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

[htiff]

Obviously evidence is the critical tool. A ten year old watching "Forensic Files" would know that.
There are too many outlying issues to tunnel vision and pin this on a Mosaic worker. AND it can't be logically assumed that the POI that parked the car has anything to do with Jennifer's abduction and/ or murder. EVIDENCE simply shows that someone parked her car.

How then does the POI have the keys to Jennifer's car?

 

[DD Byrd]

POI was given the keys. Is it that complicated?

 

[htiff]

POI was given the keys. Is it that complicated?

Who gave the POI the keys?

 

[DD Byrd]

I'm pretty sure if we knew that, we wouldn't have this thread.

 

[htiff]

I'm pretty sure if we knew that, we wouldn't have this thread.

Who, other than Jennifer's abductors would have the key to her car? If the POI didn't participate in the abduction, he must have some relationship to the person/s who did--otherwise, how would he come by the key?

I guess I don't understand the distinction you are making here. Regardless of what aspect of this crime the POI participated in, he is involved.

 

[DD Byrd]

Indeed. But does he know he's involved? Was he paid after the fact to move a car?

 

[rd_jfc]

Not sophisticated, but lucky. One doesn't need to dispose of her body in broad daylight if she was hidden in a vacant condo until dark, plus a remodel would wipe away any crime scene evidence.

The phones were disabled via powering off, we have to assume Jen powered them off, anything outside of that is just speculation. There is no evidence she left the condo that night, or that there was a struggle that night. There is more information to suggest this was a morning abduction than a previous evening abduction, this is what the family believes as well.

I wish I could believe the blowup pictures, but they are too unreliable with floating images, I literally can see whatever I want to see. I'll give it another look..It's not like there have not been people arrested for impersonating a cop in Orlando, but regardless of who he is, I believe he abducted Jen that morning. No one would wait until high noon to park her car unless there was no choice.

My response is predicated on the 10:40 pm info being correct to start with. It was apparently valid enough for Mr. Kesse to quote verbatim, in other words, he put some stock into it, but we don't know how much stock to put into it. But it's out there, and until something official negates it it's a significant factor.

To assume Jennifer powered her phone off as a sort of companion act to powering the friend's phone off when going to bed, you'd have these consequences:

1) Widely reported that family never knew her to turn her cell phone off. There was the landline as I understand it that woudl allow family to reach her at night in an emergency, but nevertheless, their expectations were that her cell phone would be on all night.

2) Widely reported that she used her cell phone as an alarm (as I do and many others). Turning her cell phone off and therefore her alarm off when she was never known to do this before cannot fall into the realm of assumed.

3) The assumption would have to continue that she woke up without her cell phone alarm, perhaps she had another alarm as well or wakes up on her own, again, totally unexpected behavior, and didn't turn her cell phone on, otherwise pings would resume, and there was reportedly no more activity with these phones after 10:40 pm.

4) One could further extend this assumption to that of planning on turning her phone on after she started driving to work but never got a chance. It's pretty much unfathomable to me that she woudn't have turned her phone on after getting up to check for messages, etc. And that's assuming she for some reason didn't feel meed for her alarm clock that morning.

All in all, some major stretching of reality because her phone being powered off at 10:40 pm makes her not there in morning inconvenient to belief. And the belief is based on? The family believed the shower was still wet enough to have been used that morning. And the family doesn't want to believe she left previous night.

So something has to give, and unless it's the 10:40 pm disabling of both phones, there is no reason to believe she was around the next morning of her own accord.

Re: the POI images, there is one floating artifact, that is the shape of an LE shoulder patch over shoulder area in image 1. And I pointed out that it was floating and explained the time lapse photography, movement, and lens distortion. I also pointed that that artifact was not indictive of anything compelling on its own, but is consistent with every other artifact found in the images, that being LE oriented.

rd

 

[Rust Cohle]

and this construction worker drove her car to HOTG just as staff and family were starting to look for her and then walked back down the road over a mile because he's so sophisticated? And disposed of her body in a nearby construction site in broad daylight?

And didn't leave a crime scene anywhere? That's a remarkable construction worker, or anyone for that matter.

My response is predicated on the 10:40 pm info being correct to start with. It was apparently valid enough for Mr. Kesse to quote verbatim, in other words, he put some stock into it, but we don't know how much stock to put into it. But it's out there, and until something official negates it it's a significant factor.

To assume Jennifer powered her phone off as a sort of companion act to powering the friend's phone off when going to bed, you'd have these consequences:

1) Widely reported that family never knew her to turn her cell phone off. There was the landline as I understand it that woudl allow family to reach her at night in an emergency, but nevertheless, their expectations were that her cell phone would be on all night.

2) Widely reported that she used her cell phone as an alarm (as I do and many others). Turning her cell phone off and therefore her alarm off when she was never known to do this before cannot fall into the realm of assumed.

