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

[Ozoner]

Maybe because it doesn't point to a morning abduction? I'm stumped.

The knuckled-headed theory of a morning abduction is the only reason this case hasn't been solved.

My guesses is that LE cleared a suspect who should not have been cleared because they got the abduction time wrong.

Maybe one day the OPD will get its figurative head out of its figurative rectum (but I'm not holding my breath).

 

[Truth Prevails]

I was doing some work on my postings and I clicked over to kesses site to test the link. I saw where they updated this year's newsletter on their front page and the information about needing to seek legal recourse to get information from Orlando Police Department about their missing daughter.

They have gone through normal channels for years. Apparently the OPD complied with requests by sending them completely redacted (blacked out) return forms. This is also the same OPD by the way that refused to even respond to my tips about the image enhancements. Not even FOAD. Just File 13 it.

This is also same OPD that for years claimed it wasn't even their case, it was the FBI's, and the FBI claiming it wasn't their case, it was OPD's. I'm not making that up.

H even said it's not for the family, it's for their lawyers and investigators (whoever they're able to get) to act on in professional roles. And still the OPD refuses to help the Kesses find their daughter.

I don't know. He got some information but refuses to accept it, and OPD is not forthcoming to them. It's a bad situation.

I wonder if Mr. Kesse has decided to move ahead with the law suit? I haven't heard anything recently.

I agree with your statement above that the situation is bad. A law suit may make the bad situation or worse. Or maybe not, it's hard to say.

What I do know, though, is that if a team selected by the Kesses get lucky enough to find Jennifer--law enforcement will immediately step in. The area will be declared a crime scene and sealed.

Unless, of course, there is a true miracle, and Jennifer is found alive. I wish I could hold more hope towards that end.

 

[Truth Prevails]

The knuckled-headed theory of a morning abduction is the only reason this case hasn't been solved.

My guesses is that LE cleared a suspect who should not have been cleared because they got the abduction time wrong.

Maybe one day the OPD will get its figurative head out of its figurative rectum (but I'm not holding my breath).

BBM-good point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the official "missing" time is still given as anywhere from 10:00 pm on the 23rd to 8 am on the 24th--a full 10 hour window.

That must have made for some interesting "interviews", and equates to a lot of work confirming alibis.

It does makes a person wonder.

 

[rd_jfc]

I wonder if Mr. Kesse has decided to move ahead with the law suit? I haven't heard anything recently.

I agree with your statement above that the situation is bad. A law suit may make the bad situation or worse. Or maybe not, it's hard to say.

What I do know, though, is that if a team selected by the Kesses get lucky enough to find Jennifer--law enforcement will immediately step in. The area will be declared a crime scene and sealed.

Unless, of course, there is a true miracle, and Jennifer is found alive. I wish I could hold more hope towards that end.

Thinking about it, I don't think the OPD has any information that would help an investigator anyway, at least not beyond what was divulged to the Kesses.

It's not like the location of that second tower means anything. It was a quick switchover and back ("can't be in two places at once"), and the location it switched to is mostly irrelevant. It helps slightly in that the car was probably not moving away from it but could very well have been.

It certainly is not that situation we've read about regarding the searches where someone says oh, that's the tower, let's search in fields around it. It doesn't work that way.

And since phone switched right back to let us assume the local tower the other tower's location wouldn't point to anything anyway regarding searching. So unless there is a pattern indicated in tower locations you just have let us say a group of pings in immediate area and they stop. That just doesn't provide any information other than the car wasn't driven far before the phones were disabled.

I will say if the briefcase is not missing and the new shoes are not in the briefcase, then that would be something I do not expect. But I guess I wouldn't expect the briefcase not missing and iPod missing either. In fact the CD player I think is mentioned specifically as pointing to not a robbery yet the iPod is said to be missing. In the briefcase, understandable. Not in the briefcase, not so much, unless it was actually stolen.

So a hard list of what was found in the car, versus what is "missing", would be somewhat helpful but only in terms of helping to profile a suspect. I don't think anyone is going to come down on a robbery gone awry no matter what is missing. And her bank cards not used anyway.

Interviews with the construction crew that may or may not have taken place? I doubt OPD has anything useful there. The remainder of porential interviews investigators could do anytime. The people are known, there's nothing OPD has that's useful. You can talk to everyone and see what they have to say, don't need OPD's take on whether they passed a polygraph or not.

