FL - Jennifer Kesse, 24, Orlando, 24 Jan 2006 - #6

[leftcoast]

So, RD, what is your theory?

Are you suggesting that the POI was not associated with Mosaic?

Are you saying JK was a random target, or pre-meditated?

Do you think this could be a burglary gone bad?

HOw do you think the LE uniform fits into this?

Anyone think this has anything to do with her job?

Who is to say that the POI wasn't a former friend from college, or someone who was a neighbor at her former apartment complex?




left

 

[Enrique Sparta]

Just where was Jennifer abducted?
The most likely scenario is either at her car door or just as she was seated in her car.
The main clue to this is she was in the habit of either calling or texting her boyfriend every morning. Her parents have stated that she did this on the way to work.

Her boyfriend stated this on the Nancy Grace show:

Well, normally, like I`ve said, Jennifer and I had gotten into the routine -- Jennifer always woke up before me. She had to go to work before I did. So she every day would either call me just to say, Good morning, Have a great day, or just text me to wish me to, you know, have a great day, Love you, that type of thing. And when I didn`t receive it Tuesday morning, I thought it was odd, but I was running a little late for work, so I called her on the way into work and just (INAUDIBLE) her voice- mail. I called her both...

She never called or sent a text message that morning.
This mostly likely happened because the abduction had already occurred. If Jennifer had driven her car that morning it is more than likely she would have turned her cell phone on and either called her boyfriend or sent a message.
Also an abduction in or at the victims car means the crime is cleaner and quicker with the getaway vehicle (her car) at hand. The Kelsey Smith video showed the abduction can be completed in seconds.
Did her cell phone even get turned on that morning?
LE has never released information confirming pings from her phone were recorded that morning.


In this vanishing anything is possible of course

People don't normally turn their cell phones off unless required like in an airplane. She likely always had it on, you can keep the cell phone on while it charges too. And if you don't want it to ring, almost everybody just puts it on silent or vibrate. The problem is there is no way to get the ping signal unless she made a call or somebody called her. Which is unlikely at about 8 in the morning. The only activity on the phone would've been her making the call to her bf but she never go the chance. Any smart kidnapper will immediately locate the phone of their victim and turn it off. Cause if anybody calls, then they can find out the general location of the phone. I'm sure that's exactly what the kidnapper did. As for the friend's phone, Jennifer probably shut it off when he called to say it was still there. The battery would run out without his charger and she doesn't wanna hear the phone ringing as it's not hers and she's not gonna answer it. So very likely she shut it off as she was preparing to mail it the next day or whatever.

In that Kelsey girl from Kansas case, luckily the idiot didn't shut her phone off and since it was a Saturday evening, an 18 year old girl would likely get a lot of calls. Well she was getting plenty of phone calls as he drove around doing whatever to her and they were able to find the general location and begin searching.

 

[Enrique Sparta]

So, RD, what is your theory?

Are you suggesting that the POI was not associated with Mosaic?

Are you saying JK was a random target, or pre-meditated?

Do you think this could be a burglary gone bad?

HOw do you think the LE uniform fits into this?

Anyone think this has anything to do with her job?

Who is to say that the POI wasn't a former friend from college, or someone who was a neighbor at her former apartment complex?




left

I definitely don't think it was a burglary or any kind of home attack. It looked just like it should for JK daily work day routine and I think it would be very difficult to stage something like that. All indicators were that she got ready for work.

In these types of cases, it's like at least 75% where the victim knew their abductor. Maybe higher. But it seems odd they wouldn't be able to figure it out still after 1.5 years.

I wonder if they've looked at her boyfriend's friends/acquaintances?

I dunno how the LE uniform fits in. That'd be crazy if he's a real cop or a military, security, or rent-a-cop. The uniform looks awfully elaborate for an imposter.

 

[Enrique Sparta]

what kind of signs of a struggle in or at the car are you guys talking about? like what? a dent in the car? I doubt it. If somebody was abducting her he wouldn't throw her against the car, he'd be grabbing her and covering her mouth...rendering her unconscious or something or showing her a gun or knife and telling her to keep quiet. Or using a taser on her.

How about in the car? What evidence of a struggle?

The only evidence in the car I could think of is if there's blood or something.

 

[Enrique Sparta]

The fact remains that the dog did track back to not only Mosaic, but to either her door or stairway. You don't have to believe in the dog's ability, but most of us do. It is at least SOME evidence the suspect is associated in some way with Mosaic.

He had a reason for going back there.
1) He lived there.
2) He worked there.
3) His transportation was there.
4) He knew someone there.
5) Another reason....
....a) Check for left evidence
....b) Dispose of evidence
....c) Revisit the crime scene

There was also talk the dog went through a path in the woods behind Mosaic or something? Can't recall exactly.

