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

[marable]

Did she have a back door? I know the front was locked, but they could have come in or gone out the back door with her. Did she have a place to take out trash? If so, she could have been attacked out side at night, and forced back in. Just some thoughts.

From what I understand there were two doors to the outside from her apartment....

 

[marable]

Here's what I wrote:
"The police told Drew the phones were manually powered down at 10:40 pm and presumably batteries removed. The police would say this because the phone companies told them this. As I said earlier I don't know the basis for this, it is reasonable that there is a signal sent went powering down. I can only guess that there is something missing that indicates batteries were removed instead of using the power off button."

No amount of conjuring can make a rumor out of that. I can only guess that there is something missing that indicates batteries removed instead of using the power off button is not a rumor, it's a declared guess explanation. If it was truly that difficult to understand I would do more research and post it but it's not that difficult to understand.

The traffic to cell phone towers are not just pings, they are the entirety of all signals between the phone and towers, including the digitized audible of phone calls. I would expect there is a disconnect sequence sent from a phone during power off. As I said, I don't know this but I said it's reasonable to think there is something missing when the traffic stops that lets the analyst looking at the data determine that power ended abruptly versus going through a power off sequence with the shutdown button.

Pinging is just location of towers. It is not GPS or pseudo GPS locating of the device, so the lesser technology accuracy issues of locating the precise location of the device are not relevant. I don't know what provider(s) the phones had, but it would be the providers who gave this information to the police. I didn't know, and of course I posted about it, whether there was any ping data. I am certainly glad there was.

In any event, what was relayed to Drew who relayed via post is not a rumor, and presumably batteries removed is what he was told. I have said twice in past few days that I don't know the basis for it, that phones don't ping when powered off, you can check my posts above. But I can say that I can guess there's something missing in the interchanges to base it on without it being called a rumor. Such an ugly word.

I'm a career programmer and spent the 80's writing low level code. I was one of the original PC telephony programmers in '84, working for a startup that became a large company, writing and installing systems such as an emergency notification system for nuclear plants, absentee notification systems for large school systems, and install notification systems for Cablevision up and down east coast. I wrote device drivers for all existing scanners after that, and other imaging analysis. And I've been programming for Fortune 500's since then. My guesses are informed guesses.

I have also written a true crime book and been at this a long time, and not fond of serious crime work being muddied up with rumors. So I understand your concern, but you really need more work on identifying rumors.

rd

RD,

Early on there were reports of a video from a 7-11 on John Young Parkway that showed a car like Jennifer's as it passed by....It was never revealed that Jennifer may have been driving it or a man......I cannot remember if OPD ever said what the time stamp was on the video.....They was some digging and searching in the JYP area , could there have been a ping along there before it was shut down?

 

[rd_jfc]

RD,

Early on there were reports of a video from a 7-11 on John Young Parkway that showed a car like Jennifer's as it passed by....It was never revealed that Jennifer may have been driving it or a man......I cannot remember if OPD ever said what the time stamp was on the video.....They was some digging and searching in the JYP area , could there have been a ping along there before it was shut down?

We're operating in the dark on that, marable. Whatever location info they have they don't want to divulge. My thoughts are that there is not much of a trail of cell tower pings from the one that had control at her condo. The "can't be in two locations at same time" puzzlement indicates to me that she did move the phone enough that the phone briefly switched control to another tower and back, both towers would be within a mile and a half or so. This could be making a short drive over to mall for example.

Remember that this info is limited to 10 pm to 10:40 pm. She ended call just before 10 pm and no more transmissions after 10:40 pm.

 

[JnRyan]

It's really good to see some activity here now. It shows there are folks still trying to keep this alive!

 

[marable]

It's really good to see some activity here now. It shows there are folks still trying to keep this alive!

I agree JN, not much can be done for Jennifer or her family but debate what little we know about Jennifer's case and try to develop different theories and expand upon previous theories.....By doing this, we keep Jennifer's case alive and in the public eye....

I would like to see law enforcement release more information on old cases.....I watched a crime show the other night that was 25 years old.....the possible suspect was in the file from the beginning but was never investigated.....it turned out to be this suspect.....I just believe that they hold onto too much information....The video of the POI parking Jennifer's car was released 17 months after she went missing.....Would someone have remembered something had this been released the day the car was located? It sure would not have hurt their case in my opinion......They only released it at Drew's insistence....Such a shame...

So many possibilities....