Phone calls? I would think that Jennifer's estate (her parents) would have access to her last phone billings and see what calls might be listed. I don't think OPD would have any more info than that.

My advice would be not to waste money on a let us say FOIA on steroids against OPD, use the money for an investigator. You'd get started a lot sooner and get farther anyway.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Thinking about it, I don't think the OPD has any information that would help an investigator anyway, at least not beyond what was divulged to the Kesses.

While I think you are most likely correct, sometimes I'm not so confident. Just scan through the quote I have linked below. If it is a truthful reply, it leaves the door open to question if all was disclosed to Jennifer's family. (Why I say "if truthful" is because Mrs. Kesse has said that there are somethings they are not allowed to reveal).

Reply Quote from Jenn's Guestbook: Replied on: 11:32am 05-11-2016
a FOB was found and could be Jennifer's but Investigators have that info and have not and will not share because I don't think they know if it is. So????
http://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/?page=17
(The link works. Just scan down the page looking for the reply date. If sometime has passed since my comment, you may need to try a few pages back. It's still easy to find, though--quickly scan through each page looking for the reply date).

It's not like the location of that second tower means anything. It was a quick switchover and back ("can't be in two places at once"), and the location it switched to is mostly irrelevant. It helps slightly in that the car was probably not moving away from it but could very well have been.

It certainly is not that situation we've read about regarding the searches where someone says oh, that's the tower, let's search in fields around it. It doesn't work that way.

And since phone switched right back to let us assume the local tower the other tower's location wouldn't point to anything anyway regarding searching. So unless there is a pattern indicated in tower locations you just have let us say a group of pings in immediate area and they stop. That just doesn't provide any information other than the car wasn't driven far before the phones were disabled.

But he says "maybe" 11 pings. If I understand you correctly, the "quick switchover and back" would take care of three pings. What about the other eight? Are you saying it is most likely that the phone kept doing "the quick switchover and back" between the same two towers in groups of three pings: say we have 9 pings instead of 11, would we have three "quick switchovers and back"?

And I think I do understand about each tower having a radius and for good coverage, the radius of several towers should overlap. That way, as one is traveling about, if a building or something blocks your signal, a second tower should be able to keep you covered without interrupting the call. Eventually, as you travel, you would exit the coverage range of one tower and enter the next--still being covered by an overlapping circular radius of various towers.

So, if that is correct, maybe I do understand what you mean; and how that indicates the phone didn't go far at all. Also, if we consider we accounted for nine pings, then the last two could account for the "final event" ping from each phone. (This would involve assuming the ping study showed to Mr. Kesse was a combined study for both phones).

I will say if the briefcase is not missing and the new shoes are not in the briefcase, then that would be something I do not expect. But I guess I wouldn't expect the briefcase not missing and iPod missing either. In fact the CD player I think is mentioned specifically as pointing to not a robbery yet the iPod is said to be missing. In the briefcase, understandable. Not in the briefcase, not so much, unless it was actually stolen.

So a hard list of what was found in the car, versus what is "missing", would be somewhat helpful but only in terms of helping to profile a suspect. I don't think anyone is going to come down on a robbery gone awry no matter what is missing. And her bank cards not used anyway.

I would like to know why LE held on to what was in the trunk of Jenn's vehicle, but not what was in the interior. But, I agree. The motive wasn't robbery. (She must have had something on her feet, though--for anyone who thinks she went out. Whether of her own free will, or not. Unless the condo is truly the scene of the crime).

Interviews with the construction crew that may or may not have taken place? I doubt OPD has anything useful there. The remainder of porential interviews investigators could do anytime. The people are known, there's nothing OPD has that's useful. You can talk to everyone and see what they have to say, don't need OPD's take on whether they passed a polygraph or not.

True, this. And probably the best idea. Although, I can see where it might be helpful to know what they had said previously.

One thing that I want to mention, here. I'm sure Mr. Kesse said that what he was mainly after was the tips for the first two weeks. (I could probably find a link for this if you think it would be helpful. It was something I read right after the 12 year missing presser).

If you do any research on the searches, you will discover that after about the first two weeks, law enforcement was down to following tips from psychics. Most of the searches done prior--in my opinion--were in areas of the city where Mr. Kesse believed Jennifer would never, ever go to. Especially not alone, after 10 o'clock in the evening.

So, I dunno know--maybe he believes LE was so bent on tracking down that look-a-like prostitute, they missed a decent tip?

Phone calls? I would think that Jennifer's estate (her parents) would have access to her last phone billings and see what calls might be listed. I don't think OPD would have any more info than that.

Yeah, they would have her cell phone bills; and probably Travis', too. Also, the home phone records would at least show the time and duration of any long distance calls. Plus, they would have had access to her answering machine.

My advice would be not to waste money on a let us say FOIA on steroids against OPD, use the money for an investigator. You'd get started a lot sooner and get farther anyway.

Good advice. I do think he has his own people working on the case at the current time, and that they have been for at least some period of time. I don't think there is much they can come up with, and that is why they would like to review what law enforcement has: i.e. the tips.

Keep in mind, they are only looking for their daughter. They don't give a hoot about anything else. Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible to go about it in that way. But I really, really, really hope I'm wrong.

Jennifer deserves a miracle.

 

[rd_jfc]

Truth Prevails wrote: "But he says "maybe" 11 pings. If I understand you correctly, the "quick switchover and back" would take care of three pings. What about the other eight? Are you saying it is most likely that the phone kept doing "the quick switchover and back" between the same two towers in groups of three pings: say we have 9 pings instead of 11, would we have three "quick switchovers and back"?

And I think I do understand about each tower having a radius and for good coverage, the radius of several towers should overlap. That way, as one is traveling about, if a building or something blocks your signal, a second tower should be able to keep you covered without interrupting the call. Eventually, as you travel, you would exit the coverage range of one tower and enter the next--still being covered by an overlapping circular radius of various towers.

So, if that is correct, maybe I do understand what you mean; and how that indicates the phone didn't go far at all. Also, if we consider we accounted for nine pings, then the last two could account for the "final event" ping from each phone. (This would involve assuming the ping study showed to Mr. Kesse was a combined study for both phones)."

You are right on everything about the overlapping towers. My guess is there was just one switchover and back. I would consider two switches within a few minutes unusual just based on logic. The nature of switching is that the current tower signal is fading and another tower signal is significantly stronger, so phone registers with second tower (switches). The current tower signal can decrease drastically but it won't be terrain causing it in Florida. Speculation on it is not warranted in my opinion unless one were to find there were multiple switches and needs to look into it further.

A switchover and back is two pings with a previous ping however much earlier establishing current tower. The switch is to tower B, then back to current tower. I don't know if there could be additional activity recorded, but that's minimum that would show it.

Bear in mind the phone is judging the relative strength of every tower signal it sees and makes determinations when to register with a different tower. When you have the phrase "can't be in two places at once" which is about all I know of this sequence then that undoubtedly is pings to two towers in a very short amount of time, so short it's considered "at once" or certainly way too short amount of time to have driven any appreciable distance toward the other tower.

Even if it happened more than once it still has the hallmarks of current tower signal blocked and registering with a distant weaker tower, then seeing current tower signal again as soon as you're past the blockage and registering back with the strong local tower. I guess theoretically you could even get the same blockage if you were circling a mall parking lot and hit the same blockage again as an extreme example,. Bottom line, it's not some dash back and forth between two towers.

The lesson of the pings is that the phones are moving. That initiates all this activity, and that is all that investigators will know. There is no location information involved here other than the location of any towers involved, and unless there is a pattern of moving from tower A to tower B and beyond there is no indication of any pattern to the movement.

You could have this list of tower activity for these two phones and it still wouldn't tell you anything about where Jennifer may be, including ground searches. If you have any indication of a pattern such that for example believed to be actually headed toward tower B territory you still have an abductor who knows enough to disable the two cell phones, and therefore knows enough to drive in a misleading direction before doing so.

I just think the car was only driven a mile away and parked isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

 

[Markybug]

Rd jfc , whats your hypothetical night time event scenario? Dont have to name anyone , assuming you have a suspect?

I think , if she went out at night , it must be related to the mobile , but why the rush? Unless someone say , phoned her in some sort of distress or other issue ?

 

[rd_jfc]

Rd jfc , whats your hypothetical night time event scenario? Dont have to name anyone , assuming you have a suspect?

I think , if she went out at night , it must be related to the mobile , but why the rush? Unless someone say , phoned her in some sort of distress or other issue ?

I would be interested in seeing whether the new shoes (which I'm sure she took on her trip and probably wore to work Monday) was found in her car or not. If not, it makes her leaving the condo after that 10 pm call oriented to being seen, even if briefly. Again that points to driving over to the mall and getting accosted in parking lot, which makes most sense to me.

