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

[shelly111]

i know the phone pings indicates movement, different towers
But a possible senario
One of the maintance/office workers is a stalker and he had a copy of the keys.
He either came to the apt before jennifer arrived and was waiting hiding until after the last phone call
Or
He opened the door with a key after jennifer went to sleep ,shortly after her last phone call.
He took jennifer and all that is missing to his/her car and drove away.
He got rid of the two phones before going to his house or to wherever he took jennifer
maybe the change of towers is because he was driving looking for a place
to dispose the phones. not to leave any trace where he is going

 

[rd_jfc]

i know the phone pings indicates movement, different towers
But a possible senario
One of the maintance/office workers is a stalker and he had a copy of the keys.
He either came to the apt before jennifer arrived and was waiting hiding until after the last phone call
Or
He opened the door with a key after jennifer went to sleep ,shortly after her last phone call.
He took jennifer and all that is missing to his/her car and drove away.
He got rid of the two phones before going to his house or to wherever he took jennifer
maybe the change of towers is because he was driving looking for a place
to dispose the phones. not to leave any trace where he is going

That's movement, it doesn't matter who's driving. It still works the same.

You could have someone that abducted Jennifer, let's say forced Jennifer to get her car keys which resulted in bringing a purse with the two cell phones in it, drove for a very few minutes, and decided to dump what Jennifer had brought like tossing the purse in water for example.

This is possible, and really at first thought seems it could have been done by anyone. So while I said ping data ruled out an incursion and abduction in that abductor wouldn't gather up phones to take to then disable a few minutes later, it is possible they were collateral damage in just getting the keys to the car by bringing her purse.

It's still criminally sophisticated violent behavior, in both subduing and silencing Jennifer and either forcing her or carrying her unconscious out of her condo presumably to her car, necessitating bringing her car keys., which is a planned removal and abduction using her own vehicle, and then having the wherewithall to start ditching evidence on the way such as deep sixing her purse for example.

That's the easiest explanation, someone stopping to remove her cell phone batteries would be on the criminally sophisticated end of the spectrum.

Any of that is possible, but I think it limits the profiles of people who could do this to criminally sophisticated violence.

 

[JnRyan]

Currently, the Kesses believe that the briefcase is most likely in an evidence locker at the OPD. They think it was in the trunk of the car and law enforcement never released the contents. Mrs. Kesse points out that the briefcase is not listed as missing on the FBI missing person's poster:

Missing items: (a) verizon cell phone (sn – 039-02071456), (1) nextel cell phone (sn – 00080850757310), Kesse’s Florida driver’s license, ipod (sn – cnh5323g6j), Kesse’s keys, and purse.
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/vicap/missing-persons/jennifer-joyce-kesse

Regarding the food, Mrs. Kesse stated in one of the podcast episodes that there was nothing in the garbage except flyers from the mail. (The rest of the mail was found neatly stacked). They assume she got something to eat from her refrigerator, but except for a cup--iirc--there were no dishes to be washed. Logan had run the dishwasher before he left and all the dishes were still inside.

Regarding the purse, here is what the Kesse's said on their Guestbook site in 2014: (The link currently works because I just checked it).

Quote: One point though, Jennifer's purse/pocketbook has not been recovered as yet. We thought the one shown was with her and it was but was within her baggage from her trip. She was utilizing one we are unaware of since Jennifer had many many pocketbooks and purses, too many.
http://jenniferkesse.123guestbook.com/?page=29

A question I would really like to have answered is how do they know a purse was missing?

Regarding the shoes: two most likely possibilities: either she had them on, or they are in the briefcase.

Interesting about the briefcase. But I thought either Drew or Rob were there when OPD opened the trunk because one of them was afraid Jennifer might be in the trunk deceased. If that was the case they should have seen the briefcase. But I may be mistaken on that part. That is odd that the briefcase is not listed as missing. So the phones wouldn't have been in the briefcase? In her purse? The iPod is missing, too, and I had assumed all along it was in the briefcase.

 

[Truth Prevails]

That's movement, it doesn't matter who's driving. It still works the same.