 

[TexasT]

Here's what I wrote:
"The police told Drew the phones were manually powered down at 10:40 pm and presumably batteries removed. The police would say this because the phone companies told them this. As I said earlier I don't know the basis for this, it is reasonable that there is a signal sent went powering down. I can only guess that there is something missing that indicates batteries were removed instead of using the power off button."

No amount of conjuring can make a rumor out of that. I can only guess that there is something missing that indicates batteries removed instead of using the power off button is not a rumor, it's a declared guess explanation. If it was truly that difficult to understand I would do more research and post it but it's not that difficult to understand.

The traffic to cell phone towers are not just pings, they are the entirety of all signals between the phone and towers, including the digitized audible of phone calls. I would expect there is a disconnect sequence sent from a phone during power off. As I said, I don't know this but I said it's reasonable to think there is something missing when the traffic stops that lets the analyst looking at the data determine that power ended abruptly versus going through a power off sequence with the shutdown button.

Pinging is just location of towers. It is not GPS or pseudo GPS locating of the device, so the lesser technology accuracy issues of locating the precise location of the device are not relevant. I don't know what provider(s) the phones had, but it would be the providers who gave this information to the police. I didn't know, and of course I posted about it, whether there was any ping data. I am certainly glad there was.

In any event, what was relayed to Drew who relayed via post is not a rumor, and presumably batteries removed is what he was told. I have said twice in past few days that I don't know the basis for it, that phones don't ping when powered off, you can check my posts above. But I can say that I can guess there's something missing in the interchanges to base it on without it being called a rumor. Such an ugly word.

I'm a career programmer and spent the 80's writing low level code. I was one of the original PC telephony programmers in '84, working for a startup that became a large company, writing and installing systems such as an emergency notification system for nuclear plants, absentee notification systems for large school systems, and install notification systems for Cablevision up and down east coast. I wrote device drivers for all existing scanners after that, and other imaging analysis. And I've been programming for Fortune 500's since then. My guesses are informed guesses.

I have also written a true crime book and been at this a long time, and not fond of serious crime work being muddied up with rumors. So I understand your concern, but you really need more work on identifying rumors.

rd

It's certainly possible a responding Officer mistakenly gave that info to Drew or perhaps there was a miscommunication on the matter . But we know Today that's not possible , that's why it's a mistake of fact or rumor . How ever you like to word it . But it keeps being repeated .

Now , is it possible that the batteries were found in her condo and they did not want that released to the general public ? - absolutely . However, all we can do is go by the Facts as we know them .


In Tara Grinstead case they chose to release information they recovered a latex glove with DNA & fingerprint but no match was in CODIS . I was reluctant to even bring up the comments above about the batteries as an example for fear more misinformation will be out there , but hopefully that explains better what I'm trying to convey .

 

[TexasT]

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.

Were there calls / text between jen and MS ? If there was to be a handoff of a phone at blue martini I'd think she would verify vs out randomly driving around, even if he was a frequent patron of the establishment.

And was the phones owner harassing her enough to break her safety rules just to get him off her back ?

With the latest Express pick up being 6:30-7:30pm it serves no purpose to drop off after 10Pm .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rd_jfc]

It's certainly possible a responding Officer mistakenly gave that info to Drew or perhaps there was a miscommunication on the matter . But we know Today that's not possible , that's why it's a mistake of fact or rumor . How ever you like to word it . But it keeps being repeated .

Now , is it possible that the batteries were found in her condo and they did not want that released to the general public ? - absolutely . However, all we can do is go by the Facts as we know them .


In Tara Grinstead case they chose to release information they recovered a latex glove with DNA & fingerprint but no match was in CODIS . I was reluctant to even bring up the comments above about the batteries as an example for fear more misinformation will be out there , but hopefully that explains better what I'm trying to convey .

"But we know Today that's not possible"

No, you have some mistaken idea. Are you a communications programmer or know anything about communication protocols? Did you have the slightest idea what I was talking about when I said that what you consider a mistaken statement by police (which by the way would be info that came from the phone carrier) would reasonably be based on a missing disconnect signal as part of a normal shutdown. The phone pings periodically and towers pick it up. Do you understand anything about packets and byte sequences that make up digital communications?

All it takes is one bit to be different in a last ping when powering off to be different than a regular ping and indicate ending transmissions. Taking batteries out would not allow that ending transmission and the carrier would know it was "presumed removal of cell batteries". Geez, if I have to look up something this trivial for you that would be pretty sad.