I just would not be surprised she was getting rid of the phone to a mutual friend rather than dealing with shipping it to her brother's friend. Had he given her an address to ship to? It was a work phone. Did he give her his work address? What did he say to her besides requesting she overnight it to him? What did she say?

From long back, a poster close to the family (I don't know who) said she was in no hurry to send the phone back and disregarded the thought that she would do anything that evening about it. I'm not sure she would have been eager to tell anyone she was dumping the phone off on a mutual friend and it may have been a very last minute decision anyway.

My thinking is also influenced by the POI. You just keep seeing these cop imposters in the news through the years, in small print crime news. While I was working on these images there was one on a motocycle in Jacksonville that attempted to abduct a child waiting for a school bus. There was another one arrested in Kissimmee but that one was black. And I've written about my own experience in college where a student was pulled over by an imposter with a flashing light and abducted. I was helping on search teams when he was caught and confessed and took police to her shallow grave.

Times change, cell phones are ubiquitous and powerful, whatever someone tried to do now could be broadcasting on Facebook Live as far as they know, but someone got away with it in 2006.

 

[shelly111]

we know jennifer felt uneasy around the workers ,she complained about them and made phone calls while walking outside.
Talking on the phone can distract a person and jennifferbwas not aware of the real danger.
serial killers and predators are looking for people who don't pay attention to their srounding .
i think the predator knew jennifer is living alone,he knew she doesn't have nighbors, most of the apts are empty . He knew jennifer is on the phone all the time an don't see him,from the first moment he saw her ,so pretty and attractive, he was fixed on her.

 

[rd_jfc]

To me it would be unusual that OPD gave information about 9:57 call but would withhold information about a cell phone "safety" call a few minutes later. Yes they said the withheld some phone information IIRC, don't remember the exact wording, and yes it's theoretically possible that there was such a call and they are withholding it, including from her family, but that would be beyond unusual. I won't even try to characterize something like that.

And a "safety" call goes to someone, someone she knows, who never got a safety call, so I just don't see basis for a safety call at all. That's in addition to having info about 11 pings but not mentioning there's a phone call in there. The ping info was certainly given unofficially and if you're doing that you're going to mention a phone call too.

Just have to accept there wasn't a safety call.

 

[rd_jfc]

You might want to check on the previous page and every few pages before that for a note from the moderators.

A note I agree with not that it matters.

 

[Truth Prevails]

You are right on everything about the overlapping towers. My guess is there was just one switchover and back. I would consider two switches within a few minutes unusual just based on logic. The nature of switching is that the current tower signal is fading and another tower signal is significantly stronger, so phone registers with second tower (switches). The current tower signal can decrease drastically but it won't be terrain causing it in Florida. Speculation on it is not warranted in my opinion unless one were to find there were multiple switches and needs to look into it further.

A switchover and back is two pings with a previous ping however much earlier establishing current tower. The switch is to tower B, then back to current tower. I don't know if there could be additional activity recorded, but that's minimum that would show it.

Bear in mind the phone is judging the relative strength of every tower signal it sees and makes determinations when to register with a different tower. When you have the phrase "can't be in two places at once" which is about all I know of this sequence then that undoubtedly is pings to two towers in a very short amount of time, so short it's considered "at once" or certainly way too short amount of time to have driven any appreciable distance toward the other tower.

Even if it happened more than once it still has the hallmarks of current tower signal blocked and registering with a distant weaker tower, then seeing current tower signal again as soon as you're past the blockage and registering back with the strong local tower. I guess theoretically you could even get the same blockage if you were circling a mall parking lot and hit the same blockage again as an extreme example,. Bottom line, it's not some dash back and forth between two towers.

The lesson of the pings is that the phones are moving. That initiates all this activity, and that is all that investigators will know. There is no location information involved here other than the location of any towers involved, and unless there is a pattern of moving from tower A to tower B and beyond there is no indication of any pattern to the movement.

You could have this list of tower activity for these two phones and it still wouldn't tell you anything about where Jennifer may be, including ground searches. If you have any indication of a pattern such that for example believed to be actually headed toward tower B territory you still have an abductor who knows enough to disable the two cell phones, and therefore knows enough to drive in a misleading direction before doing so.

I just think the car was only driven a mile away and parked isn't going to get anyone anywhere.

BBM - So do you believe the additional pings did not really happen?