You could have someone that abducted Jennifer, let's say forced Jennifer to get her car keys which resulted in bringing a purse with the two cell phones in it, drove for a very few minutes, and decided to dump what Jennifer had brought like tossing the purse in water for example.

This is possible, and really at first thought seems it could have been done by anyone. So while I said ping data ruled out an incursion and abduction in that abductor wouldn't gather up phones to take to then disable a few minutes later, it is possible they were collateral damage in just getting the keys to the car by bringing her purse.

It's still criminally sophisticated violent behavior, in both subduing and silencing Jennifer and either forcing her or carrying her unconscious out of her condo presumably to her car, necessitating bringing her car keys., which is a planned removal and abduction using her own vehicle, and then having the wherewithall to start ditching evidence on the way such as deep sixing her purse for example.

That's the easiest explanation, someone stopping to remove her cell phone batteries would be on the criminally sophisticated end of the spectrum.

Any of that is possible, but I think it limits the profiles of people who could do this to criminally sophisticated violence.

Bolding by me. Yes, and maybe after 12 plus years the limiting of profiles is long overdue. I like to think that law enforcement did this long, long ago. But I dunno.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Interesting about the briefcase. But I thought either Drew or Rob were there when OPD opened the trunk because one of them was afraid Jennifer might be in the trunk deceased. If that was the case they should have seen the briefcase. But I may be mistaken on that part. That is odd that the briefcase is not listed as missing. So the phones wouldn't have been in the briefcase? In her purse? The iPod is missing, too, and I had assumed all along it was in the briefcase.

If my memory is serving me correctly, I believe it was Rob who was there when the trunk was opened. Some people have speculated that could have been a bit of a set-up by law enforcement to gage Rob's reaction, and the "real" first opening of the trunk would have been done prior. Either way, I can see the stress being high enough at that point that the person might not remember all the items that were there. Just guessing, but I bet after law enforcement had seen what they wanted, ie Rob's reaction, the lid on the trunk was closed pretty quickly.

It is odd, indeed--not the least of which is the fact that law enforcement held on to only the items in the trunk, but released the vehicle with the DVD player still strapped into the back seat exactly as Rob had done it originally; there were a couple of pairs of Jenn's sandals on the floor of the passenger side; I think her car phone charger and mail key were there in a small compartment to the right of the steering wheel; and some other miscellaneous things in the back. Mrs. Kesse actually explained that some of the things in the backseat were actually left there from her move two months prior.

But everything in the trunk was seized.

Law enforcement declared the vehicle a crime scene, but then released the vehicle, minus the trunk contents. I keep asking myself how strange is that, but I have no answer.

I think I understand your thinking that everything except the keys could have been inside the briefcase--purse, driver's license, iPod, and both phones. I have to tread lightly here because this would point to Jenn getting ready to leave for work in the morning and packing everything in her briefcase before heading out the door.

I realize that I cannot say with certainty that it did not happen that way, but it is my opinion that Jennifer left her condo before morning. Honestly, I believe she left within minutes of ending her phone conversation with Rob, but not of her own free will.

I do believe both cell phones could have been in her purse, if, indeed, she actually did have a purse with her. The iPod--I never decided what to make of that. You may very well be right and it could still be inside the briefcase to this day. I wonder how much she used it?

What do you make of them listing her driver's license as a separate missing item? I'm assuming the purse had contents such as a wallet--so maybe that is why they say a purse is missing because other small items usually contained in a woman's purse are missing. But why list the driver's license separately?

 

[Truth Prevails]

Speaking of podcasts, is there anything new coming in interviews about Jennifer?

I thought you might find this entertaining if you haven't run across it yet.

Go to about 3:22 minutes in, the discussion is brief: https://audioboom.com/posts/6809119-sidebar-update-4-15-18

Apparently, we are seeing a palm tree:

(These are your images, RD, I just took a screen shot, sharpened it a little, and added the color--it's easier on my eyes).

Original images here, 4th comment box: http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3033



This appears to be the palm tree to me, but what do I know?

A special and sincere thanks to the owner of the Photobucket account for keeping these pictures available to the public.
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/HelpFindJennifer/media/cGF0aDovRFNDMDY1NjguanBn/?ref=1

 

[rd_jfc]

Thanks, Truth, I listened to these guys for first time and see I haven't been missing anything. I'm going to write this without insults to these two people because I don't know what may rile up the powers that be here concerning opinions of random twits, but I had to back up and erase a lot of insults.

First of all, they act like Websleuths is some kind of cult website ("that site popular with some armchair sleuths, if you're talking about same one I am" yada yada). Who are these jokers?

Second, the image enhancements were done by me back in 2007. Posted on its own web page for 11 years now, as originally posted. "People have been looking for so long now they're just desperate to see something." Where did these guys come from? Is this the equivalent of new kids on the block in web sleuthing?

Third, and I'm not making this up, this one guy thinks that we've mistaken the POI in image 3 as a palm tree. Not standing next to a palm tree, but actually the palm tree. Like we can't see the palm tree and the POI, we just think something on the palm tree is the POI. I just want to pose this question. Why would anyone care what someone that clueless thinks?

And did I really hear this distiguished gentleman say that some people see a bald man with glasses? Please tell me I misheard this guy. He can't be that unknowledgeable about this and giving an expert opinion.

I will say this, this does echo standard responses from the professionals. They think that since OPD and really no else saw any of this, that it can't be there. Even though it's pretty obvious and all really visible to naked eye in original unenhanced images as far as being there. Obviously that's why we have magnifying glasses, telescopes, etc. to be able to make out details in enlarged images that we can't make out unenlarged. There's a certain amount of size required to discern details, patterns, etc.

And really the image 3 finds was after all the stuff I found in images 1 and 2 which is where the law enforcement part comes in. I just continued to analyze image 3 as I did image 1 and 2. And I was as shocked as anyone when I saw this POI looking back at me. I wrote of it extensively. I contacted OPD. (Got a "tip" number, of course no response.)

Desperate to find something? This was back in 2007. I didn't even want to look at this stuff. All I heard was bad images, hair or hat, yada yada for months and months. The OPD contracted someone to look at the images and the response was, pretty much a quote here, "man or woman? can't tell. hair or hat? can't tell.", and that was the entirety of OPD analysis. They just don't want to know. Just like with their uniforms showing up light in the camera. "Don't worry about the clothes". There's your OPD in a nutshell.

These two distinguished gentlemen then went on to entertain a question of whether OPD is using AI to discern the images pixel by pixel. They understandably admitted didn't have expertise to know what that meant, and quite frankly it doesn't mean anything, it is a layman attempt to pose a technical question to them. First that OPD would be doing anything is laughable. Second is typical hand waving neural net magic that public has been promised to think can do things like this. Just sad all the way around.

Lastly, the yellow coloring is just excellent. As the original source of these enhancements I have been careful not to introduce any alterations whatsoever because early on I was met with accusations that I had altered the images. So as to not give these people any ground whatsoever for their baseless claims I didn't alter the images in any way.

I see now that many people can't find the shapes without external borders such as Truth added. It certainly was a great help to many, but not enough people looking close enough to have any idea. These comments from these audiocasters a good example. And I take it they're considered to have some basis for opinions worth listening to? Well I've run across this in Chandra Levy case and still dealing with it, have to get back to dealing with it actually.

Regarding the palm tree, yes that is the palm tree on its last legs so to speak. When I visited and wrote up about it, probably 2008, I'd have to check, the palm tree was still standing as in image 3. I recall seeing a picture a few years ago and remarking that the palm tree was now gone. I see here why.

A couple of things from this picture. I have described the fence extension and POI needing to be out in lane some from gate, I didn't recall that the declining walkway from gate is out to lane as far as the fence extension. The POI wouldn't actually be next to tree, just stopped to look back when past the walkway.

That's a lot. Thanks Truth.

 

[Truth Prevails]

... And did I really hear this distiguished gentleman say that some people see a bald man with glasses? Please tell me I misheard this guy. He can't be that unknowledgeable about this and giving an expert opinion. ...

Respectfully snipped by me. :websleuther:​

I believe you heard correctly. Continuing in your mode of politeness, I feel it is quite possible the distinguished gentlemen is confused.

I've read discussion indicating the "bald man with glasses" appears somewhere in the background of the video only version of the POI--as the POI is exiting the vehicle and beginning to walk around the pool. Thus, at the other end of the pool; and the "bald man with glasses" is thought to be a witness to the POI, not the POI.

So, besides the confusion, it seems there is an indication that not so much as an effort to look was put into the "reply."

However, a few podcasts back, he admitted to seeing a skateboard tucked under the arm of the POI.

 

[scadagirl28]

One man . Different frames of the POI video. I hope they didn't think I thought two guys.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Sorry, I don't mean to be monopolizing the thread--I just wanted to say to scadagirl28 that I don't believe this is the discussion I was referring to in my earlier comment. My apologies for confusing things.

 

[rd_jfc]

thanks Truth. They do more damage spewing ignorance than can be cleaned up by knowledgeable posters.

Did someone give them a license for spewing misinformation?

At least we have someone like you knowledgeable enough to explain what their misinformation stems from.

thanks

 

[Markybug]

Does it seem strange that jenn would lock her briefcase in the boot , but leave a dvd player on the back seat ?( at whatever time )


Mark.

 

[rd_jfc]

Does it seem strange that jenn would lock her briefcase in the boot , but leave a dvd player on the back seat ?( at whatever time )


Mark.

There's so many odd things and changing information in Jennifer's disappeaance that I don;t follow as closely as I should. For years was not the briefcase missing? People even said there were things in the briefcase such as the friend's cell phone. I recall posting even not that long ago how could anyone know what was in a missing briefcase?

I just did a search. I included information (not cited) that "Inside the vehicle, police found some of Kesse's personal items, but her purse, wallet, two cell phones and briefcase were missing. The car doors were locked and the car keys were not found."

Also "In a recent interview, Joyce stated that Jennifer's briefcase is also missing."

I also saw that some of the things said to be missing could be expected to be in the missing briefcase.

So now let us fast forward. When did Jennifer's familty get told that her briefcase is not in fact missing?

Now what do we have. A briefcase not missing but in the trunk and no one not OPD knows what's in it? Is there some reason it wasn't clear the briefcase was never missing? Why would the OPD specifically say it was missing, along with a purse and wallet and two cell phones (iPod not mentioned)?

The police could only have an idea what was missing from family telling them. Family tells them purse is missing but later finds the one they're thinking of packed in the vacation bags. They don't know that a purse is missing actually. We can expect that a wallet containig things that a wallet holds like drivers license is missing otherwise surely someone would say wallet was found but drivers license was missing from it, not just drivers license missing.

I don't know. Is it really Jennifer's briefcase in the trunk? Was that a mindgame stunt pulled by OPD ala Columbo? ("That can't be the briefcase." Aha, Gotcha)

 

[Truth Prevails]

Does it seem strange that jenn would lock her briefcase in the boot , but leave a dvd player on the back seat ?( at whatever time )


Mark.

I see the point you are making here. I don't know if this will help--heck, probably someone else has a different version. So, for what it's worth, here is at least what is one version:

The DVD player belonged to Rob and he gave it to Jennifer. He strapped it in the backseat of Jennifer's car on the Sunday evening they returned from vacation so she could take it home with her.

For a long time I thought maybe Jenn forgot it was in her car until after she spoke with Rob on the 23rd, and--on the spur of the moment--she decided to run out and bring it in. This would point to a random abduction, though, and I don't think that so much these days.

The briefcase--I believe with hindsight, Mr. Kesse thinks he may have put the briefcase in the trunk himself when he was cleaning Jennifer's car not long before her trip to St. Croix. With the FBI not listing it as missing, as they thought back, I think they just came to the conclusion that it may have still been in her trunk; and, therefore, seized by law enforcement and placed in an evidence locker.

Take all of the above with an ocean of salt, though.

 

[Truth Prevails]

There's so many odd things and changing information in Jennifer's disappeaance that I don;t follow as closely as I should. For years was not the briefcase missing? People even said there were things in the briefcase such as the friend's cell phone. I recall posting even not that long ago how could anyone know what was in a missing briefcase?

I just did a search. I included information (not cited) that "Inside the vehicle, police found some of Kesse's personal items, but her purse, wallet, two cell phones and briefcase were missing. The car doors were locked and the car keys were not found."