The facts as we know them include authorities telling Drew that both phones went dead at approximately 10:40 pm by manual shut down and presumed removal of the cell batteries. Please don't muddy the facts because you don't like the information, although I do appreciate that you're trying to convey your thinking.

The Tara Grinstead case was a complete disaster. It just so happens that I visited Ocilla to see the situation there as well as the apartment complex where Jennifer's car was parked. That and trips to DC to go over the Chandra Levy scenes are all that I have ever done and probably all I'll ever do. All three cases are unsolved and I don't know that I could get that involved again.

rd

 

[Myserty64]

There are lots of good posts in this thread.

My ageing memory tells me the ex-bf followed Jennifer from Bradenton to Orlando.
That is often a red flag in these situations. More so if they are the possessive/jealous type.

Then to answer my own concerns I thought the ex or most of us regular folk would crack under police interrogation.
But how much interrogation was there?

What was the motive for the abduction? A possible clue is the fact it took place immediately after her weekend away; with her new boyfriend.

 

[rd_jfc]

Were there calls / text between jen and MS ? If there was to be a handoff of a phone at blue martini I'd think she would verify vs out randomly driving around, even if he was a frequent patron of the establishment.

And was the phones owner harassing her enough to break her safety rules just to get him off her back ?

With the latest Express pick up being 6:30-7:30pm it serves no purpose to drop off after 10Pm .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only info in the beginning was that of a call between Jennifer and her brother and Jennifer and bf. Could there be calls or texts to anyone else? I don't know, maybe withheld the same as withholding the info that the ex bf was down the road in a bar at the mall. Maybe nothing. Maybe there was communication to the ex bf and it's being withheld too. But I can't imagine. That's just too close to home, so to speak.

But we would expect some communication to whomever she was thinking of taking the phone to if she were doing that, wouldn't we? And with no communication, driving randomly isn't anything we would accept either.

It would require information about what she talked to her brother about. There's been frequent mention of how upset this guy was about their past breakup. I don't know where that's coming from. her brother just spent two days with the guy and the phone's owner in her condo. I imagine there was some discussion about it. Did her brother convey this to Jennifer? Did Jennifer know he would be in the nearby bar that evening, again possibly from her brother, possibly from their previous dating? I don't know, and if in eleven years they haven't seen fit to talk about I guess we never will. Although we did find out about the phone ping data after eight years.

I think there's a possibility that she could give him the phone and talk to him in a public place about him being upset about their past relationship, maybe letting him know she was serious about her relationship, and that he would be over at the mall bar or if not there yet she could leave the phone for him, would be my best guess. Why she wouldn't have called to confirm where he was, confirm to meet, etc., I don't know, maybe she didn't want to actually talk to him but could leave the phone for him. Maybe it was a call she didn't want to make. I don't know.

Her cell phone sitting in her condo could switch towers and back, but it's much more probable when moving. An intruder could gather any phones found in her condo, disable them at same time, and bring them with her, but it is much more probable than an assailant disabled the cell phones in a car he was car jacking with a victim.

But it is also more probable that she would contact someone she was driving to at 10 at night than not. Unless she actually wasn't planning to meet someone, just a place, not a person.

Whatever she did, it wasn't for long.

rd

 

[marable]

RD,

I read someplace or heard it on one of Drew's interviews that MS(the ex boyfriend) had tried to get Jennifer to resume their relationship about two weeks before she disappeared.....

I believe if it were me and I was not over the break up, first I would not have stayed at that person's condo and second if I did stay there while Jennifer was gone it would have eaten at me that she was on vacation with another man....I can see that this man could have had himself all worked up about the situation.... Was he responsible for Travis leaving his phone at Jennifers so that he could have an excuse to get into her condo?

Someone wrote an article about cell phone pings it was way over my head but this person was supposed to be an expert about cell towers and pings.....If I recall correctly it is possible for cell phones to ping off two different towers if there are two phones are together....I will try to find that if I can....

 

[thref23]

Powering off the phones by removing the batteries shows an abduction, likely outside the home, by a non-neophyte assailant (i..e., not a crime of passion). It could be possible to search the home, find all phones, remove their batteries, and bring them with an abduction victim but I wouldn't put much odds on it.

It is what an assailant would do when abducting a victim in their car and driving off in it. It is critical to completely disable (i.e. not accidentally put in something like sleep mode) all cell phones in the car. At least circa 2006. I imagine it is much more difficult to keep a car from being tracked circa 2016.