I'd like to know exactly where the dog went.

 

[UCFAlumni2002]

In regards to no signs of a struggle in the car.. it could be nails breaking from scratching someone.. blood, god forbid,... anything out of the norm. The video shows Jennifer's car as it drove into HOTG. I think maybe it's time to go back and review all the articles on Jenn's disappearnce.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

People don't normally turn their cell phones off unless required like in an airplane. She likely always had it on, you can keep the cell phone on while it charges too. And if you don't want it to ring, almost everybody just puts it on silent or vibrate. The problem is there is no way to get the ping signal unless she made a call or somebody called her.

Not true. As long as the phone is turned on, you do not need to receive or to make calls to get the ping to search for someone.

When they are turned on, cell phones constantly emit locator signals called pings so their companies know to which towers to route phone calls, Bankston said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/12/ap3909256.html

http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/cellping.asp

 

[SeriouslySearching]

what kind of signs of a struggle in or at the car are you guys talking about? like what? a dent in the car? I doubt it. If somebody was abducting her he wouldn't throw her against the car, he'd be grabbing her and covering her mouth...rendering her unconscious or something or showing her a gun or knife and telling her to keep quiet. Or using a taser on her.

How about in the car? What evidence of a struggle?

The only evidence in the car I could think of is if there's blood or something.

Evidence of a struggle was brought out in another case recently. It was a footprint on the inside of the windshield and scratch marks on the inside of the door or door frame.

There is also more hair lost during a struggle, possible blood, fingernails, etc.

Another sign of a struggle inside the vehicle could be buttons pulled or kicked off, seat belts messed up (twisted around), visors askew, tears in the upholstery, or anything else out of place in the vehicle.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

There was also talk the dog went through a path in the woods behind Mosaic or something? Can't recall exactly.

I'd like to know exactly where the dog went.

The dog also "hit" in the woods behind Mosaic.

 

[Myserty64]

Thinking back to the terrible Tiffany Souers case the perpetrator merely saw her on her balcony.
I believe he broke into her unit at night and she was strangled.
Tiffany was unlucky enough to be on her balcony at the very time a killer was driving around looking for prey.
It is quite possible Jennifer was first noticed when she was on her balcony.
There were a lot of workers around the Mosaic complex at that time so you can bet your last dollar Jennifer was at least noticed leaving for work.

And what about the 'punch' list of repairs to her condo.
On how many occaisons did Jennifer have to spend time during working hours at her condo?
What type of work was done?
I hope LE have investigated every single tradesman or worker who has been in her condo.
We all know she was uneasy about the presence of workers around Mosaic.
What triggered this uneasiness?

Had lewd suggestions been made within earshot of Jennifer?
Had anyone been suggestive toward her?

Or was this a crime of opportunity?
Was there a van parked next to Jennifer's car that morning as per Christopher Marlowe's scenario.
Was the contractor getting tools or materials as Jennifer brushed by and he whipped her into his van through the side sliding door. The crime was then committed in the van.

Or as some believe was Jennifer abducted while attempting to mail the cell phone left at her apartment? Did the perpetrator even know she lived at Mosaic? In this case most likely not.
The car was dropped at HOTG simply because it was convenient for the perpetrator.

As usual lots of questions and no answers.

 

[Enrique Sparta]

Not true. As long as the phone is turned on, you do not need to receive or to make calls to get the ping to search for someone.

When they are turned on, cell phones constantly emit locator signals called pings so their companies know to which towers to route phone calls, Bankston said.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/12/ap3909256.html

http://www.snopes.com/crime/prevent/cellping.asp

Thanks. That's interesting SS. And great news too. I thought phone activity had to be in use cause of what I read when I was following the Kelsey Smith case...

Bregel said cell phone signals, known as pings, occur when a cell phone is in use, either receiving or sending a call or message. He said that the last ping was received at 7:56 p.m. Saturday. "Family and friends were attempting to contact Kelsey Saturday night," Bregel said.

...from an article in a Kansas newspaper.


also in the Snopes link you gave...

Most mobile phone companies keep records of calls to and from phones as well as a limited number of recent routine locater pings (sometimes just the last ping, sometimes up to 24 hours worth of them).

The kidnapper was likely bright enough to turn the phone off but if he didn't....well it could be a huge clue, I'm sure law enforcement has already looked into this.