3) The assumption would have to continue that she woke up without her cell phone alarm, perhaps she had another alarm as well or wakes up on her own, again, totally unexpected behavior, and didn't turn her cell phone on, otherwise pings would resume, and there was reportedly no more activity with these phones after 10:40 pm.

4) One could further extend this assumption to that of planning on turning her phone on after she started driving to work but never got a chance. It's pretty much unfathomable to me that she woudn't have turned her phone on after getting up to check for messages, etc. And that's assuming she for some reason didn't feel meed for her alarm clock that morning.

All in all, some major stretching of reality because her phone being powered off at 10:40 pm makes her not there in morning inconvenient to belief. And the belief is based on? The family believed the shower was still wet enough to have been used that morning. And the family doesn't want to believe she left previous night.

So something has to give, and unless it's the 10:40 pm disabling of both phones, there is no reason to believe she was around the next morning of her own accord.

Re: the POI images, there is one floating artifact, that is the shape of an LE shoulder patch over shoulder area in image 1. And I pointed out that it was floating and explained the time lapse photography, movement, and lens distortion. I also pointed that that artifact was not indictive of anything compelling on its own, but is consistent with every other artifact found in the images, that being LE oriented.

rd

1 & 2) A majority of the information reported out there has been incorrect, until there is confirmation that Jen didn't have an alarm clock and solely used her phone as such, I assume that is also incorrect or the family would put much more stock into that.

3) I've thought about this, and it's interesting. But, it just means she didn't turn her phone on before walking out the door, people do it, even more so in 2006.

4) It seems unfathomable to you doesn't mean it didn't occur. It seems unfathomable to some to have an alarm system but not use it, and that's exactly what Jen did, not use her alarm.

There is no evidence she was abducted at night, or that anyone besides her was in that condo that night, only an assumption based upon the belief someone else powered off her phones, when she could have simply powered off the phones. Her reasons for powering them off? I'm not sure, maybe tired, sick of hearing voicemail alerts, it doesn't matter..All that matters is everything suggests she slept the night in her condo.

Her clothes were laid out as if she was getting ready for work. Her briefcase, work clothes, favorite pumps she wore to work, her phone and her brother's friend phone all are missing...These items don't come up missing at night unless someone entered her condo, knew what items to snag, found the second phone and staged the scene..No way someone stages a scene with this prep work and then waits until noon to park her car. In fact, with that prep work why even risk it and touch her car? Also, her family knew her very well, so much that they were onsite within hours of her missing, and were handing out flyers that night..So I do think their opinion on this is huge, and carries a significant weight, more so than anyone else involved.

It makes much more sense that all the items missing were items she would have in tow while on her way to the office. It make sense that the items in tow would disappear along with Jen that morning, and by her going to car with those items is how her car becomes involved in this. She didn't grab all those missing items and run down to her car at night either. A staged scene at night wouldn't involve her car at noon.

re POI - I know you don't have the time, but I would encourage you to do an overlay of the POI with the items you believe to be there, or simply outline them. I think that would be huge.

 

[htiff]

1 & 2) A majority of the information reported out there has been incorrect, until there is confirmation that Jen didn't have an alarm clock and solely used her phone as such, I assume that is also incorrect or the family would put much more stock into that.

3) I've thought about this, and it's interesting. But, it just means she didn't turn her phone on before walking out the door, people do it, even more so in 2006.

4) It seems unfathomable to you doesn't mean it didn't occur. It seems unfathomable to some to have an alarm system but not use it, and that's exactly what Jen did, not use her alarm.

There is no evidence she was abducted at night, or that anyone besides her was in that condo that night, only an assumption based upon the belief someone else powered off her phones, when she could have simply powered off the phones. Her reasons for powering them off? I'm not sure, maybe tired, sick of hearing voicemail alerts, it doesn't matter..All that matters is everything suggests she slept the night in her condo.

Her clothes were laid out as if she was getting ready for work. Her briefcase, work clothes, favorite pumps she wore to work, her phone and her brother's friend phone all are missing...These items don't come up missing at night unless someone entered her condo, knew what items to snag, found the second phone and staged the scene..No way someone stages a scene with this prep work and then waits until noon to park her car. In fact, with that prep work why even risk it and touch her car? Also, her family knew her very well, so much that they were onsite within hours of her missing, and were handing out flyers that night..So I do think their opinion on this is huge, and carries a significant weight, more so than anyone else involved.

It makes much more sense that all the items missing were items she would have in tow while on her way to the office. It make sense that the items in tow would disappear along with Jen that morning, and by her going to car with those items is how her car becomes involved in this. She didn't grab all those missing items and run down to her car at night either. A staged scene at night wouldn't involve her car at noon.

re POI - I know you don't have the time, but I would encourage you to do an overlay of the POI with the items you believe to be there, or simply outline them. I think that would be huge.

Makes sense.

Examining the bare-bones of this case--

1) As you stated, there are all the indications that Jennifer slept in her bed and performed her usual pre-work rituals. (If this was staged, it's an awfully elaborate staging--down to the wet towel and shower stall.)