In 2006, my assumption is that "battery removal" indicates that a phone fell on the ground (or what not) and the battery became loose. Jen was known to call someone on her phone if in a situation where she felt vulnerable, so if she were attacked before she could make such a phone call, it strikes me as a logical scenario. Of course, it would be worthwhile to know exact data for both phones.

Blink maintains (at last check) that the ping data specifically suggests that the battery was removed from Jen's phone (no mention of the other phone's pings). Not too long ago I looked online for feedback regarding whether a phone could ping a cell tower while powered off. Basically, it seems that at least some phones will ping a tower when powered off - I found this stated elsewhere on WS amongst sources. However, the signal from a cellular tower needs to be a certain strength for a powered off phone to ping a tower. I mean the end consensus is that nobody really seems to know this stuff, but at worst these assumptions do not appear to be contradicted easily.

No phone will ping if the battery has been removed or is completely dead, but phones tend to power down automatically before the battery is completely dead. So it seems hypothetically possible that ping data would reveal that a phone's battery had been removed.

In any event, even if both phones were simply powered off, it would appear that Jen never turned her phone back on in the morning. Not to mention, on Monday night Jen is presumably exhausted, she had what we are led to believe was a minor argument with her boyfriend, there are various hypothetical reasons she may have decided to leave her apartment, ranging from a trip to the drug store to who knows what. On Monday night she is presumably in a much more vulnerable state than on Tuesday morning, which puts her at greater risk of abduction then. A predator is also, presumably, more likely to strike at night as opposed to broad daylight (and more people out and about).

Monday night IMO is a more logical time for her to have crossed paths with an abductor, than Tuesday morning. If LE says otherwise, I question whether they are simply taking steps to avoid contradicting Jen's parents in order to avoid discord and guard against negative publicity.

The wet towel was, I believe, found on top of her drying machine and could have been taken out of the washing machine the night before. The wet shower, I'm not sure for the explanation but it feels like there could be one. All items missing were items she would have left the house with for work; either she kept these things in her car for convenience, or she was planning to spend the night somewhere else. I can't really get past the cell phone data, though.

Were there calls / text between jen and MS ? If there was to be a handoff of a phone at blue martini I'd think she would verify vs out randomly driving around, even if he was a frequent patron of the establishment.

I tend to doubt that she would have bothered bringing the phone to MS unless she had other motivations. But if she was angrier than we are led on after getting off the phone with her bf, I tend to wonder if there was anyone she might have turned to. I presume that there were no phone calls to anyone but I wonder if there would have been electronic record of any instant message sort of communications, i.e. by computer or old school "app." I also wonder whether anybody ever looked for such communication.

 

[Myserty64]

If we go right back to basics; the very beginning, what or who could have lured a security conscious Jennifer Kesse out of her condo after ten pm at night?

 

[rd_jfc]

RD,

I read someplace or heard it on one of Drew's interviews that MS(the ex boyfriend) had tried to get Jennifer to resume their relationship about two weeks before she disappeared.....

I believe if it were me and I was not over the break up, first I would not have stayed at that person's condo and second if I did stay there while Jennifer was gone it would have eaten at me that she was on vacation with another man....I can see that this man could have had himself all worked up about the situation.... Was he responsible for Travis leaving his phone at Jennifers so that he could have an excuse to get into her condo?

Someone wrote an article about cell phone pings it was way over my head but this person was supposed to be an expert about cell towers and pings.....If I recall correctly it is possible for cell phones to ping off two different towers if there are two phones are together....I will try to find that if I can....

Thanks for that info. Two cell phones near each other pinging (or rather, have control from) different towers is not something I would expect would cause a reaction of puzzlement of "Jennifer's cell phone can't be in two places at once". For one thing, it would assume that Jennifer and the two cell phones were together when it would probably be interpreted as Jennifer and her cell phone were separated from the other cell phone.

The two cell towers I was referring to is Jennifer's cell phone in control by tower A and then switching to be in control by tower B and then back tower A fairly quickly. However I don't see why this would puzzle anyone. All I can guess on that is that carrier provided list of tower locations and time and police didn't understand the context. I don't know, maybe some other info they haven't released.

 

[rd_jfc]

In 2006, my assumption is that "battery removal" indicates that a phone fell on the ground (or what not) and the battery became loose. Jen was known to call someone on her phone if in a situation where she felt vulnerable, so if she were attacked before she could make such a phone call, it strikes me as a logical scenario. Of course, it would be worthwhile to know exact data for both phones.