 

[Enrique Sparta]

Thinking back to the terrible Tiffany Souers case the perpetrator merely saw her on her balcony.
I believe he broke into her unit at night and she was strangled.
Tiffany was unlucky enough to be on her balcony at the very time a killer was driving around looking for prey.
It is quite possible Jennifer was first noticed when she was on her balcony.
There were a lot of workers around the Mosaic complex at that time so you can bet your last dollar Jennifer was at least noticed leaving for work.

And what about the 'punch' list of repairs to her condo.
On how many occaisons did Jennifer have to spend time during working hours at her condo?
What type of work was done?
I hope LE have investigated every single tradesman or worker who has been in her condo.
We all know she was uneasy about the presence of workers around Mosaic.
What triggered this uneasiness?

Had lewd suggestions been made within earshot of Jennifer?
Had anyone been suggestive toward her?

Or was this a crime of opportunity?
Was there a van parked next to Jennifer's car that morning as per Christopher Marlowe's scenario.
Was the contractor getting tools or materials as Jennifer brushed by and he whipped her into his van through the side sliding door. The crime was then committed in the van.

Or as some believe was Jennifer abducted while attempting to mail the cell phone left at her apartment? Did the perpetrator even know she lived at Mosaic? In this case most likely not.
The car was dropped at HOTG simply because it was convenient for the perpetrator.

As usual lots of questions and no answers.

Myserty I had to laugh when you said the other day, " maybe it's time to focus on something easier like Hoffa or the Zodiac killer" lol

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I say we go with the Zodiac! LOL

 

[Myserty64]

Things we would really like to know:

Where and when was the last ping recorded for Jennifer's cell phone.

Was there any activity on her landline after the call to/from her boyfriend at 9:57pm on the Monday.

Are there any photographs of Jennifer's car being driven around the area before being dropped at HOTG.

Is there any evidence of her car being refueled anywhere?

Who and how many had polygraph tests.

Are there really no witnesses to any aspect of the abduction.

 

[rd_jfc]

Whether usual or not, I would have to say that Jennifer turned her cell phone off after 10 pm and never turned it on in the morning because their statement that last known activity was call at 10 pm implies no locator pings to her cell phone after that.

For example, let's say the cell phone was turned off by an abductor in the parking lot at 7:30 am, which is required to not have locator pings after that.

Imagine if ping activity was detected until 7:30 am and then it stops, but police only say that last known activity of Jennifer was 10 pm.

How much more misleading could one be than that? Of course something like that would be announced if known.

If cell phone wasn't turned off, then the locator pings stopped at some point. Obviously, the cell phone was turned off after the last call at 10 pm and there are no more locator pings, because it is inevitable that some mention of them stopping would have to be made in some manner.

It is possible there was a screwup and the ping data for that night was not retained, resulting in looking like the cell phone was turned off until it really was, but nevertheless, for forensic purposes, it would have to look like the cell phone was turned off after the last call.

The other cell phone there would also have to have been turned off, probably a little earlier than that, for the same reason.

rd

 

[leftcoast]

Truth is, we just don't know.

I think it is a leap to think that Jk would turn off her phone at night.

I remember her mom saying that JK was always reachable via cellphone, and that her cellphone "never" went straight to voicemail before.

This just doesn't sound like someone who turns their phone off at night. Especially, since it sounds like Jk's cellphone was her primary phone.

The LE statement that "no activity" on Jk's cellphone, could possibly mean no incoming or outgoing calls. IT would depend on the intention of the LE rep. who made this statement.

Therefore, I'm not ready to conclude Jk's phone was shut off at 10pm, although it is possible.

A better question is, why won't LE release data related to Jk's landline?

Did someone call Jk after 10pm?

Also, if Jk's cellphone was turned off at 10pm, who is to say that the crime didnt' start at 10pm? I think the shower information, and the clothes laid out, could easily be explained by JK showering at night, and unpacking, or looking for an outfit in which to get ready for the next day at work.

Also, anybody think that maybe Jk's cell company does store locator pings, but, only for a 24 or 48 hour period, and due to the delay, the data could have been erased before LE got a subpeona?

left

 

[SeriouslySearching]

With other cases where the ping use has been instrumental in helping LE, the information was held at least for the 2 weeks it took to get the paperwork before the company handed it over so I doubt they would get rid of such information from the phone service within 24/48 hours. The use of ping info was widely being used by LE at the time of her disappearance. LE has this information, IMO, but are not releasing it. Same with her land line phone. If there was nothing there...they would have said.

Jennifer would not have turned her cell off, particularly at night. She was "uneasy" and it would go against her comfort level being back the first night at home after a trip. (The 2nd cell phone had probably gone dead on its own. Boys partying tend to talk a lot and it was probably not charged afterward.)