I've been wondering if the following could explain them: 3 pings for the quick switch over and back from Jenn's phone; 3 pings for the quick switch over and back from Travis' phone = 6 pings. 1 ping from Jenn's phone for the final event occurrence; 1 ping from Travis' phone for the final event occurrence = 2 pings. Grand total = 8 pings.

That would leave 3 pings unaccounted for, but the 11 in total may not be correct. IIRC, it was a "maybe" type of thing.

Something else that I've been thinking about is Mrs. Kesse's statement that she had heard over the course of time that the main tower which would usually serve Jenn's condo area went down on the evening of the 23rd and a second tower may have stepped in to cover the area. If this were the case--and I'm not saying it is--there would be no movement indicated by the pings, right?

The possibility of 11 pings bothers me. That's a lot for a very short period of time and added to the indication that very little gas was used is perplexing. I don't mean to keep beating a dead horse--but I think there could be more here than what seems evident at first glance.

Maybe not, though. It's probably just me.

 

[Truth Prevails]

I would be interested in seeing whether the new shoes (which I'm sure she took on her trip and probably wore to work Monday) was found in her car or not. If not, it makes her leaving the condo after that 10 pm call oriented to being seen, even if briefly. Again that points to driving over to the mall and getting accosted in parking lot, which makes most sense to me.

This doesn't help answer your question but it may be a small thing to note, keeping in mind that Mrs. Kesse is fairly firm in stating that Jenn's heels are missing.

Here is a picture of two pairs of sandals found in the front passenger side floor of Jennifer's vehicle. If I had to guess, I would say that it is possible that the darker colored sandals are the pair that Jenn was wearing in a picture taken while on her vacation in St. Croix.

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/jjkimages/media/bWVkaWFJZDozMjg5MzU5/?ref=1

I just would not be surprised she was getting rid of the phone to a mutual friend rather than dealing with shipping it to her brother's friend. Had he given her an address to ship to? It was a work phone. Did he give her his work address? What did he say to her besides requesting she overnight it to him? What did she say?

From long back, a poster close to the family (I don't know who) said she was in no hurry to send the phone back and disregarded the thought that she would do anything that evening about it. I'm not sure she would have been eager to tell anyone she was dumping the phone off on a mutual friend and it may have been a very last minute decision anyway.

If you go to W/S Thread 1, Page 12, Post 175, you will see a comment from a member who posted a short summary--in her own words--of a media interview with Travis. My summary: Travis spoke to Jenn on Monday evening. (No time is given). Jenn told Travis he had missed several calls. Jenn told Travis she would overnight the phone back to him, and he would have it in a day or two. Travis said the cell phone company was checking his cell phone call records.

Not much help, I know.

My thinking is also influenced by the POI. You just keep seeing these cop imposters in the news through the years, in small print crime news. While I was working on these images there was one on a motocycle in Jacksonville that attempted to abduct a child waiting for a school bus. There was another one arrested in Kissimmee but that one was black. And I've written about my own experience in college where a student was pulled over by an imposter with a flashing light and abducted. I was helping on search teams when he was caught and confessed and took police to her shallow grave.

Times change, cell phones are ubiquitous and powerful, whatever someone tried to do now could be broadcasting on Facebook Live as far as they know, but someone got away with it in 2006.

BBM - If I understand correctly that you suspect the POI may be a security or law enforcement imposter, how does this fit in with Jenn going to the mall on her own after 10 pm? Wouldn't the POI dressed in his "outfit" going to Jenn's door after 10 pm be more logical?

 

[rd_jfc]

BBM - So do you believe the additional pings did not really happen?

I've been wondering if the following could explain them: 3 pings for the quick switch over and back from Jenn's phone; 3 pings for the quick switch over and back from Travis' phone = 6 pings. 1 ping from Jenn's phone for the final event occurrence; 1 ping from Travis' phone for the final event occurrence = 2 pings. Grand total = 8 pings.

That would leave 3 pings unaccounted for, but the 11 in total may not be correct. IIRC, it was a "maybe" type of thing.

Something else that I've been thinking about is Mrs. Kesse's statement that she had heard over the course of time that the main tower which would usually serve Jenn's condo area went down on the evening of the 23rd and a second tower may have stepped in to cover the area. If this were the case--and I'm not saying it is--there would be no movement indicated by the pings, right?