Also "In a recent interview, Joyce stated that Jennifer's briefcase is also missing."

I also saw that some of the things said to be missing could be expected to be in the missing briefcase.

So now let us fast forward. When did Jennifer's familty get told that her briefcase is not in fact missing?

Now what do we have. A briefcase not missing but in the trunk and no one not OPD knows what's in it? Is there some reason it wasn't clear the briefcase was never missing? Why would the OPD specifically say it was missing, along with a purse and wallet and two cell phones (iPod not mentioned)?

The police could only have an idea what was missing from family telling them. Family tells them purse is missing but later finds the one they're thinking of packed in the vacation bags. They don't know that a purse is missing actually. We can expect that a wallet containig things that a wallet holds like drivers license is missing otherwise surely someone would say wallet was found but drivers license was missing from it, not just drivers license missing.

I don't know. Is it really Jennifer's briefcase in the trunk? Was that a mindgame stunt pulled by OPD ala Columbo? ("That can't be the briefcase." Aha, Gotcha)

We're close to the same opinion, here. Trying to nail down the simplest fact of this case leads to this frustration. And you can check the source--same source, two or three different versions. I'm just sayin'.

Here is something I speculate with myself about: Law enforcement released three stills from the video hoping for tips as to the person's identity. Two of a side view of the POI with the fence post blocking his face, and a third picture of: ?

Would they have released a still containing the back of the POI's head?

Or would they have released that still because they know bloody well it is a face shot of the POI?

I think they know it, and knew it at the time it was released.

They won't confirm it because they are concerned it might limit tips. For example, if you think the side view looks like your 5th cousin, but the face doesn't--well, then you might not call in the tip. But they want that tip.

If they had withheld the image and someone discovered the "face" twenty years from now, that someone might make a big stink and say if they had released it in a timely manner, it would have made all the difference.

So, the way they have done it, covers all their bases.

 

[rd_jfc]

We're close to the same opinion, here. Trying to nail down the simplest fact of this case leads to this frustration. And you can check the source--same source, two or three different versions. I'm just sayin'.

Here is something I speculate with myself about: Law enforcement released three stills from the video hoping for tips as to the person's identity. Two of a side view of the POI with the fence post blocking his face, and a third picture of: ?

Would they have released a still containing the back of the POI's head?

Or would they have released that still because they know bloody well it is a face shot of the POI?

I think they know it, and knew it at the time it was released.

They won't confirm it because they are concerned it might limit tips. For example, if you think the side view looks like your 5th cousin, but the face doesn't--well, then you might not call in the tip. But they want that tip.

If they had withheld the image and someone discovered the "face" twenty years from now, that someone might make a big stink and say if they had released it in a timely manner, it would have made all the difference.

So, the way they have done it, covers all their bases.

One thing I'm sure of in this case is that no one knew the POI's face was in image 3.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't get someone with a professional reputation to say they can see the face now.

It's the Emperor Has No Clothes Syndrome. No one who speaks on these matters has enough self assurance in the area of image analysis to say they clearly see the POI.

So that just leaves us. Go figure.

 

[Truth Prevails]

One thing I'm sure of in this case is that no one knew the POI's face was in image 3.

I'm pretty sure you couldn't get someone with a professional reputation to say they can see the face now.

It's the Emperor Has No Clothes Syndrome. No one who speaks on these matters has enough self assurance in the area of image analysis to say they clearly see the POI.

So that just leaves us. Go figure.

If you're sure, I'll accept it as fact.

However, I'll never understand the denial.

It's not a mirage; it's not a Martian. It's certainly not a palm tree.

If I can see it, anyone who looks can see it.

It's a human face. It's the face of the man who got out of Jennifer's vehicle at high noon on January 24, 2006.

 

[nitram]

I tend to agree that the initially reported battery removal (phone being disabed) and ping information was accurate. I cannot understand, though, why Mr. Kesse would obfuscate this information now.

 

[Truth Prevails]

I tend to agree that the initially reported battery removal (phone being disabed) and ping information was accurate. I cannot understand, though, why Mr. Kesse would obfuscate this information now.

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

 

[rd_jfc]

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.