could have belonged to the perpetrator’s household if it was due to cordless phone frequency overlap.
And for those thinking that spying on neighbors is out of the realm of possibilities, here’s some food for thought:
1 in 4 people admitted to spying on their neighbors with their security cameras/security systems.
“The devil can be a man or a woman.” Robert McCammon. The Listener
Thank you for reading.