The possibility of 11 pings bothers me. That's a lot for a very short period of time and added to the indication that very little gas was used is perplexing. I don't mean to keep beating a dead horse--but I think there could be more here than what seems evident at first glance.

Maybe not, though. It's probably just me.

hi Truth, I double checked my research on ping activity. All of this stuff varies by carrier and even for a given carrier the internal engineering isn't documented.

My thought was there was some activity when moving in addition to actual registrations to change tower. "Pings" is sort of an all encompassing term for recorded activity between a cell phone and towers, recorded through the towers, for network to know where to send calls, texts, etc.

I know I said earlier that it's a minimum of two pings to change tower and back, registration pings, but I would expect some additional communcations to establish that controlling tower needed to be changed. I just lump that all under "cell phone moving" chatter.

There could be a more substantial pattern based on changing controlling towers but with the "can't be in two places at once" I pretty much disregarded a pattern because that phrase doesn't lend itself toward a pattern of movement.

Maybe there is and that isn't being mentioned. Good thoughts, Truth.

 

[rd_jfc]

Truth Prevails wrote: "This doesn't help answer your question but it may be a small thing to note, keeping in mind that Mrs. Kesse is fairly firm in stating that Jenn's heels are missing.

Here is a picture of two pairs of sandals found in the front passenger side floor of Jennifer's vehicle. If I had to guess, I would say that it is possible that the darker colored sandals are the pair that Jenn was wearing in a picture taken while on her vacation in St. Croix."

That is interesting. I didn't know there were pairs of sandals left in the car. On other hand I don't know a lot details like that, I keep seeing stuff like that as I follow along through the years.

I wouldn't expect that Jennifer would wear heels much on an island getaway but I would expect that new shoes ("heels") she told her family about she took with her. And she needed to wear something she brought with her to work Monday.

A long time ago someone said that Jennifer changed to comfortable shoes (e.g., sandals) to drive. They also said IIRC that she was prone to leave her work shoes in the car in the briefcase. I don't know if there's any basis to that, or how often she might have done that, but I thought it was possible that if the briefcase was missing, that the missing new shoes might be in it.

But now we're told the briefcase isn't missing, we don't know what was found in the car (really, is that true?), and possibly the new shoes could not be missing. I don't know, was this somehow addressed specifically by OPD? I guess a better question is did the OPD ever address anything.

 

[rd_jfc]

Truth Prevails wrote: "If you go to W/S Thread 1, Page 12, Post 175, you will see a comment from a member who posted a short summary--in her own words--of a media interview with Travis. My summary: Travis spoke to Jenn on Monday evening. (No time is given). Jenn told Travis he had missed several calls. Jenn told Travis she would overnight the phone back to him, and he would have it in a day or two. Travis said the cell phone company was checking his cell phone call records."

That's a helpful slant on it, Truth. What that does is point away from her dumping the phone off on a mutual friend. I wanted to know what was said and now I know. It's possible, but would be more like she thought it was likely a mutual friend was driving over to Tampa in next day or two and he could take it. But it wouldn't be like I worded it, dumping it off on the friend.

 

[rd_jfc]

Truth Prevails wrote: "If I understand correctly that you suspect the POI may be a security or law enforcement imposter, how does this fit in with Jenn going to the mall on her own after 10 pm? Wouldn't the POI dressed in his "outfit" going to Jenn's door after 10 pm be more logical? "

I realize it's suggested frequently here when POI as armed guard is mentioned about going to her door. I'm not sure why anyone suggests that. I can't imagine a less likely course of action than that. Granted, there's more to it in this case. As assumption of stalking, no neighbors, suggesting they could act with impunity, etc.

There's so much that can go wrong with that concerning being seen, forcing your way inside with need to quickly silence, etc. That doesn't even address what it takes to get a victim to the door, opened and unchained, to get in and overcome, again with no commotion that could be heard by anyone anywhere, walking or drivng by, anyone. The whole concept is like the last way that one would go about doing this.

That's also predicated on identifying a victim, stalking, surveillance, and all that encompasses to determine "no neighbors" etc. which would be extremely unusual to say the least.

What is likely is a crime of opportunity, sitting in a car in a mall parking lot for example, keeping an eye out for a possible victim, using an official presence to stop and then subdue someone back into their car.

I will say this. If the phones weren't pinging and then disabled 20 minutes later we wouldn't be conjecturing how Jennifer got abducted then.