I have often felt they put too much faith in her being in that apartment until 7:30 am or so. While possible, something could have happened in the middle of the night or earlier the next morning...even while she was showering. Since they did not go over the apartment, someone could have been inside with her for hours, but they would have no way to discern this without forensics. (Even with the pings from her cell being located at the apt., it would not mean she was alone...but could be what they are basing their timeframe info on.) She could have let them in or one of the keys were used (remember the 'walk in' robberies).

 

[leftcoast]

I didn't know that LE could tri-angulate "pings" down to whether someone is inside an apartment or not.

In the Wade Steffey case, LE was only able to give an approx. 2 or 3 block radius (give or take), as to where the phone was located. In addition, did LE use the locator ping, or did LE call Wade Steffey's cellphone, and tri-angulate the ringing of his phone before it went to voicemail?

I've never heard of a LE case in which "locator pings", where able to pinpoint someone's exact location.

For example, in the Kelsey Smith case, it was phone calls to Kelsey's cell that pinpointed her location, not location pings.

Same with the weirdo a few years ago who kidnapped a girl, and used his phone in the area in which she was abducted, and he said he wasn't there.

SAme with the bouncer in NY, who abducted the girl from the bar, and used his cell phone from the area, where the body was found.

Can anyone give me a case, in which after the fact, a "locator ping", not a cellphone call, incoming or outgoing, located the person, or was used for tri-angulation. If so, I'd apprecite a link, so, I can update my knowledge.

Also, what is the reason for the cell companies to store locator pings?

In the old days, we were charged for roaming, but, nowadays, we only get charged for incoming, and outgoing calls. So, why would a cell company keep data related to cell phone locator pings? I can think of only one reason, to let the network know where to send the next incoming cell phone.

IF cell companies were to save every locator ping, that would be over 17,000 pings per day, at a rate of one every five seconds. I just don't understand why a company would keep such data, and if they did, for how long. that is a ton of data, and for what?

Keeping data on incoming and outgoing calls, in order to bill customers, and to pay other networks for the use of their networks by a customer, is obvious. But, I just don't understand why a cell company would store such data, unless, of course LE was following a fugitive.

left

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I've never heard of a LE case in which "locator pings", where able to pinpoint someone's exact location. Only if the phone has GPS which are now going into the newer phones.

SAme with the bouncer in NY, who abducted the girl from the bar, and used his cell phone from the area, where the body was found.
Can anyone give me a case, in which after the fact, a "locator ping", not a cellphone call, incoming or outgoing, located the person, or was used for tri-angulation. If so, I'd apprecite a link, so, I can update my knowledge.
Through use of this cell phone “ping” information, law enforcement have been able to trace a portion of Littlejohn’s movement throughout the day, down to when he left his house all the way to his reaching the site where is accused of dumping the body. http://www.farewellfreedom.com/techw...ce/2006/12/29/
left

You will find most, if not all, of your answers in the article above.

 

[leftcoast]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

Still, if true within Jk's cellphone company, than why can't LE pinpoint the exact time JK's phone was turned off?

I wonder if it depends on the newness of the software, and the density of the cell sites. I also wonder how long the data is kept.

In the bouncer's case, I'm assuming he had a newer phone with GPS in it? IF I remember right, LE was all over the bouncer from the beginning, since, it was the last place the missing woman was known to have been, and I believe he walked her to her car. Plus, let's face it, NYPD has over 30,000 officers, and a ton more experience, than a small town with only 600 officers, and only 25-50 homicides per year.

I still think LE should have asked for help in this case.


Didn't we hear that Jk's phone didn't have GPS in it, nor did her car?

I also wonder just how long this information is stored.

This is just another example of why I find it so hard to believe this case is cold.

Why doesn't LE know when and where JK's phone was turned off?

Why didn't LE use this technology with the Kelsey SMith case, and rely instead on incoming phone calls?

Plus, why couldn't LE be able to find Wade Steffey, when he was on campus? He was found by accident. Did he have an older phone, no GPS?

I'll tell ya, I really think the clues to solve this case are present. The cellphone should have clues, the landline, the photo, forensics in the car, and all the media, and we have nothing. Hard to believe.

IT's amazing to think, that our cellphones have turned into beacons. IF someone wants to track your movements, they can use your cellphone, on-star, online tracking devices which are installed in automobiles, etc.

This works both ways. Recently, in Phoenix, a man was charged with installing a tracking device in his ex-girlfriends car, and using the internet to stalk her movements. The woman finally caught on, and he was arrested.

Thing is, as technology changes, the perp.'s learn about this technology, and change their MO, or use the technology, such as the auto GPS, to their advantage.

left