Blink maintains (at last check) that the ping data specifically suggests that the battery was removed from Jen's phone (no mention of the other phone's pings). Not too long ago I looked online for feedback regarding whether a phone could ping a cell tower while powered off. Basically, it seems that at least some phones will ping a tower when powered off - I found this stated elsewhere on WS amongst sources. However, the signal from a cellular tower needs to be a certain strength for a powered off phone to ping a tower. I mean the end consensus is that nobody really seems to know this stuff, but at worst these assumptions do not appear to be contradicted easily.

No phone will ping if the battery has been removed or is completely dead, but phones tend to power down automatically before the battery is completely dead. So it seems hypothetically possible that ping data would reveal that a phone's battery had been removed.

In any event, even if both phones were simply powered off, it would appear that Jen never turned her phone back on in the morning. Not to mention, on Monday night Jen is presumably exhausted, she had what we are led to believe was a minor argument with her boyfriend, there are various hypothetical reasons she may have decided to leave her apartment, ranging from a trip to the drug store to who knows what. On Monday night she is presumably in a much more vulnerable state than on Tuesday morning, which puts her at greater risk of abduction then. A predator is also, presumably, more likely to strike at night as opposed to broad daylight (and more people out and about).

Monday night IMO is a more logical time for her to have crossed paths with an abductor, than Tuesday morning. If LE says otherwise, I question whether they are simply taking steps to avoid contradicting Jen's parents in order to avoid discord and guard against negative publicity.

The wet towel was, I believe, found on top of her drying machine and could have been taken out of the washing machine the night before. The wet shower, I'm not sure for the explanation but it feels like there could be one. All items missing were items she would have left the house with for work; either she kept these things in her car for convenience, or she was planning to spend the night somewhere else. I can't really get past the cell phone data, though.



I tend to doubt that she would have bothered bringing the phone to MS unless she had other motivations. But if she was angrier than we are led on after getting off the phone with her bf, I tend to wonder if there was anyone she might have turned to. I presume that there were no phone calls to anyone but I wonder if there would have been electronic record of any instant message sort of communications, i.e. by computer or old school "app." I also wonder whether anybody ever looked for such communication.

I agree with your sentiments and learned some things here. Thanks for your post. So whatever I say here is not to quibble with your points. The phones going dead at same time I think make phones being dropped and batteries lose connection unlikely, but even if that were the case it's stil a violent event. But it does make a crime of passion more possible, unlikely but possible.

To some degree I guess it doesn't matter what basis the carrier(s) have for presuming the removal of cell batteries, but as a career programmer who has analyzed reams of binary data in my time, I can say that a positive indication of battery removal via data would not normally be referred to as "presumed". In my opinion it would be the lack of positive indication that phones were shut down with a button before transmission ended that would require a "presumed" batter removal. It would have to be presumed because same effect would be caused by shielding the phones from transmission (also highly unlikely).

I just tend to think that Jennifer might wish to pass the phone problem on to someone else rather than an affinity for her ex bf, like the phone being an excuse to see him or something. I also think that being abducted in a mall parking lot is more likely than any smaller parking lots like a store. But not much to go on for that 40 minutes.

 

[shelly111]

After almost a week jennifer was not home,most likely she didn't have food at home.
It isn't mention anywhere she went grocery shopping before coming home.Maybe after her last call to Robb , even she was very tired,she was hungry and went to a fast food restaurant, a take away chinese place or one of the restaurants in the mall across the street
and was abducted there in the parking lot.
Some areas in parking lots are out of cameras .
Who ever did this may be lucky and never get caught but karma will get him.
It never fails. Karma always win.

 

[marable]

Drew said that there were boxes of left over Chinese food in the fridge....He said that Jennifer loved Chinese food....He did not know if she had picked it up on the way home Monday evening, if her brother and his friends left it or if it was there prior to her vacation trip....Guess that is one of those unknown's....

He said that Jennifer usually shopped for groceries in Windmere which is less than 10 miles from her condo....whether she felt like going to Windmere after work , who knows?

I would personally doubt that if she had food in her condo prior to her trip that her brother and friends probably ate it all up while there....

If she ordered Chinese to be delivered, was the delivery guy involved in this....

I still doubt that she went anywhere after getting home from work as that was not a habit of hers , she was tired from her vacation.....I think she probably stopped and got something for dinner on the way home or had it delivered...

 

[marable]

Thanks for that info. Two cell phones near each other pinging (or rather, have control from) different towers is not something I would expect would cause a reaction of puzzlement of "Jennifer's cell phone can't be in two places at once". For one thing, it would assume that Jennifer and the two cell phones were together when it would probably be interpreted as Jennifer and her cell phone were separated from the other cell phone.

The two cell towers I was referring to is Jennifer's cell phone in control by tower A and then switching to be in control by tower B and then back tower A fairly quickly. However I don't see why this would puzzle anyone. All I can guess on that is that carrier provided list of tower locations and time and police didn't understand the context. I don't know, maybe some other info they haven't released.

RD, I have a crazy question....Say Jennifer's phone was a Sprint phone and Travis' phone was a Verizon would these phones ping off of an ATT tower? Or, do they only ping off their brand, in other words would Jennifers phone only ping a Sprint tower?

Surely there is someway for the cell phone co to tell when a phone has merely been turned off as opposed to the batteries being removed....Wouldn't you think?

 

[marable]

There are lots of good posts in this thread.

My ageing memory tells me the ex-bf followed Jennifer from Bradenton to Orlando.
That is often a red flag in these situations. More so if they are the possessive/jealous type.

Then to answer my own concerns I thought the ex or most of us regular folk would crack under police interrogation.
But how much interrogation was there?

What was the motive for the abduction? A possible clue is the fact it took place immediately after her weekend away; with her new boyfriend.

Myserty,

I have always thought that it was possible that Jennifer's trip had something to do with her disappearance...Was it merely a coincidence that she was abducted either the day she returned or the morning after?.....If that is the case I think it almost rules out the possibility of a random abduction....It would have to be someone who became more and more agitated over the days that she was away on vacation with her boyfriend and just finally could not take it anymore and exploded with rage......On Monday at work there were witnesses to a verbal altercation between JC and Jennifer.....Could he have lost control of himself and harmed Jennifer? Afterall , he was late getting to work on that Tuesday morning?

 

[rd_jfc]

RD, I have a crazy question....Say Jennifer's phone was a Sprint phone and Travis' phone was a Verizon would these phones ping off of an ATT tower? Or, do they only ping off their brand, in other words would Jennifers phone only ping a Sprint tower?

Surely there is someway for the cell phone co to tell when a phone has merely been turned off as opposed to the batteries being removed....Wouldn't you think?

I googled and US carriers are mostly not in the tower business, they lease access to towers. Multiple brand carriers may access same tower in an area. Not from this search, but from previous research on another case that I posted about here a few years ago, even same brand phones next to each other could connect to two different towers, it's a matter of an exchange that establishes a tower currently in control but this can change very rapidly if a phone doesn't hear from their tower and does from another, the new tower will take conrtrol.

I don't understand the puzzlement the authorities have of two places at once unless the towers are more than a couple of miles apart. Then you have the situation of Drew apparently being told it's not an exact science. Well, it's more exact than inexact. Unless it's just crazy data the preponderance of pings will show the phone is within range, that is within about a mile and a half. The two phones could very well be controlled by two different towers, and one of them switch from one tower to another and back, and not necessarily the tower controlling the other phone. It all depends on how many towers are within range. Go out and start driving and things will change up.

I will google and see what is said... the first thing I see is that in flat terrain a phone could reach a tower 22 miles away, so an aberrent ping several miles away is possible. But the 1 to 2 miles is typical spacing. However I see in urban areas it could be as close as 1/4 to 1/2 mile apart.

Re: off vs batteries removed, off is using no power. There's no difference between using no power and having no batteries. The device is dead until turned on. Then if there's no batteries you can't turn it on. That's when it makes a difference.

I checked for info on the control channel protocol between cell phone and tower and saw references to the specs such as GSM being tens of thousands of pages. Plus anything concerning power off vs batteries removed floods the results with questions and answers on government surveillance. So I didn't find anything specific that the carrier could look for to say the batteries were presumably removed.

I can say, as I said several posts ago, that both phones being manually powered down at same time, knowing that Jennifer used her phone as an alarm and didn't turn it off at night, was more than sufficient for me to know that had been abducted by then. If the batteries were removed in addition to turning it off or just pulled out without pressing the off button, it would show a bit more of a professional criminal who doesn't take chances the off button would put the phone in standby mode and keep pinging.

But I don't think the difference is critical. Even just turning off both phones shows a planned abduction.