 

[shelly111]

Truth Prevails wrote: "If I understand correctly that you suspect the POI may be a security or law enforcement imposter, how does this fit in with Jenn going to the mall on her own after 10 pm? Wouldn't the POI dressed in his "outfit" going to Jenn's door after 10 pm be more logical? "

I realize it's suggested frequently here when POI as armed guard is mentioned about going to her door. I'm not sure why anyone suggests that. I can't imagine a less likely course of action than that. Granted, there's more to it in this case. As assumption of stalking, no neighbors, suggesting they could act with impunity, etc.

There's so much that can go wrong with that concerning being seen, forcing your way inside with need to quickly silence, etc. That doesn't even address what it takes to get a victim to the door, opened and unchained, to get in and overcome, again with no commotion that could be heard by anyone anywhere, walking or drivng by, anyone. The whole concept is like the last way that one would go about doing this.

That's also predicated on identifying a victim, stalking, surveillance, and all that encompasses to determine "no neighbors" etc. which would be extremely unusual to say the least.

What is likely is a crime of opportunity, sitting in a car in a mall parking lot for example, keeping an eye out for a possible victim, using an official presence to stop and then subdue someone back into their car.

I will say this. If the phones weren't pinging and then disabled 20 minutes later we wouldn't be conjecturing how Jennifer got abducted then.

in the parking mall there is security cameras and
many cars are parking there.,people go to the bar and restaurants in the mall so in a way it is more risky.
i think the predator worked in the mosaic office.
He knew there are no cameras in the whole place. He also knew there is no securiry guard at the entrance ,the gate was always open , no one kept track who comes in and out.
A scenario could be
After his work ended arond 5 or 6 pm , he waited for Jennifer to come home and abducted her later that night. The whole time his car was left there and later he returned riding a bicycle. He could have returned late at night or very early in the morning before anyone can see him.

 

[shelly111]

Or he worked as a maintance man in the mosaic.
that morningn he worked as usual , took a break around noon went to his house either by car or bicycle snd drove jennifer's car , parked it where it was found. He walked back to the mosaic. He could have changed clothes on the way or when he arrived at the mosaic.

 

[Truth Prevails]

hi Truth, I double checked my research on ping activity. All of this stuff varies by carrier and even for a given carrier the internal engineering isn't documented.

My thought was there was some activity when moving in addition to actual registrations to change tower. "Pings" is sort of an all encompassing term for recorded activity between a cell phone and towers, recorded through the towers, for network to know where to send calls, texts, etc.

I know I said earlier that it's a minimum of two pings to change tower and back, registration pings, but I would expect some additional communcations to establish that controlling tower needed to be changed. I just lump that all under "cell phone moving" chatter.

There could be a more substantial pattern based on changing controlling towers but with the "can't be in two places at once" I pretty much disregarded a pattern because that phrase doesn't lend itself toward a pattern of movement.

Maybe there is and that isn't being mentioned. Good thoughts, Truth.

Well, darn. We could even be looking at two different carriers--one for Jennifer's cell phone and one for Travis' cell phone.

Supposing Mr. Kesse is choosing his words carefully, I will add two additional quotes where he is discussing the "can't be in two places at once" angle:

Replied on: 7:23am 07-24-2014
Snipped: ... i.e. one can't be in 2 places on the same phone miles away a few seconds apart. ...
http://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/?page=30

Podcast Released September 25, 2017
Snipped: ... Well, how could she be down south and 30 seconds later she is 20 miles north. Out here and over there. ...
https://audioboom.com/posts/6334818-going-forward

I Googled the average range for a cell phone tower and apparently it can range between 22 miles and 45 miles, and that's circular. In your opinion, could there be no chance the study only gave the first-glance impression Jenn had traveled 20 miles from south to north in 30 seconds? Without triangulation, I can see such a misunderstanding. If triangulation was done, they should have her exact location regardless of whether or not towers were down in the area.

While I was in Google mode, I looked-up the cell towers in Jennifer's area. It's not surprising that she had bad reception in 2006--I doubt if it is much better today. Take a look; the cell towers are the red pins, the little text boxes can hopefully speak for themselves, and the quote at the bottom is from an old MSM article:

Using the article as a basis, I wonder if there was a ping that placed the vehicle in that particular area? There doesn't seem to be an eyewitness involved.

Below is the link for the cell tower locations map.
http://www.cellreception.com/towers/towers.php?filter_verizon=1&city=orlando&state_abr=fl