2) Items missing from her condo are consistent with what Jennifer would have taken with her to work.

3) Jennifer never makes her customary text to her boyfriend that morning.

4) Her car shows no signs of a struggle or a crime having been committed within it, yet it is suddenly parked a mile from the Mosaic, just around the time that Jennifer's loved ones believe something has happened to her, and begin making calls.

5) Scent dog places the POI who parked the car traveling back to Mosaic

6) No sightings of either Jennifer or her vehicle, other than the parking of her car by the POI at Huntington on the Green.

Poof. She's gone.

There's this sense that whoever did this, was very comfortable in that area, because they didn't feel the need to get farther away, sooner.

 

[kemo]

Law Enforcement knows when the phones were powered off. That is very critical information and it is really the starting point of any attempt to make sense of what happened to Jennifer. In addition, LE must know her pattern of turning her phone on and off during a normal work day (most people would leave it on 7/24) and they should have checked to see if there was an alarm clock or radio available. It should be pretty clear whether this was a morning or evening abduction.

 

[marable]

Law Enforcement knows when the phones were powered off. That is very critical information and it is really the starting point of any attempt to make sense of what happened to Jennifer. In addition, LE must know her pattern of turning her phone on and off during a normal work day (most people would leave it on 7/24) and they should have checked to see if there was an alarm clock or radio available. It should be pretty clear whether this was a morning or evening abduction.

Totally agree with you....The phones are key to this case in my opinion...

 

[Markybug]

Totally agree with you....The phones are key to this case in my opinion...

Unfortunately it something we are never going to find out , unless this goes cold case ?

 

[Myserty64]

After eleven years and counting this should be a cold case already.

What does one have to do to get a top cold case detective to work this case?

Anyone who has watched true crime shows knows that cold case detectives see 'things' that were overlooked by the original investigators.
It might not work in this case but at least it can be said every option to solve it was taken.

 

[Rust Cohle]

The new unconcealed episode potentially puts Jen at another complex around 10:30 that Monday night. I have no doubt who the other male was at the scene.

 

[shelly111]

I always thought the killer was connected somehow to the apt complex behind the mosaic. after he parked the he walked behind Jennifer's apt and continue to the other complex, either worked there or lived there

 

[marable]

The new unconcealed episode potentially puts Jen at another complex around 10:30 that Monday night. I have no doubt who the other male was at the scene.

I believe that it is possible that she could have been abducted shortly after talking to Rob....Didn't she tell him that she was in bed or getting ready for bed....Erica on the podcast said the woman she saw was wearing a tank top and sweats(my daughter and some friends wear tank top and sweats to sleep in)....It makes it seem more possible that she was abducted the night before by someone she let in, someone who was hiding in her condo or someone who let themselves in after she went to bed....

It is sad that if this was her that she was so frightened and yelling for help....

 

[Rust Cohle]

I believe that it is possible that she could have been abducted shortly after talking to Rob....Didn't she tell him that she was in bed or getting ready for bed....Erica on the podcast said the woman she saw was wearing a tank top and sweats(my daughter and some friends wear tank top and sweats to sleep in)....It makes it seem more possible that she was abducted the night before by someone she let in, someone who was hiding in her condo or someone who let themselves in after she went to bed....

It is sad that if this was her that she was so frightened and yelling for help....

Right, everyone I know wears sweats to bed. Let's say Erica's account that night is in fact Jen..The real question is who lived in the NB apts? Was Jen seeing someone else?

 

[marable]

Right, everyone I know wears sweats to bed. Let's say Erica's account that night is in fact Jen..The real question is who lived in the NB apts? Was Jen seeing someone else?

YES indeed, that is the million dollar question if that was Jennifer at Northbridge Apartments....

 

[kemo]

I've listened to the pod cast and I don't know what to think. Anytime there is a high profile crime, particularly the disappearance of a young woman, people crawl out of the woodwork claiming to have seen or heard things in hope of being part of the story. At the same time, people may really have information that could help the investigation but it can easily get lost in the shuffle. There is no easy way for law enforcement to separate the wheat from the shaft.
We have the suggestion that in the next installment of the pod cast, the witness' description of the guy she saw with the blonde woman that night is going to bare a "striking resemblance" to somebody who's name has come up in the investigation. The problem is that 13 years have passed. Is there any means to gage the reliability of this account?

 

[Rust Cohle]

I agree about people coming out of the woodwork, but it is a cold case now, and I find it less likely someone would make a story up after this much time and more likely someone misremebered. With that being said, I do believe her, and it gives much more weight to a night abduction as the baseless pings now have credence. Jen being pulled from passenger to the rear lines up her flip-flops being on the passenger floor. Being in pajamas lines up with having maybe laid in bed for a short time, there is no evidence to suggest she brought her briefase in from the car that day, and it's possible both phones were thrown in her purse that night before she left the condo.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk