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

[rd_jfc]

Assuming they will know who phoned jenn that night / she phoned , on the landline and the mobile ? And if so , why hasn’t it helped?

In my opinion there was no phone call for a number of reasons. There would not be ping information given without some reference to a phone call during that time. It is a type of "ping" information as loosely termed as cell phone pings are. It is a major event and involves the controlling tower, etc. I don't detect the kind of misleading statements it would take to refer to a phone call as a ping.

It also would not be something OPD could sit on. If you have a phone call literally as the person disappears that's not gee maybe we should talk to that person. That's prime suspect territory. That's something that could not be hidden by OPD and instead talk about they think she went looking for a mailbox.

Now I know they said they were withholding some information about phone calls, but hiding that she talked to someone and then disappeared is not going to happen.

 

[rd_jfc]

Could she have last minute that night run out to get something? Something left in the car? Maybe she was unpacking and laid stuff out and realized she had no clean x, y, z. Maybe she got her period and decided to go to the cvs or local mart to get something hygiene related (or a toothbrush, or a snack, or anything else). The fact that clothing was on the bed folded means she took out clothing that night but then left and never returned. Or she put it there in the morning. If she took it out that night it would have been on the ground had she slept in the bed- so either she refilled it in the morning, took it out in the morning, or began unpacking that night, left remembering she needed something in that moment that was more important for her to get them than in the morning, and never returned (was abducted somewhere on her way or back that evening). This would also explain her taking her purse and phones. She may have only had to drive a few blocks. She may have been unpacking while on the phone with her boyfriend and then as they hung up she realized she needed to go to the store. The perp could potentially that morning used her place to clean himself (obviously this person would need to be slick, smart, and have a sense of how dna can be left behind). Upon cleaning himself he knew her behaviors enough to create a ruse, like she had been there, wets a towel and pushes out make up knowing it wouldn’t be realistic for that not to be out given she wore it regularly. He then takes the car eventually and moves it and wipes it down. If he knew to wipe down the car I bet he knew how to return to the home and be mindful of his dna and seeming clean when he left.

This is my first time really looking at this case so I can be incredibly off base. But sometimes good to get new eyes. I know it is crazy to fixate on but one literally may have to run out at night if they suddenly get their period or have no toilet paper etc. i thought why would she maybe actually leave that evening- if she did- and where could be close enough that she could be attacked in under twenty minutes too account for the phone. And I just thought, if I got my period and I had nothing at home.

Ugh who knows. Awful and sad case. Also apologies for typos. I hate proof reading.

It’s just two weird both those phones shut off then. It was intentional. And someone who likes texting and being in communication with family and friends doesn’t just do that. The police need to look directly at when those phones stopped being powered on. If it was at night then they know she was abducted at night even if this means she was taken from her apartment or someone followed her home or she was intercepted en route to grab something. Which phone went off first? Was it a matter of minutes or hours? Did one have a longer lasting battery? Did they have the same battery? Could she have left her charger on vacation? Did the phones run out of power? My guess is they were both purposefully shut off.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I found out here from Truth Prevails last week about the nature of the DVD player strapped into a seat for transportation. You get off the phone with someone who just put that in your car to bring home within last day what are the odds you remember, oh yeah, that DVD player is still out there. I can't imagine why that hasn't been a prominent reason for going back outside after her phone call with Rob.

There are a couple of issues that don't add up just for walking out to the car. One thought was that she might have brought something out with her that had the friend's phone in it. Another was that possibly the abductor rendered her unconscious and went into her condo to get her wallet ID's and the phone was in a purse he took back out to the car.

Not as reasonable as she drove somewhere taking the phone but certainly there is no mystery about a reason she might have gone back out to her car in my opinion.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Assuming they will know who phoned jenn that night / she phoned , on the landline and the mobile ? And if so , why hasn’t it helped?

I'm not so sure about the landline--long distance calls are clearly logged on the person's monthly bill so I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Kesse would know about all the long distance calls exchanged that evening on Jennifer's landline. They may not be able to reveal it to the public, though.

The same with any messages left on her answering machine.

Because, here, I am thinking that other calls could be significant--not just the last one.

Now, with her cell phone--and with a subpoena--law enforcement can get a whole lot of information which I'm sure would not be released. But perhaps there was none--we just don't really know.

But you are right; it hasn't helped. It could be an indication that there is nothing; but I don't think we know everything. And law enforcement doesn't have to tip their hand any more than they want to.

I just read up a little bit on a very old cold case which was eventually solved, and one of the things I found interesting was that LE had originally said a red tow truck was involved. Come to find out the tow truck was black and they knew it all along.

They don't consider it misleading, they just need to hold onto some facts that only the perpetrator will know.

Plus, they have other reasons; but they all do it.

 

[Truth Prevails]

In my opinion there was no phone call for a number of reasons. There would not be ping information given without some reference to a phone call during that time. It is a type of "ping" information as loosely termed as cell phone pings are. It is a major event and involves the controlling tower, etc. I don't detect the kind of misleading statements it would take to refer to a phone call as a ping.

BBM - I wonder if the ping information came from the first subpoena, with the more detailed information coming from a second subpoena. From following trials, I know that different information can come from different departments and each department requires its own subpoena. I doubt that we would know about any information later received from additional subpoenas --they could hold that tight.

It also would not be something OPD could sit on. If you have a phone call literally as the person disappears that's not gee maybe we should talk to that person. That's prime suspect territory. That's something that could not be hidden by OPD and instead talk about they think she went looking for a mailbox.

I agree that they wouldn't sit on information pointing directly to a suspect or a person of interest. Although, they will sit to a limit and we have seen that in this case regarding how long it took to get the actual video of the POI released.

But what would they do with an earlier local call from a personal friend of Jennifer's leaving a casual, friendly message. Could they have overlooked something of this nature? Remember the knock on her door--it looks to me like they could be holding some details of that back. The actual time, for one thing.

Now I know they said they were withholding some information about phone calls, but hiding that she talked to someone and then disappeared is not going to happen.

I agree with this--in the black and white of it.

 

[Truth Prevails]

I found out here from Truth Prevails last week about the nature of the DVD player strapped into a seat for transportation. You get off the phone with someone who just put that in your car to bring home within last day what are the odds you remember, oh yeah, that DVD player is still out there. I can't imagine why that hasn't been a prominent reason for going back outside after her phone call with Rob.

There are a couple of issues that don't add up just for walking out to the car. One thought was that she might have brought something out with her that had the friend's phone in it. Another was that possibly the abductor rendered her unconscious and went into her condo to get her wallet ID's and the phone was in a purse he took back out to the car.

Not as reasonable as she drove somewhere taking the phone but certainly there is no mystery about a reason she might have gone back out to her car in my opinion.

The sticking point for me with this, is that it would point to a random abduction.

And there is just so much that doesn't seem to fit with that.

 

[Ozoner]

I found out here from Truth Prevails last week about the nature of the DVD player strapped into a seat for transportation. You get off the phone with someone who just put that in your car to bring home within last day what are the odds you remember, oh yeah, that DVD player is still out there. I can't imagine why that hasn't been a prominent reason for going back outside after her phone call with Rob.

There are a couple of issues that don't add up just for walking out to the car. One thought was that she might have brought something out with her that had the friend's phone in it. Another was that possibly the abductor rendered her unconscious and went into her condo to get her wallet ID's and the phone was in a purse he took back out to the car.

Not as reasonable as she drove somewhere taking the phone but certainly there is no mystery about a reason she might have gone back out to her car in my opinion.

Not as reasonable???

I think it's 1,000 times more likely than her having driven somewhere.

 

[Markybug]

Only scenario i could invision is , jenn pops down to bring up the DVD player and thinks ro put the mobile in the glovebox so its good to go? Takes her own mobile , switched on pre-dialled for 911 for safety? Briefcase left in boot earlier , not brought up?

Would that cover everything?

 

[flgrl017]

Thank you for responding to my question, and sorry to be so long getting back to this.

I believe that Mrs. Kesse has said that Jennifer's glasses were found on her bedside table. (I'm searching for a link for that, so maybe for right now we can treat it as a rumor).

If that is correct, I find it is also another indication that Jennifer never got up and got ready for work on the morning of the 24th; or ready for anywhere, really--even on the evening of the 23rd.

Jennifer's father has said that Jennifer was "blind" without her glasses.

At least some people with eyesight similar--and I'm one of them--would put their glasses on immediately upon standing up or just before. I may occasionally skip them for a quick bathroom trip, but that would be about it.

And when I wore contacts, I would always leave my glasses right beside my contact case--after I had put them in.

So, the glasses left on her bedside table but the contacts missing is one of the little points that bother me. But, it's only one of many in this case.

Just food for thought, I guess.

Further evidence of staging maybe--but one he didn't get quite right?

I think you have a point. That may be staging. I wear glasses and I have extremely bad eyesight. Mine is so bad that I even put my glasses on when I get up during the night. I would expect the glasses to be buy her contacts case or either with her. Do people that wear contacts carry their glasses with them just in case something happens with their contacts during the day?

 

[flgrl017]

Did her drivers license have her current address?

If it didn't, we can pretty much rule out a random abduction off site of the condo. The dog tracked him back to her building so he knew where she lived.

 

[rd_jfc]

Not as reasonable???

I think it's 1,000 times more likely than her having driven somewhere.

It would be if not for her contacts, friend's phone, new heels, and driver's ID missing as far as we know.

That's a lot to be missing to go out to the car to bring in something.

So it's actually 1,000 times more likely she drove somewhere close by.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Only scenario i could invision is , jenn pops down to bring up the DVD player and thinks ro put the mobile in the glovebox so its good to go? Takes her own mobile , switched on pre-dialled for 911 for safety? Briefcase left in boot earlier , not brought up?

Would that cover everything?

Except for four things in my opinion--her Florida driver's license; her 3" heels; her contacts; and her underwear left on the bathroom floor with her t-shirt.

The driver's license--as the brown purse she had taken on vacation with her was later found within her luggage; is there a possibility she would have taken her driver's license out of her wallet that morning and placed it in her dash so she would have it handy if needed unexpectedly? I know that doesn't really appear to make sense because one would think she would have left her driver's license in her wallet and put the wallet in her dash.

But a wallet is not listed as missing; only a purse. But the purse originally listed as missing has been found, but no mention has been made as to what the contents of that purse were; or if it was totally empty. (Just more little details never revealed that could mean a lot).

Now, if the purse still had everything in it that Jenn normally carried in her purse except for her wallet which usually contained her driver's license--then it could become more feasible that her driver's license may have been in her wallet which was in the dash.

Her heels--this one doesn't bother me as much as the others, but it's still worth mentioning. Why heels to go down to her vehicle and return carrying a DVD player? Does anyone think she may have only had two pairs of casual sandals and they were both in her car? Thus just slipping on her heels which she may have left right in her foyer when she returned from work. They would have been handy and easy to slip on until she reached her car, and then she could have changed in her sandals, carried up the DVD player; leaving her heels in her vehicle but having her sandals for morning?

Another point about the possible choice of heels--Mrs. Kesse mentioned that heels make good weapons. That could be some of the reason a safety conscious person like Jennifer choose to wear them. (And once you are used to heels, they really are quite comfortable--when you are 24).

Her contacts--if it's true she was ready for bed, why would she put her contacts in to skip down to her car to retrieve something; if she intended to return immediately to her condo and go back to bed? Her glasses would have done the job nicely.

Here underwear--and please excuse me for bringing this up, but it might be an important consideration. Just to keep things in context--I'm a female. So, my thinking is that if I was ready for bed and I wore a t-shirt and normal everyday underwear for sleeping and I realized I had to make a quick trip to my car and back again--I don't think I would change my underwear. I would probably pull a pair of jeans or sweatpants on over top of them. As far as the t-shirt goes, I may decide to leave it on, too, and just pull something heavier over it--or I may decide to take it off altogether and just pull a heavier sweater or something baggy on.

But the underwear, itself, bothers me in the scenario we are discussing. I don't know how many women would change their underwear to just run out to their car and back. But I may be surprised.

You're scenario is really good. All of the above is just tidbit sharing for possible discussion.

The real problem I see with it is that it would have to be a random abduction; as surely no one could predict she would be running out to her vehicle around 10 o'clock at night to get a DVD player.

 

[Markybug]

Except for four things in my opinion--her Florida driver's license; her 3" heels; her contacts; and her underwear left on the bathroom floor with her t-shirt.

The driver's license--as the brown purse she had taken on vacation with her was later found within her luggage; is there a possibility she would have taken her driver's license out of her wallet that morning and placed it in her dash so she would have it handy if needed unexpectedly? I know that doesn't really appear to make sense because one would think she would have left her driver's license in her wallet and put the wallet in her dash.

But a wallet is not listed as missing; only a purse. But the purse originally listed as missing has been found, but no mention has been made as to what the contents of that purse were; or if it was totally empty. (Just more little details never revealed that could mean a lot).

Now, if the purse still had everything in it that Jenn normally carried in her purse except for her wallet which usually contained her driver's license--then it could become more feasible that her driver's license may have been in her wallet which was in the dash.

Her heels--this one doesn't bother me as much as the others, but it's still worth mentioning. Why heels to go down to her vehicle and return carrying a DVD player? Does anyone think she may have only had two pairs of casual sandals and they were both in her car? Thus just slipping on her heels which she may have left right in her foyer when she returned from work. They would have been handy and easy to slip on until she reached her car, and then she could have changed in her sandals, carried up the DVD player; leaving her heels in her vehicle but having her sandals for morning?

Another point about the possible choice of heels--Mrs. Kesse mentioned that heels make good weapons. That could be some of the reason a safety conscious person like Jennifer choose to wear them. (And once you are used to heels, they really are quite comfortable--when you are 24).

Her contacts--if it's true she was ready for bed, why would she put her contacts in to skip down to her car to retrieve something; if she intended to return immediately to her condo and go back to bed? Her glasses would have done the job nicely.

Here underwear--and please excuse me for bringing this up, but it might be an important consideration. Just to keep things in context--I'm a female. So, my thinking is that if I was ready for bed and I wore a t-shirt and normal everyday underwear for sleeping and I realized I had to make a quick trip to my car and back again--I don't think I would change my underwear. I would probably pull a pair of jeans or sweatpants on over top of them. As far as the t-shirt goes, I may decide to leave it on, too, and just pull something heavier over it--or I may decide to take it off altogether and just pull a heavier sweater or something baggy on.

But the underwear, itself, bothers me in the scenario we are discussing. I don't know how many women would change their underwear to just run out to their car and back. But I may be surprised.

You're scenario is really good. All of the above is just tidbit sharing for possible discussion.

The real problem I see with it is that it would have to be a random abduction; as surely no one could predict she would be running out to her vehicle around 10 o'clock at night to get a DVD player.

All good points Truth. It seem unlikely to do the above just to run to your car doesn’t it. Plus the biggie , to then get randomly and expertly abducted!

Maybe... a good explanation for the heels and license and phone is a bar? I dont know what ID requirements are for bars in america tho. Just another thought.

 

[rd_jfc]

My take is that Jennifer took a shower Monday evening, before that 9:57 pm phone call. It was usual for her to discard those clothes on the floor according to an early comment from her mother in not exactly those words.

This was a normal looking scene for Jennifer to leave her condo and drive somewhere, however brief, it was just assumed that it occurred Tuesday morning to go to work.

I don't see anything unusual about this and unfortunately all indications to me are that she was assaulted and abducted a few minutes away from her condo, I would expect by the POI.

That doesn't help explain what happened to Jennifer or who the POI is but that's what it looks like. There is both getting the DVD player as a possible reason for going out to her car, and a promise to send the friend's phone back to him as a possible reason for driving somewhere, but all indications are she went back out to her car between 10 pm and when pings started, time unknown, alleged to end about 10:20 pm.

I just don't see anything unusual that would indicate staging in her condo. The randomness is up in the air, it could be someone stalking her who was outside when she went to her car, other than that it would be a random assault from someone who was looking for a target.

The POI images are the only insight we have into who that is.

 

[Truth Prevails]

I think you have a point. That may be staging. I wear glasses and I have extremely bad eyesight. Mine is so bad that I even put my glasses on when I get up during the night. I would expect the glasses to be buy her contacts case or either with her. Do people that wear contacts carry their glasses with them just in case something happens with their contacts during the day?

BBM Ohhh, I hadn't thought of that. You know, I think I did when I first started wearing them--but once I got really used to them and came to trust them, I didn't bother anymore.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that Jennifer practiced this--maybe even having a spare pair of glasses she always carried.

Now that you got me thinking about this, I think what I did was carry my contact case with me with fresh solution in it. (I actually had a couple of spare contact cases). I had a mirror that I laid flat on the bathroom vanity. I would set my contact case on top of it; balance one on the end of my finger; and plop it in while looking down. If it fell off my finger before reaching my eye, it would land on the mirror and be easy to find. (Usually).

But that's actually where I kept my glasses when I left for work--somewhere near the mirror and my empty contact case.

I put my glasses on as soon as I woke up, but I'm a coffee drinker and that's my first stop.

I always found when I first removed my contacts after work my vision was especially bad until my eyes adjusted. And it's no fun to try to blindly hunt up your glasses once your contacts are out. Most people really keep all that stuff together to be sure where everything is.

LOL This has been a memory refresher.

Great point, as always.

Now I have to apologize for my digression and think about how this "refreshed" thinking would apply to Jenn. If Mrs. Kesse did find Jennifer's glasses on her bedside table, it is--at least for me--a tiny indication that Jennifer was in bed for the night when she talked to Rob. Possibly right after she said good night and hung up the phone, she removed her glasses and set them exactly where her mother found them.

What would make her get up and go into the bathroom to put her contacts in without touching her glasses? Nothing. But another possible scenario is that her contacts aren't missing--maybe just in another contact case that no one thought to check?

Something else that's coming to my mind right now is the rape button that was beside her bed. Supposedly it was checked and found to be in working order, but was never pressed.

Gosh, I don't know. All my theories just loop around.

Did her drivers license have her current address?

If it didn't, we can pretty much rule out a random abduction off site of the condo. The dog tracked him back to her building so he knew where she lived.

BBM - this is really interesting. I hadn't even contemplated this.

I believe conscientious Jennifer would attend to all details of this type in a timely manner; however, with only having lived in her condo for two measly months--this would be something worth checking.

Regarding Bo the tracking hound--I have thus far always regarded it as an indication of stalking. But the other day, something occurred to me: If we think about Jennifer--on the spur-of-the-moment running down to her car to bring up the DVD player--suddenly encountering one or two young adult males loitering around her complex parking lot checking out vehicles to see what they could steal. Now suppose they lived near the Hunnington-on-the-Green complex or hung out with friends there, but a couple of times a week would cruise down to the Mosiac complex on foot to check out vehicles.

Maybe the dog could track him or them for that reason?

The problem I see here, though, is how could they have so successfully hidden her remains? They might have gotten lucky--with his or their luck holding even the next day at high noon as the car was dropped; and continuing for 12 years--but the odds have to be against it.

 

[Truth Prevails]

All good points Truth. It seem unlikely to do the above just to run to your car doesn’t it. Plus the biggie , to then get randomly and expertly abducted!

Maybe... a good explanation for the heels and license and phone is a bar? I dont know what ID requirements are for bars in america tho. Just another thought.

Yeah, it would all fit. Even having Travis' phone with her--she could have been using a cross shoulder bag that no one even knew she had and just intended to use it in the morning for work--thus bringing the 2nd cell along with her without planning, per se.

But we have to be willing to believe that Jennifer--a trust-worthy; reliable; safety conscious, tired, young woman--would suddenly lie to her boyfriend (after just returning from a romantic and probably meaningful vacation with him); to spur-of-the-moment go out to a bar.

I'm trying. But I'm not fully there yet.

 

[Truth Prevails]

My take is that Jennifer took a shower Monday evening, before that 9:57 pm phone call. It was usual for her to discard those clothes on the floor according to an early comment from her mother in not exactly those words.

This was a normal looking scene for Jennifer to leave her condo and drive somewhere, however brief, it was just assumed that it occurred Tuesday morning to go to work.

I don't see anything unusual about this and unfortunately all indications to me are that she was assaulted and abducted a few minutes away from her condo, I would expect by the POI.

That doesn't help explain what happened to Jennifer or who the POI is but that's what it looks like. There is both getting the DVD player as a possible reason for going out to her car, and a promise to send the friend's phone back to him as a possible reason for driving somewhere, but all indications are she went back out to her car between 10 pm and when pings started, time unknown, alleged to end about 10:20 pm.

I just don't see anything unusual that would indicate staging in her condo. The randomness is up in the air, it could be someone stalking her who was outside when she went to her car, other than that it would be a random assault from someone who was looking for a target.

The POI images are the only insight we have into who that is.

Why hide her remains so completely?

You said: "A random assault from someone who was looking for a target"--that's not usually a description of a person who commits a one-time crime.

After 12 years, I have a tendency to believe we would have heard from him again.

 

[Ozoner]

It would be if not for her contacts, friend's phone, new heels, and driver's ID missing as far as we know.

That's a lot to be missing to go out to the car to bring in something.

So it's actually 1,000 times more likely she drove somewhere close by.

Absolutely not. Putting the friend's phone in the car was probably one of her reasons for going to the car.

Any of the other things you mentioned are very easy to explain away. She could have been wearing the shoes and/or contacts, she could have had those things in a handbag that the perp tossed because he got his DNA on it, her ID could have been in her pocket or kept as a trophy by the perp, etc. Not a single one of those things points to her having driven somewhere.

We have a couple of extremely plausible reasons why she might have gone out to her car and no evidence that she drove anywhere.

So no, it's 1,000 times more likely that she was simply going out to her car.

 

[Questions123]

Is anything being done to put this case back in the spotlight? An increase in a reward or some incentive to get people that have information to talk?

 

[rd_jfc]

Yeah, it would all fit. Even having Travis' phone with her--she could have been using a cross shoulder bag that no one even knew she had and just intended to use it in the morning for work--thus bringing the 2nd cell along with her without planning, per se.

But we have to be willing to believe that Jennifer--a trust-worthy; reliable; safety conscious, tired, young woman--would suddenly lie to her boyfriend (after just returning from a romantic and probably meaningful vacation with him); to spur-of-the-moment go out to a bar.

I'm trying. But I'm not fully there yet.

She had a very long day. I don't think anyone would expect she drove somewhere close by to socialize.

But I did think she might drive somewhere close by, even including the mall bar, if she knew someone there, thought they would be there due to prior experience, and wanted to talk about something, including possibly taking care of getting the phone back.

It's not very solid but by no means am I thinking she went out on a lark.

 

[rd_jfc]

Why hide her remains so completely?

You said: "A random assault from someone who was looking for a target"--that's not usually a description of a person who commits a one-time crime.

After 12 years, I have a tendency to believe we would have heard from him again.

I don't think her remains are anywhere in the area. I don't follow crime anymore, I retired from that about 10 years ago, but prior to that I followed missing women cases closely. I still follow Jennifer and Chandra Levy cases to the degree that I can help.

But based on my earlier years experience, these missing women cases by random assault, not the usual significant other in her life who has determined she is now an inconvenient woman, are not in place crimes. They are missing for a reason, starting with removal from the assault location. I expect as with many of these abductions she was removed to a remote location.

We can only guess why this is not someone who was caught in another crime and confessed to Jennifer Kesse's murder. But the nature of bringing her car to the Huntington apartments and ditching it makes it not a furtive assault and rape and get out of here crime that usual assault and rapes are.

I know the first thing people will say is, what about the gas not used. I wouldn't expect an abductor would plan on using the victim's vehicle (if they had a vehicle) for removing her. I expect he would drive her car to where his truck or van was parked and conceal her in his vehicle, then transport her.

One would think he wouldn't come back and move her car, but he must have felt that he needed to misdirect attention to the apartments where he ditched the car rather than leaving her car someplace where he had parked his probably truck or van.